Is Astrology Nonsense or is there Something to It?

I used to think astrology was nuts, but over time I've begun to wonder if there is not something to it. I am exactly like my zodiac sign (Scorpio) says I should be, almost to an extreme. My twin sisters are exactly like their zodiac signs say they should be.

I know this sounds nuts, but as a skeptic and Johnsonian realist/pessimist, could there possibly be anything to astrology and, if so, why?

The horrorscopes are created with random phrase generators now. Well, they were from the beginning but humans did the random generating.

You could take a room of people, give them their horoscopes, then have them all pass the horoscopes to the right. The one they receive will be just as "accurate" as the one they had originally.

connection between your attributes and your star sign. You may be just like what a Scorpio is supposed to be like but A. those descriptions are quite broad and general and B. there is no way to prove that the reason you are the way you are is because of the star sign. And C. it's fairly easy to turn up people who do not correspond that closely to their star sign.

I just can see no way to take it out of the realm of speculation and into the realm of hard scientific data. That doesn't mean people can't believe in it - it just means they can't prove it's true.

Pseudoscience. And it infuriates scientists that people think it has ANY scientific merti. Fun and entertaining yes..but unscientific IN THE EXTREME.

:sarcasm:

:)

I'm actually named after a character on General Hospital

I am a DOUBLE scorpio. Yeah, that's right. Scorpio sun sign -- Scorpio rising!

And my moon's in Taurus! When I pass by, the girls all go, "Cuckoo!"

That's right. They're talking to ME. They can't help themselves.

(It's lonely in here.)

Nothing but superstition.

In that sense, for some people it's merely a process to help them process through what they know about someone. But that only works if the person doing the astrology knows the person they are doing it for well.

So, on the one hand, I hate it and hate everyone involved with it because they're lying fucking pigs.

On the other hand, they're only lying fucking pigs to people too goddamn stupid to take their pants off before they shit, and so in that way I applaud them deeply. I don't mind when stupid people get fucked by their own willing ignorance.

But in the whole, the astrologists should be rounded up and knocked upside the noggin, because they really are dumbing down humanity and keeping us from evolving at the rate we should.

I love it when my mom occasionally reads my sign and it says something about my love life. I don't have one.

but I have always taken pride or interest in my astrological sign--Leo--for some reason, probably because I like big cats.

I am a Sagitarius, which is a centaur with a bow and arrow. That's cool with me. However, I love cats, too.

Or rather, grrrrrr, I'm going to eat a gazelle.

I don't believe in much of anything.

I think this may be true for psychic ability, tarot, witchcraft/magik, meditation, prayer, etc.

I believe there are universal laws that some are able to detect which lie just on the fringe of accepted limits of the ability of humans to perceive, yet are real and to some extent detectable, and even controllable.

But I really think it makes a difference what time of year people are born. That doesn't have anything to do with the stars, but with the seasons.

Being a scorpio: I am sexy in the extreme, mysterious, loyal and intelligent.

Fortunately, I have none of the other miscellaneous characteristics: serial killer, psychopath, hedonist.

It's good that I ended up with the positive traits. Of course, I do see a lot of Libra in me. Artistic, stylish. And perhaps a smattering of Leo. Strong, powerful, intriguing.

:)

so there's that.

and then making up stories is astrology. It is no more the basis for astronomy than believing lead could be turned into gold is the basis for chemistry.

Astrology is pure and absolute bunk that has nothing whatsoever in common with science. Nothing.

you can only be ignorant of it.

Look, astrology has no more to do with astronomy than Genesis has to do with geology. Fanciful stories, by definition, have little to do with reality. Yes, astrologers talk about the sun, the moon, and the planets, and Genesis talks about earth and water, but apart from that, they have not a thing to do with science.

Astrology is fortune telling. It's a carnival act. For what does modern astronomy owe gratitude to astrology? That the sun and planets exist and move around?

There were ancient astronomers who studied the heavens, but they weren't the same as astrologers. They didn't allege a correlation between the movements of the planets and the stars with human events. The studied the heavens, they didn't make up stories, and it is these ancient astronomers who were the pathfinders to modern astronomy.

it's sad.

What magic is to medicine.

:hi:

They're both on the same continuum of knowledge - with superstitious belief on one end and empirical truth on the other - and they're sitting on opposite ends of that continuum.

:thumbsup:

Astrology: Look at the position of the stars, planets, and moon and use them to predict the future.
Astronomy: Look at the position of the stars, planets, and moon and use them to predict their future position.

Astrology: The phase of the moon directs events on Earth.
Astronomy: The phase of the moon is caused by the moon's orbit around the Earth.

Astrology is superstitious nonsense, science is the study of tangible evidence.

Astrology is the notion that the position of the stars have anything to do whatsoever with your life. It isn't science, it isn't even true. It's been proven false. It has nothing to do with science except to illustrate what science is not.

The 'connection' between the position of the stars and events is somewhere between coincidence and non-existent.

Like it or not, astrology is the basis for astronomy and other sciences..... see #26. Lionel Mandrake acknowledges history while calling it horseshit.

"Astrology is the notion that the position of the stars have anything to do whatsoever with your life. It isn't science, it isn't even true. It's been proven false. It has nothing to do with science except to illustrate what science is not. The 'connection' between the position of the stars and events is somewhere between coincidence and non-existent."

The rest of this is just paint by numbers thinking. There is no proof of any of those statements. "It's been proven false." Really? There are studies on that? Please point them out.

