perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

[ben m]

It would be very rare for two individuals to share exactly the same birth chart. Twins share similar charts, but they would be very slightly different - their ascendants would be a few degrees different (I degree every every 4 minutes), so would their Moon position and all the house cusps.

You've said this before, but my glance at astrodatabank.com---at least the comments section---I saw not one mention of features below the 15-degree level. Everyone was quoting the big features of the diagram: "square" seemed to mean "between 80 and 100 degrees", "opposition" seemed to mean "between 170 and 190 degrees" or so. No one was deriving anything from the fast-changing details; I'm a biased observer, but it looks to me like the "cusps" are ignored except when astrologers need a handy excuse for a failed prediction.

Since fate is not determined by karma, as explained above, thier vastly different lives would be explained by different environmental stimuli reacting with natal karma and changing it.

Take 100 people and put them in a burning warehouse. Take another 100 people and put them at a palm-lined beach resort. You might say, "I have no way of knowing who will escape the fire and be stronger for having faced death, nor who might drown in the ocean or choke on a fresh-picked fig. Environment doesn't predict everything." Then imagine that 30 years later you're given 200 biographies, and we ask you, "Can you tell which ones were in the burning-building cohort and which were in the oasis?" You wouldn't get them 100% right but you'd be able to do better than chance. Suppose that you can have either pro (+A) or anti (-A) astrological influence on something; you can also have pro (+E) or anti (-E) environmental. Some people will be +A+E, some will be -A-E. Your objection is simply to point out that there are also +A-E and -A+E. Well, unless the enviroment is correlated with the sign, then the set of +A people (a mix of +A+E and +A-E) will on average have "more pro" than the set of -A people (a mix of -A+E and -A-E). That's the point of the test---by using many subjects, the environment averages out while the astrology would add up.

Unless, of course, the "influences" are incredibly fragile---for example if "A" is zero. Look, a baby born under Mars square Neptune and the Great Red Spot under Ganymede! That means existential tendencies, strong loyalties, and crippling fear of insects. Oh ... wait, the infant was hit by a nitrogen molecule. That erases the loyalties, I'm afraid, so its 'loyalty' bit is random. Could be good, could be ... Ooh, darn it! They put a diaper on it, that's an environmental influence that could counter the existentialism. Or not. Hard to say! Ah, there they go, talking in baby talk which pretty much erases the lot. Sorry, parents, your baby's horoscope has been out-influenced by the environment and is no longer predictive, statistically or otherwise.

Happens every time.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It would be very rare for two individuals to share exactly the same birth chart. Twins share similar charts, but they would be very slightly different - their ascendants would be a few degrees different (I degree every every 4 minutes), so would their Moon position and all the house cusps.

In the case of two babies born at exactly the same time to different mothers, in the same geographical location - perhaps as someone suggested earlier in this thread, on different floors of the same hospital, then yes, they would have almost exactly the same birthchart, BUT, they would have different environmental stimuli reacting with that birthchart. They would have different doctors and nurses, different air, light, sounds.

Ok, wait, so where in astrology do you account for the doctors, nurses, air, light, and sounds when determining what sort of life these babies will have? I don't recall any of that in any horoscope I've ever seen.

What about a set of identical twins, born by Caesarean section, one within 4 minutes of the other (so same degree). For whatever reason, one is given up for adoption. They are reared in vastly different circumstances; say, one in a very rich household and one in a very poor one. The rich one has a higher likelihood of attending medical school. The poor one has a higher likelihood of being gunned down in a drug bust. One may be heterosexual, one may be homosexual. One may travel the world, the other may not.

How are these differences explained astrologically?

 

[Thing]

Aquila,

If astrological influences can only be observed in hindsight, then how did these astrological influences come to be known?

 

[Aquila]

Ok, wait, so where in astrology do you account for the doctors, nurses, air, light, and sounds when determining what sort of life these babies will have? I don't recall any of that in any horoscope I've ever seen.

A baby's first environment is symbolized by the ascendant and first few degrees of the first house. Sometimes we see Pluto or Mars here, if the baby was delivered by C -section or required intervention surgery to survive. But these planets or signs (karma) will react differently with different doctors or nurses etc. Planets and signs by themselves have both positive or negative meanings, and can apply to the intellectual, emotional or physical levels of consciousness. Say both babies have Pluto in the first house, near the ascendant. One baby might have a doctor who was very experienced at surgery, while the other one might have a doctor who moonlighted as a detective or was into recycling. Pluto, ruler of Scorpio, can be associated with all these things.

