Astrology IS a Load of Rubbish
by endlesspsych
By Keir Liddle
Prof. Brian Cox, presenter of numerous Horizon documentaries, and the excellent Wonders Of The Solar System, has recently come under fire for stating the obvious: Cox rightly proclaimed astrology to be a “load of rubbish”. Unfortunately, this appears to have upset quite a few people who seem to hold on to the idea that astrology is a valid science.
The belief that the planets, stars and other heavenly bodies can have a “profound influence on our planet” is not all that wild a claim (any astronomers out there will likely be able to clarify). However, surely astrology relies on these heavenly bodies having a profound influence on us? Now, this is a wild claim, and one which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
There are known to be four forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The latter two work on the subatomic level, so we can ignore them with respect to this argument. That leaves us with two forces with which the heavens can influence us: gravity and electromagnetic force.
The electrical charge of most of the planets is negligible. Venus, Mars and Pluto (although Pluto is now a dwarf planet, it is included here for tradition’s sake) have no magnetic field, and Mercury has only 1/1000th of the Earth’s field. Only gas giant Jupiter can hold its own against the Sun, with a field 20,000 times stronger than Earth’s, overtaking Saturn at 500 times stronger, Uranus at 50 times stronger, and Neptune at 30 times stronger. How much influence could these planets exert on us?
Well, the farther away a planet is from the Earth, the weaker the strength of its influence on the Earth. Magnetic field falls rapidly – it is inversely proportional to the square of the planet’s distance from Earth. These planets are so far away from us that any influence their magnetic fields might have is countered by the influence of the Earth’s own magnetic field. Indeed, their effects are entirely negligible. The same is true of the effects of the gravity of the other planets: almost all the effects are less than 1 billionth of the effects of Earth’s gravity.
In terms of forces that might influence human beings, the Earth influences us a lot, lot more than distant planets, and other bodies in space have the capacity to. The electromagnetic force of an electric razor influences you 16 million times more than that of Jupiter when you are shaving and if you Stand next to a 80,000 lb truck it exerts a gravitational influence on you 300 times more than Mars.
Astrologers may try to convince us that they produce birth charts, and predictions that are accurate. In reality, astrology has failed rational scientific test applied to it. People may think their predictions are accurate in much the same way that they might assume that psychics can communicate with long dead loved ones: we are biased towards noticing the hits and ignoring the misses. We read a horoscope and notice the bits that might apply to us. Later on, we may associate what’s in the horoscope with events we have experienced, ignoring the parts that didn’t come true. There is perhaps a degree of self-fulfilling prophecy in this.
Horoscopes can also be convincing if they are composed of Barnum statements (also known as the Forer effect): statements that are vague enough to apply to anyone, but appear individualised and specific.
In 1948, psychologist Bertram R. Forer gave a “personality test” to his students. Afterward, he informed them that they were each receiving, based on the test’s results, a unique personality analysis. He then asked them to rate this on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) on how well it applied. In reality, each had received the same analysis:
“ You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life. ”
On average, the rating was 4.26, but only after the ratings were turned in was it revealed that each student had received identical copies assembled by Forer from various horoscopes. As can be seen from the profile, there are a number of statements that could apply equally to anyone.
These statements later became known as Barnum statements after P.T. Barnum, who used them in his performances, allegedly stating “there’s a sucker born every minute”. This, if he had said it, would be reference to the fact that Barnum statements can gull people into thinking that they have been accurately assessed by the speaker or test, when in fact, the outcome could apply to anyone.
I think the astrologers owe Professor Cox an apology, and should perhaps admit that they have been rather starstruck.
and your electron microscope 
Dear Keir Liddle
I am only inclined to take at all seriously any opinion expressed of any body of knowledge, where the commenter is thoroughly familiar with the basic concepts of that particular body of knowledge, and has put its concepts into practice in order to test out empirically whether they work or not.
Would you have any respect for my opinion regarding the value of physics if I had never studied or practised within that model? I think not.
Working on the same principle, I think that those who dismiss the six thousand year old art and science of astrology without either basic knowledge of the model, or ever having attempted to put its complex principles into practice, do not hold an opinion which is worth respecting in any way. I suspect that this is the case with Professor Cox and his fellow detractors of astrology. Without their knowing, or practising its basic principles, their criticism is worthless.
I suspect that Professor Cox and his fellow detractors consider astrology to be ‘rubbish’ on the basis of what they have seen in the popular sun sign columns. If this is the case, it shows how little they have investigated what depth may lie behind the essential triviality of popular astrology.
Humility in the face of one’s own ignorance is something we should all cultivate…….if we did, the world might be a less polarised and more tolerant place in which to live.
Sincerely
Anne Whitaker
ps I think Professor Cox is a wonderfully inspiring scientist and I have loved watching his programmes.
Worst apology ever.
It’s interesting that Prof. Brian Cox can seemingly only be criticised with some form of “his science programs are generally alright” disclaimer.
Fear of losing a popularty contest perhaps?
Anyway I digress. Thank you for your very formal reply: if you believe astrology isn’t rubbish and can prove it why not contact the James Randi Educational foundation and take up their challenge:http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html ?
Alternatively feel free to base a case for why and how astrology works here for our critique.
It’s a shame you don’t understand physics as you might then realise that astrology IS rubbish.
A further thought occurs, although no doubt you saw this coming ;), without The knowledge needed to understand physics (and one might add psychology – well understand the science of psychology as oppossed to the folk practice thereof enshrined in astrology) how can you so glibbly and easily dismiss the above critique.
Surely you are in a catch 22 situation where your lack of understanding makes it impossible for you to actually be able to disregard the facts above?
Keir, you clearly don’t understand that when you read a phrase such as “you are about to embark on an exciting journey” in the Metro, whether taken literally or metaphorically, there’s a whole wealth of complex knowledge behind that vague banal remark which you just don’t ‘get’! Astrology IS six thousand years old after all, which should be proof enough to convince anyone.
Barnum statement indeed!
Take the James Randi challenge indeed!
Your lucky colour this week is AQUAMARINE.
So Anne,
How exactly do the planets impact and affect us? By what mechanism does this occur. Have you taken into account the tilt in the earth axis putting constellations out by about 23 degrees to what they would have been when astrology started.
Like many believers in supernatural and paranormal areas you are making a jump, an assumption. Unless you can show that planetary bodies do indeed have a profound physical impact on us and our lives then you cannot possibly claim astrology is legitimate.
So, please present this evidence. The following does not count by the way.
Personal anecdotes
Anecdotes of direct “hits” when reading
Basically anything that is simply an opinion.
We are more than willing to accept astrology works. But you need to present the evidence to support it. Any readings can be chalked up to coincidence and basic psychology through the use of Barnum Statements.
What evidence is there that the planets affect us and by what mechanism would this occur.
Although, she’s quite right to point out that without study of Astrology one cannot fairly dispute it. Consider this tale (paraphrased from PZ Myers):
“I have considered the impudent accusations with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; he cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
He arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”
Ah, glad someone brought up the courtier’s reply.
http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=double+blind+test+astrology
(if you can’t get at the nature paper, here’s a summary: http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm )
Dear all,
I am gratified that my mild general statement to the effect that, in order to establish credibility in commenting on ANY body of knowledge, one should know something credible about it, should have prodded such an immediate and at times less than mild response!
Regards
Anne W
While it is pleasing you are gratified Anne have you any intention of supplying an actual defence of astrology as a body of knowledge/system of prediction?
One does not require an advanced knowledge of the workings of nonsense to know that it is nonsense. One can plainly see it is nonsense with a basic understanding of how physics or psychology works.
Or more succinctly it is impossible to know anything credible about astology because there is nothing credible about it.
Of course feel free to mount and attempt to prove us wrong rather than cast yourself as some sort of “martyr”: although I suspect the reason you have choosen to reply in the manner above simply indicates what we can probably already take for granted.
You have no answer to our criticisms and are therefore happy to simply repeat your primary assertion: which was based on a false premise.
If you ever had any intention of engaging in debate by commenting then you would produce evidence to back up the notions that:
Astrology works and is credible
and
that as it works I (as author of the article) am lacking in some form of knowledge that demonstrates this.
I am of course lacking in the knowledge that astrology is at all credible because it isn’t.
If I have the time n date of birth etc for my monkey can you do a reading for him?
If planets affect the earth in some mystical way to say it only affects humans would be direct proof it’s ego talking.
Perhaps Anne has a different epistemological framework than yours..maybe recognising that would be more fruitful than bashing her over the head with that used in the natural sciences. I dont believe she claimed it was a science (which, by the way, I’m not entirely sure psychology is…isn’t it frequently housed in Humanities Departments?).
Hello Anne,
Maybe rather than rubbishing what Brian Cox had to say, you could try countering his arguments. Maybe put forward some positive evidence for the efficacy of Astrology seeing as you claim it has some?
You are making the claim that astrology works. Please, back up this claim with your evidence rather than just criticising and not actually contributing anything to the conversation.
@notanastrologer
Psychology is not, and has never been, housed in the humanities depts.
Psychology is a broad church that encompasses the science of studying behaviour and cognition and more social science endeavours.
As regards a “different epistemological framework” she may well have but I refer you to the title of the site and the Sokal quote from which it is drawn. Lest we end up in some sort of intellectual circle jerk discussing the realtive (pardon me) merits or not of relativism and “making shit up” as an alternative epistomological framework to the scientific method.
Hi Anne,
I think your analogy fails because one does not need to be an expert in leprechauns to know/state that leprechauns don’t exist.
We do not all individually need to study the history and culture of leprechauns before we can make a claim about their existence.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something DOES exist/work. Until he or she shows evidence of its existence and/or validity, I think it’s more than fair to dismiss it.
Professor Cox shouldn’t have to justify himself to charlatans like this. They are the ones making miraculous predictions, they should provide the miraculous proof.
I meant Psychology departments housed in Humanities faculties, which of course many are.
Regarding the rest of your answer, I am not a full-on constructionist (as you seem to suggest?) but dont feel the need to be defensive about the fact that people who are not ingrained in the scientific method develop their views from a range of information sources, not just ‘acceptable’ peer-reviewed literature. I was attempting to suggest an astrologer might like to explain why they believe their art is valid, which is perhaps more likely to engender a response than bringing monkeys and leprechauns into it.
You might not like it but thats how it is and that’s the majority of people. But then I guess your site is for sympathetic thinkers not to win people over (but if this is the case whats the point of the article in the first place?)
Not an astrologer: I question nothing you have written about people choosing a range of information sources and perhaps that people might want to explain their believe in their art is valid.
However how do they ascribe validity without recourse to a systematic, rigourous and robust method of deriving knowledge and arriving at conclusions? Are we to assume that all sources of information are equal?
To my mind an astrologer explaining why their belief in their art in valid is not much more than indulging someones odd little belief system. It tells us absolutely nothing about the actual validity of the truth of astrology.
To put it another way: People thinking something works is not proof that it works it is proof that people think it works.
or
People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
In the case of astology arguing for a “different epistomology” is not much more than a cute bit of intellectual masterbation. However if this were applied to an area where serious outcomes were likely than, say Cancer treatment or AIDs, than arguing for such a thing becomes less the frivolous intellectual nonsense it is and truly, truly terrifying.
