perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

[Hokulele]

So, for example, Jimi Hendrix, born 1943 would have it in the Air signs.

It's too bad for astrology that Jimi Hendrix was born in 1942.

 

[Aquila]

It's too bad for astrology that Jimi Hendrix was born in 1942.

Oops. The correct date is November 27, 1942, and what I said about the trine in Air signs is still true.

 

[Aquila]

Sorry to break my promise but I'm back.

I just spent a few minutes Googling for people born on the same date I was.

Results:

• a British polititian
• a German chemist
• a Jamaican reggae star
• a US sportsman

Which of us did not "use it the same way"?

If the horoscope matches the individual, well then Asstrology is true. If it does not, well then they did not follow their signs for, after all, they are only guidelines. Cann't lose can you?

Gord - you were not born at the exact same time or place as these people, and so you will have a different ascendant and house cusps. The sign on the ascendant, or first house cusp changes every 2 hours, and each degree changes every 4 minutes. The position of the Moon will be different - we can actually see the moon "move" at night and the faster moving planets like Mercury and Venus will be very slightly different. And so the angles between the planets and the ascendant and cusps will all be different

Even if you had an exact astrological twin, i.e. the exact same birth chart, your "environmental" influences might be different, so you would "use" these placements in different ways.

As many of you have pointed out, astrology is good at hindsight but not very good at predicting what a person will do.

 

[Aquila]

duplicate post

 

[Hokulele]

Oops. The correct date is November 27, 1942, and what I said about the trine in Air signs is still true.

Gord - you were not born at the exact same time or place as these people, and so you will have a different ascendant and house cusps. The sign on the ascendant, or first house cusp changes every 2 hours, and each degree changes every 4 minutes. The position of the Moon will be different - we can actually see the moon "move" at night and the faster moving planets like Mercury and Venus will be very slightly different. And so the angles between the planets and the ascendant and cusps will all be different. <snip>

Aquila, do you see the irony in these two posts directly after each other? In the first, you are stating that even though you were off on the date by at least a month, your reading still holds true. Immediately after that, you state that these things vary by the minute.

This is precisely why I think astrology is a load of bunk. You can say anything at all, and believe in it. Even when your statements are directly contradictory.

 

[Aquila]

Well, over the last TWO months. Google trends shows a spike in news stories in early August with a relatively steady decline since then.

My goodness, how time flies.
Saturn entered Virgo on September 3, 2007. in the Google Trends graph, the spike labelled "F" (Mattel recalls 800,000 toys) seems to peak almost exactly at this time. Even if it is not exact, the line on the graph (news stories about lead in paint) is higher during September than during the preceeding months of 2007.

I don't really understand the role of precision in astrology. When casting someone's birth chart, some astrologists have told me that their birthday must be known as precisely as possible (ignoring the fact that many doctors round the birth-date, or don't look at the clock for several minutes after the actual birth time). Yet, when pointing out correlations between planets and earthly effects, the effect may come days to months before or after the predicted time, and this is not a problem.

In horoscope calculation, a few minutes will change the position of the ascendant and house cusps and the position of the Moon, and therefore the angles between all of these and the slower moving planets. Many people are unsure of their exact birth time, even if they have a birth certificate because sometimes the doctors do not write down the time that the baby takes his or her first breath. My mother remembers looking at the clock when I was born, but my birth certificate says a time 10 minutes later than my mother remembers. Maybe the docs were doing more important stuff.

When pointing out correlations, like the one I made for Saturn in Virgo, we have to remember that the further out planets move quite slowly. For example, Saturn takes 29 years to go round the zodiac and its influence will be far more general than say the Moon or Mercury. The outer planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have very long cycles - Uranus has an 84 year cyles and the other two take hundreds of years to complete a circuit. These planets are said to have a "generational" influence, meaning that all people born in a certain period will have them in the same sign. For example the War Babies and Baby Boomers (1939 to 1956) all have Pluto in Leo. In this case, the house position becomes more important than the sign.