What's really amazing IMHO is that intelligent and science based people could think that our environment has absolutely NO EFFECT on human organisms. :wow:

The proof is in the complete lack of evidence to support astrology as anything more than superstition. It's called the negative evidence principle.

I don't suppose you'd care to cause major upheaval in the scientific community by demonstrating how astrology isn't false.

thinking you know me (have we met?) calling me an astrologer and getting up on your hind legs to avoid the previous posts all point to baseless ignorance. :hi:

Newton's law of universal gravitation:
F=G(m₁m₂/r²)

Let's see how much the nearest star in the constellation Cancer might affect us, shall we? For starters, we'll assume a 80 kg person (m₁). The nearest star in that constellation is DX Cancri, which has a mass of roughly 1.79x10³⁰ kg (m₂) and a distance of 11.8 light years or 1.11x10¹⁷ meters (r). G is the gravitational constant. If you do the math, you find that it exerts a force of 8x10^-13N on the 80 kg person.

For comparison, another 80kg person standing 1 meter away is exerting 4.27x10^-7N of gravitational force. That's 533,750 times more force. What? Two 80 kg people standing 1 meter apart are exerting on each other 533,750 times the gravitational force of the nearest star in the constellation Cancer and the other stars in that constellation are exerting even less force!

Put another way, the nearest star in the constellation Cancer exerts about the same gravitational force as a 150 mg object sitting on a table 1 meter away from our 80 kg person. For reference, a penny is about 2,500 mg.

Oops--looks like those stars aren't doing a whole lot.

Astrology=superstitious nonsense.

:shrug:

I partly demonstrated that. If you lack the understanding of high-school level physics required to understand my post, that's your problem.

It's funny, really. The astrology's only importance to modern-day astronomy is to serve as a reminder of the days when superstitious nonsense passed for a legitimate field of study and to illustrate how scientific inquiry has brought us to a point where we can understand the world around us enough to see astrology for what it is--superstitious nonsense.

What's next? Are you going to mount a defense of the importance of blood-letting? Phrenology? Geocentrism? Palm-reading?

and you "lack the understanding of high-school level" history of the world.

I didn't change the subject, you did...or at least you've been trying to.

-You claimed that "astrology is the basis for astronomy." (your original claim)
-I countered that by pointing out how they are or superficially similar and stated that astrology is superstitious nonsense (my original claim).
-You made a non-sequitur response about history.
-I repeated my counter to your original claim and repeated my claim.
-You again tried to change the subject to history, claimed that statements were factually false, and challenged me to back them up while making a claim about environmental effects.
-we bickered for two responses ending with you accusing me of "baseless ignorance."
-I provided a simple demonstration of how astrology is false. (Backing up my original claim)
-You said something silly about showing off and avoiding the point.
-I pointed out that my response, #63 is high-school physics and again stated my original claim.
-You accuse me of changing the subject.

Your original claim: "Astrology is the basis for astronomy and other sciences."
My original claim: 'Astrology is bullshit superficially related to astronomy.'

You have provided no evidence to support you claim, only reference to a post about how astronomers also performed astrology.
I have provided evidence to support my claim and I'll do it again right here.

Saying that astrology is the basis for astronomy is fundamentally wrong because it assumes that if astrology had never existed, then people would have never looked into the night sky and wondered why the stars and planets move.

Saying that astrology is the basis for other sciences is also fundamentally wrong because no aspect of astrology is at all scientific.

I suspect that you're confusing 'preceded' with 'basis for.' These are different things.

The walking is not the basis for the automobile even though both are used for transportation.
Astrology is not the basis for astronomy even though both involve stars.

"Saying that astrology is the basis for astronomy is fundamentally wrong because it assumes that if astrology had never existed, then people would have never looked into the night sky and wondered why the stars and planets move."

Even if that were so :rofl: you can't change the way that it did happen.

Your original premise, that astrology must be true because, gosh, astronomy grew out of astrology is just as idiotically bankrupt a statement as to say that alchemy must be true because chemistry grew out of it.

Astrology and alchemy were left behind because the smart people - the ones with brains that actually think and process data correctly and in accordance with the rules of the universe - they realized that those were systems that didn't work at all, and so left them, and started new fields.

Just because Edison finally managed to invent a lightbulb that works doesn't mean, ipso facto, that therefore the previous thousand or so iterations of his lightbulb experiment were then suddenly and miraculously also all viable lightbulbs. No, the previous thousand or so iterations he tried were still not lightbulbs.

Part of astrology - the part that works, and that is true - became astronomy. The bullshit was left behind for people with small minds, cloudy vision, and desperate, pathetic, ignorant hopes that somehow they really aren't in charge of their life and so don't have to bother taking any responsibility for anything and use "astrological" "findings" as their crutch/excuse.

"Your original premise, that astrology must be true because, gosh, astronomy grew out of astrology is just as idiotically bankrupt a statement as to say that alchemy must be true because chemistry grew out of it."

Wrong. That is the premise of smart people being obtuse about a simple point and projecting their flawed view as "idiocy " on me. I commented on the history. That's it. There was no "astrology must be true because, gosh...."


"Part of astrology - the part that works, and that is true - became astronomy."

There. Now that wasn't so hard, was it? That's history. THAT was (your best understanding of) the original premise.