EDIT: Slightly tangental at the end, perhaps a bit close to breaking some sort of Godwin-eqsue law to point out the value of “different epistomologies” but never mind.
Anne, it’s nice to see that you find yourself easily gratified; however, you haven’t actually presented any valid argument for your claims, other than, of course, the Argument from Authority. Your response essentially amounted to claiming that a “body of knowledge” was involved and therefore claims that astrology is valid should be taken at your word- by virtue of the mere fact that we are not astrologers. This is equal parts preposterous and pompous, no matter how ‘mildly’ you might’ve tried to word it.
Quite simply, if there’s such a body of knowledge behind you, would you care to actually give some concrete examples of this? Note that actual scientists quite often do communicate with the public about their research findings even if complexities might be involved, and it’s not generally deemed good form for them to blurt out “I’m an expert, you’re not” and leave it at that.
Moreover, as has already been pointed out, since all our current well-established scientific knowledge of the universe suggests no reason why astrology would work, the article is perfectly justified in questioning it, unless you can provide convincing evidence to back up your claims, in which case, as Keir says, Randi’s one million dollar prize would also be available to you.
@notanastrologer
When you say “different epistemological framework” I can’t help but read the word ‘different’ in the same tone that one might reluctantly mutter the word ‘interesting’ when their drunken uncle corners them at a wedding reception to bombard them with thoroughly unenlightened views, so as to get him to finally shut up.
That caveat is simply being used as an excuse to allow for the making of extraordinary claims, without accountability on the substance of those claims- or rather, the lack thereof.
Anne may not have explicitly claimed astrology was a science, but as the article centers on that issue her reply is clearly taken in that context. Also, if it’s not being put forward as a science, then might I ask: what is it being touted as? It claims to make real world predictions about people’s lives based on their ‘birth charts’, after all. These are factual claims. What might it be alternatively intended as: performance art?
On this: “…develop their views from a range of information sources, not just ‘acceptable’ peer-reviewed literature”
I like your use of quotation marks around acceptable there. Attempting to put conjectured opinion on equal footing with peer-reviewed, rigorously tested scientific findings? The fact that an astrologer’s views might be drawn from a ‘range of information sources’ says nothing about the veracity of that information. Not one jot.
Regarding proving validity – exactly!! Who knows? I just think its a question for them to answer rather than what looks like the science base laying down the rules and telling people to justify themselves in someone else’s terms then slapping each other on the back when astrologers/homeopaths/xxxx inevitably fail because they dont have the resources, training, language etc. Yes its a slower process but I do worry alot that these types of debates, which are crucial, polarise people because you have this wall of ‘professional science’ and everyone who isnt on your side is deluded and/or thick.
On more crucial issues, youre right – this is absolutely where the meat is. There is a body of work on the role of ‘lay knowledge’ including (interesting, given your examples) Epstein on AIDS activists – how they made themselves credible in the professional arena despite not having knowedge that would not pass your test of validity.
@ Dario …
actually the quotation marks around acceptable were intended to communicate that there is peer-review and peer-review. The Sokal paper was itself peer-reviewed, and it was the editor of the BMJ who said you can get anything published if you tout it round widely enough 🙂
And Anne described it as an ‘art/science’ – she has not elaborated further.
The Sokal paper was peer reviewed by the kind of folks who make the kind of arguments you are making 😉
@notanastrologer
Regarding proving validity: feel free build a convincing case for why science is not the best way we have of understanding the world and why people who believe in things science has disproved or explained deserve some form of special treatment when it comes to this.
Regarding training/resources/language (?) that is irrelevant what is relevant is that these things have been tested by science and don’t work. No amount of training or resources or missappropriation of the “language of science and research” will make these things work or valid. It merely generates pseudo-science.
As you have presented it as a crucial issue please also highlight why and how Epstiens work on AIDS activists somehow means the science behind AIDs is invalid. Otherwise I think you leave yourself open to accussations of misrepresenting or misunderstanding the research. Or worse attempting obsfusication.
What is crucial to this discussion is an explanation of how you justify equalising science and psuedoscience and misunderstand the key issue: which is these things do not work not that people just don’t have the toolkit to show they work.
Ooooh that’s low.
At no point have I said that science is not the best way of understanding the natural world and I certainly did not say that Epstein’s work showed the science behind AIDS was invalid. I dont even know how you can have inferred that, perhaps you can enlighten me. I also didnt equate science with pseudoscience (whatever you mean by that).
My posts have been about the *process* of proof and of effectively reaching out to people who don’t share the skeptic’s views.
The fact of this matter I feel here lies in, there are clear and indisputable facts/forces, these can not be denied as they govern our life through the world of physics. People like facts. Tangible testable evidence.
The crux of what is needed in understanding and is needed to help the credibility of Astrology is how does it effect us. What manner of force does it govern or understand that is being inflicted on the body/mind?
Is this a measurable and calculable force yet to be uncovered? Or a matter of the mind still science has yet to uncover the mystery of and has not been able to quantize.
Such as a Sociological or Psychological phenomenon.
Well I apologise if I misunderstood your line of argument.
But your posts have made reference to “different epistimologies” and the following
Further suggested you were advancing some form of equivalency. The science base “laying down rules” also raised eyebrows in the context it was presented. As did the implication that people can be “ingrained” in science.
Reading on regarding the Epstein remark if read seperatly from the context of the rest of the post it makes sense as you state above. However if read in the context of the whole post it does lend itself to my interpretation.
If your point is one of engagement than it could have been far, far better made than it has been.
Tomorrow is going to be a big day – I’ve been waiting all my life for it.
According to predictions based on my birth chart – formulated by the little known and much maligned field of Transcendental Astrology – tomorrow will be the day that all astrologers around the world see the error of their ways and acknowledge that they have been talking out of their arses for a substantial part of their lives.
I can’t wait to see if that prediction comes true!
And before anyone of you naysayers starts attacking me for my belief in Trascendental Astrology, I’ll have you know that it’s an ancient art that goes way back to before your so-called “science”, and which is imbued with the wisdom of the Celestial Spheres, whose music is known (by the chosen few) to be none other than divide tinnitus of the gods.
So there.
Right, that’s it.
Unbelievers – I am going to fuck up all your shit just as soon as Cancer is in Uranus.
Of couse, that ought to be “divine tinnitus”.
Silly me. I ought to have noticed how stupid that first phrase would have read!
Does invoking a sort of mind/body dualism (as you seem to above) imply you don’t hold that the mind is the product of the physical brain?
Again seeking clarification what do you mean by a “matter of the mind” or indeed by “the mind” itself.
If astrology were found to operate by a sociological or psychological phenomenon it wouldn’t be a mystery – so I am somewhat confused by that statement. What arguement or position is that advancing?
(BTW the article covers some of the psychological phenomenon that play a part in astrology)
Just checking you see, in case there are later misunderstandings that can be avoided by making sure everyone is on the same page.
Is nobody going to pick Anne up on her assertion that astrology is 6,000 years old?
No? Ok then. Anne, fancy providing evidence that astrology is 6,000 years old (that would be as old as, say, writing)?
@Endless Psych
Thankyou… I would have though ‘different epistemologies’ would by definition veer away from equivalence. The science base most certainly does lay down its rules and people can most definitely be ingrained in science – is there anything contentious about either of those statements?
I did ask in my second post who the article was aimed at and why…… does it matter that I did not explicitly use the word engagement? Would that have prompted a different response?
Well the mention of different epistemologies implies that there are different epistemologies that can be valid: which is often a gambit used to put science and nonsense on an equal footing. Or at least that is how I have most commonly encountered it. If it isn’t then why mention it in terms of “different epistolemogies” anyway? It does strongly suggest embarking upon some form of false equivalence or imbuing other “ways of knowing” with more validity than they deserve.
As for ingrained in science: depends what you mean by that. The statement comes across as a lazy attack on scientists and reinforces the idea that these different epsitemologies are somehow valid (which in turn builds upon the idea of some sort of equivalence (at the least in a not-nonsense way) for these alternatives. It implies a degree of close-mindedness or a dogmatism that isn’t true of science (but may be an accussation that can be levelled at some scientists – then again that is preciselcy hwy the scientific method arose).
If you had used the word engagement or made the point clearer the discussion would have been a lot shorter. My initial response would probably have been the same however.
I don’t see the value in entertaining someone elses system of disproven nonsense as valid.
I don’t see the problem. It’s a well known fact that astrology is 6,000 years old. If you need proof, may I reference Anne Whitaker who mentioned it just eight hours ago.
Perhaps less well known is the fact that Santa Claus was one of the Celestial Gods who founded Transcendental Astrology 60,000 years ago – predating modern astrology by 54,000 years, give or take a few days, which can of course make all the difference (and a fact much disputed by so-called “scientists” who crassly claim Santa was invented by Coke in the 1930’s).
Thirty-six minutes into “the big day”. No sign of any astrological remissions yet, but it’s early hours yet….
I’ve never heard that Santa was invented by Coke in the 1930’s. I have substantial proof that Coke changed Santa’s, as then, well known colour of choice from green to red so that it would mirror their own colour of choice – which subsequently became known as the traditional colour for Santa.
I’ve also never had a scientist correct me on this well known truth, crassly or otherwise. However, I do also accept that certain well known scientists were initially mocked for their ideas, and I sometimes think that “modern” science needs to remember that fact as it can sometimes come across preachy (yes, I’m aware of the subtle joke there) about ideas which challenge the accepted “truth”. There are closed minded people on both sides of the argument. Having said that, astrology has been widely researched over hundreds of years with no “scientific” proof that it is anything other that false.
So, my non-biased, impartial opinion is that astrology was born from people recognising celestial bodies, naming them, charting universal gravitational effects on the planet and teaching people to read these signs to better understand seasonal changes on our planet. Then it all got a bit fantastical as the teaching method anthropomorphised these celestial patterns to help keep people interested in the stories – and spread some tales about gods at the same time. I don’t believe that the position of Uranus will alter the life of a child born when it (Uranus, that is) is in a certain part of the sky, and I’ve never seen any proof of it. The fact that many smaller celestial bodies, close to our planet, were completely unknown to astrologers throughout most of astrologies history also tells me that either some celestial bodies have an effect, while some have none at all, or that it’s more likely astrology doesn’t work. Anne, perhaps you can tell me how your life changes when a comet which is only near Earth every 5000 years is in Uranus. If at all.
Sorry if that sounds crass. But seriously, if 15 comets arrived in our solar system next year which only pass through it every 100,000 years (pre-dating all astrology by a long time), would astrology have to change to accommodate them? Does astrology pay heed to the stars which have burned out but are still visible to us? What about an undiscovered black hole? The Earth’s slightly altered orbit since 10,000 years ago? If astrology really was a science then it would have to account for all these things. Hell, an astrological anomaly could help pinpoint some celestial bodies that we have no awareness of. Instead, it is happy to apply the same rules to our expanded knowledge of the universe as it did to the universe as we understood it in the middle ages and before.
