Nothing unless they go on and on about it. olivesmarch4th is right that your average horoscope reader does not take it too seriously. I remember one of my girlfriend’s friends came over recently and was doing that. ‘I’m behind on the rent but I’ve been thinking about getting a ferret - I’m such a Sagittarius.’ ‘My friend Jeff ran stole a Peter Pan bus and ran over a Ukranian immigrant - typical Libra.’ I forget if I told her it was a bunch of crap or if I just gritted my teeth and waited her to leave.
A casual girlfriend once decided to stop seeing me because of advice given on an astrology hotline :rolleyes:
When she tried to get back together, I declined, as that incident has caused me to see the light.
Looking back, I dodged a bullet - thanks, mystic bullshit from beyond the stars!
In my general experience, picking apart other people’s beliefs and/or behaviors is a good way to come off like an arrogant jerk. Some people are so devoted to correcting other people that they don’t really seem to care about other people. I don’t want to be that person. As **jz78817 **so astutely pointed out, there are all different kinds of smarts and all different kinds of crazy beliefs, but it seems to me the way we rank them is pretty arbitrary. Even the most hard-core astrologer is basically harmless, so I’m far more likely to pick a battle with a crazy racist than someone who enjoys their daily horoscope.
As for my own feelings about astrology, I learned about all that long before I had the critical thinking skills to dismiss it out of hand, so there’s definitely an element of nostalgia to discussions about it - takes me back to some good childhood memories. Sort of like how I used to be a Christian so every once a while I can really enjoy a good hymn.
+1
I wouldn’t know, either.
But, that being said, I LOVE woo. Love it. Do I believe in any of it? Not one iota, but like I said in the superstition thread, I think that shit is totally fun. Maybe I just love pointless, silly rituals, but I gleefully open fortune cookies, would love to know how to read tarot cards, and occasionally read a horoscope, just for the amusement value.
However, that will not stop me from equally gleefully messing with people that actually believe that stupid crap. I’m the girl moving the ouija board, making up fun fortunes, and throwing salt at an imaginary devil. I almost wish I knew more people who were into that stuff.
/edit: To actually answer the OP. I don’t judge people who participate for entertainment. If I met someone who seriously organized their life around it, though, I’d think they were a dumbass. I probably wouldn’t say anything, though.
That’s cool, but aren’t you worried that by not being a humorless pedant, people won’t realize how much more intelligent and well-rounded you are than everybody who surrounds you? 
FWIW, my wife 100% believes every word of her daily horoscope, and makes it a point to check it each day. When I called her on it, her response was something like “We don’t know for certain that there’s no truth in it.” Uh, yes honey, we do.
I told her that if this soccer ball right here represented the Earth, and this softball six inches away represented the moon, the nearest star (not counting the sun) would be somewhere in Indianapolis. Then I asked her if she believed that what happened in Indianapolis would have any bearing on what happened to the microorganisms living on the soccer ball. Her response was “We don’t know!”
This from an intelligent, college-educated woman.
This is the way I feel about it. If you think that Mercury being in retrograde will affect your life, you probably will start acting in ways that will affect your life, and the prediction becomes true.
Mercury Retrograde - I love this subject.
I am a trained scientist - a medical writer and researcher and a member of Mensa. If something captures my interest and I want to check out its credibility then I approach it scientifically - weighing up both sides of the argument with statistics and possible explanations. I did this with Mercury Retrograde and I have to say that there is most definitely something in it. Statistically there are more delays and problems with travel, computers and communication. This time round it was the fire in London that brought the main motorway in the UK to a close for a few days; last time it was Heathrow Airport closed in December (reopening when Mercury went forward again) and the time before that it was the ash cloud which put a stop to all flights in the UK for over a week. Statistically things like this happen when Mercury is retrograde. I could mention loads other examples - like the Titanic which went down during MR when numerous attempts to contact/get to the ship before it hit the ice-berg failed. Oh yes - I also nearly died in hospital on September 9th last year (Mercury stationery-retrograde - even worse than MR) because the whole hospital computer system went down for 10 hours (and my paper records were lost), but was resolved as soon as Mercury went forward again. Anyway - trust me, I could go on…
It’s bizarre. I’m a scientist, but I’m not so arrogant to say that just because I can’t come up with an explanation, it can’t exist - I just don’t have an explanation YET - maybe never. It’s so easy for closed minded people to say - “aah, it’s a load of balls…” yet how many of those people have really looked into it - weighed it all up? There is nothing scientific about snap closed-minded judgements, just because it appears, on the face of it, to be related to witchcraft and the like. Scientific experiments involve a control group and ultimately things are proven with stats - and when you apply this to MR, it’s looking pretty credible.