And yes, your buddy changed the subject and projected assumptions (not very scientific) and tilted at windmills to deny what you have just admitted.

Please explain this to your friend you think is "crushing."

It's the smart people who can't simply acknowledge something so simple, so factual, who are getting crushed by the weight of their own (or adopted) prejudices. How can those who claim to scrutinize evidence also be the first to ignore history, to cast wide nets of mistaken assumptions and ludicrous overgeneralizations? And why are they so damn hostile about it? it's truly bizarre. More bizarre than astrology, that's for sure.

"Part of astrology - the part that works, and that is true - became astronomy."


Your aware of the history. That's all I asserted. If that is common ground, so be it.

There are also people aware and actively engaged with "the part that works, and that is true" that continued to become astrology.

Ignoring (being ignorant of) that study and discipline (beyond gimmicky horoscopes so easy to ridicule) does not mean that it does not exist.

Surely you are smart enough to know that the only part of astrology that was the "part that works" is the part that said "Here is where the stars and planets are, and here is how they are moving"?

Which is to say, the only part of astrology that was true was the part that simply labeled and located the stars.

And so your statements elsewhere that astronomy is FOUNDED upon astrology are utterly ludicrous.

Astronomy took astrology's data set and then went to work doing actual science on it. Keppler, the last of the astrologer/astronomers, jettisoned all the astrological bullshit and kept the data set, and evolved the ancient "art" of astrology into the modern, new, regime of the science of astronomy.

A data set which could easily have been gotten in a space of a few months had astrology never existed.

Astronomy is neither BASED ON nor FOUNDED UPON astrology.

Does it come out of astrology? Sure.

Either you simply don't write clearly enough to actually tel people know what you want to say, or you are (as I interpret your writing) trying to defend astrology as a legitimate field simply because it's scientific data set was used by actual scientists.

Doctors hundreds of years ago loved to take people's blood with leaches to cure them of ills. That doesn't mean that Dialysis is FOUNDED UPON bloodletting.

:eyes:

All things that have gone out of fashion.

Anticipating a reply and not wanting to feed unnecessary antagonism, I was ready to read your post and say "OK" or not reply, thinking "I've already said what I said and clarified it and reached SOME level of mutual understanding with a couple there....."

Yet, not only are you frustrated and demanding and accusatory, you are asking me to RESTATE what I've already said and acknowledged that you *got* AND challenging my ability to express it!!!!!! That's just bonkers.:crazy: Unless you're more interested in "winning" than understanding, which I'm not.


You said: "Part of astrology - the part that works, and that is true - became astronomy."

I replied: "There. Now that wasn't so hard, was it? That's history. THAT was (your best understanding of) the original premise."

So why are you asking me, "Then what the hell is your premise?"

Because you want to acknowledge it and still ARGUE against it and ........................................... what a waste. What. A. Waste.

What in that post is beyond your "best understanding" of the "premise," you also ignored: You're aware of the history. That's all I asserted. If that is common ground, so be it.

"There are also people aware and actively engaged with "the part that works, and that is true" that continued to become astrology. Ignoring (being ignorant of) that study and discipline (beyond gimmicky horoscopes so easy to ridicule) does not mean that it does not exist."

There's nothing wrong with my ability to write clearly -- you just don't want to see it. :shrug:


"A data set which could easily have been gotten in a space of a few months had astrology never existed."

Even if that were true (as absurd and reductionist as it sounds) IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY. What is the problem with that? Why is that so threatening?

Apparently the problem is this bizarrely truncated and prejudicial view of compartmentalized history, as phobic and unrealistic as someone who can't let their peas touch their potatoes on the plate.

"Astronomy is neither BASED ON nor FOUNDED UPON astrology."

"Does it come out of astrology? Sure."


You're acknowledging the "premise" while still fighting about it. You're just playing word games with yourself. "Come out of," "based on," "founded upon," whatever you want to call it the history is there.

If some have been indoctrinated to see the e/merging of the sciences in some after-the-fact glamorized dramatic diorama of someone like Keppler "the last of the astrologer/astronomers, jettisoning all the astrological bullshit and keeping the data set," fine. So ever since, this stupid unnecessary unrealistic hostile camp attitude must follow?

IMHO history and science and education are not that dense or derogatory.

If this is the result of Teach to the Test, Work to the Script, and smart people refute what they've already acknowledged because of a stranglehold on language, used as a weapon rather than a tool, we is doomed.

and they share some kind of common root about 400 years in the past.


I was hoping I was merely misreading you, which is why I asked for clarification. Would have helped had you given said clarification, but I've read between the lines, worked on your convolutions trying to follow the threads of thought, and adjusted for misuse of words, and it seems that what you are saying is that, since astronomy and astrology share a common ancestor, and that since astronomy is a legitimate and real science, that therefore astrology must also be legitimate and real (and possibly a science, but I don't think you've said anything that could be supporting that; I could be wrong, however, and maybe that is part of your conjecture as well).

If you wish, however, to make grandiose claims, but continue to make them so nebulously and obtusely that you arrogantly force the reader to decipher them (I guess your claims are so important that they shouldn't be made in clear language lest the clueless illiterati stumble upon them in one of their silly gin-fuelsd afternoons or whatever it is that those you look down upon do that annoys you), then so be it.

I don't have time for communication with people who refuse to say what they fucking mean.

That kind of circular, obtuse, cypherish communication is childish at best, assholish in general, and would garner an immediate fail were I grading you.

