Well, if I read through that whole thing, I'm sure I'd find a couple of minor issues with their methodology. But I will assume they did it all above the table and gracefully concede this argument.

Thanks for sharing that study with me.

This is really all I read in your post, because it is the only part that is true.

Randi's test is probably impossible to win, because you cannot produce real results and neither can your dad.

 

On the rest, I guess I should have guessed that you didn't mean light, you meant the unfalsifiable woo that you think bleeds off of stars.  *sigh*

If I itried to convence you that the Earth is flat, regardless of what science has indicated. I then called you a skeptic, assumed you are just taking the easy way out, and going along with the dogma of science. What would your responce be?

"Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space. Astronomers and other scientists know that stars many light years* away have no effect on the ordinary activities of humans on Earth. No one has shown that astrology can be used to predict the future or describe what people are like based only on their birth date. Still, like reading fantasy stories, many people enjoy reading their "astrological forecast" or "horoscope" in the newspaper every day." - http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/st6starfinder/st6starfinder2.shtml

Disclaimer: I'm assuming you're not actually a flat-earther.

Well...maybe. And I've already retracted based on that study. But what you're saying here seems to be analogous to saying that if most all of psychology can be explained by neurology (which I believe it probably can), then psychology becomes useless (which I don't think is true). Psychology, in this example, could very well uncover things in a more philosophical direction that neurology never would. All I'm saying is, I'm 99% with you on this, but I just don't want to be too absolutist about it.

Did you really write the OP?  The internet never was a place where tongue-in-cheek could be seen without explicitly pointing it out and, well, it defeats the purpose, doesn't it?.  There is a hint of seriousness to that, though.  That is, I'm sincere when I say that there's something stupid about entertaining the questions you did when very little reading could have answered them.  Perhaps you weren't being wholly serious, though that's not the impression I get.  But this is bothersome, so take it as you would a friend goading you for something you should feel just slightly embarrassed for saying and move on.  The main point is that astrology is bunk and I can barely believe that this conversation is actually happening.

I want to add that Luminon is just as insane as I've ever thought.

 

Seriously, when on this forum, outside of innocently holding to a popular misconception or two (as in this case) or to some beliefs uncommon amongst most RRS members, or being honestly uninformed about the specifics of a particular subject, have I ever shown myself to be a "fucking moron?" I'm sorry, but that was just nasty, rude, and unjustified.

I was actually more strongly persuaded by the study neptewn linked to, sorry to disappoint you. =)

I don't own a car, like most New Yorkers, so your argument remains valid.

I mean, I know that, I've been educated about that, and it really seems like a good idea to me because it gives sense, but nobody ever gave me a proof. I only have to BELIEVE it's true. And yeah, electrons don't have orbits, but orbitals much unlike planets, that's another article of my faith in them.

 

This process is much about developing the ability to hang out with people, interact socially, get friends quickly, communicate with people, and so on. It's not something you can evaluate through the internet, you'd have to know me personally. Weird ideas are not a problem, I can just shut my mouth and I'm safe.

I'd assume that you for some reason don't trust Google Earth, so I'd argue that none of the heavenly bodies are flat, so why should be Earth exception? I'd then try to contact some sailors, who can see in clear sea how the ships on the horizon are partially hidden below Earth's curve.


Firstly, astronomers study stars, not human behavior. Secondly, astronomers admit that they discover new kinds of space radiation, and that 95% of the universe is probably filled with matter and energy that they can't yet analyze. Thirdly, the astrology I study is modern. It does not make claims that it can predict future or it can say what people will be like. It is focused on relatively small group in population, on people that achieved in life everything that consumer society can offer, like family, career, house, savings and so on, and they wonder what there is more for them to do, until they die. "Is that all that life is about?" they ask. Or people, who can ask that question earlier, that's even better. That is what the new astrology is about, in it's current stage, which is still in development. It's really not for everyone yet. Yes, it can make predictions, but there is so few
Fourthly, I refuse to call forecasts and "horoscopes" in magazines astrology. There is absolutely no astrology in that. Astrologic analysis must have client's date, place and time of birth, up to minute, otherwise it's useless. Such a precision as forecasts in magazine claim to have, can be only achieved by making a comparison of planets to their natal positions, through astrologic software, and that must be accustomed to the person's stage of development. Because, commoners perceive some diffcult constellations as great disasters, but for more advanced people it's a challenge and opportunity to grow, if recognized, and vice versa.

