Do astrologers actually believe what they preach?

Great Debates
141

IMO astrology did genuinlly start out as a predictive thing.
For cultures that didn’t have clocks or any real sort of time measurement looking at the stars told people the time to plant,the time the river flooded etc.etc.

And people being people those who could do it had to exaggerate their own abilities to keep the majority of the population under their control.

Unfortunately Precession,that is the wobbling of the Earth on its axis means that the constellations used by present day Astrologers are now out of synch,by one star sign so that even the flawed logic that they work by is totally meaningless by their own calculations.

The constellations of the horoscope were mapped several thousand years ago.

142

You mean they don’t line up with the constellations any more? My Og, why didn’t somebody tell me?

143

This reaction is getting very tiresome. Every time someone comes up with a reason why astrology shouldn’t work, instead of responding to or denying the evidence, you mock the person who posts it.
I think we get it now-you are going to reject any and all evidence that goes against what you believe.

144

It ain’t exactly breaking news, Czarcasm. I would hazard a guess that better than 95% of practicing astologers know about the precession of the equinoxes. Yet people keep telling me like they expect me to be stunned.

I’m not trying to change your mind, Czar. I might like to pry it open a wee bit, but beyond that, its just what I said: you got an honest question, you’ll get an honest answer. You want to call me a chump, please don’t waste my time. Fair enough?

145

And if you don’t want to be called a chump, don’t close your mind to all the evidence put before you and expect not to be challenged on this message board, and especially in this forum. No free passes for unsubstantiated beliefs that fly in the face of established scientific principles. If you want to “open” my mind, it would help if you had something in the way of evidence to do it with.

146

That would be nice. Regretably, not much in the way of empirical evidence is possible. But if you were a carpenter, would you be swayed in your opinion about carpentry by someone who didn’t know a framing hammer from a saw?

147

Carpentry–>the tools exist, the result can be viewed, it doesn’t defy science as we know it–>Reality.
Astrology–>the tools are mythology and fantasy, the results are ambiguous at best, and it defies science as we know it–>Not Reality.

148

For my side of the debate, there’s plenty of evidence-for your side, not so much. Is this really the argument you want to stick with?

149

If we assume that large numbers of people take astrological forecasts seriously, then , what if these people modify their behaviour as a result? Then we should see people avoiding certain dates, locations, appointments, etc., in an attempt to ward off the danger that’s been forecast. For example, suspicious businessman has been told to avoid making a deal on a certain date-so he changes his schedule. has he avoided his fate? Or just rescheduled it? :confused:

150

Why is it not possible? Astrology makes claims about how people should be, then you check them.

151

How much of astrology of interpretive and how much is objective? As I understand it, the rules are all written down somewhere, right? Hypothetically, couldn’t someone just write a computer program and completely eliminate the need for humans in the field? It doesn’t seem like it would be very hard to program, either. All you would would need to do is enter your data and beep, out comes your charts. If that’s not the case, could someone please explain to me what it is that astrologers interpret?

152

As I understand it, Garula, humans are necessary in the process because they gather some data about the subject before the horoscope is cast, and then adjust the results to fit what they’ve found. If they presented straight information from the book, then it wouldn’t look nearly so convincing.

153

OK, lets do it! Lets devise and execute the definitive experiment, once and for all, nail this sucker down! We’ll call it the Snarky 'luc collaboration. You’ll represent the stubborn rationalists, and I’ll represent the loony fringe.

OK, first off, gonna need a bunch of money. Gotta hire people, some computer time, stuff like that. Who do we got to for funding? Randi? National Council of Churches? The Amish?

Well, let’s just say I win the lottery, and I’ll fund it myself. Never mind drugs, cars, and lewd women, there’s a principle at stake here! I’m all for it! If it proves me wrong, no sweat, I’m of an age where I can shrug off shit as the “folly of youth”.

Besides, it would rid me of this awkward anomaly and return me to the calm and untroubled bosom of empiricism. And if I’m proven right, I will accept the results with calm aplomb and genosity. After I get done gloating like a motherfucker. Hooo, doggies! And then maybe people wouldn’t scoot their chairs away from me to avoid the crazy cooties…

OK, got the money. Gotta hire the people, going to need some scientists and some astrologers who are willing to collaborate here. You representing the rationalists, you recruit the scientists…

“Hello? Is this renowned statistician, Dr. Marge N. Overra?. My name is Snarky Kong and I want to offer you an opportunity to join a scientific analysis of the validity of astrology. Just think how that will enhance your resume, and your standing amongst your peers, and…hello? Hello?..”