Want a crappy analogy? Astrology used to be like a kid with 3 Lego blocks. Sure they’ll have fun, but there are only a finite number of combinations they can come up with. Astrology, thanks to scientific advances, has now been given 47 billion extra Lego pieces, but refuses to make any shapes that weren’t possible with the original 3 Lego blocks. I was more a fan of bouncy balls to be honest, carried them everywhere. People always knew it was me approaching when they heard the sound of my ball bag.
The thing about astrology that always gets me thinking is… lunar months… it’s based on lunar months. So what happened to the “13th sign” it used to be taken into account in ancient times (by the way although I am a scientist/engineer, I do like to know the “devils tunes” so have read extensively around the whole subject of belief, religeon & superstition) then by the time of the “astrological revival” in the late 19th century, it had mysteriously disappeared; so that the remaining signs would “conveniently” fit in with the 12 calendar months.
Similarly, what about the near earth objects?, our “extra” moons; though small, are much closer than the planets Neptune & Uranus but for some reason appear to have no effect upon our earthly existance ! Curious ! But then of course we hadn’t observed them until a few years ago… perhaps a few “back-calculations” could tie in with a few of the more mysterious (don’t actually appear to have happened yet) quatrains of Nostradamus ? Feel free to use that one guys !
Thanks for that Gill. Joking aside, that’s about as fair and well reasoned a summary of this situation that I’ve seen.
There is no denying that relatively close, very large, blobs of matter (the sun and moon) have a powerful physical effect on our oceans, but that’s a long way from astrology’s claim that the relative position of all matter in the sky (and therefore the universe?) at the moment of a person’s birth will imprint some kind of predestiny upon the course of that person’s life.
For what it’s worth, I suspect your view that astrology is a product of fantastical exaduration, can be extended to cover religion in general. It seems to me, religion is built on a foundation of superstition which has been escalated and manipulated over the centuries. My crappy example:
A tribe are terrified that they are about to starve to death due to drought. To keep his listless people occupied, the tribal leader gets them to do a rain-dance. It rains. Is it coincidence, or did the dance cause the rain?
The following year, drought again threatens the tribe. They do the rain-dance. Nothing happens. The tribe question their leader’s power and wisdom. Their leader turns the tables by claiming the tribe itself is at fault – they must do a bigger and better rain-dance to please the gods. They do a bigger dance. It rains. Clearly the tribal leader knows what he’s talking about when it comes to gods!
Year upon year, the droughts keep on coming, and the rain-dances become increasingly extravagant. Eventually they even do the rain-dance when there is no drought – on those occasions they can do it to give thanks to the gods for the rain.
The whole thing becomes ritualised – part of their “culture”. They do a rain-dance every year, because it is self-evident that it works. Such knowledge has been handed down as ancient wisdom. Nobody dares to test what would happen if no rain-dance took place, because to do so would risk catastrophy.
I think the really big linguistic conjuring trick associated with astrology (and religion generally) is the claim that there are many types of knowledge, and that scientific knowledge is just one of many, which are all just as valid as each other. I recently saw some holy man on the telly stating the parallel existence of scientific, moral, and religious truths. And there lies the deception.
To me, it seems fair to say that scientific truth and moral truth may coexist, because morality does not require the laws of physics to be violated. Similar cannot be said of scientific truth and astrological “truth”. Astrology requires the laws of physics to be warped. It requires mathematical equations which have been shown to hold true under scientific observation of the universe – such as E = mc(squared) – must no longer hold true. Even if it requires no more than loading the quantum dice, it still requires distortion of physical laws.
Is it simply that such warping of the current laws of physics are yet to be discovered? Maybe. But in the absence of any evidence that the physical universe operates according to astrological predictions (if they indeed exist in any quantifiable form), it’s hard to see why we might expect it to exist. It’s like saying: leprachauns do exist, and it’s just a matter of time until someone discovers them.
Could it be that some kind of astrological influence represents a new force of nature? Afterall, nobody knew of the existence of radio waves or x-rays until recent history. The diffence is that Electromagnetic Radiation was discovered by scientific observation and deduction. I have yet to see any evidence that astrology actually does anything (other than fill people’s minds with empty platitudes).
Come to think of it, what exactly does astrology claim to do?
(13.5 hours into The Big Day, and as yet no sign of the Transcandental Astrology prediction that today all Astrologers will renounce their beliefs. I still have faith that it will happen before the end of today.)
These questions of superstition / religion are something quite close to my heart / brain. My feelings on the subject are pretty much summed up in the following music video:
One does not need to be an expert on astrology to show that it doesn’t work, any more than you need to be an expert on telepathy to show that mind-readers don’t actually read minds, or an expert on Star Trek to prove that it uses fictional science.
We have been able to take a couple of useful things from astrology – the mathematics used to plot planetary movements (and if you can master that using nothing but a pen and paper, well done), and our current astronomical maps of the sky – and I’m sure we can safely and happily ignore the rest.
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
(Christopher Hitchens)
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
(Douglas Adams)
Thanks Simon. I actually expected Les or Keir would have edited my last line out, hopefully it gave someone a chuckle.
Gill you’ve missed the initial rush of comments: which is probably for the best as there are a few common canards that I think folk actually involved in science would take issue with yer post.
Where does “modern science” come across as “preachy”?
“you’ve missed the initial rush of comments: which is probably for the best”
Condescend much? You’ll need to excuse me for having an opinion from a non-scientific background, I’ll keep them to myself from now on.
Well it wasn’t meant as condescention rather that you’d likely have been on the recieving end of condescention 😉
Well Endless Psych, this is supposed to be a debating forum, not some kind of paternalistic pat-on-the-head nursery school. How about cracking open the “canards” so that Gill has the opportunity to reply to your vague comment, and so we all have the opportunity to judge for ourselves!
This isn’t really a debating forum: although the function of allowing comments is to encourage debate /pedantry (This is tounge in cheek by the way, getting into bother with this a lot as there is no way to really make it clear).
Would be one. It’s not really strictly speaking relevant to the discussion: As is posted semi regularly around these parts “They laughed at Galelio and they laughed at bongo the clown” (I paraphrase).
I don’t think this is a “fact” nor do I nessecarily hold that it is true. science, and the career of scientists, thrive on challenging accepted truths. Careers are made by doing so.
Yes perhaps and I would hope that someone who is gnostic on the subject of astrology not working (without looking at the evidence) would be taken to task for their working if not their conclusions. But it does seem a bit like an appeal to neutrality a “you’re both as bad as each other”. One side is not as bad as the other.
Well, I can only notice this: “I do also accept that certain well known scientists were initially mocked for their ideas, and I sometimes think that “modern” science needs to remember that fact” –which while at first sight fine, adds little, since we’re not discussing a merely unpopular scientific notion here, but a distinctly nonscientific one.
Anyway, science gradually has accepted those past ‘unpopular’ theories in face of mounting evidence, even if the status quo resisted at first, which is of course how science evolves. It would be much stranger if those mocking scientists (assuming we’re talking Darwin era, for example)had instead said nothing and accepted a theory the moment it was suggested. That’d be much more worrying.
The fact that scientists have been wrong before certainly doesn’t mean that criticism should be refrained from for fear of getting it wrong– within scientific fields, the ability to contest and debate opposing theories is part of their refinement. And outside of them, if science has trouble explaining something, it wouldn’t automatically make unscientific claims any better equipped to do so.
Only phrase I would’ve really classed as a ‘canard’, fairly minor, and the rest of the post seems perfectly fine. Would rather not have remarked on it due to that, but it has been brought up specifically.
Not a big deal.
It’s not a big deal but it is a pet hate.
Hi all – nice debate. Pity most of you missed Anne Whitaker’s point that COMMENTING ON ANYTHING FROM A STANDPOINT OF IGNORANCE DISQUALIFIES ANY VALIDITY IN THE COMMENTS THEREOF.
As astrology has been around for thousands of years and used by many who have made great and groundbreaking discoveries in many fields surely it derserves a little more respect than being dismissed as rubbish. Historically once upon a time scientists, astronomers and mathematicians WERE also astrologers and their efforts are what gave astronomy it’s roots. We don’t treat many other subjects with such disdain even though we either know they don’t exist or choose to disbelieve, for example Greek and Roman mythology or any religion you care to choose. We still accord them a certain civility and respect and I believe that is all astrologers want for their subject. Astrology has existed since man first looked skyward and noted that the planets and stars do have measureable cycles.
I understand that Prof Cox has the right to voice his opinion and that astrology cannot be prooved scientifically. However, it is the oldest practised tenet in the world and I am sure he would not be so derogatory about any other religion or belief system, which, incidentally astrology is not. I just feel it would have been far more professional of him to honour the fact that man has always looked to the cosmos in wonder and tried to decipher how it worked and his place within it. Astrology has a huge place in the history of that.
It has always baffled me how scientists can appreciate the beauty and mystery of our universe which is hardly a scientific response yet be so rude about others views on the subject. It really is about respecting the right of the individual to their own point of view. Something which astrologers respect of scientists or anyone else but which scientists do not.
Scientists do not agree on many points themselves including on what criteria makes a planet. Recent scientific thought on discovering Eris, was that a planet had to fulfil three categories to be classified as a planet. One of them being that the “planet” had swept its orbit clear of debris. This is why Pluto was recently “demoted” to dwarf planet. Jupiter has also not cleared its orbit but they have not demoted it which makes a nonsense of their own logic.
As already stated a more informed point of view would have been to say that early astrologers were also mathematicians and scientists once upon a time and made many discoverys about the planets and how the cosmos works in general.
Science itself comes up wtih many wonderful theories which another scientist is often quick to pooh pooh and who can argue the damage done by our planet by the misuse of scientific discovery.
Oh and yes astrologers are very aware of precession of the equinoxes the 23 1/2 degree tilt in the Earth’s axis and many other astronmical facts. As to four KNOWN sources of energy which affect the earth – I suggest the key word here is known as who knows what discoveries are yet to be made.
This takes us back to another of Anne’s points which that astrology is a rich and complex subject and cannot be addressed with a quick comment on here. If you want to discuss intelligently go read some GOOD quality books by some excellent respected writer/astrologers. In fact Ms Whitaker recently has had one published which has been meticulously researched for this very purpose and you would well by starting there.
Interesting how ignorant and rude some of the responses were to a reasonable, polite and articulate comment on someone supposedly intelligent who did not do so.
Carole Bone
Therefore Anne cannot comment on the validity of the criticism applied in the article because she doesn’t have enough understanding of psychology or physics.
Basically – No. It should be assessed on it’s own merits not the merits of those who have used it. It is lacking in this respect.
Invalidating your own line of argument is an interesting tactic…
Strawman and irrelevant: we are not talking about points of view we are talking about facts. The facts are in and astrology does not work.
This is inaccurate. The criteria of what constitutes a planet was altered – this does not equate to scientists not agreeing on what makes a planet. Besides disagreement on details and indeed on whole branches of science is not a bug it’s a feature. It’s what drives science to develop and change the theories that shape our understanding of the world. Scientists, in short, are not afraid of being wrong.
A scientific theory is very different from the lay use of the term. But again this has nothing to do with the validity (or not) of astrology. As for the second part: who indeed? But who can argue that science hasn’t saved billions of lifes and generally improved our lot?