 

[ben m]

As many of you have pointed out, astrology is good at hindsight but not very good at predicting what a person will do.

Astrology is good at hindsight?

Replace everyone's actual birthday with the dat 666 hours later: the resulting astrology is equally "good at hindsight".

Invent a totally random sky-chart with by rolling a die for each planet; the resulting "astrology" is equally "good at hindsight".

Replace the traditional 12 Roman gods with 7 Norse gods and 5 Spice Girls, replace the 9 planets with the presidents Kennedy thru Reagan, and the resulting "astrology" is exactly equally "good at hindsight".

 

[Thing]

Aquila,

Are you aware of Geoffrey Dean? What do you think of the journey he has made from astrologer to skeptic?

 

[Aquila]

What would the world look like if astrology were wrong? ...
If astrology were wrong ... what would the world look like?

• Any given birthdate, sign, conjunction, etc., would have a wide range of people born under it.
• Any given type of person (musicians, etc.) will be found to have been born under a wide range of signs.
• Attempts to make astrological predictions for scientifically unpredictable events (earthquakes, stock markets swings, hurricanes) will fail.
• Attempts to make astrological predictions for "news" events will be indistinguishable from ordinary, informed-guess predictions.
• "My" horoscope will look no more or less like me than any other horoscope, and no more or less like me than like any other person.
• People would go about their lives as usual.
• People who pay attention to their horoscopes would be no more successful than people who don't.

... Is it possible that, IF astrology is wrong, people could convince themselves that it's right? How could that happen? Think about it. My ideas:

• People might use confirmation bias. Given dozens of possible signs, planets, houses, etc., to look at---even for one person---you can always find something which "agrees"; paying attention to this and ignoring the other data can make totally random data look meaningful
• People might make excuses. Given a bunch of apparently random data, a believer might introduce a randomizing factor which "explains" why the data don't look random ... like saying "but negative thoughts can cancel it" or whatever.
• People might cherry-pick. Given a thousand musicians, you can always find some whose birthday falls under any given sign; this can be mistaken for "evidence" that the sign "corresponds to" music. Given a thousand professions, you can always find some for whom an unusual number of members "agree" with their sign.

Is it possible that, IF astrology is right, people could convince themselves that it's wrong? ...

Ben - I don't disagree with anything you are saying. As I have mentioned many times, astrology is still a theory to me, and I have had thoughts like the ones you mention many times. I am still skeptical about astrology, but to me, even considering cherry-picking and confirmation bias, there is more information suggesting that it might be a good theory than information suggesting that it is rubbish.

I recently saw Brian Greene's brilliant video The Elegant Universe, in which he explains String Theory. If I am understanding this correctly, string theory is the only thing so far which will reconcile the theory of gravity and the big laws of space time, like "Einsein's "relativity, with the sub-atomic laws of Quantum physics.

In order to explain this Brian Greene had to use lots of imagery - trampolene like pictures of space-time, dancing sub atomic particles, and ants on telegraph wires. I certainly would not have understood the principle of extra dimensions without the imagery in this video. When string theory was first postulated it was considered rubbish, and most scientists interviewed in the program think that it will probably never be proven. However, it is still the best theory for a theory of everything.

In a similar way, I see astrology as the best theory I know for describing both human personality and the bigger picture like divinity and creation. It is a language, in which planets are nouns, signs are adjectives and houses are verbs (I didn't think this up - antother astrologer first put it this way). It might never been proven scientifically, but it is still a useful language. Can we prove French or German?

If I can put this another way. There is a difference in the way scientists and creationists see life. These two camps cannot both be correct. Science (evolution) is a fact, so that cannot be wrong. Therefore, creation is the one that must be willing to adapt. But what if we see Bible as not fact, but as psychology. Adam and Eve are self-consciousness and sub-consciousness, Moses and Jesus never existed but are only symbols for the law and the savior principle in all of us. How God works is explained through astrology, (Jesus is the son-of-God, which is the Sun, and the 12 tribes of Isreal and the 12 disciples are the signs).

