What are the principles on which astrology rests?

[Zefram]

So how do you define "may tend to"? I doubt there's a rigorous epsilon-delta definition behind it... Couldn't you say that anyone might tend to anything?

That aside, what's the connection between these personality tendencies and the stars/celestial bodies?

 

[Kerrie]

zefram, i am afraid you are asking me to "scientize" astrology...stronger tendencies to do such-and-such over another individual due to the reflection of aspects of planet xyz to abc...does that clarify?

 

[Zefram]

If planets or stars or whatever do have some real effect on personalities or characteristics then why wouldn't that effect be, uh, scientizable? After all, isn't science about picking patterns out of nature and rolling with it?

I've always been distrustful of things like astrology because (among other things) whenever I see it described, the descriptions or explanations seem very muddled and unclear, cloudy I guess you could say. Maybe I'm just a dunderhead but I get that same sensation looking over your past few posts in this thread; when I read them I don't really have the feeling that I know (or that I'm really supposed to know) what we're talking about. No offense is intended, I just don't feel that my understanding of this is advancing any.

 

[LURCH]

I do not personally ascribe much credence to astrology (at this time), but I will say this; so far in this topic, much has been made of the fact that astrological data is based on "tendencies" and "will always have verying degrees of uncertainty". Am I the only one who finds these descriptions rather familliar-sounding? Is QM psuedoscience? Or is statistical analysis to be discarded as having no validity?

If these are the chief reasons for which astrology is rejected as a science, then that rejection is invalid. Kerrie has stated that this is not a science, but surely there must be better reasons than these for that conclusion.

 

[Kerrie]

interesting perspective Lurch...for the years i have studied astrology, i have analyzed it, just like scientists would in certain studies...

i say it is not a science because it is not exact like science is, free will of the human being is what makes it not exact and reliabel

 

[(Q)]

Kerrie

Perhaps I don’t quite understand your inference to free will. Are you saying scientists have no free will when they conduct experiments and postulate theories?

BTW – did you get a chance to finish my chart?

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by (Q)
Kerrie

Perhaps I don’t quite understand your inference to free will. Are you saying scientists have no free will when they conduct experiments and postulate theories?

I'm not normally one to speak for others, but I'm fairly confident I see the point of missunderstanding in this case. I think the distinction being made here is that when scientists conduct experiments, the subject which they are observing has no free will.

Even with the HUP, the path of an electron is more predictable than the path a person will take in their personal developement. An electron cannot look at where it is going and "decide" that this is not the way it wishes to go. But predicting the course a person's maturation process will take, or the traits and tendencies they will have is more difficult because the person may become aware that they have these traits or tendencies, and choose to change them.

 

[Kerrie]

thank you lurch...human free will is not predictable, therefore can be be deemed as "unreliable" for studying it scientifically...

 

[Zefram]

All right, does astrology suggest that the celestial bodies have some influence on anything without free will? For example, can so-and-so in retrograde yadda yadda predict a particularly devasting hurricane or forest fire or something along those lines?

 

[Kerrie]

great question, after doing some research, i found these words from a well known astrologist, Kevin Burke:

Astrology operates on the Ketheric level of existence, the level of a spritual blueprint.

So, I would say no, astrology does not have an impact on weather, but the spirituality of those with free will.

 

[arivero]

Astrology works!

It is only a question of context. But astrology accurately
predicts:

- the adequate timings for fishing according to sea levels.
- the adequate timings for farming activities.

In some places, it also predicts acurately weather-related
events, such as for instance the rising of the Nile river.

My guesses: the invention of calendars pushed astrology to a secondary role. The accumulated corputs grew out of context trying to do predictions unrelated to their primary goals. It could happen catastrophically or gradually. For instance, trying to predict dayly weather for state activities, battles, demostrations, etc... and then even evolving to try to predict individual events. Or it could be a case for an stablished sicence expanding to illetered hands, as happens with pseudoscience nowadays.

Aside: Liver omen works! It is explained in Vitrubio books. Check it.

