perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

[FSM]

All righty. Here's what I did. I picked out Brad Pitt and George Clooney simply because, well, they are HOT. And I looked at both of the Indra (?) charts on them. I have copied and pasted both of their Ascendancy descriptions.

Can you tell which is which?


from astrodatabank.com


Hot Celeb A
PICES Ascendancy
You are an idealist and a dreamer. You are kind and giving and mirror what goes on around you. Your physical body tends to change shape with your feelings about yourself and your life. You often end up having to clarify what you are responsible for and what is really someone else's. The spirit of giving and the belief in the power of service to make things right colors the way your life unfolds. You idealize others and attribute qualities to them that they might well find very difficult to sustain. When you are disappointed in others you withdraw your emotional energy from the relationship and become critical of them. You need to catch this game of how you set yourself up for disappointment so that you can have a more productive life and more stable relationships. Avoid wearing a mask of qualities that you think others expect you to have and just be yourself. Others will like you for you and not for what you can do for them. This is the way that relationships, person to person, were meant to be.




Hot Celeb B
SAGITTARIUS Ascendancy
You are enthusiastic and inspiring. You learn from every situation and from every relationship in life. Sitting still and dying are almost the same thing to you: an opportunity to catch up on your sleep. Your natural mode of being is perpetual motion. You like to study. This may mean school, travel, or that you just have to spend time in the great outdoors. All of these circumstances create knowledge and motion for you. Relationships are an opportunity for you to teach someone else what you have learned if not learn more yourself. You have a deeply rooted perception that you can grow in a joyful way. This belief that life doesn't have to be hard work makes you fun to be around. Many good things come to you easily in life because you expect them to happen. You need to be careful that your positive expectations don't become "short cuts" that have you starting over with nothing to show for your efforts. People often like you even when they can't understand you.

 

[Hokulele]

Wasn't that when Copernicus suggested it? And then Galileo?

Are you suggesting that knowing the date of the switch should affect my understanding of astrology?

Yes, Copernicus was the one to seriously document a heliocentric model in De Revolutionibus in 1543, although Galileo is more famous for his promotion of the theory a bit later. My quibble wasn't with your linking this to astrology, but to alchemy. In your quote here:

I think chemists originally chose this name because the sun is "golden" in color. The Sun is "king" of the planets because they all go round it, and kings wear crowns made out of gold (formerly the most precious metal, or king of the metals), a bit like the corona of the sun.

You cite that the Sun is "king" of the planets due to its position in the center of the solar system. By 1543, alchemy was on its way out, being replaced by modern chemistry. Any equating of planets to elements was done long before the Sun's "king" position was known or accepted by science. Sorry to be so picky about this, but if you want your theories to have any sort of serious consideration, it would help if you didn't just post things as you make them up, but do a little research.

(As an aside, as part of my History of Science curriculum, I also took one semester on the history of chemistry. Anyone want to know how to make cinnabar?)

 

[catbasket]

Aquila, I don't mean to be harsh (you've been very polite, but also very "woo") ... surely you can Google?

and the old alchemical association between the Sun and gold (both termed Aurum), just stuck as the scientific name. At least this is what I remember learning when I was in school.

I can find no links showing aurum=sun.

Wasn't that when Copernicus suggested it? And then Galileo?

From Wiki -

"Although many early cosmologies speculated about the motion of the Earth around a stationary Sun, it was not until the 16th century that Copernicus presented a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system, which was later elaborated by Kepler and defended by Galileo, becoming the center of a major religious dispute."

Geocentric and heliocentric theories are both wrong.

Are you suggesting that knowing the date of the switch should affect my understanding of astrology?

Maybe if you had an understanding of astronomy it would help?

I don't think that I am going to convince anyone of the possible correlations between the planetary movements and events on earth ...

I don't think that I am going to convince anyone of the possible correlations between my bowel movements and events on earth ... and why should people believe me - there is no correlation.