The argument from ignorance can safely be ignored because you may as well say “who can say there isn’t a giant invisible teapot that influences all of us orbiting the earth”?
Some of the commenters may have been rude certainly: you might even include me within them. But your arguments do not hold water.
Thanks for the clarification Endless Psych.
I have to say you do seem to want to have your cake and eat it. When is a debating forum not a forum? When it’s a comments thread that encourages debate. Spot the difference! (I’ve yet to spot the joke)
Endless Psych said: “Gill you’ve missed the initial rush of comments: which is probably for the best as there are a few common canards that I think folk actually involved in science would take issue with yer post.”
It seems to me there is nothing in Gill’s posting that ought to attract some kind of backlash from members of the scientific community. Your expansion on that comment Endless Psych doesn’t really elucidate. In fact you seem to totally miss the point.
For instance, in response to Gill’s comment “certain well known scientists were initially mocked for their ideas” you state:
“It’s not really strictly speaking relevant to the discussion: As is posted semi regularly around these parts “They laughed at Galelio and they laughed at bongo the clown” (I paraphrase).”
On the contrary, Gill’s comment is highly relevant in the context of astrology. History is littered with examples of scientists whose new theories were dismissed by a narrow-minded establishment. i.e. legitamate scientific progress was stifled by a self-serving conservative elite. Astrologers can use such facts as a cover-story to disguise, and distract from, the weakness of their position. They set themselves up as martyrs to the cause of scientific progress. Such charlatanism may not convince scientists, but it can hold enough grains of truth to sway some members of the public – that’s how propaganda works.
I think it’s worth asking the question: who is the above article aimed at, and what does it seek to achieve (other than simply venting the opinion of its author Keir Liddle).
I feel this article targets the general public. It was never intended to convert astrologers away from their beliefs / assertions. The best anyone can hope for, is to undermine the apparent popularity of astrology by pointing out how baseless, vague and useless its claims are.
Dario said: “Anyway, science gradually has accepted those past ‘unpopular’ theories in face of mounting evidence, even if the status quo resisted at first, which is of course how science evolves. It would be much stranger if those mocking scientists (assuming we’re talking Darwin era, for example)had instead said nothing and accepted a theory the moment it was suggested. That’d be much more worrying.”
The point is, such mocking scientists have done a great deal of damage to well-meaning individuals, and to the rate of progress of science. There is a massive middle-ground between mocking an idea and ignoring it. I had hoped that science had moved on from Galileo’s era of torturing heretics and then waiting a couple of hundred years before seriously scrutinising their way of thinking.
In response to Gill’s comment “… certain well known scientists were initially mocked for their ideas…”, Endless Psych said:
“I don’t think this is a “fact” nor do I nessecarily hold that it is true.”
So Galileo wasn’t tortured into renouncing his theory that the Earth is not at the centre of the solar system? Exactly how much proof do you need?
Sadly I can only conclude that your stance, Endless Psych, is just the sort of preachy narrow-mindedness that is a massive turn-off for the public – the danger of which Gill was seeking to bring into the light.
Carole Bone shouted, “COMMENTING ON ANYTHING FROM A STANDPOINT OF IGNORANCE DISQUALIFIES ANY VALIDITY IN THE COMMENTS THEREOF.”
I see…
So if, for example, you nothing about the Maori legend of how New Zealand was formed, then anyone pointing out the physical impossibility of hauling the landmass out of the sea with a fishing hook is making an invalid claim?
http://new-zealand-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/aotearoa_new_zealand_maori_mythology
If you know nothing of the alleged psychic powers required for spoonbending, then the videos debunking him must be invalid?
If you know nothing of how to calculate astrological charts (Chinese, Indian or Western), then all the relevant findings of physics, astronomy and psychology somehow become invalid?
I must (politely and gently) disagree with your opinion.
Carole Bone said: “Scientists do not agree on many points themselves including on what criteria makes a planet.”
That’s just a dispute about labeling objects. It has nothing to do with the laws of physics.
“As to four KNOWN sources of energy which affect the earth – I suggest the key word here is known as who knows what discoveries are yet to be made.”
And that fifth type of energy – Astrological Energy – how exactly does it manifest itself? What does Astrological Energy actually do, and how may we measure its effect upon the universe?
“Interesting how ignorant and rude some of the responses were to a reasonable, polite and articulate comment on someone supposedly intelligent who did not do so”
Politeness is a style of communication. It does not effect the substance of the message. As the old saying / ancient wisdom goes: “You can’t polish a turd”.
“… honour the fact that man has always looked to the cosmos in wonder and tried to decipher how it worked and his place within it. Astrology has a huge place in the history of that.”
Cannibalism has also had its place in the history of human development, but hopefully most of us have moved on. Astrology has been replaced by astronomy and mathematics. Cannibals have been replaced by Ronald Macdonald. Well, I guess that’s progress…
On the history of astrology, there is this:
“The oldest astrological document extant is the work called ‘Namar-Beli’ (Illumination of Bel) composed for King Sargon I (end of the third millennium B.C.) and contained in the cuneiform library of King Asurbanipal (668-626 B.C.). It includes astronomical observations and calculations of solar and lunar eclipses combined with astrological predictions, to which the interpretation of dreams already belonged.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm
(I have no idea where the writer of this source got their information from, though.)
This would make the earliest know astrology roughly 4000 years old, not 6000. If you have other information, please share it.
And if anyone knows of an unbiased, objective, reproducible, double-blind experiment that demonstrates the validity of astrology, please share it.
“Science itself comes up wtih many wonderful theories which another scientist is often quick to pooh pooh and who can argue the damage done by our planet by the misuse of scientific discovery.”
1) scientists are free to pooh-pooh theories until the evidence comes in (eg, plate tectonics). If the old/existing theory is shown to be false, then it is revised or replaced by a new one.
2) yes, humans have damaged the planet. But it is only with science and technology that we found out things were going wrong, and it is only with science and technology that we can improve things. Whether or not we actually *do anything* is, I suspect, more a matter of economics than science.
“As astrology has been around for thousands of years and used by many who have made great and groundbreaking discoveries in many fields surely it derserves a little more respect than being dismissed as rubbish. Historically once upon a time scientists, astronomers and mathematicians WERE also astrologers and their efforts are what gave astronomy it’s roots. We don’t treat many other subjects with such disdain even though we either know they don’t exist or choose to disbelieve, for example Greek and Roman mythology or any religion you care to choose. We still accord them a certain civility and respect and I believe that is all astrologers want for their subject. Astrology has existed since man first looked skyward and noted that the planets and stars do have measureable cycles. ”
The adequate reply to this is “so what?”, I’m afraid. The age of astrology isn’t an argument for its validity, and the fact that it provided ‘roots’ for astronomy to work from doesn’t then mean we must still give credence to the many claims therein which simply aren’t valid. At the most, you’re remarking on mere causality of events. Alchemy provided the preliminary roots upon which modern chemistry is based– that doesn’t mean we can transform base metals into gold.
For goodness sake. Can you all just calm down and get on with life.
That actually is some good advice. Is it a birth chart reading?
Anne Whitaker said, “For goodness sake. Can you all just calm down and get on with life.”
um… you started this whole thread! Or were you just trolling?
Or have you simply decided your claim that
“Without… knowing, or practising [superstition/pseudoscience], …criticism is worthless”
cannot, after all this, be justified? (Surely you don’t expect me to be able to *actually* move objects with my mind before I’m allowed to criticise psychokinesis, do you?)
Perhaps we should end the thread with this, instead:
“THERE’S PROBABLY NO ASTROLOGY. NOW STOP WORRYING AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE.”
Anne Whitaker said: “For goodness sake. Can you all just calm down and get on with life.”
The problem is, the stars won’t let me stop obsessing about astrology just yet. You see, this has all been predestined since the moment of my birth, so I really have no choice in the matter. I’m just along form the ride.
The day before yesterday, Simon Le Boggit (that’s me) said: “Tomorrow is going to be a big day – I’ve been waiting all my life for it. According to predictions based on my birth chart – formulated by the little known and much maligned field of Transcendental Astrology – tomorrow will be the day that all astrologers around the world see the error of their ways and acknowledge that they have been talking out of their arses for a substantial part of their lives.”
Well, it seems astrologers have not renounced their beliefs. It’s a big disappointment to me. However, before anyone seizes the opportunity to bad-mouth my belief in Transcendental Astrology, I should point out that I made a simple error in my calculations.
You see, I based my chart on the Celestial Tinnitusious Sphere calender, when I should have used the calender of the Ancient Oxymorons. It’s gonna take me ages to redo my charts. Anyone got a pencil sharpener?
Sounds like you would argue black was white author – and i still say everyone entitled to their own opinion which you seem to totally discount. Also you too seem to invalidate your own statements….. sez be nice up there….. you seem incapable of that……
thanks for you comments – apreciated if merely contrary for contrary’s sake…..
bogit – ditto
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn’t make them right.
@Carol Bone
If you are incapable of engaing with the content of someones arguments to resort to casting aspirtions on their character indicates a weakness in your ability to debate or discuss the issue. Not on their character.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
But as is stated several times: the facts stated above and in subsequent posts are not opinions: they are facts.
No-one is entitled to their own facts.
I merely state that I am entitled to my own opinion. I have stated all i want to state and disagree with your opinion – I have no desire to convince you nor will I change my opinion. Furthermore I respect your right to have your opinion…… end of…….
You may feel free to bow out of the discussion Carole: this would be an appropriate action on your part as you have offered nothing to the discussion than empty and vaccous platitudes.
My apologies if this appears a little brusque or rude but in all honesty I find someone condescending to take part in a debate without taking part in it a little rude.
Making an apology does not excuse your rudeness EP, nor does making the accusations you do about me make them correct. The main reason I do not comment further is I believe you are rigidly set in your opinion which as I said you have the right to. I am happy to have had my say which I thank you for the opportunity to do so. Your opinion of me is your business and of no interest to me.
If you wish to remain close-minded to the evidence that’s you call.
I will remain open-minded to the possibility that you could produce some evidence that might perhaps change my mind (although your behaviour so far leaves me as in some doubt that you will bother to do so):
Evidence of preditions coming to pass under appropriatly controlled conditions would do it.
Or an explanation within what we understand of the universe (or making a reasonably good case without too much pleading to the unknown) for a mechanism of influence might sway me more towards accepting the proposition that astrology works(but be obviously less convincing without proof).
I could tell you exactly the sort of evidence that would make me change my mind about astrology.
If an astrologer, knowing nothing else about me other than my birth chart, could give me details of my personality/tastes/interests that was:
a) Specific – the insight must not be vague and open to interpretation, it musn’t rely on the barnum effect, etc, it must be detailed, concise, stand-alone and unambiguous
b) Non-trivial – the insight must not be to do with something commonplace (e.g. “he likes going on holiday”, “he enjoys sharing a fine meal with friends”)
Or if an astrologer could make predictions about future events that met the same criteria, then I would pay astrology serious attention.
Once again with the accusations EP – I would prefer if you refrained from telling me what I think or mean thank you. I am glad you intend keeping an open mind after all if you never change your mind what’s the point in having one.
