You’re right, of course, except perhaps for God. What evidence would be sufficient in that case?
… exactly as I said in post #6 …
Seasonal variation is just one factor – there are also holidays and other cyclical events that don’t strictly follow the seasons. So yes, under the theory I’m proposing there would be **differences ** in “astrological predictions” of personality depending on which part of the world a person lives (or grew up in) but they need not be so simple as to be completely opposite.
I guess my real point is that there are undeniably cyclical environmental factors that influence a person’s psychological development (see “chronobiology” for some examples) and that it is these factors – and not the celestial bodies usually credited – that account for the “truth” of astrological predictions. And I do think there is some truth to astrology, or else it wouldn’t have survived for thousands of years. It’s just that the (prevailing) theory is nonsense, which also happens to be the case for lots of other more mainstream observations made within the framework of science. However, an invalid theory does not invalidate the observations the theory tries to explain. Mainstream scientists ridiculed meditation and acupuncture for years, before research finally vindicated the observations of believers – while at the same time completely destroying their pre-existing theories as to why meditation and acupuncture (at least partly) work.
So in the interests of being scientific, I’ll make a prediction: Sometime within the next (say) decade, scientific studies will prove that at least some of the tenets of astrology are in fact true (with regards to personality that is, not “lucky numbers” or daily events and such nonsense) and are based on cyclical environmental factors that themselves have nothing to do with the motions of heavenly bodies (other than coincidence of timing.) And the researchers responsible for those studies will probably do everything they can to distance themselves and their results from “traditional” astrology. 
I really do think that some of astrology is probably valid, but that the reason a person born in March (in the northern hemisphere) is more likely to have an “outgoing” personality (or whatever… I actually don’t know much about astrology itself) has more to do with the fact that they were going through some developmental window at 3-6 months of age and their diet was high in fresh berries and their exposure to higher levels of sunlight (stimulating melatonin production or whatever) during that time impacted their personality development, than anything to do with the position of various stars or planets that are millions of miles away.
But why would one think it has anything to do with the position in the sky of stars and planets?
Thousands of years ago, Babylonians were fascinated by the night sky. How could they not be – on a clear night, the desert sky in a world without light pollution is an amazing spectacle. Stars in their thousands, the planets, the Milky Way (God, it’s been years since I’ve seen it), meteors, comets. Eternal and yet always changing. Given the level of knowledge available at the time, astrology – in the sense of the sky being a reflection or predictor of major events in the human world – made as much sense as anything. They weren’t less intelligent than we are; they just didn’t have the benefit of our gradually-evolved scientific method. Coming up with astrology at that time was an act of imagination (and used math and observational techniques that gave us the basis for astronomy).
But in 2008, believing in astrology is just pig-ignorant.
I stand corrected when I used “science” as the descriptive for the practice - it was the word that popped into my head at the moment.
And for clarification - yes, astrology works for me and it works for my friend who studies the subject in much more depth (I’ve attempted to lure her into the Dope-scene with a few thread links). Did it boost my level of confidence? Maybe, maybe not. I was always a good employee when it came to working with customers, not so much with coworkers until I changed my technique.
What does it mean that it works for you? If it means you enjoy it, fine go ahead, if you think it allows you to make testable predictions about people, then I can’t say anything positive about that.
What I mean is that if I know the person’s sign I will adapt my communication skills based on the person’s sun sign. I use the information for the bases of communication - NOT FOR PREDICTING the future. I also use it for personal guidance. I do not have the gift of seeing the future, though I have seen the past (not with astrology) at times (things that I would not know otherwise).
Can science explain why some people experience snapshots of the past or of the future and others dont? (this is a serious question that just came to mind that I have never explored)
Some people of better memories of the past, and sometimes guess correctly at the future.
That would be the hardest to prove, given Clarke’s First Law. But aside from technologically-possible miracles, how about an entity that causes real peace, love and understanding, especially through rituals or prayers? That would be compelling evidence that it is a god, and by most folk’s definition it is really a god. Even if the “god” is really an ultra powerful psychic alien, responding to prayers and causing miracles is enough for me.
The big g-God, perhaps, could be proved with dialog with the dead if that is proven. If that is proven, AND the dead claim to mostly be in the presence of God, that is a pretty good proof of an ontological entity (as opposed to mathematical construct) compared to a lot of proofs that we have in this world.
Great minds think alike. 
If you were to test this assumption with absolute rigor — say, if you were to have separate interactions with twelve people, each of whose sign you were given in advance, but with an unknown-to-you breakdown of correct and incorrect sign assignment, and then afterward reveal which were actually which, and compare your results — you would, I suspect, be sorely disappointed.
Believe what you like, but until you have empirical data on your side equivalent to the towering heaps of same wielded by the naysayers, don’t expect anybody to buy into your argument.
I’d be willing to place a pretty sizeable bet that you’ve kept no records that can prove your assertion that you do your job better because of using sun signs for communications, and that your “success” is purely confirmation bias (“blue van at the corner syndrome”).
I repeat: there isn’t even anything to argue about. The entire concept is disproven. It’s over. Believing in this stuff in 2008 is like believing the sun is pulled across the sky by a flaming chariot. You’re being hoaxed and/or defrauded by the people who sell you the astrology books.
Well, yes, apparently you have. Are you aware that serious astrologers look down on newspaper astrology every bit as much as Phil PlaitPhil Plait looks down on them? Astrologers predict weather, elections, the stock market… anything that people would appreciate knowing the future of.