No, but my shoes MUST be exerting a gravitational pull because they're keeping me on the ground.

 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

Luminon, if your offer still stands, you're welcome to give me a reading. I don't mind posting my time and place of birth. I don't want to sidetrack the thread any more, so you start a new topic or PM me if you're still willing to read a skeptic. I know the city and hour of my birth, but not the minute. I'll be as objective as possible.

You're kidding. [/sarcasm]  I acknowledge what you've written and take your advice seriously.

 

So I consulted NASA (Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space), as well as the output from hundreds of independant studies that indicate that the likely hood of prediction on behavior from astrology is no greater than chance. I have seen no evidence to support your claim. Your world of astrology is in fact flat.

So science hasn't found your magic faerie dust? That sounds like a gap argument to me... and be careful not to drop the goal post as you move it. No matter where you hide the magic faerie dust, understand no field of science supports your claim.

Since you don't seem to like astronomers opinions perhaps an ethologist and biologist.

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should see it as an enemy of truth, says Richard Dawkins, author of 'The Selfish Gene'. Why, he asks, do so many of us indulge in these pre-Copernican dabblings which are nothing short of a wicked fraud? The real romance in the stars ."

I think the point here should be, that if in fact you do possess some actual proof on the validity of your claim, you should bring it forward, no you must to clear the name of astrology, and obviously clear up this mass confusion science has on so many fronts.

"No true astrologer" So is this the scale that you measure the validity of astrological claims? Perhaps you need a method to control these claims, and scrutinize the information that is supported by your astrologocial community.

 

In astrology, the evidence is personal, eye to eye, hand to hand. You know what the astrologer said or didn't say, you know if his advices were good for your life or not. It's pretty much like taking a psychologist's counseling, a good astrologer will not bother clients with jargon, but will say what he sees as necessary in such a way that the client will understand. From all sciences, astrology is most similar to psychology, not astronomy.

As for the science in general, we here don't have good experience with local scientific authorities. I don't know exactly how to express it, but there seems to be diffcult relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, personal observation and scientific observation, controlled environment and real environment. We must live in real environment, observe things personally and subjectively, and survive. And it works. And suddenly here come big bad scientists and say, that what we see and work with are merely hallucinations, until it is done in a lab with white coats around, and unless they say otherwise, we're all crazy, and they have better things to do for next 20 years, than lose time with us. That's it, in a nutshell. Scientific autorities (not those who really work, but those in charge of them) seem to be self-appointed judges, treating people like shit. And they are well connected with media, politics and market, so they in fact represent specific worldviews, opinions and market tendencies. They are far from objectivity, though they should represent it. They can express an opinion at anybody in TV, but rarely there can be any reply from people. And when there is, then they're revealed with vast incompetence and gaps in knowledge of what they criticized, specially astrology. So it is in this country.

I say that the astrologic school I prefer and my dad invented  does take new information into account.
But this new school of astrology was created for the exact reason, that other schools of astrology did not take new information into account. Honestly, there are still astrologers, who believe that all planets, stars and even constellations of zodiac rotate around us! It's awful how primitive some astrologers are, our school and club is a lighthouse of reason, compared to them.

 

Black hole in Saggitarius? Wow, on what degree is it on?
The problem is not with automatical accepting, but with non-accepting. There is too much of democracy, in my opinion. Democracy is the rule of the stupid, because dumb people are always majority. Anyone can say anything, but technically, nobody is obliged to accept it, even if it's true. Of course, people personally present on lecture will be convinced by reasonable arguments. But those who are not present, they likely won't hear about it, and even if yes, they have their own medieval schools that have no use for new discoveries.