Carol, can you think of any piece or set of evidence that would convince you that astrology does not work?
Purely hypothetically, as a thought exercise. The evidence doesn’t have to exist, it just has to be possible.
Same question to Ann.
I concur with Les on both his criteria and his challenge.
Firstly – as we are seem to be looking for precision – both Anne and myself have spell our names with an “e” at the end :P……
Secondly – no I can’t think of any set exercise etc that would concvince me astrology does not work Les. I do keep the skeptic on the shoulder though and use empirical working methods in my astrology. Thank you for the question though it is an interesting one.
If you don’t have any idea of what sort of evidence would convince you that astrology does not work, then you’re treating it as an unfalsifiable belief system and you are taking it on faith, not on empiricism. One of the fundamental tenets of science and scepticism is the idea of falsifiability. One of the main ways that science moves forward is by seeking to disprove its ideas, not by trying to prove them. Your position on astrology is neither scientific, sceptical nor empirical.
How can you make credible claims about cause and effect if you can think of no way that those claims could be shown to be wrong?
Once again you put words in my mouth – I didn’t say I wouldn’t consider it – you asked did I know of any and I don’t – personally I also do not make any claims – this site asked for comments and I made some – I also don’t see much sign of the scientific lobby here being tolerant, polite or open minded at all. They do seem to be rather het up about it all though. Can’t really think why if it’s all rubbish. Hate to go on about this point but aren’t we all entitled to express our opinions without being harrassed and having accuasations levelled at them in a most rude and personal way?
That’s the point. If you haven’t considered it then you are not operating in a scientific or sceptical way. In order to make credible real world claims about cause and effect you need to be able to imagine a situation that would falsify your claims. This doesn’t mean your claims are false, of course, just that if they were false then you would be able to know that they were.
And I’ve been completely polite. Where have I been rude to or harrassed you? You’ve come here of your own volition and entered into a debate over the veracity of astrology and now you seem to be suggesting that people questioning your beliefs is somehow the same as denying you your right to hold them.
Are you interested in a discussion about the veracity of astrology? If not, with all due respect, what is your motivation for entering the debate?
Being open-minded does not mean agreeing with everything people say.
Ok Les – my comment re rudeness was not directed at you – I was not clear on that point I grant you – If you look back at some of the comments I think you will see some of them are.
It also seems to me you and EP want to take debate with anything I say when the only point I am trying to make is that I have I have stated my views as has every other person on this page. I believe I have the right to do so or maybe you would like to take issue with that too.
As to enter making claims about prooving astrology – I don’t believe I have ever said I would do so only that I do believe it works. I don’t feel I have to proove it to anyone but do think I have the right to comment and to have my own ideas and opinions as indeed do you.
I have never said I didn’t think it could be prooved wrong.
I agree being open-minded does not mean agreeing with everything – I think this conversation prooves that too.
Carole,
if you want to know where skeptics are coming from, please consider viewing this 10-minute explanation of open-mindedness:
To summarise:
A ‘Closed Mind’ rejects everything, good or bad; this seems to be how you view people on this thread.
An ‘Open Mind’ accepts everything, good or bad; this seems to be how most people on this thread view you and Anne.
The people on this thread see themselves as open-minded, but with a systematic ‘filter’ to sift out the good from the bad.
Arguments arise from the nature of this filter, which demands evidence, not assertions. You and Anne have made assertions about astrology, but not backed them up with objective evidence or references we can check. This is why people have been getting frustrated.
To everyone: Is that a fair assessment?
cheers!
~T
In general that seems pretty fair Terry. Although I’m not sure your terminology of “good” and “bad” is entirely helpful. Perhaps “true” and “untrue”, or “fact” and “fiction” might be more appropriate alternatives?
Carole, I for one would find it very helpful if you could please give us some idea of what astrology might actually do / achieve. For instance, if you drew up an astrological chart for me, what would it encompass, and how might I benefit from it?
Does an astrological chart show me my unalterable destiny? Does it show a destiny which I might avoid if I took corrective action? Or am I totally missing the point, and its purpose is something else entirely?
I’m not being sarcastic or anything here. If some kind of misunderstanding has arisen, here’s your chance to clarify the situation.
Hi all
Terry I do see your point but still find your statements sweeping and like many on here tend to tell me what I think or mean as opposed to allowing me freedom of thought or opinion. There comes a point in a debate where you have either converted someones’s opinion or they have converted yours. Or – both parties agree to differ. This does not seem to be appreciated here and I am sorry to say I have found the lack of it disappointing. I understand some people here wish to debate and that’s fine but surely we are also allowed to leave comment for others to consider.
Boggit – Astrology is a very complex subject which is one reason I have not entered into discussion here. With respect to all – one needs to understand the subject to discuss how it works. This forum would be laborious and limited in explaing many of the principals. E.G you wouldn’t teach someone car mechanics on here though you still might disucss cars.
No astrology does not claim to know your “unalterable destiny” and never has done. Like all subjects it has its good and bad practioners and sadly due to its mainstream popularity suffers from a very superficial public image. Looking a at a birth chart is only ONE facet of astrology but what one would hope to gain from it would be an understanding of your own/or someone else’s personality or psychological make-up and how to use them more effectively for personal growth. Once again this is only one facet of how a chart can be used. Lastly I would like to underline this is merely ONE ASPECT OF HOW A CHART CAN BE USEFUL NOT A DEFINITIVE UNDERSTANDING OF ASTROLOGY WHICH CANNOT BE ILLUSTRATED HERE IN FULL.
You seem to really not get the point that fact is not the same as opinion. Hence why ‘agreeing to differ’ is neither here nor there: we’re discussing factual claims being made about the universe, not, say, what flavour of ice cream people prefer. As far as I’m aware, no one here has denied you freedom of thought/speech– are you subject to a gagging order?– just challenged these claims. Disputing an argument is not equal to persecution. And again we have the Argument from Authority as an excuse to not back up any claims. Not explaining anything, but merely demanding that we take your word that astrology is valid and really, really complex. Well done.
Carole (and Anne),
I don’t recall trying to restrict your freedom of opinion; would you be at least willing to explain why you think astrology works?
So far neither you nor Anne have explained this. Your comments have been, shall we say, critical of criticism, but have not presented any arguments in favour of astrology. How did you came to the conclusion that there was something in it?
Maybe you have a website or other reference you could recommend?
Maybe you could even write an article or give a talk?
(I’m not asking for a chart or the detailed mechanics of it, nor do I ask you to defend trivial newspaper sun sign columns. And I won’t ask how you came to choose western astrology over Indian or Chinese; that’s a whole different issue.)
The internet’s a big place. I think we’ve got enough room for an explanation. 🙂
Would you be willing to consider?
Dario – the “point” one this forum seems to vary from post to post depending on what the writer wants to pick up from a previous comment. The original comment Anne and I was trying to make was not on prooving astrology here but that Prof Cox was making a comment on something he did have a good understanding of and that his comment was offensive to those that did.
Once more, here is yet another example of putting words in my mouth I have not “demanded” anything merely stated my view the same as everyone else.
Terry – I believe I have already addressed some of the questions you ask on previous posts. One is that this forum is inadequate to go into the subject in the detail required ergo I am not inclined to do so. My feeling is we should agree to differ on the validity of astrology.
I would not say I am critical of critism, I have no issue with anyone not believing in astrology and their reasons why, that is their choice and I am happy for them to express that. What I have tried to say is that I have my opinion and that I repect yours. Science itself would say research a subject before you come to any conclusions and for the most part those that comment on astrology have not done so.
As you say the internet has a wealth of infomation although it also has an equal amount of dross. If you wish a reccomendation on where to start on reading on serious Astrology I suggest anything by Liz Green and you may find a book called Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas thought provoking.
Science and astrology will never agree but sometimes its fun trying – thanks for the comments.
Whoops why do you only see a typo afte you hit send sorry the previous comment should read Prof Cox was commenting on something he did NOT have a good understanding of. Apologies.
Thanks for responding to my request Carole. I’ll address that in a moment.
But first, I can’t let your contradictory statements and slur against Brian Cox pass without comment.
Firstly, what makes you think that Brian Cox “did NOT have a good understanding of” astrology? Is it the simple fact that he disagrees with your point of view that makes you feel that he has not researched the subject? Or to put it another way, do you feel it to be impossible for someone who has thoroughly researched astrology to conclude it to be bogus?
Furthermore, can’t you see how you are contradicting yourself with the following two comments?:
“Prof Cox was making a comment on something he did (not) have a good understanding of and that his comment was offensive to those that did.”
“I would not say I am critical of critism, I have no issue with anyone not believing in astrology and their reasons why, that is their choice and I am happy for them to express that.”
Clearly you were NOT happy for Brian Cox to criticise astrology. You found it “offensive”. i.e. you took it personally.
I have to conclude that you are either unwilling or unable to distinguish facts from feelings. Has such a blindspot shown up in your astrological chart I wonder?
As far as I can tell from your explanation, astrology basically predicts people’s character traits based upon when they were born. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence to indicate that character traits vary according to birth date. At a stretch, I could perhaps consider some seasonal factor could possibly effect a child’s development – winter babies are likely to be exposed to less sunlight for instance – but I’m not aware of such a thing having an impact upon character.
As for your reluctance to give a general explanation of what astrology is about – that just seems evasive. Even complex ideas like Einstein’s theories of Relativity, and Quantum theory, can be distilled into a form that ordinary people can get the gist of.
“Science and astrology will never agree but sometimes its fun trying”
Well let’s face it, you haven’t really tried have you Carole. You refuse to address the issues. Instead you choose to dogmatically tell us that you hold some ancient wisdom that we have no concept of, but you’re not prepared to tell us about it.
“you wouldn’t teach someone car mechanics on here though you still might disucss cars”
It’s not difficult to explain the BASICS of how a car works: petroleum fuel is ignited, causing a small explosion which pushes a piece of metal called a piston, which turns an axle, which slightly turns the wheels of the car. A rapid succession of those little explosions causes the wheels to keep on turning, and thereby move the car.
See. It’s easy if you can be arsed to try!
“what one would hope to gain from it (astrology) would be an understanding of your own/or someone else’s personality or psychological make-up and how to use them more effectively for personal growth”
How do you know that your predictions about someone’s personality are accurate, if you never bother to compare them with established psychological personality tests?
“I do keep the skeptic on the shoulder though and use empirical working methods in my astrology.”
Now let’s see what Merriam-Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary has to say about “empirical”:
“em·pir·i·cal … being or befitting a quack or charlatan”
Now that truly does feel like it was destined!
“Whoops why do you only see a typo afte you hit send”
That’s OK; the original comment was fine as it stands.
🙂
You told me, “I have no issue with anyone not believing in astrology and their reasons why, that is their choice and I am happy for them to express that.”
Yet you told Dario, “[Prof Cox’s] comment was offensive.”
Professor Cox’s comment was his opinion which is based on scientific evidence. I’m still trying to work out why you should be offended by that? And as upsetting as it may be, the offensiveness of a statement has no bearing on its truth or validity.