 

[Kerrie]

okay, to be objective in my assertion of the validity of astrology, can you provide links or any kind of other reference to show proof that astrology has an impact on fishing and farming? this is news to me as an avid student for 12 years...

 

[selfAdjoint]

I presume he means the "moon sign books" used by some farmers and fisherment. But to assert "accuracy" he should be able to site specific controlled experiments showing them to be accurate. For example give fake moon sign books - with different numbers - to a random sample of fishermen, and the regular books to another random sample of the same size. Then see of there was any statistically meaningful difference between the fishing success (defined by some objective criterion) of the two groups.

I'll bet he can't do that. It's just the usual phony spin.

 

[LURCH]

I almost forgot!

Tom, in your initial post in this topic, you asked about the reasons for astrology being dismissed as "pseudoscience". The main reason that I have heard relates to the zodiac. For example, I am an Aries. This means that, back when the Egyptians (?) Charted the first zodiac calendar, the sun rose into the constellation Aries on the day that I was born.

Due to gyroscopic precession, and the Earth's "wobble" by axis, the sun no longer rises into that same constellation on that day. In fact, all of the zodiacal signs are off by approximately one month. Many astrologers claim that, in spite of this fact, astrological predictions made for an Aries back then would still apply to me, today. Their reasoning for this is that the sun is still rising into "the same area of space", even though the constellation Aries has moved. This presupposes some supernatural or intangible quality of space that can somehow make location absolute, in spite of the motions of the natural, physical objects in the universe.

This, however, sounds like a very different kind of astrology from that which Kerrie describes.

 

[Kerrie]

exactly so lurch, IF you use the actual constellations (only needed for rising signs ...it is the Earth's ecliptic (360 degreee circumference divided by 12 suns) that are what are referred to as "sun signs"...

there are actually 13 constellations in the zodiac ban, one is between scorpio and sagittarius called ophiuchus...but because astrologists do not base the "signs" on the actual zodiac ban in the sky, it doesn't apply...

 

[thed]

Originally posted by Kerrie
there are actually 13 constellations in the zodiac ban, one is between scorpio and sagittarius called ophiuchus...but because astrologists do not base the "signs" on the actual zodiac ban in the sky, it doesn't apply...

Interesting. Does the facr that our position in the Galaxy has altered over 2,000 years also have bearing. That is, the shapes of the constellations have altered subtly in 2,000+ years. what affect does this have in say, 10,000 years when the constellations have altered a lot. Plus due to precession the zodiacal constellations will have altered again.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Tom
This stems from the threadThe purpose of pseudoscience. Astrology was referred to as being dismisses as pseudoscience. Is it unscientific? Or is it just getting a bad rep from its identification with the daily paper horoscopes?

I have no idea, as I have never looked into the matter. So let me ask:

1. What are the foundational principles on which astrology rests?
In other words, what are its axioms?

2. What are the claims of astrology? In other words, what does one mean when one says that "astrology works"?

3. How is #2 deduced from #3? Or are the axioms identical to the claims?

Thanks,

I see astrology as explainable by way of the mechanics noted in Chaos theory.

You know... like when a bird is startled and beats its wings in Kuala Lumpur there is a hurrican in Jamaca. That kind of synergistic progression. Only in this case, its a planet(s) and its relation to a constellation and the Earth and a person on the Earth and the positioning of these and other factors.

If astrology is considered a psuedoscience then I would imagine that psychology could be considered as being one as well... since there are as many correlations and confirmations calculated in astrology, if not more, as there are found in psychology... yet neither is considered (by some) a proven, exact science.

 

[Kerrie]

Important information to break a common myth of astrology!

Originally posted by LURCH
I almost forgot!

Charted the first zodiac calendar, the sun rose into the constellation Aries on the day that I was born.