Why don't you all visit www.astrodatabank.com and read the correlations that other people have seen in celebrity charts? (go to "view others' comments) They can't all be bending their accounts to fit the facts.

If, after a good read of these accounts, you still all think that astrology is bunk then I will stop trying to convince you otherwise.

"View others' comments" ... I see why you said astrology is not scientific!

Astrology is bunk. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Feel free trying to convince me otherwise - if you have any evidence to that effect I'll look at it. Otherwise astrology is still bunk.

Aquila, I know we're bombarding you with posts, but did you read my last question to you? I think the conversational disconnect may stem from the fact that some of us are looking for astrology to be predictive, while you think that astrology can only be used to analyze events that have already occurred. In other words, astrology for you is like a framework which you use to interpret past events or other people. Is that an accurate description of your position on astrology?

Astrology + Hindsight = Hindsight -Astrology
therefore astrology = 0

In my opinion.

 

[Aquila]

... When something happens, we can look back and say, "Oh, Saturn was tritipple with Neptune, which explains why a Virgo won the Boston Marathon." However, that's not a helpful statement in that it doesn't allow us to take any knowledge forward to predict, say, who will win the Marathon next year. All it does is allow us to externally locate our blame on another source.
I don't mean to be harsh, but it seems almost like letting ourselves off the hook, you know?

Is this the post that you were referring to Sthomson? Sorry I missed it earlier on. I hope you didn't take my remarks about Mercury retrograde seriously - I made them as a joke! I can be a bit sarcastic sometimes and was only teasing you all when I "blamed" my grammar and spelling mistakes on this event. To the contrary, I would never (apart from in jest) try to explain an event as being caused by a planetary event.

Yes, I do know what you mean about letting ourselves off the hook. Didn't Shakespeare (who includes many astrological references in his plays) describe it best; he said (to Horatio I think - can't remember which play) that we cannot blame the stars but only ourselves.

 

[Aquila]

All righty. Here's what I did. I picked out Brad Pitt and George Clooney simply because, well, they are HOT. And I looked at both of the Indra (?) charts on them. I have copied and pasted both of their Ascendancy descriptions.

Can you tell which is which?


from astrodatabank.com


Hot Celeb A
PICES Ascendancy
You are an idealist and a dreamer...
Hot Celeb B
SAGITTARIUS Ascendancy
You are enthusiastic and inspiring... .

This wasn't actually what I meant by "other people's comments". What you have pasted in just a computer description of one factor, the ascendant done using the Indra software (which I know nothing about, but it sounds kind of Vedic - and I don't use that system of astrology).

In the "view others' comments" section, amateur astrologers have analyzed Brad Pitt or George Clooney's chart using all the planets, not just the ascendant. I think that these real live amateur astrologers (not generic computer descriptions) do sometimes point out some interesting correlations.

 

[catbasket]

Didn't Shakespeare (who includes many astrological references in his plays) describe it best; he said (to Horatio I think - can't remember which play) that we cannot blame the stars but only ourselves.

Ah yes, that famous astronomer, Shakespeare.

"When will we three meet again". "Well I can make next Tuesday". Or was that Pratchett?

 

[Aquila]

Yes, Copernicus was the one to seriously document a heliocentric model in De Revolutionibus in 1543, although Galileo is more famous for his promotion of the theory a bit later. My quibble wasn't with your linking this to astrology, but to alchemy. In your quote here...You cite that the Sun is "king" of the planets due to its position in the center of the solar system. By 1543, alchemy was on its way out, being replaced by modern chemistry. Any equating of planets to elements was done long before the Sun's "king" position was known or accepted by science.

OK, my mistake.

How do you make cinnabar?

 

[ChristineR]

Aquila, the kinds of tests I was talking about don't have to be 100% or even close. Consider the test where we gave you three star charts/dates and asked you to match them to a person. We'd give you as much info as you liked about the person short of anything that might hint when or where he was born.

Leaving aside the practical difficulty of doing this with say, 10,000 people, do you think that a trained astrologer would be able to get significantly more than 10,000/3 right? If so, that's a testable claim.