But, OK, we find the scientists. Scientist. Whatever. (“Hey, 'luc, that’s yer goddam brother in law!” “Just happens my sister married the most respected statistician ever graduated by Texas A&M! Sheer coincidence…”)

So far so good. Next we get to decide which characteristics we are going to test for. Aggression? Compassion? Well,we’ve got to have a metric, don’t we, some way of defining those amorphous terms into hard numbers. OK, so we get a committe of renowned psychologists who don’t care if they kiss their tenure goodbye for this harebrained scheme…and they decide which of the various psychological testing regimes is most readily adapted for our purposes. Unanimous would be nice.

Next, we get together an equal number of qualified astrologers. Ahhhh, according to who? There are disagreements withint that sphere, you know. Just because they’re all nuts doesn’t mean they’re all nuts in the same way. The Siderealists would probably demand to be included. (Don’t ask.)

Then the two sides must confer to define the testing criteria. Capacity for violence relative to Mars position and aspects? Intensity of maternal instinct? Ambition/empathy?

Getting a little complicated? Honey,we ain’t even got into the hard part yet! Now we got to agree on the sample selection methods. Does it have to be astrological believers? Or firm deniers? Or people who haven’t even heard the words “What’s your sign”? And how many, do you figure? Ten thousand seems kinda small, I’m expecting a comparatively small but demonstrable effect here, I’m going to lean towards the largest sample possible and hey! its my damn money!

OK, then we get all those people to take our approved tests, and we hand it over to our team of respected astrologers. We cast the horoscope by computer (maybe get them from the same Radio Shack Cecil buys his…) and now all we got to do is wait for a hundred astrologers to interpret 100,000 charts. Might take a while, but this is science! Maybe we hang a few, to encourage the others. Ten, twelve years, tops.

See what I’m driving at here? Its all very well to toss off a “well, why can’t you prove it”, its cheap and easy, but ultimately pointless. For all practical purposes, such a proof isn’t possible. My two bits, of course, is that if such an experiment were practicable, some measureable effect would be found. Yours, that it wouldn’t. But that’s about as far down this road as we can go. There just isn’t a practical way to go about it.

154

The only test you would supposedly accept is one you know is too costly and extensive to do in the first place, and none of the other tests and studies done so far mean anything to you? So because the preponderance of the vast amount of research done on the subject that says it is bunk just isn’t good enough for you, you’re just going to reject it in favor of…what, exactly? Feelings? What is it that convinced you to reject science and embrace pseudo-science?

155

Or you could find the names of all the people that were born in a specific hospital on a specific day which is correlated to a specific astrological meaning. I’d personally do with something that claims violence. Then cross reference that with arrest records.

You make erroneous claims about how difficult this would be. Astrology has specific rules, it says specific things about people. There are tests designed to diagnose all sorts psychological characteristics and that ignores all the personalities that would manifest themselves in concrete ways. Apparently astrology also makes claims about what people would be fat, are you seriously claiming that would be a hard thing to test? You’ve been given practical ways that it could be tested but you just stick fast with your ludicrous claim that it’s untestable.

156

Your proposal is silly.

You don’t need 100,000 charts. How many charts have you done in your astrological career? 100? Yet your human brain was able to see that there was something interesting happening. If you were able to percieve a signal with a sample set that small, it should be pretty easy to see with a few hundred charts. Are Virgos 1% more likely to be organized, or 10% more likely, or twice as likely? If we are trying to see a signal of only 1%, then a large sample would be need. Except if the signal is only 1%, then how in Christ’s name could any astrologer believe that Virgos are more organized than non-Virgos? Something that faint wouldn’t be picked up by a human. We don’t need advanced statistical techniques, the techniques we would use are all laid out in a sophmore statistics textbook.

Your conception of a vast multi-million dollar research project is unjustified.

But you did raise one very very crucial objection. What crazy things are we going to be looking for? Because, as you say, all you astrologers don’t agree. And here’s the thing. If the astrologers don’t agree, then how in the hell can they all agree that astrology works? It don’t make no sense. Either astrologers have discovered a set of valid techniques, and they use those techniques with varying degrees of success, or they’re perceiving a pattern where no pattern exists.

And we know from innumerable psychological studies that human brains have a very difficult time separating random data sets from ordered data sets. Things that look random to us can turn out to be highly ordered, things that look ordered can turn out to be random. And my theory is that this is what has happened in your case.

157

First, study how people can be fooled. When you have become well-informed on that, devise a test for astrology.

158

What other tests and studies?

159

Are you serious??

160

Bring 'em.