Words have meaning - do not be so dismissive of those meanings. "Come out of," "based on," and "founded upon," are entirely different concepts, with precise meanings - one cannot, as you so flippantly did above, equate them.

I mean, really, what's so difficult about just honestly stating what one means? I do it all the time. It seems to take no more energy. In fact, it seems always to take less energy to speak clearly and definitively than it does to intentionally be obtuse, obfuscatory, and opaque.

Nowhere have I said that.

The top of the subthread is enough if you have trouble sorting out the rest. Maybe you are continuing the mistake because your buddy did, of foisting more "premise" on what I said than what I simply said (so you can argue the premise or pretend I haven't stated the premise you want to argue?).

The need to project the assumptions, demand only a certain response that YOU condone while ignoring clear statements, being obtuse and projecting that too...........:rofl: I HOPE you are not actually in a position where you grade anyone.


"I don't have time for communication with people who refuse to say what they fucking mean."

And yet you badger them to say what you want them to say the way you want them to say it even when it isn't what they mean/t. :crazy:


"Words have meaning - do not be so dismissive of those meanings. "Come out of," "based on," and "founded upon," are entirely different concepts, with precise meanings - one cannot, as you so flippantly did above, equate them."

Look at your statement as quoted:

"Astronomy is neither BASED ON nor FOUNDED UPON astrology."

"Does it come out of astrology? Sure."

Look at how you want to have it both ways. Continue the argument with yourself. If you want to only talk to people with a truncated view and vocabulary that mirrors yours, you're right, we are wasting time.

:thumbsup:

And yes, astrology is the foundation of astronomy, as you have acknowledged, whatever word you want to use. No matter what aspect of history the hidebound choose to "jettison."

The arbitrary "come out of" sounds comfortably weak and noncommittal, does it? The F word is too close to a potential endorsment of astrology :scared: :yoiks:

Other than that you say that astronomy is founded upon astrology, which is a statement not of fact, but a statement of very poor vocabulary understanding.

Astronomy and astrology share a common root - the scientific data about star positions and movement - but one is not founded upon the other, no matter how much you wish it.

If all you intended to say was that astronomy and astrology share a common root, or that astronomy as a field of study grew out of (and then discarded) astrology, then you are right. We are in agreement.

If, however, you continue to push the premise that astrology is the foundation of astronomy (and here, again, I support my claim that words DO have meanings, no matter how much you wish otherwise to give words very broad, wide, and liberal definitions), then you are wrong.

That is the premise I am arguing against. That is the premise that laconicsix was arguing against.

I find it funny that you claim that I have a limited vocabulary, while you are the one trying to cram an entire range of words into the same straightjacket. All those terms DO have different meanings.

Might just as well say that the American Constitution is founded up the Divine Right of the British Monarchs.

"Other than that you say that astronomy is founded upon astrology, which is a statement not of fact, but a statement of very poor vocabulary understanding."

Your wording. Your understanding.

"Astronomy and astrology share a common root - the scientific data about star positions and movement - but one is not founded upon the other, no matter how much you wish it."

I don't "wish it." The "common root" is the point here, you do seem able to grasp that. The insistence on black and white thinking is your blind spot. Your choice. Your education. So be it.

"...share a common root..... ""....a field of study grew out of...." "then you are right. We are in agreement."

We are in agreement. And those words you find comfortable and condonable affirm the FOUNDATION, the "root" of science that was one and grew into different disciplines. Astrology and astronomy have the same foundation, can you handle that? Astrology of ancient times is the foundation of astronomy. Deal with it. :spray:

If you and your buddy "winning" and "crushing" (when we are in agreement on such a SIMPLE concept -- which yes, I stated quite clearly) is based on your copyright on the word "foundation," then that is semantic bullshit.

"I find it funny that you claim that I have a limited vocabulary, while you are the one trying to cram an entire range of words into the same straightjacket. All those terms DO have different meanings."

Truncated is not the same as "limited," is it? If you are going to play word games, please don't turn things around and borrow "straitjacket..." If you're going to fuzz over language to say "Yes it is but No it's not," don't then claim the terms you fuzzed over "DO have different meanings."

I wish more smart people here would be smart in a smart way and not be so damn dense just to be "right."

If universal meaning and self-identification hinges for you on setting astronomy and astrology at the same level, on insisting that they not only are they equal, but that they are more than equal, since astronomy is FOUNDED on astrology!, that without astrology there could never be and would never be astronomy, and that both equally valid (because they differ only in expression, not in fact) methods of interpreting and knowing the cosmos, then so be it.

I'm not going to stand in your way any more.

Have fun with it!

Hell, write a textbook. I can give you the first sentence:

"Edwin Hubble was one of the greatest astrologists of the 20th century. Of course, he called himself an astronomer, but let's face the facts: we all know that astronomers are just a subset of astrologists, since astronomy is FOUNDED UPON astrology. What is an astrologist but a meta-astronomer?"

Ought to sell well to the woo woo club at the local New Age bookstore, where it can be displayed between the patchouli and the sensitive wymynyst meditation beads.

you want to argue against a "woo" argument, even if it's never made, even if the bait is never taken, even if we agree on the facts. The history has happened the way it happened.