If we are able to expand our consciousness to include these views, then the two opposing sides can reconcile. We don't have to believe astrology as fact, we merely have to take it as a theory which seems to accomodate both science and psychology, morals, good and evil.

 

[FSM]

Nope. We don't.

Astrology does not accomodate science as was discussed above. It doesn't in any way accomodate psychology, other than to hit home the concepts of suggestibility and maybe some Gestalt stuff. As far as morals- good and evil, those are concepts you've chosen to see in the stars, when really, they're just... stars.

But stars are pretty damned cool anyways! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?
Carl Sagan

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

Even if you had an exact astrological twin, i.e. the exact same birth chart, your "environmental" influences might be different, so you would "use" these placements in different ways.

<< SNIP >>

This gets more amusing with each post you make! So, if the Pope and Pol Pot were born in the same bed simulanteously, the fact that one becomes loved by millions and the other is one of the biggest mass murderers in human history, the difference can be explained in asstrological terms that they ""use(d)" these placements in different ways"? So what &$%&# is asstrology good for? Even asssuming, for the sake of greater amusement, that asstrology had even the slightest intersection with reality?

 

[Hokulele]

FSM gets a +3 for excellent use of a Sagan quote.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah - I could use that one myself.

 

[ben m]

In a similar way, I see astrology as the best theory I know for describing both human personality and the bigger picture like divinity and creation. It is a language, in which planets are nouns, signs are adjectives and houses are verbs (I didn't think this up - antother astrologer first put it this way). It might never been proven scientifically, but it is still a useful language. Can we prove French or German?

That's fine. No objection. If you want to describe John Lennon by saying "he's a Saturn-in-Aquarius musician with Venus retrograde playfulness", please do so. Meanwhile, I can describe him as a "a Hotspur who longed to be a Falstaff; a Player King's wit with Hamlet's heart". But this sort of language doesn't depend on any actual connection between Lennon and Shakespeare; your language doesn't depend on Lennon's actual birthdate. You pick whatever language fits.

That's what we're talking about. Mercury-retrograde may be a lovely and chilling symbol; it's a symbol for people to use wherever they see fit, no matter what Mercury is up to. You've shown us that you're good at using such symbols, and that they're important to you. You haven't suggested in the slightest way that birthdates and star charts make any difference.

 

[Hokulele]

Ben m, that is a lovely way of demonstrating how silly that theory is. Nominated.

 

[Aepervius]

Even if you had an exact astrological twin, i.e. the exact same birth chart, your "environmental" influences might be different, so you would "use" these placements in different ways.

I know of such astrological twins, which are by the way REAL twin, born less than 4 minutes apart of they are to be believed. 1 egg twins. They look different (one is fatter than the other), act differently, and even are angry against each other. I studied with one of them in paris, the other studied social stuff. By your own recognition being born within 4 minutes apart and being 1 egg twins being born at the same longitude and lattitude they should have identical chart. But they are quite different each other, without being "opposite" they are just as different as two people can be. I am not making that up for you, I was used to think twin must be identical in mind and it was a shocker that the first twin I knew socially were so different and not even comparable to each other. I still remember bitterly how the other twin got the girl I wanted to go out with, but that's another story.

In other word aquila, you just admitted that the environmental influence is greater than any of the star. Now we just need to ask you, if the environmental influence is so great, how can you even project chart without even taking this environmental influence into account. Answer : you can't and astrology charting is cow dung, even if star were influencing us to a degree.

Now naturally we could go in other series of falsification to see how much the influence of the star in comparison to environmental influence (and we would find out a NIL influence). But the above point as already posted by Gord is a pretty damning one.

 

[Mashuna]

It might never been proven scientifically, but it is still a useful language. Can we prove French or German?

Can we prove French or German what?