Gunter Sachs is a mathematician who compiled a study called ‘The Astrology Files’ and published the book. He set up a study over 2 years using thousands of subjects, and worked with other scientists to see if there was any statistical significance in the different astrology signs: what they did for a living, how they died, who they married etc. There were scientists on that study who were sceptical and who were expecting no significance - but they were proven wrong.
Freaky - with no explanation as yet - but scientifically proven.
Citations from something peer-reviewed, please. And it’s utterly laughable that anyone would count “I nearly died” as anything even remotely resembling data or use the words “scientifically proven” to describe something that hasn’t been published over and over again and was pretty much common knowledge by the time anyone would venture to use the word.
Also, the idea that simply being in MENSA makes you qualified to do ANYTHING is silly. Don’t use it, as it undermines your argument.
This is nonsense. Several reports of icebergs were received by the Titanic. In response to the earlier reports the captain changed his course slightly further south. The radio operators didn’t pass the later messages onto the bridge crew, as they were busy sending messages from passengers. Also, who was trying to get to the Titanic before it hit the iceberg? I didn’t realise James Cameroon’s enthusiasm had stretched to building a time machine.
The Titanic’s SOS signals were also received by several ships, but not by the closest ship as their radio operator had gone to bed, presumably due to a Mercury induced headache (the simpler explanation, that he went to bed because it was NIGHT TIME, not being worth considering).
You can find all sorts of statistically significant relationships, if you cherry-pick data with an uncritical mind.
Well yes - you’re right, I agree with you Vihaga.
Being a member of MENSA doesn’t qualify me for anything - that’s right. However, it is a standard recognised test of general intelligence factor, and people on this forum seem pretty hung up on a perceived link between intelligence and open-mindedness.
No - Mensa doesn’t qualify me for anything, but my PhD does (qualifies me at least to work as a scientist to research/write in the medical industry).
Anyway - you kind of missed of the point. Just because something isn’t peer reviewed, doesn’t make it instantly dismissable. The thing is - no one out there has scientifically proven that the Mercury Retrograde DOESN’T affect us, or that it DOES, so the jury is out there, and if you want to be scathingly condescending and patronising to people that have other views to you, - then go ahead, but at the end of the day, you have no more reason to do that than those you are criticising.
At the end of the day - who is going to produce a peer reviewed paper on Mercury Retrograde? No big company can make millions of pounds out of it, or can patent it, put it in a pot, and call it their own (like the drug companies) so it’s not going to happen. Peer reviewed articles are not the be-all and end-all of everything.
I work with scientists everyday and the best ones are those who have an open-mind, because science is full of surprises, and if we think we know it all already then we close our minds to all kinds of possibilities, discoveries and developments. I see people who fail to observe, listen, analyse, formulate their own ideas, but call themselves scientists because all they do is cling, in a blinkered fashion, to the ‘safe’ conclusions in a few peer-reviewed papers. Now those people really are DULL - just arrogant enough to criticise others, with nothing interesting to offer themselves.
Gunter Sachs’ study, by the way, was scientifically proven (that is what I was referring to - not MR). It used a very large sample and his results were statistically significant. When you’ve read it all (and I don’t mean the reviews), and fully assessed it, only THEN are you qualified to credibly comment on it.
