Cecil, thank you for giving straight dope on horoscopes. It is not unheard of, but pretty amusing to hear the subject summed up once again as being totally and complete rubbish, but from your believe it or not angle, it might even make sense to just not believe it. However, if we look from the scientific angle you would be surprised of how much truth there could be to horoscopes, if only you choose the right faculty. Using physics or astronomy, one might be tempted to follow your querying what influence some hunk of metal somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse Seven could have. But what about the statement, time and place of birth has no influence on character? If we take a scientific look at sociology or history: both faculties focus almost completely on the aspects of human behaviour in a certain time and space.
If S. Hussein were born in a surfer’s community on Hawaii he might have turned up for the yearly “Ride The Waves” competition instead of keeping low in some earth hole. Or thinking about it, I am pretty thankful that Lady Gaga did not grow up in a Taliban Boot Camp. What about the planets? Remember the planets’ constellations alter according to era and viewing angle from earth, so just document the time and place. What would be very interesting now would be to get the straight dope on the difference of being born in hurricane season in New York versus spring time in Fokushima and therefore talking about the difference between Aquarius and Cancer.
Yes, time and place of birth matters. There’s even been done some interesting scientific work on statistical differences in psychology and health in large population groups based on season of birth, but the entire art of astrology is bunk. It produces provably useless results, by nonsense methods. From the collumn:
The point is, there is no correlation between known and possible influences of time and place of birth, and the predictions of astrology, beyond the blindingly obvious.
Once you’ve seen James Randi’s trick pulled (demonstrating the Barnum effect), it becomes very hard to cling to a faith in the practice.
I also read somewhere that there are now thirteen star signs yet the charlatans running the column won’t alter the prevailing belief for fear of alienating their readership.
Your examples are a different definition of time and space.
Yes, environment has an effect on human behaviour, and although there may be a statistical correlation, it cannot be used to generalize or predict all future actions and behaviours of an individual to any degree of acuracy.
I’ve always wondered, if astrology is a “science” why is it that daily horoscopes differ greatly from atrologist to astrologist? I always tell people who complain about their horoscope to go buy a different newspaper with a more favourable one.
Quite good arguments, Sparky, but if you do agree to a correlation, then indeed there could exist a statistical generalization with enough accuracy. It is not taken seriously enough, and so either misunderstood as predudice - as in being born on the wrong side of the fence - or just dismissed as being irrelevant.
If you take it into account, there suddenly could be very interesting influences indeed - ever thought about e.g. if the season you are born in might influence the colors you like most? Your own Birthdate is commonly the most important date for people and it might to my understanding definitely make a difference what the wheather is usually like.
Quite good arguments, Sparky, but if you do agree to a correlation, then indeed there could exist a statistical generalization with enough accuracy. It is not taken seriously enough, and so either misunderstood as predudice - as in being born on the wrong side of the fence - or just dismissed as being irrelevant.
If you take it into account, there suddenly could be identified very interesting influences indeed - e.g. the season you are born in might influence the colors you like most. Your own Birthdate is commonly the most important date for people and it might to my understanding definitely make a difference of what the wheather is usually like on your birthdate.
There is a classical experiment where a psychology teacher asked his students for their date of birth, sent them to an astrologer, handed out the results and let the students rate them. I think most of the students thought they were accurate or very accurate.
Then the teacher asked one of them to read the statement about himself out loud and everyone realised they had all been given the same text (and the date the astrologer had been given was that of a well known mass murderer).
Now, now, that’s as much nonsense as astrology itself is. A bunch of arbitrary straight lines drawn in the sky in 1930 to arrange the constellations into shapes rather resembling the US states west of the Mississippi is hardly going to change the magic power (assuming there is any) of traditional constellations that are a lot older.
And Philograph, there is a gigantic chasm between assuming a correlation and saying that one is statistically significant. The latter is a scientific measure that has never been found. Without it you have nothing.
Philograph, please propose a scientifically plausible mechanism for any planet in our solar system’s influence upon a birth, and only upon a birth.
This mechanism should also consider the underlying presumption of astrology that the planet’s influence is effective only during the short period of birth, not before or after, and has permanent, observable, measurable effects upon the organism.
This mechanism should also explain how the chance juxtaposition of a celestial body in our solar system with others in another galaxy a million light years away has any influence upon anything at all on our Earth beyond the minuscule and immeasurable tug of mass at an extreme distance.
I also read and can’t find a cite for a study which measured some non-correlative trait with star sign with a huge sample (phone book) and found one-tailed statistical significance in the first instance and none in the second repeat (which would demonstrate the necessity of repeat experiment and accurate statistics). After all, along with a theoretical support for the influence of one minute aspect of the environment over our personality, there’d also need to be a mechanism for disproof (perhaps Caesarians for children that were due to be born just after some astronomical event).
The assumption with the thirteenth star sign is that the original astrologers were incorrect (as they almost certainly were) in how they divided the expanse of space and apportioned the power of the heavens over fate. So people that thought they’d be in cancer would be in tropics or whatever the star signs are.
The moment of birth is irrelevant. The factor only has to be the moment of conception when one sperm wins the lottery and gets to fertilize an egg, selecting a specific genetic combination. The astrologers could just be off by 9 months on the significance of the position of the celestial objects. Only the moment of sperm success needs to be counted, and obviously the selection of a particular genetic combination will influence the remainder of a person’s life.
So the only thing necessary is to demonstrate a scientific principle whereby the relative position of distant objects affects the genetic selection.
I don’t think Philograph is proposing an actual mechanism, so much as a coincidental, (but consistent) correlation between locally fluctuating influences and the appearance of the heavens.
But it’s too much of a stretch, surely. The orbital periods of the planets are all different. The constellations themselves are on the move, as well as the equinoxes and so on. For the ancients to have stumbled upon something that was both highly complex, consistently and predictably correct, but utterly coincidental in terms of cause and effect is too ridiculous a notion to entertain. Clutching at straws.
Anyway, it would probably help to first demonstrate that there even IS any complex and consistent predictable stuff going on. Then we can look for cause and effect.
But this presumes that Astrologers know how to ‘read’ the signs. The cause and effect may exist and never have been properly established. Science does not require that we only find explanations for observable phenomena.
Of course your method does provide a simple means of proving astrologers are full of shit. Still, it’s not like proving anything has much affect on the believers either.
Absolutely. But some people believe that the cause and effect exists. If there is no plausible explanation as to how that could happen, it weakens the claim significantly.
And the claim astrology makes is already weak since it is grounded in magic as the ancients understood it once and the ignorant use it now.
Well, quite - the point is that we could discuss the ifs and maybes of how circumstances might predestine individuals in a way that just happens to exactly match the entirely unconnected whirling of the stars and planets, until the cows come home - but what’s the point rummaging about for an explanation for a phenomenon until that phenomenon has actually been observed to exist at all?