The problem is, that an astrologer can't overstep his shadow. The quality of astrology is directly dependent on the person doing it. If it's a genius, then the analyses will be genial. If the astrologer is just some average or below-average guy, then he will not be interested in new stuff, he will have his own business aimed at similarly average people. This is what I envy on the science, there is order, standards and necessity to keep up to date with new discoveries.
 

When such a thing happens, then usually both astrologers cover two different aspects of the same thing. The question is, will they acknowledge that? One of them might, but other not. I didn't see enough of astrological discussions, we only discussed the ideas and discoveries of others among ourselves. I believe that good and intelligent people would recognize that both of their views can be applied only in a specific different contexts, although on the same subject. They will at the very least understand why they came to such a conclusion, though they disagree.

As for calculations, this is an area of objective truth. If someone has their calculations, data or historical facts wrong, deserves to be bitchslapped. For example, the idiots who started using the star of Aldebaran as 0th degree of zodiac, instead of Regulus. It's the worst choice ever, the imprecision of measuring is the greatest in that spot. Aldebaran is moving very fast, while Regulus is completely steady relatively to us. They just had some mania over bull symbolics back then, so just for fun they started measuring according to the star of the Taurus constellation.
 

Sure, that's the best, I think everyone of good will and  wits would welcome such a new idea - and try if it works on them or not. But I can't speak for other schools. Those who hang out together in the same school have the same standards. We have very high standards, but some other schools not. Forcing them something that they don't even work with would be like herding cats. They can't overstep their shadow, so there is too little of inter-school discussion. What we can do, is to write the new ideas and discoveries in a book and publish that book. In this way we get a lot of feedback and new people for our group, people of the same standards.
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Well, if that's the problem, then I don't know how to get around it. Because, as I said, nobody can overstep his shadow. If the subject of research are psychic abilities or astrology, or whatever rare social phenomenon, then it's impossible to come up with two the same samples. All people are different, so repeating the test is not repeating, it's doing the test anew. Even people change with time, environment and other people around them. It's very hard to pin down, it's the life itself. In real life there are phenomena that can't be scientifically studied, because they're too unique, subjective, diffcult to repeat, and so on, and yet perfectly real. There is a lot what scientific methodology can't yet cover, like in astrology, gathering many various observations on hundreds of clients for many years and putting them together to create a theory. But asking someone to track down these little data, or to repeat that work, that's impossible.

I'll be a bit generalizing now, but it's a thought of sudden enligtenment, that must get out.
In my opinion, the emphasis on objectivity, controlled environment, repeatable anything, and authority's opinion became such an obsession, that even a common sense of people is mistrusted. That doesn't reflect the needs of real world and people in it. What are the real needs? A lot of scientific research is politely said, otherworldly. Just like in astrology, there is a form of democracy that tolerates stupidity. Nobody can force a scientist to invent a new transport better in all respects, that will replace the stove for burning of petrol, that is principially the same for last 200 years and causes environmental and political catastrophes, just for fuel.
And I could apply that on pretty much all sides of life. We may understand physics, but we don't understand economy, ecology, sociology, politology, and all that, the sense of life, because the statistical 'global village' is a mess. I don't understand, why there is still not a scientific approach to these practical sides of life. I don't understand why skeptics are so angry towards snake oil, but not towards the the everyday catastrophes of politics, economy, work, environment, entertainment, industries, and war. As some middle-east carpenter said, first pull out a log from your eye, then try to pull a splinter from my eye.

Yeah. They can't make any precise factual claims, period. Because then it'd be testable. Then, it'd be falsifiable. Then, they couldn't use ambiguous, woo-woo bullshit and ad hoc/post hoc everything. Then, it would almost certainly be proven wrong, but I would at least grant it an ounce of respect. 

