This is my last post for today.
Yes, I suppose you're right. It just seemed like there was some sort of follow up process going on there where you use additional information to interpret the information that the stars were giving you. But maybe I misunderstood.
I was using the additional information to test my own theories.
This is a little confusing. By "specific Astrological theory in question" you mean the specific guess you made, right? If that's the case, then it sounds like you're saying that when you make an astrological guess that turns out to be wrong, this is evidence against astrology working. But, if that's really what you meant, then it seems like we'd agree more than we do... so am I misunderstanding you?
I mean the specific theory that I am making the guess based upon. Nothing else.
You really think it is geared towards identifying rare things? It seems the exact opposite to me. I'm not sure what you mean by "there is only so much room for particular outcomes." If a certain star sign is supposed to become doctors, and yet not all of them have become doctors, doesn't that therefore mean there is more room for positive outcomes?
It takes a lot more than a Star Sign, but I get the principle you are talking about. The problem we always have is that people don't always have a common motive for doing the same thing, do not always manifest the conditions for doing it and finally there is a shortage of certain things inherantly.
And lastly did everyone realise they actually COULD do everything that they would like to do?
My knowledge is definately geared towards identifying rare things, I don't know if everyone elses is.
But it's hard to truly know if the phenomena manifests itself in above average regularity in such people as astrology predicts, when it manifests itself in all people, isn't it? In order to truly know this, you'd have to have a very large sample size of people. So what makes you think this is true, and do you think there's any chance that your own personal bias is causing you to see things the way you want to see them?
Thankfully Gunter Sachs has done just that. Got a very large sample and tested only one variable (Sun Signs).
Do I see things the way I want to see them? Probably. But doesn't everyone.
I agree. And not only for that reason, but simply because labels are divisive, which only hinders communication. And if I truly want to convince you of anything, it's against my purposes to antagonize you.
But to be clear, although I disagree with many peoples' here frequent use of terms like these, I do quite often agree with the substance of their arguments, and that's what really matters to me.
What's your Sun sign. Are you a Libra?
Interesting, because that's the exact opposite experience I have had. Furthermore, not only do I not think it works, I feel quite confident that I understand why astrology creates the illusion of "working," even when it does not.
I started with Sun Signs, decided my Sun Sign fitted me pretty much 100% and then proceeded to further research different aspects of Astrology one by one. Starting with Planets and then ending up with Aspects.
The reason I think, is that in my case the Sun is powerful overall in my chart. Anything that conjuncts Jupiter tends to be powerful, because Jupiter exaggerates things. The Sun is ego, so I tend to exaggerate myself.
A lot of people start with their Sun Signs and then decide that Astrology is bunk, the reason they may do that is because they may have very weak Suns.
Yes, I realize that they don't. From my point of view, the reason why no astrologer claims to be able to pinpoint things with complete accuracy is because that would then make their claim falsifiable. In other words, if they claimed that the stars were always right, we'd know right away if that claim is true or false. However, like you said, they merely claim that the stars are right more often than usual. That's much harder to prove wrong because in order to do so we need a very large sample size of people.
Well, if lots of Astrologers get together in one place and each of them knows 100 people, then collectively they could begin to create a very large sample indeed. Astrological theories are often falsified, the claim that Leo Suns are show-offs in an obvious way is an example of a pretty much falsified claim.
What has replaced this claim is the idea that Leos have a social Sixth sense that is hyper developed and that Leos have an over-developed vulnrability/need for Social Feedback.
Some Leos become very shy because they fear negative feedback, while others become very gregarious in order to seek positive feedback.
My Mum is an example of a shy Leo. However, she didn't half complain when the vicar of a Church she no longer goes to 'failed to notice her' when he was walking down the road.
For research purposes people you don't know are fairly much useless, since unless you can observe them you are in the captive of their own self-perception of themselves and their own feedback.
However, I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying that all astrology guesses must be 100% accurate. The point I am trying to make is that guesses which are accurate, but not specific, do not show that astrology works. Only guesses which are accurate and specific are meaningful. I would settle for even just a 50% rate of guesses that are both specific and accurate. Do you understand why I am saying that this is important, if you want to validate your claims?
As I said how specific can any claim about personality really be? If one makes a claim "you a stubborn" or "you are flexible", then what is the standard against which you are making the judgement.
The only thing you can do is observe lots of people personally, whose Astrological details and note what traits 'stick out' the most in what they say and do in each person. Or do Statistical Analysis on what people do, which is less subjective.
Every word is judged against a persons own personal standard of what is an acceptable, extreme or deficiant. And there lies the basic problem.
Right. So this wouldn't really be a good example of astrology "working," because from the way you are describing it, it sounds like it is the person doing the reading, not the stars.
The stars don't do the reading without the person. No Astrologer ever claimed they do. Each of them simply represents a basic motive or mental energy that is involved in particular things.
Take your hand and grab the nearest object. What you are getting into contact with by doing this is the energy of Mars.
Go find a beautiful object or person and look at it. What you are getting into contact with by doing this is the energy of Venus.
Based upon the location of Mars vis a vi other objects, the relationship between the various energies which make up our mental world is different. This in turn has effects upon how we act, what areas become exaggerated, what areas become neglected.
The effects are indirect, people work out their own Astrology, relating as they do with the actual Astrology at the moment all their lives, as well as non-Astrological factors.
To do Astrology, a person much emphasise at some level with the energies concerned. It's not like reading a book and reading what's in it.
Right. And that makes it very hard to test if there's anything to it or not. However, you can still look at the predictions astrology makes, and ask yourself if they are meaningful predictions. If the predictions that astrology makes are mostly very general, then astrology will natural "work", but not because of the stars. I could take the predictions that astrology makes, mix them up any way I want and create my own "L-ology," and it would still work, because it's not actually the stars that is making it work, rather it is the nature of the predictions.
However this must necceserily the case, because the same stars and planets are in the sky for everyone.
Everyone has a Neptune, even the most skeptical person on earth. Everyone has a Saturn, even the most superstitious woo on earth.
Ultimately all the different energies are competing and collaberating to increase their share of well *us*. Normally they arrive at a sort of balance, a balance which we call 'personality'. However sometimes stronger planets and signs succeed in 'squishing' weaker planets or signs, resulting in unbalanced and even utterly evil people.
Well, if it's not important that the horoscopes "fit people," then what exactly is the purpose of astrology, in your opinion?
You misunderstood my point. What I was saying is that feedback is not the be all and end all. Observation is far more crucial and ultimately crushing one way or another as evidence than feedback.
Because what you get from feedback is a persons judgement of themselves or a third party, based upon words that are being judged against a middle standard that probably isn't the same as your own.