What about a set of identical twins, born by Caesarean section, one within 4 minutes of the other (so same degree). For whatever reason, one is given up for adoption. They are reared in vastly different circumstances; say, one in a very rich household and one in a very poor one. The rich one has a higher likelihood of attending medical school. The poor one has a higher likelihood of being gunned down in a drug bust. One may be heterosexual, one may be homosexual. One may travel the world, the other may not.

How are these differences explained astrologically?

The one who attends medical school might attend the one who gets injured in a drug bust. The one who stays at home would travel in his mind, for example by studying. In both these cases, the same planets or signs are just manifesting in different ways, but basically it is the same karmic energy in the birthchart. For example, the sign Scorpio is often found in people associated with surgery - either they do it or have it. It is also associated with psychology - either psychotherapists or people having psychotherapy. Jupiter can be associated with physical travel, which expands one's knowledge of the world, or with education, which also expands one's knowledge of the world.

Quote from ben m:You've said this before, but my glance at astrodatabank.com---at least the comments section---I saw not one mention of features below the 15-degree level. Everyone was quoting the big features of the diagram: "square" seemed to mean "between 80 and 100 degrees", "opposition" seemed to mean "between 170 and 190 degrees" or so. No one was deriving anything from the fast-changing details; I'm a biased observer, but it looks to me like the "cusps" are ignored except when astrologers need a handy excuse for a failed prediction.

I'm a bit confused and don't know where exactly on astrodatabank you are referring to. Could someone else please answer this?

Quote from ben m: Take 100 people and put them in a burning warehouse. Take another 100 people and put them at a palm-lined beach resort. You might say, "I have no way of knowing who will escape the fire and be stronger for having faced death, nor who might drown in the ocean or choke on a fresh-picked fig. Environment doesn't predict everything." Then imagine that 30 years later you're given 200 biographies, and we ask you, "Can you tell which ones were in the burning-building cohort and which were in the oasis?"

You are right, an astrologer would find it difficult to tell who was who. You are also right in saying that one's environment must also be shown in the birthchart. But, just like one's karma, one's environment can manifest in many different ways. For example, one's home environment, with one's parents, is usually shown by the 4th house. Say we have Leo on our 4th house. This could mean that one of our parents was an entertainer, or that we had lots of toys when we were young, but it also mean that one of our parents was an overbearing, egotistical show-off who stifled our self-esteem and creativity.

You are not the only ones to criticize astrology.These are questions that astrologers themselves raise and argue about! I think that it all helps us try to understand this fascinating subject.

 

[Aquila]

Aquila,

If astrological influences can only be observed in hindsight, then how did these astrological influences come to be known?

Thing: I tried to explain this on page 9 or 10. Most of astrology is what skeptics would term woo, in that it is not based on any scientific evidence. The only exception would be the small amount of evidence on correlation researched by Michel Gauqelin and his successors. And according to Cuddles, even that is rubbish.

The rest of the philosophy of astrology is composed of 4 influences: history, (what was going on in culture when the planet was discovered), mystery (for example kaballah, bible, occult), observation (correlation of certain planets, signs and aspects with peoples' biographies or world events) and myth (mostly Greek stories about the mythical gods having the same names as the planets, asteroids etc.)

 

[NobbyNobbs]

The one who attends medical school might attend the one who gets injured in a drug bust. The one who stays at home would travel in his mind, for example by studying. In both these cases, the same planets or signs are just manifesting in different ways, but basically it is the same karmic energy in the birthchart. For example, the sign Scorpio is often found in people associated with surgery - either they do it or have it. It is also associated with psychology - either psychotherapists or people having psychotherapy. Jupiter can be associated with physical travel, which expands one's knowledge of the world, or with education, which also expands one's knowledge of the world.

In other words, you can use hindsight to rationalize any description you might care to present.

 

[arthwollipot]

This is very pretty, but as discussed earlier in the thread, I don't think we're going to find a causal mechanism for astrology with today's science. Perhaps we'll have to wait until the theory of extra dimensions is given more credence.

I recommend that you do a little bit of reading on what the theory of extra dimensions actually suggests before making a statement like that.

 

[rsaavedra]

Some centuries ago people didn't fully understand electricity, yet at some point people realized electricity existed, and people were able to verify its effects repeatedly, undoubtedly, and consistently; even though without fully understanding how electricity worked. So you can verify whether some phenomenon works consistently or not, before building causal explanations and theories and fantasizing about how it might work.