The problem we're addressing here is no so much whether it's practical to test astrology (it may not be) but whether astrology is testable, period. Testability is a fundamental concept in science.

Any chart and reading of significant length is going to have many hits and misses in it. It seems to me that you are pointing to hits and saying that there's something to it. We skeptics want to establish that there's a pattern to it, that there really are more hits in the correct chart than in a random chart.

If astrology is untestable then while it may be fun to go through a chart and compare yourself to all the various predictions, it isn't much use. You might as well read Hamlet's monologues and decide how well you fit them.

My
father compounded with my mother under the
dragon's tail; and my nativity was under Ursa
major; so that it follows, I am rough and
lecherous. Tut, I should have been that I am,
had the maidenliest star in the firmament
twinkled on my bastardizing.

 

[Aquila]

Aquila, the kinds of tests I was talking about don't have to be 100% or even close. Consider the test where we gave you three star charts/dates and asked you to match them to a person. We'd give you as much info as you liked about the person short of anything that might hint when or where he was born.

Is this a trick? Isn't there a one in three chance that anyone could it right (not neccessarily an astrologer)?

Well, while everyone is thinking about that, I have a more philosophical question. How many of you guys believe in karma? To illustrate my point, suppose someone commits a crime and doesn't get caught. Will he or she ever experience any sort of punishment? Conversely, if someone is a really good person, does he or she receive any sort of reward for this behavior, either in this lifetime or another one.

The reason I'm asking, is that a large proportion of the idea behind human astrology is based on the idea of the birth chart being earned in some way. What do skeptics think about this?

 

[FSM]

This wasn't actually what I meant by "other people's comments". What you have pasted in just a computer description of one factor, the ascendant done using the Indra software (which I know nothing about, but it sounds kind of Vedic - and I don't use that system of astrology).

In the "view others' comments" section, amateur astrologers have analyzed Brad Pitt or George Clooney's chart using all the planets, not just the ascendant. I think that these real live amateur astrologers (not generic computer descriptions) do sometimes point out some interesting correlations.

I get what you are saying Aquila. My selection and quiz was hardly scientific. Hoklele is a much better person to listen to if you want a scientific analysis of these concepts.

Here's the thing though, those two short, simple blurbs give an example conceptually of how very arbitrary these charts are.

I re-read bios of both of the guys and I can legitimately argue that BOTH men have every single one of the characteristics in BOTH of the charts...

It's just my way of saying that astrology has no real predictive or even descriptive value. This has nothing to do with the type of chart, or the software used. It just has no value whatsoever to me. If you find personal fufillment in it, so be it.

Just because we don't see the value in it that you do, doesn't mean that we are attacking

 

[Hokulele]

Well, while everyone is thinking about that, I have a more philosophical question. How many of you guys believe in karma? To illustrate my point, suppose someone committs a crime and doesn't get caught. Will he or she ever experience any sort of punishment? Conversely, if someone is a really good person, does he or she receive any sort of reward for this behavior, either in this lifetime or another one.

The reason I'm asking, is that a large proportion of the idea behind human astrology is based on the idea of the birth chart being earned in some way. What do skeptics think about this?

I am thinking that this is a topic for another thread, as I really cannot see the connection between karma and the astrology. If a birth chart can be earned, it can also be circumvented by a scheduled Caesarean (sp?) section.

 

[catbasket]

The reason I'm asking, is that a large proportion of the idea behind human astrology is based on the idea of the birth chart being earned in some way. What do skeptics think about this?

I can't speak for skeptics but it sounds like absolute nonsense to me.

The birth chart is "earned"? I thought the birth chart was supposedly defined by the time and place you were born? Or do we "earn" our birth charts by being conceived nine months prior to that date/time?

Are you admitting that the planets/constellations have nothing to do with our astrological numptiness? Or making up any old hypothesis to prop up your fantasy of how the universe works?

I just want to understand how your version of astrology "works" ... it seems to have no hard'n'fast rules.