Are you sure you understand how science works? Are you conflating ‘library research’ (finding information to produce a statement) with ‘laboratory research’ (experimenting, then basing a theory on the evidence)? The former helps you form an opinion, the latter to discover a fact.
The two are not the same: opinions can be disputed without end (see previous 80 or so comments), but facts cannot; therefore we have a mechanism for sorting good theories from bad ones (or true from false, if you prefer).
Without facts to support astrology, a skeptic has no choice but to reject it. Keir’s article presented the facts that suggest why it is false. These are why Professor Cox holds the opinion of astrology that he does.
If one has invested a lot of time (and money?) studying astrology, (maybe even making a career out of it?), then it’s perfectly understandable why one is offended or indignant when it is criticised, or why one would ask that a critic invest the same amount of time (and money?) before criticising it again.
Without wishing to insult anyone, I suggest that the time taken to study astrology does not make it any more true – students study English Literature or Classics for years, but nobody would suggest that Hamlet or Greek Gods are true. Fascinating, inspiring, insightful, complex, entertaining, popular, based on older traditions, influential even today, riddled with deeper meanings that the individual reader can tease out for themselves, something you might even pay money for (all like astrology?)… perhaps, but that still doesn’t make them true.
It’s a shame you feel this forum is inadequate to explain your opinions. If not here, then where?
Hi guys
I did not say Prof Cox had or had not researched astrology nor did I say he had offended me. I said that this was the content and gist of the article on this forum.
Ergo I did not make contradictory statements as I was not offended by him and did not take it personally at all. Once again you put words in my mouth and tell me what I mean………
Just because you are not aware of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist either Dario.
The birth chart is not based on when someone was born. To draw up an accurate chart you need exact time, date and location of birth.
As to being evasive – as already pointed out – I have given my reasons for that – if you find them inadequate then that’s your opinion and we have already covered our thoughts on opinions.
Your comment that I have not tried to address the issue or can’t be arsed to do so – as stated this forum is inadequate to do so and that does not mean I am trying to say that I hold ancient wisdom or not share that with anyone.
Once more this is your opinion and of course it’s yours to have. Also my original comments were not on validating astrology or explaining how it work’s but on the furore over the comment made by Prof Cox.
I have recommended reading material if you are interested in finding our more about astrology which I am sure you are not. My opinion is that you enjoy debate far more than finding meaning.
Liz Green also has a good website http://www.astro.com and the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London does a recognised diploma in astrology and also has a website.
Nice twist on the meaning of empirical btw – just shows what I have been saying here all along that you are rather good at manipulating words to suit your purpose rather than the intention with which they were meant. I AM sure that would show in YOUR birthchart :D.
Terry – some of your comments addressed above. Agreed opinions can be disputed without end – kinda takes me back to my points on agreeing to differ and the fun we all get doing so.
Agree to on the difference on library research and lab research and I do appreciate the difference – good point too.
Skeptics and scientists are more than welcome to disbelieve – AGAIN my original comment was merely that he COULD have been a little more professional in expressing his opinion.
Think I already used a similar point on the Greek gods/mythology etc – just in case you don’t remember it was similar to what you said re being riddled with deeper meaning etc. The point being he would not say those subjects were rubbish he would treat the history and meaning with some respect and that’s the point I was making with Astrology.
This forum is not inadequate to explain OPINIONS Terry in fact it’s rather good for that 😛
Thanks for your input guys it’s been interesting and fun but surely time to leave this one now.
Opinions are not equal to facts.
This is the crux of the issue at hand. The facts, as discovered and explained by science, make it highly, highly improbable that astrology works. Therefore on balance the statement “astrology is rubbish” is a valid one.
You can continue to frame this as a “difference of opinion” if you wish but that would be grossly innaccurate and ultimatly self serving.
If you cannot address the issue of astrologies validity with facts than what worth is your opinion?
Scientifically it is worthless.
Carole Bone said: “I did not say Prof Cox had or had not researched astrology nor did I say he had offended me.”
Ugh? So on 8 May 2010 at 4:52 pm, you didn’t state: “… sorry the previous comment should read Prof Cox was commenting on something he did NOT have a good understanding of.”?
The geezer is a professor! He knows how to study a subject. You seem to be suggesting that, if he had studied astrology, he had still failed to understand it. That’s just another slur on his intelligence. I bet he could teach you a thing or two Carole, like how to spell the word “prooving”!
And two minutes prior to that, you didn’t say: “The original comment Anne and I was trying to make was not on prooving astrology here but that Prof Cox was making a comment on something he did have a good understanding of and that his comment was offensive to those that did.”?
So it was offensive to people who have an understanding of astrology – such as you Carole – except, it didn’t actually offend you!
Gimme a break! It’s finally clear that you really are an air-head, or a troll, or both (I suspect the latter).
Incidentally, if astrology was a car, this is how it would operate: petroleum fuel is ignited, causing a small explosion which pushes a piece of metal called a piston, which turns an axle, which causes all the birds to migrate in winter.
“Just because you are not aware of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist either Dario.”
No, but it does make it reasonable that I’d be reluctant to accept that something’s existence until I’m made aware of good evidence showing that it does indeed exist. I’m not aware that space octopi who emit the tune of La Cucaracha when squeezed exist either, but am hardly likely to start believing them solely because it’s been suggested that they might.
Mmmm EP -“opionions are not equal to facts” – I have come in for quite a bit of stick on this so I presume this applies to all opinions (such as yours) and not just mine.
Boggit and Dario – once again I will try and simplify this for you guys. My orginal point was simply that Prof Cox could have worded his criticism in a more professional way.
Dear oh dear – comments on typo’s, spelling errors and name calling – once more the whole “be nice” thing stated above seems to be out the window.
Is it realllly so hard just to agree to differ………
Opinions are not equal to facts (even if I did speel it wrang).
This discussion is not operating on the level of opinion but rather on the level of facts. You can dispute the nature of facts if you wish but that won’t really get us anywhere fast to be honest.
If you can point to somewhere I have presented an opinion that I haven’t backed up in this discussion please do so.
Well no-one told me I couldn’t express an opinion EP in fact (no pun intended) quite the reverse – I believe there were quite a few comments supporting this view.
It’s only my opionion (presuming I have permission to state that) but your opinion is merely that and backed up by your view of the facts. Which as I keep saying is fair nuff.
(Still haven’t answered the can we agree to differ question btw – is this because you enjoy debate more than allowing others their opinion even if you realllly disagree with it???)
Carole Bonehead said: “My orginal point was simply that Prof Cox could have worded his criticism in a more professional way.”
Prof Cox DID word his criticism in a professional way. Astrology really is a “load of rubbish”! That’s a very concise description, based on the evidence.
Carole’s original comment was “surely it derserves a little more respect than being dismissed as rubbish.”
An argument over opinions cannot end. An argument about facts can.
Given that there are no facts to support the validity of astrology – and looking through the comments, Carole hasn’t disputed that – I see no reason to grant it any respect.
I’d say people deserve civility and respect; ideas don’t.* Smart people can believe in not-so-smart things for smart reasons.
Calling an idea not-so-smart doesn’t mean people who believe in that idea are not-so-smart as well. They might not be aware of why it’s not-so-smart. If they refuse to accept the facts that explain why the idea is not-so-smart, then they can justifiably be called stubborn.
*In my opinion, a skeptics’ group should be able to make its arguments with cool-headed detachment and not resort to ad hominem attacks (or criticism of spelling and grammar), no matter how frustrated the contributors get. Apart from anything else, this just prolongs and sidetracks the debate unnecessarily. “Be nice, keep it clean, stay on topic” – this should be a mantra!
You know I assummed I has spelt opinion wrong and was being picked up on it.
Well this may be as near as agree to differ as we get then……..
Agree muchly on the Mantra Terry 😀
Carole’s pretext for being here is bogus. She claimed that Brian Cox’s comment was “offensive” to astrologers, but then stated that she was not offended. When the contradiction was brought to her attention, she just talked evassive nonesense. Now that really is rude. As is her insinuation that Prof Cox must have failed to grasp what astrology is all about.
Rudeness comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Carole appears to be a master at the underhand jibe. But that’s okay is it? As long as it’s not overt?
I stand by what I said. Carole’s ducking of the issues in this thread is trollish.
Which brings us back to ancient wisdom: if it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
But what if it ducks like a quack…?
…. maybe it’s a boggit :-O
Evasive as ever, eh Carole.
Sigh
That’s your opinion boggit – to which you are entitled – and which I respect – and with which of course I disagree ;P
Do we agree to differ???? Mmmm somehow I doubt it………
😀
Your relentless evasiveness Carole is evident throughout this thread. If you choose to disregard such evidence, that’s your choice – you are perfectly entitled to behave ignorantly, and I am perfectly entitled to point it out.
As for us agreeing to differ, well, it depends what you are referring to.
Do we agree to differ when it comes to whether or not astrology works? No, because we actually agree that there is no proof, and that it cannot be proven. You yourself said: “I understand that Prof Cox has the right to voice his opinion and that astrology cannot be prooved scientifically.”
Do we agree to differ when it comes to Brian Cox’s comment being offensive to astrologers? Well, no, because neither of us find it offensive. You yourself said: “I was not offended by him”.
Do we agree to differ when it comes to astrology being harmless? (You elude to this in your comment: “They (the scientific lobby) do seem to be rather het up about it all though. Can’t really think why if it’s all rubbish.”) We certainly do disagree on this issue Carole. Astrology may be a load of rubbish, but the activities of its practitioners are very real. Some astrologers take money for their services – if astrology does not work, then that’s money taken on false pretences (I guess some might call it fraud).
Furthermore Carole, you state that astrology aims to gain “an understanding of your own/or someone else’s personality or psychological make-up and how to use them more effectively for personal growth.” It seems to me, attempting to steer the psychological development of a potentially vulnerable person, using rubbish astrology rather than a proper psychological assessment, could easily do more harm than good. That really is the irresponsible behaviour of a quack.
Do we agree to differ as to whether or not you have been evasive Carole? We certainly disagree on that. It comes as no surprise. Like any fantasist, you use evasion to avoid taking responsibility for your own words and actions.
Do we differ? Mostly, yes we do.
Do we “agree to differ”? Well, such a phrase suggests a live-and-let-live truce. I have no intention of turning a blind eye to the mind-numbing ignorance that you pedal. Like other sceptics, I won’t shy away from challenging astrological bullshit whenever I see it rearing its ugly head.
Hmmm Boggit – you really do like to try be rude and provocative when stating facts, opinions or anything else don’t you. I agree with Terry on this when he commented that one should be able to do so with cool headed detachment. I don’t see much evidence of that from you.
Anyway……
Am gonna venture some stuff just for you 😛
Astrology cannot be proven scientifically true – but that was never what my original point was – my original point was that as a professional and educated person Prof Cox could have been more tactful about something that has been in existence for thousands of years and the study of which has contributed much historically to science albeit very early science. From what I gather if it can’t be proven without doubt then you don’t believe it has earned that right or respect. OK. That’s your opinion – not everyone’s and certainly not mine.