Due to gyroscopic precession, and the Earth's "wobble" by axis, the sun no longer rises into that same constellation on that day. In fact, all of the zodiacal signs are off by approximately one month. Many astrologers claim that, in spite of this fact, astrological predictions made for an Aries back then would still apply to me, today. Their reasoning for this is that the sun is still rising into "the same area of space", even though the constellation Aries has moved. This presupposes some supernatural or intangible quality of space that can somehow make location absolute, in spite of the motions of the natural, physical objects in the universe.

constellations do not matter with sun signs...it is the Earth's ecliptic-this is the plane of the sun's apparent orbit around the sun...the equator is tilted approximately 23.5 degrees to the ecliptic and astrologists measure the relative positions of the planets based on where they appear along this ecliptic...

so you see, as i stated previously, the constellations have nothing to do with interpretation, but it is the earth's relation to our planets, sun moon, (and some planetoids) that is interpreted...this is the most subjective part of astrology-interpretation of these aspects on human psychology...

one thing all skeptics should know as a fact is when planet such-and-such is conjunct/trine/in opposition to planet so-and-so, this is factual information...it is clearly objective the positions of the planets in relation to our earth...so i can say that astrology is based on facts

 

[arivero]

Originally posted by Kerrie
okay, to be objective in my assertion of the validity of astrology, can you provide links or any kind of other reference to show proof that astrology has an impact on fishing and farming? this is news to me as an avid student for 12 years...

Ok, ok, let me to clarify: there are an evident impact, from the positions of Sun and Moon. It is just that modernly this impact is fully understood, thus it is labeled astronomy. So it is not rare for you to miss it. The position of Sun against the fixed stars tell us of the year station, the relative position of Sun and Moon tell us of tides.

Secondly there is a minor impact from the visibility of known stars. It relates to weather prediction, as it informs of the humidity conditions in the atmosphere. Note that this prediction is not only important to farming, but also to other activities, for instance to decide if engaging or not in a battle.

Thirdly it comes a pseudoscience degenerating from all the previous, it still perdures as "farming calendars", and surely it is the origin of astrology as pseudoscience, before to be applyed to persons.

 

[arivero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I presume he means the "moon sign books" used by some farmers and fisherment. But to assert "accuracy" he should be able to site specific controlled experiments showing them to be accurate. For example give fake moon sign books - with different numbers - to a random sample of fishermen, and the regular books to another random sample of the same size. Then see of there was any statistically meaningful difference between the fishing success (defined by some objective criterion) of the two groups.

I'll bet he can't do that. It's just the usual phony spin.

I am sure of that, but the problem is that a good "moon sign book" actually takes real facts into account, as for instance to consider the rain fallen in an area during winter or the quantity of snow accumulated. This mix of science and pseudoscience is a most difficoultous thing to debunk.

 

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by LURCH
but I will say this; so far in this topic, much has been made of the fact that astrological data is based on "tendencies" and "will always have verying degrees of uncertainty". Am I the only one who finds these descriptions rather familliar-sounding? Is QM psuedoscience? Or is statistical analysis to be discarded as having no validity?

I think this is a crucial question(s). If the motions and positions of astronomical bodies do have an influence on humans or physical events then these should show up as some form of statistical correlation. There was a study done which claimed a statistical connection but when it was examined closely by a lot of different people the analysis was found to be flawed.

I think people can be very easily convinced of something (not just astrology) even though there is not much evidence (I include tendancies in this as they can be examined with statistical tests). This applies especially scientists as these are the sort of people who are constantly looking for patterns in nature c.f. homeopathy studies.

Oh and for those wanting references for the study and other critiques go here:
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html#1

 

[Kerrie]

Oh and for those wanting references for the study and other critiques go here:
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html#1 [/B]

wanted to bump this up again...i checked this link, and again, another astronomer misinformed...the article claims that the planets affect us, when astrologists do not make that claim whatsoever...

also, the article claims that the sun passes through the constellations and this is a part of astrology-not so, it is the Earth's ecliptic passing through 12 houses and the position of the planets in relation to this 12 sections that is analyzed...

this information provided by astronomers who haven't taken the time to truly understand astrology dooms it automatically...