So my suggestion: stop trying to find causal chains between astrology and our lives. You might want to do that after verifying whether astrology undoubtedly works. But that hasn't been settled, has it? It is not only unnecessary to come up with casual explanations for astrology (yet), it can be actually a major waste of time (if it turns out it doesn't work), and it doesn't help one bit in determining whether it works or not.

 

[arthwollipot]

The problem there is in not in determining whether astrology works, it's in determining what astrology worksfor. So far as I can tell, Aquila is saying that astrology is only useful for interpreting hindsight. It can't actually predict anything, it can't actually describe anything, it just provides a language for saying "this happened because of such-and-such". This is not something that can be really demonstrated in any way at all.

In fact, having something of an interest in history, I think that looking for astrological explanations for things that have happened in the past runs the risk of missing or ignoring the actual causes of events, and thus completely misinterpreting what has gone before. While not as actively harmful as ignoring proper medical advice in favour of homeopathy, I don't think that astrological interpretations of past events can be at all helpful.

 

[ben m]

I'm a bit confused and don't know where exactly on astrodatabank you are referring to. Could someone else please answer this?

I was looking at these things, http://www.astrodatabank.com/NM/Feedback.asp?ChartID=139, but going back I see some examples of "cusps" and precise timing that I missed before.

You are right, an astrologer would find it difficult to tell who was who.

I wasn't saying it was difficult for an astrologer to tell who was who. I was pointing out (in a non-astrology example) that a non-deterministic "influence" can still be detected later in life. The burning-warehouse cohort will have more burn victims, and also more people with the scars and/or strength that indicates that they overcame a fire, and a totally average number of, say, surfers. The beach cohort will have more surfers, more people with skin cancer, more people who pay rabid attention to sunscreen ... and an average number of random burn victims. These two cohorts---separated by a non-statistical, fallible "influence", are easy to tell apart, even though the "influence" was non-predictive in the same way you insist that astrology is.

I wish to contrast this with an astrology cohort under a music-y sign, which contains (a) musical people (which you attribute to the sign) and (b) non-musical people (which you attribute to environment)---which you would compare with another cohort under a non-music-y sign, which contains (a) musical people and (b) non-musical people. Judging by your comments, the only difference between the two cohorts is that you flip the post-hoc attributions. It's very different than any other "influence" anyone can think of --- normal influences actually have an effect. A bunch of people who need environmental help to do X will be different---less successful, generally, or encountering more obstacles, or something---than a bunch of people with preexisting cosmic preference for X.

 

[Gravy]

It would be very rare for two individuals to share exactly the same birth chart. Twins share similar charts, but they would be very slightly different - their ascendants would be a few degrees different (I degree every every 4 minutes), so would their Moon position and all the house cusps.

In the case of two babies born at exactly the same time to different mothers, in the same geographical location - perhaps as someone suggested earlier in this thread, on different floors of the same hospital, then yes, they would have almost exactly the same birthchart, BUT, they would have different environmental stimuli reacting with that birthchart. They would have different doctors and nurses, different air, light, sounds.

Gravy - this is important; fate is not determined by karma. In order to understand this concept, imagine a game of squash, or racket ball. Imagine a ball that someone hits against a wall. Knowing the speed and force that it was hit, we can predict, scientifically, the exact angle and speed that the ball will bounce off the wall.

But we cannot predict how the other person will react to that bounced ball - whether he will run towards it or let it bounce, or in which direction he will hit it, giving the ball "new" karma. Karma is not fate. Karma refers to the past, whereas fate (the future) is a combination of past and the present action.

So, in the case of the 2 babies, even if they shared the same karma, thier fates would be determined by a combination of that karma and everything done by them, and to them since birth.

Since fate is not determined by karma, as explained above, thier vastly different lives would be explained by different environmental stimuli reacting with natal karma and changing it.

Thank you for your answer. Doesn't look like astrology is good for anything at all, does it?

 

[nathan]

For me, simple is best.

An excellent maxim. Which is simpler in the face of no evidence -- astrology, or no astrology?

Sure, Titan and Ganymede are big and round, but aren't they moons of Saturn and Jupiter respectively? Saturn and Jupiter astro-logically, would be more important.

You're making an assumption here, and ignoring the big and round objects like Ceres, which are in solar orbit.

And look at all the opportunities for conjunctions, and squares that you could get by using planetary moons!

 

[nathan]

A baby's first environment is symbolized by the ascendant and first few degrees of the first house. Sometimes we see Pluto or Mars here, if the baby was delivered by C -section or required intervention surgery to survive.