Not everything of worth can be proven scientifically though – you may or may not agree with that. I do believe that lots of things that cannot be proven now will be proven one day as man’s knowledge and understanding grows, whether in science, astrology or many other fields of study.
On the agreeing to differ on Prof Cox’s comment being offensive to astrologers. You said no because neither of us find it offensive. That was not the point – you and I don’t find it offensive, true – but lots of people did, hence my point on him possibly expressing his opinion a little more tactfully.
Re astrology being harmless and some astrologers taking money for their services which you said some might call fraud. My comment on this would be there are good and bad in every field or walk of life. Alas some human beings are very adept at abusing almost anything for personal benefit and alas astrology like science, religion, politics, doctors, second hand cars salesmen or just about anything else you care to mention has its unscrupulous practitioners. Similarly I could counter that lots of people have found astrology very useful and helpful and also that in general if one uses/provides a service then there is also generally a charge for that service.
Re potentially damaging someone psychologically vulnerable. Again any responsible and serious astrologer would be very aware of this – most have counselling qualifications for that very reason. You are tarring all astrologers with one brush here Boggit and I refer you to my previous comment on good and bad in all walks of life e.g if a surgeon removes the wrong kidney do we assume all surgeons will do so? Incidentally Jung used astrology and found it valid and useful but then some would dispute his theories or even the value of psychology and also that psychology and its practitioners do much damage to the vulnerable in our society too.
On being a fantasist and evasive. Well, I have stated my reasons for not going into astrological explanations here which you refuse to accept, that is your right.
However – to elaborate on my reasons a little (and just for you :P) I am convinced that if I tried to give a simplified explanation of how astrology works you would have immediately asked at least ten questions on each point I made. Don’t get me wrong – normally something I very much enjoy but the explanation required to go into say how a birth chart is drawn up, the meanings of houses, aspects, planets etc alone never mind the interpretation of those things would be laborious for this forum and I stand by my original statement that the subject studied properly is complex and this forum is not the place to do so. That is also why I suggested the website and reading material I did for those who may be interested in learning a little more about it, not you obviously……. 😀
I have no issue with you being sceptical about astrology at all – I do think you have been exceptionally rude – I would have been much more inclined to move on from my original comment on whether or not Prof Cox could have made his comment a little more tactfully to answer questions on astrology had the format of those questions been more like Terry’s – intelligent, detached and insightful. My opinion granted but again – my right to have that opinion.
My belief is that you tend to twist meaning and state your interpretation of what people say – then quote YOUR meaning as fact i.e. put words into their mouths instead of seeking further clarification from the person. I have found your way of doing so is confrontational and provocative and not what I would expect of this kind of forum. Again to quote Terry “cool headed detachment” would have been much more constructive.
You seem to enjoy debate for its own sake instead of seeking understanding and that if something isn’t a black and white fact then it has no value or use. Well all of that is your view and has been oft said respected etc but not my belief or the belief of many. It’s the total lack of civility here that I find disappointing.
The debate here has been interesting but I wonder what you think the outcome of it SHOULD be? My opinion is we should both have a better understanding of each others views not necessarily winning someone over to their standpoint which is why I have said can we agree to differ. You seem to think it’s to persuade someone one way or the other – that issues are black or white, right or wrong. Once more a view you have the right to hold though many do not – also their right.
As to challenging astrological bullshit or any other kind of bullshit well – hey – maybe we finally do agree!!!!!! 😀 (but maybe not the way you meant lol…..)
The above demonstrates zero understanding of psychology. Jung was a psychoanalyst and his theories have been discredited. Picking someone whose work has been dismissed for being pseudo-scientific nonsense by the modern discipline and science of psychology as a supporter of astrology doesn’t strengthen your case.
He’ll even if you’d picked a proper actual scientist who agreed with astrology it doesn’t actually make for a good argument: an argument from authority is ultimatly vapid.
That some discredit psychology is not *actually* a point worthy of argument neither is the assertion that “psychologists damage the vunerable in society”. Present evidence of such damage or construct an actual critique of the topic (that demonstrates some level of understaning of what modern psychology is) if you want to make that point it adopt that line of argument and it not to be viewed as utterly vacuous.
Carole, what you’ve essentially implied is that we should accept something at face value on the mere suggestion that it might be hypothetically possible, without any regard as to whether it’s actually been established as probable. The fact that there’s a lot we still don’t know about the universe doesn’t validate anything you can make up in the meantime as accurate; unless you live in some kind of “Alice in Wonderland” universe in which knowledge is judged according to how many impossible things you can believe before breakfast. Once again: do you believe in the abundance of La Cucaracha-singing space octopi? After all, you can’t prove they don’t exist…!
Okay, since you still seem not to grasp this distinction, I’ll ask this as clearly as possible. Do you actually understand the difference between a factual statement and an opinion? You seem time and time again to treat the two as if they’re on equal par. We are not talking about mere viewpoints; we are talking about factual claims being made without evidence.
Astrology’s claim that it can predict human behaviour by observing the movement of heavenly bodies is a claim which if true ought to be scientifically observable. If it is not, then it is false. Saying that it is not meant to be ‘scientifically’ provable (rather provable by some other unspecified way) is nothing more than a cop-out to make up for the fact that it quite simply has not been shown to be true.
Using an appeal to ‘opinion’ as an excuse to not take responsibility for, or explain the reasoning behind any claims made is evasive, Carole. No matter how polite you think you’ve worded your phrases.
Are we conflating ‘evasiveness’ with ‘cognitive dissonance’?
I can see a whole new article in the making, but I’ll try to be brief, as this is more a comment on the comments, rather than astrology. (The thread seems to be meandering in this direction, anyway…)
Not everyone has been taught how to think critically and analytically, in scientific or philosophical terms. The problem is, ‘criticism’ and ‘analysis’ are also words used in the interpretive sense that you might find in literary (or astrological?) circles.
It’s probably fairer to blame our educational systems, rather than the individuals, for the fact that so many people confuse the two, and see scientific facts as a matter of interpretation, rather than universal truth (but I won’t start ranting about postmodernism here).
Another thing to bear in mind is the fact that not everyone has the time, inclination or resources to keep up to date with the latest discoveries. (Last year, I got flak after giving a skeptics’ talk with references that were 15 years out of date; mea culpa – I should have done better research.) Science moves fast, and it’s hard for a layperson, let alone someone uninformed in the first place, to keep up.
In these cases, when [a non-skeptic] wants to engage with [a skeptic], a slower, less confrontational approach is required for a productive debate. If you want to catch flies, try using honey instead of vinegar.
Maybe someone should post a ‘how to debate’ list? At least an explicit statement of what we expect from these discussions would help keep the threads focused on the topic at hand and focused on the issues, not the people. It also gives any visitors to the site an idea of what the rules of the game are before responding.
Your thoughts?
EP – I think I did say that Jung had his discreditors……
Out of all the comments I made in my last post you choose to reply the one thing that goes off topic – psychology!!!???
Dario – could you please stop telling me what I am trying to say. I am NOT implying anyone should accept anything at face value.
I do understand the difference between fact and opinion thank you. I did not say astrology was not “meant” to be scientifically provable either.
Terry – pretty much agree with you there 😀 – ooer is that you using honey???
Off on holiday now so won’t be able to see your responses – if any……
In reply to “Jung had his discreditors”: Jung was discredited and his work rejected as having a valid scientific basis.
Carole Bone said: “From what I gather if it can’t be proven without doubt then you don’t believe it has earned that right or respect. OK. That’s your opinion – not everyone’s and certainly not mine.”
Now you’re trying to put words into my mouth Carole (don’t you just hate it when someone does that!).
Science does not shy away from the possibility that nothing is absolutely certain, but the truth is that some things are much more likely than others, by several magnitudes. For example: a bloke down the pub claims that the moon is made from cheese. A NASA scientist disputes this. Do their opinions hold equal validity? No, because the NASA scientist can back up his claims. Is the moon made of cheese? What do you think Carole?
Do the opinion of yourself and Brian Cox hold equal weight with regards to the question of whether or not astrology is a load of rubbish? No, because Brian Cox’s conclusion can be backed up by scientifically scrutinised evidence, whereas you don’t have a leg to stand on. Astrology is in a similar category to the cheesy moon.
“I do believe that lots of things that cannot be proven now will be proven one day as man’s knowledge and understanding grows…”
Yep. That’s how knowledge progresses. Once upon a time some people believed that the moon was made of cheese, but as mankind’s knowledge grew, it was eventually disproven. Similarly, once upon a time some people believed in astrology, but that was disproven too.
“you and I don’t find it offensive, true – but lots of people did…”
So by claiming that Brian Cox’s remark was offensive, you were making a complaint that was actually opposite to your own opinion. Couldn’t you just’ve agreed to disagree with yourself, and left it at that?
“Re astrology being harmless… there are good and bad in every field or walk of life.”
That’s like saying slavery got a bad name because some of its practitioners were slipshod. Astrology is bogus, no matter how well, or how badly, it is executed.
“… lots of people have found astrology very useful and helpful…”
In some societies, people gained comfort from eating the brains of their dead relatives, because they believed they were gaining the knowledge and wisdom of the dead person. Should we tolerate cannibalism because some people believe it to be beneficial?
The placebo effect can be a powerful thing. And beyond that, people can thrive when they feel someone cares about them. I don’t doubt that the attention given by an astrologer may make some people feel better about themselves, but it’s not astrology itself that’s doing the trick. I still maintain that it is potentially dangerous to attempt to steer the psychological development of a potentially vulnerable person, without a proper psychological assessment.
“Re potentially damaging someone psychologically vulnerable. Again any responsible and serious astrologer would be very aware of this – most have counselling qualifications for that very reason.”
Any responsible and serious person would not subject people to astrology at all. Can you back up your claim that “most” astrologers have counselling qualifications? What level of “counselling qualifications”? Enough to make a psychological assessment of a client? I somehow doubt it.
Furthermore, you can’t have it both ways Carole – either astrology has a powerful effect upon people, or it doesn’t. If it does have a powerful effect, which then goes wrong, then counselling is like adding bandage to a wound that needn’t have been inflicted in the first place. On the other hand, if astrology does not have a powerful effect, then you are simply offering counselling alone, but in a bogus disguise.
“if a surgeon removes the wrong kidney do we assume all surgeons will do so?”
I’m glad we’re agreed that such an operation should only be conducted by a qualified surgeon. i.e. someone who has had several years of science based training. There is no scientific basis to astrology, so there can be no “good” or “bad” astrologists – all astrologists are pedalling nonsense which may potentially damage the health and wealth of their clients. It also undermines mankind’s progress in understanding the workings of the universe.
“You are tarring all astrologers with one brush here Boggit” Yes I am: all astrologers are touting bogus beliefs.
“the explanation required to go into say how a birth chart is drawn up, the meanings of houses, aspects, planets etc alone never mind the interpretation of those things would be laborious for this forum…”
Returning to my analogy of how a car works, I’m not asking you to describe the wiring, or bits and pieces of the engine etc., I’m just asking you to outline the basic principles in terms of cause and effect. And if you can’t do that, what makes you so convinced that the position of stars etc. has a direct effect upon the personality of a human being? Do you simply believe it because someone said it was so? Do you believe the moon is made of cheese? If not, why not? What’s the difference?