All the other crap you and others want to associate and attach to that -- including projected associations of your own invention -- is YOUR obsession, not mine, including the bizarre competitiveness and homicidal attitude. :toast:

Is the cognitive dissonance inside your heads so extreme that you can't accept a simple concept without it having to mean all sorts of other stuff you can't handle thinking about? :crazy:

Good luck, ya'll. :hi:

Truly fuckin weird. You call others "woo." This shit's crazy. :rofl:

99. Sure, astrologers were the first astronomers - but astronomy soon left astrology behind

because the smart ones realized that the astrology component of their star watching was fucking nonsense.

So the smart ones, with brains, stayed in astronomy.

Astrology then became rightly populated by only the braindead, the ignorant, the easily fooled, and the self-satisfied smug little shits.











That is just painfully stupid.

And since your argument "it's history" is supposed to be taken as the de facto end of all perfect proofs, I shall use your own device against you, and offer my proof as "it's history".

HAH! Now, hoisted by your own petard, you cannot refute me.

Unless you care to bring your convoluted nonsensical cypherish "Ooh, look how cleverly I force people to solve the riddles of my cryptic speech because I'm terrified (or incapable) of just stating clearly and precisely what I mean" style to an adult-level of discussion, I consider this the end.

99. Sure, astrologers were the first astronomers - but astronomy soon left astrology behind

because the smart ones realized that the astrology component of their star watching was fucking nonsense.

So the smart ones, with brains, stayed in astronomy.

Astrology then became rightly populated by only the braindead, the ignorant, the easily fooled, and the self-satisfied smug little shits.











That is just painfully stupid.

Notice how in my post, which you quoted as an example of adult-level discussion, that I make my point very clearly and unambiguously, using easy to understand syntax, and none of that cryptic bullshit you use above.

At the adult-level, the people communicating speak clearly and precisely.

They make their point so it's understandable.

That allows for the next person in the conversation to continue the conversation by either agreeing, offering a nuance, or refuting.

But, as you can see in the posts that you made, no one can do that yet, because no one understands what your real point is; and so this long struggle we've had of me (and laconicsix) trying like hell to find out what your point is and what you mean by it, to the point that I had to begin to try make statements for you in the hopes that you would catch on and say "No, I meant this..." or "That's close, but I meant it this way...". Instead, as you know, you merely keep telling me I'm wrong, accuse me of mischaracterizing you, and keep directing people back to your original obtuse, cryptic, meaningless statement.

I'm glad that you can now pinpoint what it looks like when adults communicate at an adult level.

Now, perhaps instead of quoting one of my posts, you can write one of your own in the same style, and I might finally understand just exactly what your point is!

:applause:

I'm still very curious to understand what you meant by what you said, and what your reason was for saying it. There has to be a metacontext there somewhere. I'd hate to think that you didn't have one.


If not, then we'll finish this here.

"you can write one of your own in the same style"

There ya go. :hi:

and written at an adult level.

Congratulations!!

I actually understand what it means; it has no cryptic/cipheric bullshit content; and it's clearly written.

It's a mischaracterization of my point, but at least it's clear enough that a dialogue can actually take place around it.

Now, if you could just do the same thing about your original premise that began this subthread, you will show an important and wonderful evolution in your ability to communicate.

Along with maggots. Leeches are now used in reattaching severed body parts, like ears, limbs, digits - apparently the anticoagulant they secrete encourages the patency of grafted blood vessels. They're also used to reduce bruising and swelling in trauma cases.

Maggots are effective little boogers when it comes to cleaning infected wounds. They only eat necrotic tissue, and leave the healthy stuff alone.

Of course maggots and leeches aren't going to replace antibiotics and micro-surgery any time soon, barring the total collapse of civilization. It just proves that not every ancient medical cure is without utility.

My feeling is that the same holds for astrology. In the past, babies born in winter and summer were more likely to become ill because that's when the epidemics happened - respiratory illnesses in winter, and food/water/mosquito borne disease in summer. All that has become a lot less significant now that we have immunizations, flush toilets, insecticide and sewage treatment plants. Even today, though, the season in which one is born can effect the later development of allergies.

As to the position of the moon at the hour of one's birth affecting one's personality, I think that's just silly. It only matters if you think it does.

There is something to be said for the ancient wisdom of the natural remedies.

There is also something to said for the modern stuff, too; but we (and by "we" I really mean the two generations before me) did a great disservice to humanity when they just completely dumped all natural/traditional medicinal practices in the 40s and 50s, without even giving them a test.

And, especially in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, without even giving their new stuff any actual tests.

But it does seem the medical profession, practically overnight, dumped every bit of old-school traditional medicines in favor of the new, without even bothering to find out if any of the old-school actually worked or not.

It's too bad.

Doesn't make his math any less valid. Just proves that even really intelligent people can have their blind spots.

Personally, I think astrology is silly. But I'm not going to insult the intelligence of those who believe there's something to it.

which seems weird to me. Poor old Newton didn't know about sediments, carbon-14, evolution, etc. He was afflicted with Christianity and actually took the Bible seriously, but his was a heterodox form of Christianity that would have gotten him kicked out of Cambridge if he hadn't been so secretive about it.

In middle age, he gave up science to become a bureaucrat in charge of stamping out coins. That also seems weird to me.

related and as you point out, as recently as Newton's time.

And your claim that it is so is not true . There is no physics in astrology none-wheras astronomy is All Physics . Astrology is the ultimate faith based bullshit . Your claim is like saying that religion is the basis of science because god created everything. Silly and uniformed with no logic at ALL. Once again you show your total ignorance of the scientific method

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You could make the case for mathematics as the basis for all sciences, but anti-science like astrology doesn't stack up.

because the smart ones realized that the astrology component of their star watching was fucking nonsense.