 

[Cuddles]

I know that skeptics don't think much of correlation

Actually, skeptics love correlation, as do scientists. A correlation shows that there might be something really interesting happening and we can enjoy ourselves trying to find out why. The problem astrology has is that there aren't any correlations. A correlation needs more than one data point. To take your most recent example, Saturn entering Virgo and a peak appearing in a line does not mean anything by itself. In order to have a correlation you would need to show that this happens many times, and that it happens more often than chance would allow. For example, if Saturn enters Virgo ten times, but the peak only appears once, you do not have a correlation. If you have a peak ten times but Saturn only entered Virgo for one of them, you do not have correlation. Finally, if you actually show that Saturn entering Virgo does correlate with the peak in the graph, you still haven't shown that there is actually any connection between them.

To show that a correlation is actually connected is more complex, and if you look at multiple variables it is much harder to show any connection. For example, say you divide the population into 12 groups. It doesn't matter how you choose them, they could be completely random. Now look at several different variables and how they vary between groups. For example, average height, wealth, commonest job, and so on. For statistical signifcance, the convention is usually to look for a p value of 0.05. This means that there is a 95% chance of the difference being real and not due to random variation, which in this example means there is a 1/20 chance that a significant difference between the 12 groups of people is nothing to do with the groups themselves and is simply a random variation.

If you only look at, say, average height, and you see a variation between groups, there is a good chance that it is a genuine difference caused by the factor you used to split the groups up, astrology, age, geographic location, whatever. However, if you look at many different variables, there is a 1/20 chance for each one that an apparently statisticaly significant difference will be seen. If you look at 20 variables, you are very likely to see at least one apparently significant difference. If you look at 100, you will see a lot.

This is what astrology does. It makes comments about wealth, relationships, accidents, holidays, car insurance, anything you can think of. And if you look at enough, you are guaranteed to find things which appear to have a relation with astrology. This is where confirmation bias comes in. If you only look at the things which seem significant, it appears that astrology works. If you look at 20 things, all of which correlate with zodiacal sign, or any other astrological factor, it looks good. However, if you know that there are 80 others which don't correlate, it really doesn't look good.

This is why scientific testing is the only way of knowing if something like astrology actually works. It is easy to say that astrology postdicted a single peak in news stories. It's harder to say that astrology correlates with peaks in news stories. It's much harder to say that there is a common causation between the two. Without scientific tests of the kind you have refused to have anything to do with, it is impossible to get beyond the first step. Without getting past the first step, it is impossible to make any statement that astrology is in any way valid.

Edit: Note I'm not a statistician, so I probably have all the terms mixed up and backwards. The principle is correct at least. Hopefully.

 

[FSM]

Cuddles, you absolutely said it like I was trying to say it. (And I'm no statistician either, so I just trot out the lack of pirates=global warming chart and hope for the best...)

ben m, I feel like I have some Hamlet retrograde influences today. Can you check the chart for me? I'm to much of a procrastinator to do it...Ah, nevermind. I'll check it later.

 

[Garrette]

No. What I said was " Also, everyone born in the 60s has this conjunction in their horoscope, but not everyone will use it the same way. Some people are brilliant computer nerds who have revolutionized the everyday world of work, while others sadly have gotten AIDS. (Bolding added). Our birthcharts do not take away our free will. Many people with this conjunction (especially when it was opposite Saturn and Chiron) responded to its influence by having unsafe sex, which sadly lead to AIDS. But that does not mean that everyone has to use the energy that way.



The Uranus-Pluto conjunction can come out in many ways, and you have complete freedom to express it however you like, but you might find that you have some natural "inherent" talents in the areas of either health or machinery which helps our everyday life. Virgo is also associated with writing, and the Uranus-Pluto conjunction gives both an ingenious (Uranus) and psychological and perhaps sexual (Pluto) influence.

Right now, many of the 60s generation are experiencing their "midlife transits" - this is when the outer planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto all either square or oppose themselves. Many of you are going through major life changes - (a rather vague statement I know).

In other words, it can't predict a darn thing about me. If I'm a serial killer, it's because of my free will. If I'm President, it's because of the Uranus-Pluto conjuction.

That was a serious comment, now followed by a serious question: What can astrology do, specifically, that is distinguishable from not using astrology at all?