“That is also why I suggested the website and reading material I did for those who may be interested in learning a little more about it, not you obviously…”
Hey Carole, I’m not the one who refuses to learn here. I did check out the website you recommended – http://www.astro.com. Here are some choice nuggets I found there:
“When you’re shattered by Uranus, something unexpected happens. In your despair you reach out, and like a lightning bolt it comes. Your perspective shifts and you get a sudden revelation. It wasn’t anything you could find on the shelves at Wal-Mart or pick up from the nightly news; it wasn’t the thing your mother has been telling you for years. Uranus is the supreme sky god, and his solutions are birthed in the great invisible, beyond consensus reality. Out of the storms of discontent, comes a gift from Divine Intelligence, a flash of knowing that was impossible before. Uranus charges us and changes us. It jolts us off one road and drops us onto another. It’s what makes our futures different from our past.
– Understanding Astrology – The Planets: Uranus by Dana Gerhardt
Er, yeah. Right.
“Introduction to Astrology
A Brief Introduction to Astrology
Astrodienst horoscopes are easy to understand, even for those who have not dealt with astrology before – you needn’t know any of the scientific jargon involved to be able to profit from our horoscope readings. …”
Scientific jargon? Someone’s taking the piss!
“First steps in Astrology…
Today, we distinguish between astronomy and astrology. While astronomers are interested in finding out scientific facts about the Solar System, modern astrologers continue to study the connection between the movements of the planets and people’s lives. The ancient astrologers thought that the planets were gods who ruled people’s lives. Modern astrologers no longer believe this, but they do still believe that in some fascinating way there is a relationship between the Sun, the Moon, the planets and the lives of each one of us.”
Ah well, there you go – that explains it: astrology influences the universe via the power of fascination! And astrologers no longer believe that the planets are gods – with the exception of Dana Gerhardt whose “Uranus is the supreme sky god”.
Well, I must admit, I’m convinced. I don’t know why I even bothered going to school!
Carole Bone said: “I have no issue with you being sceptical about astrology at all – I do think you have been exceptionally rude…”
Exceptionally? Are people usually just moderately rude to you?
“My belief is that you tend to twist meaning and state your interpretation of what people say – then quote YOUR meaning as fact i.e. put words into their mouths instead of seeking further clarification from the person.”
Now that really is crap. I’ve sought plenty of clarification from you Carole, but you have been loathe to give any. Furthermore, unpicking the threads of what a person is saying, in order to get to the truth of the matter, does not amount to twisting meaning. Of course I state my interpretation of what people say – who else’s interpretation would I state, other than my own?!
(Sorry – I was forgetting – you are happy to make a complaint on behalf of other people, even though you don’t believe it yourself. e.g. Brian Cox’s “offensive” remark which you didn’t actually find offensive!)
I don’t for one minute believe that “cool headed detachment” would have encouraged you to be more forthcoming about astrology. You were vague and evasive right from the start. Furthermore, you take criticism of your dodgy beliefs as direct criticism of yourself. Until you are able to separate the two, there will be no meeting of minds.
“You seem to enjoy debate for its own sake instead of seeking understanding…”
Untrue. I understand why astrology is a load of rubbish, and nothing you have said has contradicted that – you even agree that astrology can’t be proven scientifically. Do you believe that the moon is made of cheese Carole? Do you?
“… and that if something isn’t a black and white fact then it has no value or use.”
This thread is about astrology. Is it a load of rubbish or not? Science says it’s a load of rubbish. Does astrology have some other inbetweeny grey use? Well, yeah, it can line the pockets of its practitioners.
“… but not my belief or the belief of many.”
You never heard of The Emperor’s New Clothes? Truth is not a democracy.
“It’s the total lack of civility here that I find disappointing.”
There has been plenty of civility shown to you here Carole, but you’ve repeatedly evaded the issues at hand. That’s bound to cause irritation.
“You seem to think it’s to persuade someone one way or the other – that issues are black or white, right or wrong.”
A bloke down the pub may believe the moon is made of cheese, but he’d be wrong. I see no reason to pretend otherwise. Nor do I see any reason to remain silent while he tries to convince other people that the moon is made of cheese.
Similarly, I see no reason to remain silent while an astrology website tries to convince the world that “Uranus is the supreme sky god”!
Dario – I think your comments pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Terry – I appreciate your concerns about issues potentially being blurred by inflamed interchanges. However, I do feel they may have a place in some debates. It’s fine to set a honey-trap for a fly, but what if the fly won’t budge? Sometimes you have to waft the air around them a bit.
I can understand the desire to argue issues dispassionately, but we are passionate creatures who feel passionate about various subjects. Emotion does, when all said and done, focus our attention upon what is important to us.
I suppose it does come down to the question: what are the comments / debates on this forum intended to achieve? I guess, in an ideal world, clear and dispassionate scientific responses ought to be enough to deflate a false argument. But what happens if the presenter of that false argument starts playing linguistic games in order for the false argument to gain prominence in a thread? Is that okay? Or is it legitimate to challenge and / or reveal the slight of hand involved? Clearly, I do feel justified in taking such an approach. If that doesn’t fit the ethos here, perhaps the Moderator could let me know, & I’ll quietly bow out.
Carole said: “I do understand the difference between fact and opinion thank you.”
That is your opinion Carole – not everyone’s, and certainly not mine!
Simon, you wouldn’t happen work for the diplomatic service, would you?
🙂
Ha! 🙂
Well, well, well!! After starting off reading the article from Keir, and then going on to the comments,I got extremely sick of the whole “thing” and have chosen not to read them all, as they are honestly going no where. I know I will cop a fair bit of flack over this but here goes. I am a believer in astroloogy for a start and no I personally cannot prove that it is real, not enough to convince skeptics anyway. I am not a scientist, I am not an academic like most of you seem to be, I don’t use the big words that you use and sometimes even have to look up what they mean. Not everyone who gets on the net and into discussions has a masters degree and I certainly do not. I know this though, I look and I listen and I read and I learn, I keep an open mind, to all things and discuss and study those things that interest me. I also use “inverted” comments occassionally to specify a point or a word. I follow a skeptic friend around to see what he has written as I find his articles very interesting, hence my looking at Keir’s article today. What I seem to have learnt from this experience is, an article or topic is posted, for what reason? From what I “see” and the proof is reading the discussions!! Is that all you really want to do is put up your opinion (which is fine) but it is almost as if you wish to “bait” the non skeptics to get them in to a discussion and then “attack”!! You ridicule the existence of astrology, I usually believe that is purely because you don’t understand it or believe it so therefore ridicule it and make fun of it. Sad existence to be constantly putting other peoples beliefs down just because they aren’t your own. You constantly want proof, well you guys are the ones being skeptics, prove that astrology doesn’t exist. I don’t need to prove it to anyone as I have read enough and done enough research to believe and that is what is important to me. If anyone wants me to do their numerology as a bit of an excercise then give the details to Ash and he can email me your birthdate and I will do it for you. Though as you realise giving me an incorrect birthdate achieves nothing, for yourself or for me. My numerology is based on personality traits of the person. Other numerologies work on different aspects of the “person”. As to an affect the planets have on earth. One simple little one is the moon and the affect on the tides. That is just one planets affect. Was so looking forward to getting into the whole discussion on astrology, but found it just became a slinging match. Interesting article Keir. 🙂
Not quite correct. Astrology is ridiculed because it is a load of rubbish.
Again, not quite correct. Belief in astrology is put down because it is a load of rubbish.
Again, not quite correct. We are looking for evidence, not proof. Proof is impossible outside the realm of maths.
“prove that astrology doesn’t exist.”
Now your just being silly. Nobody is arguing that astrology doesn’t exist. We are arguing that it is a load of rubbish.
RE numerology:
I had a reading done about twenty years ago and at the time I was quite happy with the Barnum statements I was given, now I just want my fiver back. Can you offer more than the usual Barnum statements?
Leonie, I will gladly give you my birth details for you to provide me with a reading. But before I do, to make sure neither of us are wasting our time, can you tell me that your reading will be non-trivial (e.g. nothing that *everyone* experiences “you have experienced some sad times”, “you have had recent disagreements with friends/family”, or that if it IS trivial then it will be SPECIFIC (e.g. you will tell me specifics of these events; e.g. when it happened, names of those involved, dates, etc).
This way we can make sure you’re not just making Barnum statements. I’m not, however, saying that everyone who uses Barnum statements is being wilfully deceptive. I’m convinced Barnum statements (especially the more complex ones) can occasionally fool the people making them as much as they can fool the people hearing them.
So, Leonie, will you do a reading for me?
It’s deja vu all over again on this thread!
Leonie, to sum up the stuff you (admittedly) didn’t read:
– the article presented the evidence that suggests why astrology doesn’t work; this is not insulting, it’s simply describing the way the world *does* work
– any offence taken by pro-astrologers has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of astrology
– it is up to astrologers to prove astrology works at all (not skeptics to prove it doesn’t); if this can be demonstrated, then we can begin figuring out how and why it works. So far, we have yet to pass the first hurdle…
– skeptics aren’t all scientists or academics; we *are* open minded, but filter what we let in according to the evidence
I believe the intent (ultimately) of skeptics on the web is to educate, not to ridicule (although obviously I can’t speak for everyone).
Personally, I think more temperate language/modes of expression should be used with newcomers to these forums, especially if the idea is to educate people.
I favour the approach of a teacher: you can’t insult children when they get things wrong; you have to figure out why they’re wrong, and get them to see where they went wrong as well. This requires patience and dedication (not just the evidence and the reasoned argument that comes from it, and certainly not deliberate insults or mockery).
As for what motivates skeptics to debunk [things like astrology and homeopathy], instead of just ‘letting it be’, I really can’t speak for everyone.
However, I would suggest that frustration plays a part: at other people’s lack of critical thinking (which is not necessarily an academic trait); at the flaws in our education system (people’s lack of knowledge); at the waste of money (and the opportunism of certain practitioners); at the damage that can be done when people rely on these things instead of more effective, proven means of help.
None of this would matter if these things were billed as entertainment or were acknowledged as trivia. But they aren’t; which means the practitioners are (at best) deluded.
(Please note, ‘deluded’ doesn’t mean ‘stupid’, and should never be mistaken as such. As I said previously, “Calling an idea not-so-smart doesn’t mean people who believe in that idea are not-so-smart as well. They might not be aware of why it’s not-so-smart. If they refuse to accept the facts that explain why the idea is not-so-smart, then they can justifiably be called stubborn.”)
All we want to do is deal with the facts. Stubbornness doesn’t help.
So are there any astrologers who have EVIDENCE that it works?
Dear Keir Liddle
That actually is some good advice. Is it a birth chart reading?
Everyone is free to entitled to their own opinion.
…but not their own facts.
[…] wake of the BBC’s excellent Stargazing Live show, which stimulated some fresh interest in our Brian Cox vs Astrology article – the most commented on article ever on the 21st […]
You all are royal rubbush, RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, RUBBISH< and rubbish to all you who comment me on spellin rubbish wrong! RUBBISH!!!!1
\