So the smart ones, with brains, stayed in astronomy.

Astrology then became rightly populated by only the braindead, the ignorant, the easily fooled, and the self-satisfied smug little shits.

The observations made of stars and planets in pre-telescopic days were largely for astrological and calendar purposes. That is, the stars were a clock and a calendar in the sky. From that and the apparently erratic movement of the planets, sudden apparitions of comets and eclipses came the idea that the positions of these things controlled what happened on the ground. Of course all this assumed a pretty limited, geocentric cosmos. These observations eventually evolved into the science of astronomy which accelerated with the invention of the telescope. Sadly, many astrologers and their customers have not heard the news and continue to cast horoscopes either fraudulently or because they think it actually works.

Like how disease was the historical basis for medicine.

The version of astrology that afflicts us can be traced back to the Chaldeans, aka neo-Babylonians, who also invented the base-sixty arithmetic by which we still measure time and angles. Their astrology was all mixed up with astronomy. The whole mess was taken over by the Greeks, the Romans, Europe, and us.

Astrology was the bread and butter of astronomers during the Renaissance. Through the sixteenth century, astronomers were expected to cast horoscopes for their patrons. That is why the king of Denmark gave an island to Tycho Brahe and made it possible for him to build his famous observatory. It was from Tycho Brahe's observations of Mars that Kepler discovered his "laws" - that planetary orbits are elliptical with the sun at one focus, and that each planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. Isaac Newton later showed that Kepler's "laws" are approximate consequences of an inverse-square-law force of gravity.

By Newton's time, astrology had been marginalized among educated people. Newtonian mechanics made it clear that the forces exerted by stars and planets on individual human beings are utterly negligible. From Newton's time until now, the practice of astrology has persisted only among scam artists and their ignorant customers. The daily newspapers are primarily responsible for recruiting new victims for the continuing scam.

And now, gotta love Newton but he was wrong about it being a pinball universe, eh?

If you're going to be arrogant, you'd better have something to be arrogant about.

Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics, but it isn't wrong. It is now viewed as a correct limiting case of a more general theory.

As far as the history of astrology is concerned, what is important is not how Newtonian science is viewed in the 21st century, but the fact that it was very influential in the 17th century.

:thumbsup:

I've asked you before and you didn't reply. What is it that ANY scientist in any of the astronomical studies would point to as something that astronomy has to be thankful for to astrology? How has astrology aided modern astronomy.

Name a single bona fide Ph.D astronomer who wouldn't laugh out loud when asked if astrology had even the SLIGHTEST bit of credibility.

I feel like a fool for even arguing about this. It's ridiculous.

I'm done with this, and you. You're either being deliberately dense or you're a fool. Either way, you've wasted my time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8684450#8685254

"what is it that astronomy owes to astrology?"

Foundation.
History.
Existence.



Astrology is the foundation for astronomy, to which it owes its existence, that is our history, deal with it.

Talk about arrogant.

Talk about arrogant.

:rofl:

Astrology was the predecessor of astronomy. Astronomy would still exist if astrology had never existed, but its history (and a few of its terms) would be different. People are capable of starting new sciences without a superstitious predecessor.

No-one in astronomy starts by learning anything about astrology. It's not the foundation now.

"Astrology was the predecessor of astronomy."

Foundation, predecessor, at least we've made some headway here.

"Astronomy would still exist if astrology had never existed, but its history (and a few of its terms) would be different."

Well if scientists want to assert that hypothesis, all right, but that's not how it DID happen. Can't change past tense. :think:

"People are capable of starting new sciences without a superstitious predecessor."

Okay, except they DIDN'T in this case and the "superstition" was the science of the time as it developed fundamentals for what became astronomy.

"No-one in astronomy starts by learning anything about astrology. It's not the foundation now."

It is and will always be the historic foundation, which is all I said.

You seem to be aware of that fact.

"Astrology is the foundation for astronomy, to which it owes its existence, that is our history, deal with it."



And if we live in a fact based world of honest discernment, there are surely some people interested in any and/or all disciplines associated with the magnificence of the "heavens." Not everyone needs a rigid worldview exclusive of the interconnectedness that science has proven. Not everyone needs to reject interdisciplinary ideas.

n/t

:spray: no wait, such an absolute statement is proof in itself!! well done :toast:

My mother was into it while I was growing up---it's BULLSHIT but as one of DUs most notorious anti-science posters your belief is not a aurprise

Believing stars guide our lives is as silly to me as believing that, say, Jesus guides our lives or my waffle guides my life. Well, okay, my waffle is highly intelligent and has given me good advice in the past, but, still, I gotta take what it says with a grain of salt or a drop of syrup, as the case may be.

The future says, "I'm going to have a delicious meal."

despite the best efforts of the naysayers here. Suck it.

:evilgrin:

So that means god exists right? What a stupid argument...

I believe there is something else going on that can't be
detected by our senses and scientific instruments.

Carl Sagan had his own take on astrology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iunr4B4wfDA

Carl Sagan was a smart guy. What he said about astrology makes a lot of sense.