 

 

Can you give me a reading, too? I was born on March 14, 1967 at 10.20pm. It was raining. I'd like to stipulate that any reading include wealth and health - possibly a hot car and general 4 beer contentment for the rest of my life. Maybe five beer contentment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, Jonathan was first and he's a really tough one. Also, you didn't say your town of birth, should I make a horoscope for Earth's geographical core, or what?  Anyway, I can only add you as a material to my database, and watch you on the forum how you behave, because I don't know you much. Marquis would be a decent material for study, his personality is..... significant even through the obstacle of internet anonymity. Just like mine.

No offense, I'm sure you're a wonderful and distinguished person, but through the anonymity of internet all the american atheists oppressed by religion sort of merge together into one universal american internet atheist.

 

 Heey, you all stop that! Or do you want a bill with a hefty price coming at your adress? I didn't write that I will give astrologic reading on any number of curious people I know nothing about. It will be good to have some samples of people, but Jonathan asked first, and he has a real problem. As for others, I don't know what problems you have, certainly you didn't ask me about them, so I have nothing to tell you. You know what an astrologer can do to a person who's completely fine and has no problems? Congratulate him.

And yes, astrology has relation to the sky. Today I listened to the podcast Sketpic's guide to the universe #238 and there was a certain guest, an evolutionary biologist. Later the topic he said his idea, that brain is essentially an antenna for the consciousness, it doesn't create the mind, only gets attuned to it.
So this is perfectly in harmony with esoteric information on this topic. There are cosmic currents of energy that modulate thoughts, ideas, emotions, and everything that the brain affects. These streams of cosmic energy are transmitted, ampiflied and modulated by stars, planets, asteroids, and so on. What we need in astrology, is symbolic representation of these currents of energy, and a potential tension that is between them, in relationship to exact place on Earth.
 

What I am curious about is what the use is if Luminon wants to know the person's character before he does a reading.  If he is using his own judgement of a person's character, why bother with stars?  He would have to show knowledge of something beyond what a decent social services major would be able to glean in the years of watching someone post on this forum.

Hint: You could learn a massive amount by reading posts for the period of time Luminon has been here.

The interesting thing about poor ol' friendless astrology is that I suspect most theists are as against it as atheists seem to be. My mom probably thinks it's some kind of satanic occult thing. Certainly the God Warrior on Wife Swap didn't think too highly of such things. =)

Ok, first of all greetings to everybody.

I know this post could be a little old because the one before mine was created by Luminon a long time ago. However I was interested to learn more about the discussion because as I am an atheist, it is impossible to believe in horoscopes and astrology. Although there is a lot of scientific evidence that can make us conclude astrology is fake, before to became atheist I was moving among different beliefs and I learned something about stars and all that.

In my opinion, astrology was a "proto science" , the first effort of mankind to classify the human behavior. With the develop through the history, astrology took the category of myth, and was replaced by psychology, which is a humanistic discipline. In such case, astrology can be considered in the same rank of alchemy. We all know it is impossible to create the philoshopher's stone. However that was the first attempt to develop the modern and scientific chemistry.

Then, it is impossible to consider we can predict the future according to horoscopes. Anyway, meanwhile I explored this esoteric field, I realized -due a ilussion or to a relationship between psychology and astrology concepts- most of the comparison that both zodiacs did with animals and humans are almost right. The true is you can figure out how a person it is going to act, to think and even feel. But as I stated some lines above, it won't be right to believe in such a crap. However I need to call the attention of all the posters in this topic to ask the following: It is possible to consider astrology as a proto science surrounded by myths in ancient times or it is only a bullshit?

 

According to this information I can make a contrast and then confirm what I had stated in my previous post. Due to the mythical thinking the humanity had in its first stages, sciences and religions where combined. Therefore, the four humours where understood through the philosophy of the four basic natural elements. After the human thought evolved, it started to separate the concepts. Then Hippocrates appeared and defined the four humours. Thus the division between psychology and astrology started.