I am aware of people considering themselves “serious astrologers,” and I’m sure they look down on “amateur astrologers.”
Personally, I think amateur astrologers are more likely to be deluded and serious astrologers are more likely to be frauds.
Astrology doesn’t predict anything. That’s been proven. If someone develops a system whereby astrology can supposedly predict something, the person is either self-deluded or trying to defraud people.
Well it so happens that I have Analog/Astoundings back to 1950 (and a bunch of late '40s ones.) The editorial in question turned out to be in the first one I looked at, October 1962.
Before we begin, remember that Campbell had just come off of his Dean Drive (a space drive) obsession. Campbell had a very bad habit of going off half-cocked about crack brained ideas. Dianetics was just the first of many.
The editor is called “Crucial Experiment”. The data was collected by Joe Goodavage, and astrologer, and thus not a disinterested party.
This editorial just laid out the experiment. BTW, the USWB is quoted - quite correctly, as only being able to accurately predict weather for 24, up to 3 days for truly skilled meteorologists. They didn’t have computers and satellites. So it is a bit unfair to claim the USWB was even in this contest.
Now, the astrological prediction was made by an unidentified astro-meteorologist.
Here is a chunk of the prediction:
They then gave a prediction for various areas based on a roulette wheel. Note that no official prediction was given, since none was made.
So, how did they do? I’m missing the June 1963 issue, so it may be there, but no issue from October 62 to November 63 had any mention of the results. I can’t find anything in the NESFA index about that month’s editorial. So, using this experiment as evidence of astrology may be pushing it.
In September 1962, by the way, Campbell had an editorial with the old chestnut about how since Galileo and Newton believed, there must be something to it. IN April 1963 a letter by one Benjamin Bova said that the reason physics has surged ahead is that it tended to make accurate predictions.
For those of you not sf fans, Ben Bova took over Analog upon Campbell’s death. He was writing for the magazine in 1962, so he wasn’t an unknown.
If someone has a reference to when and if the results were published, let me know. The entire letter column for May, by the way, was taken up by Dean with details on his space drive, so maybe one bad idea got driven out by another one.
Sorry, I’d say this is evidence against, not for.
Besides the other objections, you would expect to see variations not just in birth month, but in birth year, given that some are sunnier than others. Where I live in California it is quite nice in February - if people born here have sunnier dispositions, I haven’t noticed. As for diet, you’d have to correct for income level, as the well to do would have more berries than the poor.
You can certainly do an experiment, selecting several weather patterns and comparing people born under each. Even if this shows an effect (which I strongly doubt) it isn’t anywhere close to astrology, since neither planets nor dates are really relevant. But, the way science works, it is up to you to convince us. Until then, I’m not buying it.
It does have an advantage over astrology in that it doesn’t posit undiscovered influences, at least.
Fair enough; if what I’m describing shouldn’t be called “astrology” then I’ll try to draw the distinction more clearly in the future. I agree about the need to properly control for all the variables involved, which is why I tend to dismiss the studies I’ve seen so far (all of them seem to be geared mostly toward disproving the “predictive” aspect of astrology, or at least the connection to heavenly bodies, which I’ve always thought to be nonsense anyway.)
I actually think diet probably plays the largest role (including the diet of the pregnant mother) and that this influence has diminished over time (at least in wealthier cultures that can import off-season foods) so that astrological classification of personality types was more accurate in the past than it is today – but if there’s a real effect, I think it should at least still be detectable today, given the proper setup for the study.
Just to reiterate though, my main point is that I think mainstream science is far too dismissive of folk theories. I think science is a better method for uncovering the truth, but I think the effectiveness of methods is more like a continuum than a strict cutoff, and that primitive methods are at least somewhat effective. Given enough time (and astrology has had thousands of years to develop) I think it’s almost guaranteed that even the least effective methods will come to uncover some truths, and that science might have a lot more to learn from fields like astrology, Chinese medicine, yoga, etc. than is commonly acknowledged.
(Oh, and as somebody who grew up in NJ and moved to California later in life, I can assure you that California natives do have a sunnier disposition… but that might just be because they’re happy not to be in NJ. )
Dismissive how? Anyone, yourself included, is free to conduct a study of a particular folk theory, publish the results, and wait for the peer review.
And a properly controlled scientific experiment can determine just how effective they are.
You seem to think that there is some sort of collusion or conspiracy among scientists to withhold acknowledgment. Scientists are not in the business of denying the truth. All it would take is one study with significant results to get the ball rolling.
So, you’re saying that Astrology is superior to leeches in determining personality and fortune?
If no one has put forth a hypothesis like yours, no one has tested it.
I doubt anyone would disagree with you about diet. When I was in the Boy Scouts, we had two kids in my troop who were mildly retarded. My understanding was that their father was stationed in Korea, met and married their mother, and for some reason she didn’t get proper nutrition.
Your opinion on science is not correct. My wife is now writing encyclopedia entries on various drugs, and some of them did indeed start off as folk remedies. Your problem probably stems from science not accepting anything not tested, while folk remedies and pseudoscience like astrology work on anecdotal evidence. When a study finds that the folk remedy isn’t effective, the backers complain about science. The backers of things that do work are much happier.
Tests of astrology, to get back to the original point of this thread, have never found any effect. Thus, there is not much to learn from it.
Humph. I’m from New York, but I lived in NJ (near Princeton) for 15 years before I moved here, and I can’t wait to go back when I retire.