By the way, the days of the week are named after what the ancients viewed as planets, because they thought each hour of each day was controlled by a planet. Furthermore, the proper order of the planets (for them) was related to the order of the days of the week. Start with Saturday, go back two days to Thursday, go back another two days to Tuesday, etc. Think of the names of the days in Romance languages as well as Germanic languages. Recall the convergence of Greek, Roman and Norse mythologies. This is what you get:

Saturn - Saturday
Jupiter - Donnerstag (in German)= day of thunder = Thor's day = Thursday
Mars - Tuesday = Mardi (in French)
Sun - Sunday
Venus - Friday = Friga's day = Vendredi (in French)
Mercury - Wednesday = Woden's day = Mercredi (in French)
Moon - Monday

To summarize: the names of the days of the week, and their order, are thoroughly astrological. The ancient order starts out reasonably enough, but then it gets confusing for those of us who think Copernicus was right.

(This is only a historical observation, not an argument for the validity of the practice of astrology.)

'Jupiter', in Latin, is a strange noun - the nominative is 'Jupiter' (the '-piter' is derived from 'pater', father), but the accusative, genitive etc. are 'Jovem', 'Jovis' etc.

Strange indeed. I suspect Iuppiter and Iovis were originally different nouns that became identified, just as Zeus became identified with the chief Roman god. I asked my Latin teacher about this, but he didn't know.

I have some snake oil to sell to you. ;) :)

That should tell you a lot right there.

that scientists were theorizing that what kinds of produce were traditionally available at certain times of the year could have an effect on the development of the fetus and that certain traits, such as shyness or aggression, could be affected by the kind of nutrition available at different times of year. It doesn't seem entirely outside of the realm of possibility (but would be much less noticeable today because so many kinds of fruits and vegetables are available year round.)

I don't think astrology can predict the future and I wouldn't lay bets on a person born in Sagittarius actually having a Sagittarian personality, but I also think we're just starting to scratch the surface of research into the development of personality and it seems logical to me that what kinds of nutrients are available when in a fetus's/child's development could have an observable impact on their personality.

So I'd say astrology is 99% hooey but may possibly have some roots in observable phenomena.

The poster commented that astrology is a useful psychological tool for him and he didn't "believe" in it any more than any other useful tool or sum such.

....and of course it has roots in "observable phenomena."

It's not real, but it's fun to play along.

it can only be used to extrapolate flawed conclusions from a flawed starting premise.

You can believe whatever floats your boat, however. There are always people there to take the money of the gullible.

In my opinion, there's a lot of wisdom available through astrology.

For the record, there's a lot more to it than just looking at one's sun sign and making blanket generalizations.

It's not the end-all-be-all, but in my opinion just another tool for self-knowledge and discovery.

Howz that workin' out for us?

Furthermore, I believe she had an in-house astrologer. Our tax dollars being put to good use, once again.

But just because they are interested in something doesn't mean that particular something is valid, true, or real.

Prof. Joe Blow at University X studying greek myths doesn't mean that Zeus really exists, or that Prof. Blow thinks that Zeus exists.

It's not what you study, it's how and why you study it that matters.

The EM fluctuations caused by sunspots may affect our behavior here on earth. So if you consider that astrology, and if it turns out to be valid, then yeah astrology merits investigation.


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5590/


A growing number of scientists, health care professionals, and concerned citizens argue that these invisible frequencies are responsible for a host of various health problems. Meanwhile, the largest polluter has gone unnoticed: the sun. At certain times, the sun’s activity can also aggravate mental health problems.

Every 10–11 years, the number of sunspots found on our closest star rise from 0 (as it is currently in 2008) to a high of over 400. While the sunspots themselves don’t affect Earth, the solar flares and other disturbances emanating from our sun during increased sunspot activity result in an increased number of particles (electrons and protons) and harmful light radiation (ultraviolet and x-rays), known as solar wind. If it weren’t for Earth’s protective magnetic field and atmosphere, this bombardment of particles would burn us to a crisp!

Fortunately, our planet’s magnetic field diverts most particles into a circular path around the Earth. Like weather patterns found on Earth, solar wind patterns can change rapidly. Luckily, our planet’s magnetosphere quickly responds to the threat and absorbs the impact, wiggling and jiggling in the process. Geophysicists call this reaction a geomagnetic storm, but because of how it disrupts the Earth’s magnetic field, it could also be called electromagnetic pollution.

These storms, although minute, affect brain waves and hormone levels, causing a number of different reactions, predominately in males. While a few women may also experience changes during these storms, they generally seem less affected by the sun’s behavior.

Reacting to changing hormone levels, some men may become increasingly irritable and aggressive, while others may instead become more creative. An increase in solar activity is found to increase psychotic episodes in individuals who already suffer from unstable psychological states. While we might relate such behavior to a full moon, in 1963, Dr. Robert Becker and his colleague, Dr. Freedman, demonstrated that solar changes also lead to a noticeable increase in psychotic activity.

Yet these reactions are not simply isolated to a few particularly sensitive or unlucky individuals. Evidence indicates that wars and international conflicts most often break out when sunspots are rapidly forming or rapidly decaying, as these are times when there are more intense geomagnetic storms.

In addition, this increase in solar activity also correlates to periods of more accidents and illness, as well as an increase of crimes and murders. The entire biosphere is affected by this electromagnetic pollution, and human behavior seems to react accordingly...............In the 1930s, Professor Raymond Wheeler, a historian at the University of Kansas, took this observation one step further. His research afforded numerical rankings to the severity of individual battles correlating to solar cycles.