It seems this discpline is evolving from medieval stages. However, how can people be assured about what are they reading in the western zodiac if they can find another description in the Chinese one? Luminon, as you posted before in one of your earliest comments, you know a lot of astrology. So, I suppose you should know the Chinese Zodiac is older than the western. Then, how can people feel confident toward just one description? That's why I consider you could not trust in the astrology. And even more, if you consider the astrology from Persia, Babylon, Egypt and even the Mayan one, how can you be completely sure you have found the truth? In consequence, psychology will give much and better answers to the problem of the personality and human behavior.

 

LOL. That is a good one.

I lived with my grandmother, many years ago, who had bad eyesight and would often ask me to read her certain headlines from the newspaper early in the morning. The first thing that she always wanted me to do was read the horoscopes. I would read hers and then read mine and we would both marvel over how close this stuff came to actually describing our current situations.  Then one day, just on a whim, I decided to read ALL of the horoscopes. Oddly enough, any one of these things could have applied to me or my grandmother and any one of them could have been used. Just to prove my point, rather than read mine (Scorpio) for a whole week I read a different one, and they all could apply.

Reminds me of this co-worker that loaned me this Dan Millman book about adding up your birthdays and coming up with this number. You then flip ahead to the chapter and WOW, your birth number says ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT YOU. Only problem is, you can select any chapter and any number and it applies. (Supposedly, Dan Millman claimed that this number system came from some sort of ANCIENT SPIRITUAL SYSTEM). I never understood why so many of these people that sell this stuff to the masses convinces people that it must be somehow authentic because it is "ANCIENT". Notice they always use that term, ancient. Hmm, ancient superstition to me would be just as invalid as modern superstition, but that could be because I am just one of those evil atheists that believes in nothing and lives without purpose, hehe.

Now, I am aware that this type of "trendy" astrology is not what the OP and others are referring to on here. As far as if there could be any valdity to actually being affected by the planets or stars, I am sure that there could be some sort of a possibility. But, I am probably going to be very, very, very, very skeptical of it until I see any proof.

Okay, it's math time.

 

The average distance to the moon is 225,622 miles (http://www.universetoday.com/19426/distance-to-the-moon/).  This is a little less than 1 light second, so lets say the moon is about 1 light second away.

 

Google calculator says the mass of the moon is 7.36 x 10^22 kilograms, while the mass of the sun is 1.98892 x 10^30 kilograms.  So the moon is about 2.78 x 10^-9 solar masses.

 

The nearest star (besides the sun) is Alpha Centauri (http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/extra/nearest.html).  Its distance from Earth is about 4 lightyears.  Let's assume it has 1 solar mass.  1 year is 60*60*25*365.25 = 2.3*10^7 seconds, so 4 lightyears is about 9.2 * 10^7 light seconds.

 

Gravity from moon = Constants * Mass of Moon / distance squared = Constants * 2.8*10^-9 Solar masses per (light second)^2

 

Gravity from Star = Same Constants * Mass of Star / distance squared = Constants * 1.2*10^-16 Solar masses per (light second)^2

 

So the gravity from the closest (non-Sun) star is bout 4 * 10^-8 times the gravity from the moon, or about 4 (hundred millionths) (as in 4 out of a hundred million) of the gravity from the moon.

 

Hence the effects of Alpha Centauri's gravity are negligible in comparison to the effects of the moon's gravity.  Other stars are even further away.

 

This doesn't take into account the fact that the stars are pretty randomly scattered in terms of direction.  You have to do a vector sum over the gravity from the stars, not a scalar sum, so 100 million stars will only result in 4 times the effect of the moon if every one of those stars is in the same direction, roughly 4 lightyears away, and only provided there are not 100 million similarly situated stars in the opposite direction.  Simply put, any affect the stars would have on the tides (or anything else on earth) is drowned out by the much larger effect of the moon.