 

[ben m]

Why don't you all visit www.astrodatabank.com and read the correlations that other people have seen in celebrity charts? (go to "view others' comments) They can't all be bending their accounts to fit the facts.

They are bending their accounts to fit the facts. Two comments:

Reading the Tim McVeigh chart (randomly), people are saying both "X, which occured, is seen in ABC---so sad to have ABC in your chart!" and "Y, which did not occur, is seen in EFG---too bad he didn't make this happen!" This is the confirmation bias we've mentioned. If X means astrology is right, and not-X means astrology is right-but-not-predictive, why would you point us
to X as a way to convince anyone of anything?

Looking at the charts, I see 13 planety things and 12 signs. Each planet is in one sign, "square" two others, and opposite a third. On average (i.e. as a Poisson mean), each chart contains 3.5 planet conjunctions, 3.5 planet oppositions, 7 planet squares, one T-square and one triple-conjunction ... I think. That's, what, 70-ish indicators per chart? 17 if you ignore the constellations entirely? Either way, I sure don't see 70 separate things being discussed in these comments. Why not? Because you're looking through the 70-ish options, picking the 10 which agree in hindsight, and talking about those. (And, moreover, I'm sure more people comment on, upload, etc., the charts that "work better"; a chart with no fun correspondences gets ignored, not added to the "failures" tally.)That's the cherry-picking.

Give me 70 randomly-chosen adjectives from the dictionary, I'll cast a "chart" with as much accuracy as anything I saw on that web page.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, my mistake.

No worries, it helps if you look these kinds of things up.

How do you make cinnabar?

Sorry, I missed this edit earlier. Basically, you need some kind of mercury salt (toxic!) and treat it with hydrogen sulfide (stinky!). You will get a rather ugly black mess that you can heat up to refine to the red substance most commonly known as cinnabar. It takes quite a bit of time to convert the black substance to the red, the whole process took me 4-6 hours if I recall correctly. I can't remember where the early alchemists got their hydrogen sulfide, but that gives you the general idea.

 

[nathan]

I wonder if man-made satelites are messing with astrological readings?

Quick, get your homeopathic crystals prepared with C30 satellite to protect your astrologicums.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Aquila, the kinds of tests I was talking about don't have to be 100% or even close. Consider the test where we gave you three star charts/dates and asked you to match them to a person. We'd give you as much info as you liked about the person short of anything that might hint when or where he was born.

Leaving aside the practical difficulty of doing this with say, 10,000 people, do you think that a trained astrologer would be able to get significantly more than 10,000/3 right? If so, that's a testable claim.

(snip)

Aquila mentioned (astrological stuff) + (toy recalls). Could this same sort of test be done using events as well? For example, here's an event, which of these three dates match better?

The tear gas bomb and forfeiture had also altered the mood of the incident, turning it destructive and violent. A riot ensued outside the Forum, causing $500,000 in damage to the neighborhood and the Forum itself. Hundreds of stores were looted and vandalized within a 15-block radius of the Forum. Twelve policemen and 25 civilians were injured. The riot continued well into the night, with police arresting people by the truckload. Local radio stations, which carried live coverage of the riot for over seven hours, had to be forced off the air. The riot eventually ended at 3 am, and left Montreal's Saint Catherine Street in shambles.

a) 02 April 1953
b) 22 November 1954
c) 17 March 1955

I'm just thinking that biographies are long, full of gaps, and easy to shoehorn in any response (as shown by the Pitt/Clooney readings, and which reading explains the Return of the Killer Tomatoes?). Events should be easier to pick out from three dates since the event itself is fairly succinct.

OR here's another version of the test. At the next psychic fair, ask as many astrologers this question and get their response. I'll go to my local sports bar and ask as many people the exact same question. We can then see which group gives the right answer more often.

Is this a trick? Isn't there a one in three chance that anyone could it right (not neccessarily an astrologer)?