His data was statistically analyzed by Edward Dewey, who validated the existence of these war cycles. Yet he was unable to make a definite connection with sunspot cycles because the data at that time was insufficient. In the 1980s, with a more detailed analysis of Wheeler’s data, the connection became clear.

Upon close examination of the data, a pattern begins to emerge wherein wars are most likely to start in key points of the sunspot cycle. This is when the geomagnetic activity is changing most rapidly on the upsurge of solar activity, or the downward part of the cycle, when sunspots are rapidly diminishing. In addition we can also see how this affects physiological mechanisms, such as altered brain rhythms and abnormal hormonal levels. In other words, wars are a kind of mass psychosis. ‘War Fever’ is real.

With this in mind, should we view warring behavior as a type of disease? Are the related socio-political or economic factors as much a symptom of solar cycles as the battles they appear to create? And if the data on sunspot cycles points to an impending crisis, how can we best use this knowledge?

When we see the connection to physical mechanisms (electromagnetic pollution), this gives us some predictive insight for when increased aggressions were apt to start. Calculations indicate that we’re due to see another rise in intense solar activity in about two years: September 22, 2010.

I wonder why there isn't tons of (or for that matter, any) scientific research proving astrological assertions?

and I really think it is crapola...

I was in Florida at the time ( SHOCKER....regain your composure, everyone )working in a Walgreens Liquor Store. This lady walks in, buys her bottle of vodka ( I think it was vodka ) and starts talking to my co-worker about astrology and what she read in her horoscope that day. He states that he doesn't follow that stuff, and she tries to talk him into it...amazingly. At some point, it is clear she has had enough of him because I am ringing up her purchase....the following conversation ensues:

Her- "Obviously he's not into it...whats your birthdate?"
Me- August 25th
Her- "Ohhhhh... a Virgo!!!! So that means you are a very tidy person ( snicker ) and very organized and have your own way of going about things...you don't want anyone to change the way you do things, do you?"
Me- actually, I'm a bit messy....I leave dishes around sometimes and my room is a complete mess
Her- ( I SHIT YOU NOT ) "Well..it is YOUR mess, but that's how you like it! Everything is yours..and you have control over it! thats what I'm saying...Virgos are very detail oriented and very possessive and also don't like change.
Me- well, I like change...I just haven't gotten around to cleaning up my place lately
Her- "I guess you think this is BS too?"
Me-yeah...I do, because someones horoscope could read differently in any newspaper anywhere in the country, and you do realize this is all for fun...I hope you don't really take this seriously, do you"?
Her-"HUH........." shakes her head and walks out

Here is a person who truly believed in her stupid horoscopes that she thought she could tell me something about myself I didn't know already, but she decided to stop at a certain point...maybe she knew I "was" bullshitting her and decided to leave....good!!!!


This is nothing but a fucking game, and if you take it as anything more than that you need some serious help.....SERIOUS-FUCKING-ATTENTION

When contemplating the supernatural, there is a typical issue. It is beyond comprehension. So many times systems are tried to be created to explain it, but they do not have the breadth to encompass it, so they create a structure of rituals to try and make it fit. Rituals have two purposes, first if things do not go right, someone can say the ritual was done wrong. Second, the more a thing requires interpretation, the more the spiritual thoughts can push the thoughts one way or another. (although this tends on what kind of spirit is around.)

(To be fair, a ritual can also be a primer of pattern that can get a person in a certain frame of mind. So it can be used to help calm thought or reflect. For instance meditation techniques could be called a ritual.)



Describe a three dimensional object with words, if it has never been seen before, the one dimensional attempt of doing it with words, is difficult and rarely complete. Just like in a 2d picture of a 4d or 5d object, straight lines bend, and connections that exist can not be seen.

It seems the supernatural is pressing 9,10,11,12 or even more dimensions down into, for some 3 dimensions, some 4d, and for some the added dimensions of reason, faith, and perspective. But still we can not always see the mechanical methods, only the end results.

So when it seems the spoon is bending, it may be actually still be straight in a more complex view of things.

So is astrology correct? I don't follow it, only because it opens up the possibility of spirit interaction by increase of interpretation. It tries to get you to over interpret, which is just a mirror(that includes your spirit, and possibly a spirit already caried in the message.), and although I don't mind mirrors, I like finding my own mirrors to examine my actions, heart, and possibilities.

For me those are the ones that I find have a big kick of love, honor, integrity, and kindness behind them, the better words, songs, and pictures in the world.

:shrug: buts its just my opinion on it.

I don't really buy into it myself but I'm a cynical beyotch

i assume whether or not one believes in it depends on whether they are theists who believe in predetermination. however i find it very amusing how people here will defend ones right to believe in god while laughing at those who believe in astrology.

The Believers are consistently the nuts and the flakes.

The sort of astrology one reads on the comics page is nonsense. To get anything to it, one must delve a wee bit deeper than just sun signs, to ascendants, etc.

Fantastic!

:rofl:

Spot on, baby!

coincidence? I don't think so.

Or is it just me?

For example, everyone born in 1956 is exactly the same!

may be a link between time of birth/ birth place and behavior. Something about the amount of sunlight the mother was exposed to during pregnancy influencing the makeup of the fetus' brain so that certain behavioral patterns were discovered within groups born under a particular "sign". I'll try to dig up the article.

that when we are sick in fortune -- often the surfeits of our own behavior -- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence. An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star!