If you know of anyone who has done a scientific study proving the contrary (i.e. that astrology signs are insignificant) then please do let me know…
Cecil mentioned a study in his column on Is astrology for real?
[QUOTE=Cecil Adams]
In one study of 22 astrology buffs, half were presented with their real horoscopes and half were presented with fake charts saying the exact opposite. Both groups said their horoscopes were 96 to 97 percent accurate.
[/QUOTE]
Although 22 seems like a small sample size.
People who have different astrological signs may indeed have different characteristics, without this being caused by the influence of “the stars.” There may be some self-fulfilling prophecy involved: people taking the advice of their horoscopes or acting the way their astrological profiles tell them they’re “supposed” to act. Or it may be that differences are caused by being born at different times of the year (which, for example, might cause a kid to be older or younger than most of the rest of his class at school, affecting his academic and social success).
I notice that’s not the subject under discussion.
It’s too early to take a stiff drink, but I’m tempted. If you have training in the sciences you know better than this: a thesis needs evidence to support it, not an appeal to ‘hey, who knows!’ And certainly a claim like this requires some serious evidence.
Are you suggesting there is no interest in research into anything that’s not patentable? A researcher who demonstrated that there is any real basis to astrology would be easily able to make a living from a book deal and the lecture circuit and maybe a TV show.
It was “scientifically proven” what? That people with different birth signs died different ways and had different careers? So what? Did it control for any of the different factors that can influence what people do for a living and how they die?
It means you take a standardized test well. Full stop. Could you kindly cite where you saw anyone here said anything “hung up” on testing well making you more open-minded?
I’m sure your Ph.D. is helpful in “a medical field.” What’s your specialty? It qualifies you for exactly dick regarding… what would you suggest one use to prove astrological claims? A statistician? Astronomer? Psychologist? I could see a psych background qualifying you for parts of an astrological study.
Miz Scientist, the onus is always on the person making the assertion to provide evidence for it. It’s the null hypothesis that we assume an assertion to be untrue until we can show that it’s not. It’s the starting point for most experiments and statistical tests. This makes your statement that “no one has proved that it doesn’t affect us” utterly ridiculous coming from someone scientifically trained. Whoever trained you, they failed badly if you don’t understand that basic tenet of experimental research. In addition, peer review is a widely accepted practice because it’s the most effective way the scientific community has yet found to prevent crackpots presenting flawed data as legitimate research.
Peer review is not everything, but it’s a large thing to dismiss so casually. There are a lot of researchers out there that study phenomena relating to personality, epidemiology, and social dynamics. One could easily take their raw data and do an in-depth meta-analysis to look for correlation with astrological signs, and it would cost nothing but time. Why have no results emerged from this kind of study? And why the book containing is Gunther’s “revolutionary proof” out of print? You’d think some interest would have been generated.
This I’d agree with. There is, however, a line between believing data that seems unlikely and believing something you think should be true, even if there’s no convincing evidence. Great scientists have had trouble with that line throughout history; it seems like kind of an occupational hazard.
I don’t consider being “boring” a sufficient flaw to justify abandoning the scientific method. YMM, and obviously does, V.
There have been dozens of studies debunking astrology. Here is one, and here is another.
It’s not sensible or useful to treat all unproven theories with absolute agnosticism. I could claim there is a correlation between the amount of mould growing on a pice of cheese in my fridge and suicide rates in Guatemala. No study has been published either way, so the jury is out.
The claims of astrology invite extreme skepticism. There is no data to support it, and no credible causal mechanism. Did you read this link I posted earlier in the thread? It’s a fairly short piece, and is very readable. Can you rebut any of the points it makes?
Do you have a link please?
She wasn’t trained in Regular Science, she was trained in Sassy Science, which has different protocols. The burden of proof is entirely different.
I don’t necessarily question their intelligence. Instead, I question their wisdom, their education, their gullibility, and their ability to think critically.
Yes, it should. The thread title did actually momentarily confuse me - what the hell is “mercury retrograde”, I thought? Some kind of conspiracy theory about the toxic effect of mercury?