Well, while everyone is thinking about that, (snip)

Yessiree, that's why ChristineR said that an astrologer should get much better than 10,000/3

 

[Cuddles]

Is this a trick? Isn't there a one in three chance that anyone could it right (not neccessarily an astrologer)?

Of course there is. Which is why Christine asked if you thought an astrologer could get significantly more than 1/3 correct.

I don't think that I am going to convince anyone of the possible correlations between the planetary movements and events on earth

The main reason you're not going to convince is that you're not actually trying to. Go back and read my last post, where I explained some of the basics about correlation and causation. The problem (well, one of the problems) you have is that you keep talking about single points. It is not possible to find a correlation in a single point. Saturn (almost) being in conjunction when some toys are recalled cannot prove anything by itself. In order to show correlation you would have to show either that Saturn is in conjunction for the majority of toy recalls or that the majority of toy recalls happen when Saturn is in conjunction. A single point does not a line make.

Until you understand this, you have no chance of convincing anyone of anything. Once yuo do understand this, there are a whole host of other problems, not least of which is the fact that astrology has been tested many times and not once has an actual correlation been conclusively shown, let alone that a correlation was anything to do with astrology.

if you are not prepared to read about them yourselves.

Have you actually read any of the posts in this thread? It is painfully obvious that many people here know far more about astrology than you, and have probably read much more about it. Same for astronomy, science, psychology and so on. The reason we don't see these correlation is not that we haven't read about them, it is because they're not there.

 

[FSM]

Damn!

Sorry, I missed this edit earlier. Basically, you need some kind of mercury salt (toxic!) and treat it with hydrogen sulfide (stinky!). You will get a rather ugly black mess that you can heat up to refine to the red substance most commonly known as cinnabar. It takes quite a bit of time to convert the black substance to the red, the whole process took me 4-6 hours if I recall correctly. I can't remember where the early alchemists got their hydrogen sulfide, but that gives you the general idea.

So dissapointed... when I skimmed through the first time I thought you were going to explain how to make a cinnabun, not cinnabar...

 

[Hokulele]

So dissapointed... when I skimmed through the first time I thought you were going to explain how to make a cinnabun, not cinnabar...

Heh, I never thought about the slant that my post could be seen as a violation of the "no recipe" rule around here.

 

[Aquila]

Of course there is. Which is why Christine asked if you thought an astrologer could get significantly more than 1/3 correct.

The main reason you're not going to convince is that you're not actually trying to. Go back and read my last post, where I explained some of the basics about correlation and causation. The problem (well, one of the problems) you have is that you keep talking about single points. It is not possible to find a correlation in a single point. Saturn (almost) being in conjunction when some toys are recalled cannot prove anything by itself. In order to show correlation you would have to show either that Saturn is in conjunction for the majority of toy recalls or that the majority of toy recalls happen when Saturn is in conjunction. A single point does not a line make.

Until you understand this, you have no chance of convincing anyone of anything. Once yuo do understand this, there are a whole host of other problems, not least of which is the fact that astrology has been tested many times and not once has an actual correlation been conclusively shown, let alone that a correlation was anything to do with astrology.

Have you actually read any of the posts in this thread? It is painfully obvious that many people here know far more about astrology than you, and have probably read much more about it. Same for astronomy, science, psychology and so on. The reason we don't see these correlation is not that we haven't read about them, it is because they're not there.

Cuddles, Ben m, FSM and ChristineR : I do understand the points you are making and I did read the first post (Cuddles) where you explained about one correlation not proving anything. I admit that this is a big problem in astrology. As mentioned earlier, I think that the people like myself who are tying to convince themselves and others that astrology can be useful are searching for a philosophy which bridges the gap between religion and science, and these vague coincidences that we see in horoscopes are the nearest that we can get to real science.

As for the scientific tests that you suggest, I think that most astrologers I know would not submit to putting their beloved astrology though what they see as the cold claws of science. It is not that we don't understand science or that we object to it - it is just that we'd rather keep astrology as a spiritual descriptive system.