Do you see Pluto or Mars there more often than chance would predict? Conversely do you see Pluto and Mars not there when no intervention is required?

 

[Tristan Chi]

It can't work

Let's assume that the fundamental principle of astrology "as above so below" is valid, i.e. there is a tangible, life-affecting interaction of some sort between the celestial bodies and things on Earth.

Astrology relies on the observed relative positions of the celestial bodies at any given time.
Due to the limited speed of light (and gravity), the actual position of the celestial bodies at any given time is very different from the one observed. For instance, the actual position of the different stars in the Aquarius constellation is 600 years apart from the observed ones. On the more adjacent scale, Pluto's actual position is the one it will appeared to occupy 4 hours in the future.
Also, when a certain planet appears aligned with a certain star or constellation, its actual alignment is with the stars that will happen to (appear to) occupy that position in (typically) a few centuries.

This indicates that whatever mechanism is responsible for the interaction between the "above" and "below" travels with the speed of light, and thus is subject to the known physical laws. This would also indicate that we should find the mechanism among the known, obsersvable properties of the different bodies. This leaves us with either:

• Gravity (the force)
• Magnitude (the amount of light that reaches us)
• Angular size (the area of the sky it covers)
• ... list could go on with less reasonable properties.

However, none of these are even remotely consistent with the ascribed (approximtely even?) level of influence from each body in astrology. This can be illustrated with the following diagrams. Again, note the logarithmic scales.

The ridiculously large difference between observed and actual positions:

 

[nathan]

Due to the limited speed of light (and gravity), the actual position of the celestial bodies at any given time is very different from the one observed. For instance, the actual position of the different stars in the Aquarius constellation is 600 years apart from the observed ones.

Not disagreeing with you, but I think astrology only uses the zodiacal stars as reference points along the ecliptic -- I don't think any claim there's something inate about the stars of the constellations that imbues a person's horoscope with any particular feature.

Anyway, the issue is not 'what astrology proposes is at odds with N known properties of the universe', but 'astrology has yet to present any evidence that there's a correlation'. The first is merely another way of saying 'it must be something new then' -- of course showing precisely how at odds it is with known properties helps show how bizarre it would be IF it could be shown to be accurate.

 

[Garrette]

Aquila's version of astrology reminds me of nothing so much as the corn gods' language -- anything can be attributed to anything, completely at the whim of the astrologist.

 

[RayG]

I only know I know nothing

Thanks, that spares me the headache of reading any more of your nonsense.

RayG

 

[Cuddles]

For me, simple is best. Sure, Titan and Ganymede are big and round, but aren't they moons of Saturn and Jupiter respectively? Saturn and Jupiter astro-logically, would be more important.

What do Saturn and Jupiter have to do with it? You say that you include Pluto, because your definition of a planet is "big and round". Titan, Ganymede, Ceres and a few others are all bigger, rounder and much, much closer than Pluto. Your excuses just don't make any sense whatsoever. If you include Pluto, you can have no possible reason for excluding other bodies which must have a much bigger effect.

Actually, what with this new one, Eris (formerly Xena) there are now 12.
I was simply talking about the 10 bodies that have been used in horoscopes for about the past 70 years, namely, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. That's 10, I believe.

Tradiationally there were 9 planets. If you include the Sun and Moon, there are 11. Don't you think it's a little silly to ignore the planet with by far the biggest effect on us?

 

[nathan]

If you include Pluto, you can have no possible reason for excluding other bodies which must have a much bigger effect.

To play devil's advocate here, how do you know the FSM hasn't inserted a device into the 11 astrological 'planets' and also inserts a device into each and every human at birth?

It's all very well showing that no known physical process can explain the underlying mechanism by which astrology might supposedly work, but that doesn't prove that a previously unknown FSM-inspired mechanism doesn't apply. That's why astrology should first show correlation -- which it has failed to do.

 

[Cuddles]

To play devil's advocate here, how do you know the FSM hasn't inserted a device into the 11 astrological 'planets' and also inserts a device into each and every human at birth?

It's all very well showing that no known physical process can explain the underlying mechanism by which astrology might supposedly work, but that doesn't prove that a previously unknown FSM-inspired mechanism doesn't apply. That's why astrology should first show correlation -- which it has failed to do.

Of course I can't prove any of that. The point is that Ceres, Titan and so on should all be included in astrological charts according to Aquila's own definition. It doesn't matter how it's supposed to work, the fact is that his/her explanations are internally inconsistent. There's no point trying to match stories with reality when the stories don't even make sense by themselves.