Scientific Basis for Astrology

[pmwgreen]

Has anyone mentioned the obvious problem that horoscopes have to be reversed in the southern hemisphere? If so, I’d to re-emphasize that. I’d like to propose that an alternate cause might be what stage of pregnancy the birth mother was when she got legless on New Year’s Eve, but seeing as there is no evidence that horoscopes correlate to personality in any way, forget it.

[KidCharlemagne]

@Kimstu

Oh gee, here we go again. From the beginning:

A) I’ve already apologized for my snappish tone aka “jumping down the OP’s throat” in critiquing his hypothesis, so I’ll cop to that.

You’re right, I read that post but missed the closing apology. I was blinded by the insults in the paragraph that proceeded it. So I apologise for missing your apology.

B) The OP described his speculation as a possible “scientific basis for astrology”. As he clarified in post #49, that was rather misleading if he wasn’t in fact claiming that his hypothesized prehistoric interest in seasonal differences in birth characteristics is what the ancient practice of nativity horoscopes was ultimately based on. Which it wasn’t. Because, as already explained, nativity horoscopes were an offshoot of a different form of astrological prediction not concerned with individual characteristics.

He never mentions horoscopes. The second sentence of the OP reads “It does involve stars and constellations, but their only function is that of a calendar.”

C) You are engaging in the same sort of vague and misleading halfassery as the OP when you speak of ancient astrology “morph[ing] into something hideously unscientific” even though it might have been “born from a reasonably scientific hypothesis” ultimately because of some “person who made the leap from personality to season to stars”.

What is it exactly that you’re trying to suggest happened in this supposed “morphing” process? Because you seem to be implying, like the OP, that the hypothesized prehistoric “season -> personal characteristics” cause-and-effect model ultimately gave rise, via somebody’s “leap” from “season to stars”, to the ancient nativity-horoscope “astronomical configuration -> personal characteristics” cause-and-effect model.

But it didn’t. Here’s the sequence of events as supported by historical data:

1) [Hypothesized prehistoric system of empirical inferences about causal connections between birth season and personal characteristics, for which there is zero actual evidence but it’s still a reasonable speculation.]

[… Passage of massive amounts of time …]

2) Early-mid 2nd millennium BCE: Cuneiform records of Old-Babylonian divinatory “protasis-and-apodosis” omen collections, inferring causal connections between all sorts of earthly events (especially the appearance of the livers of sacrificed animals) and all sorts of predicted consequences. There is AFAIK no trace of any coherent divinatory system of predicting native characteristics from birth season.

3) In the same period or a little later: Appearance of fragmentary records of celestial omens inferring causal connections between astronomical phenomena and major earthly events affecting entire regions and states. These events are considered to be divine messages from the gods associated with the astronomical bodies involved. They are Big News and not interpreted as applicable to the individual fate of just any old Joe Beles-sunu.

4) Around the end of the second millennium: First surviving complete celestial omen connections, containing entire systems of such predictions for states and regions from celestial events. This is a massive state-sponsored enterprise(s), and includes increasingly sophisticated mathematical models of astronomical phenomena and their cycles.

5) About the middle of the first millennium BCE: Increasingly accurate mathematical astronomy models integrating the cyclical motions of all the known heavenly bodies, still accompanied by detailed ominous interpretation of their phenomena. (It may seem paradoxical to us that even as Babylonian scientists of the period determined ever more mathematically predictable and non-random models for celestial motions, they continued to interpret them as omens, i.e., deliberate messages from the gods about specific state circumstances. But in practice, that just made their presumed future-predicting capabilities more impressive and influential.)

6) Mid-first millennium BCE: Achaemenid Empire conquers Babylonia and turns it into imperial satrapy. State interest in (and financial support for) interpreting “celestial messages” from Babylonian deities sharply decreases.

7) Mid- to late first millennium BCE up to first century CE: Continuing mathematical refinement of astronomical systems by temple scientists. Emergence of the practice of casting individual birth horoscopes, using many of the same astronomical models, “protasis” phenomena, and computational techniques employed for the previous state-based ominous interpretations of predicted and/or observed celestial events.
**That sequence does not describe a process of causal models of individual characteristics based on time of birth “morphing” from a “reasonably scientific hypothesis” into “something hideously unscientific”.

The direct line of descent you and the OP seem to be trying to draw, from hypothesized prehistoric reasonable “seasonal” causal inferences about individual characteristics to attested Late-Babylonian “astrological” causal inferences about individual characteristics, does not exist.**

You can’t use post-historic data regarding the use of astrology for a state-based agricultural civilization to draw conclusions about prehistoric hunter-gatherers. I think the OP’s theory is likely wrong. What I object to is your surety that it is obviously, provably wrong. We don’t have the data and I’m pretty sure scientists aren’t supposed to be sure of things they can’t prove.

[Ynnad]

I would like to conduct a quick poll among the followers of this thread. What does the word “astrology” mean?

(1) It can only be used exclusively to describe the belief system created by the ancient Mesopotamians and later adopted by the ancient Greeks.

or

(2) It can be used to describe any system of predictions about non-astronomical phenomena based on the observation of celestial objects in the night sky including systems independently developed by non-Mesopotamian cultures.

If the answer is (1), then what word should be used for systems described in (2)?

[KidCharlemagne]

@Colibri

What an absurd post. It seems like it was made by a newbie, rather than someone who is familiar how this board words and the standards of GQ.

If the OP didn’t mean to propose a “scientific basis for astrology,” then he shouldn’t have titled the thread that way. In fact, as he acknowledges, that’s the main thing that has sparked the degree of attention it has. And when he introduces it in the OP, and doesn’t clarify it for some time later, you can’t fault others for discussing that.

Thanks for the links to studies on personality differences in people born at different times of the year. That’s kind of interesting, but not exactly Earth-shattering. What might make it of more general interest is if there were some link to astrology, and you’re several large steps away from that. Without that link, the information becomes “so what”?

Again, you’re indulging in the same kind of speculation in the absence of evidence as the OP. “But it could happen!” or “It might be so!” is not scientific argumentation but bullshitting.

It was pretty clear to me upon reading the thread that he meant a social science explanation for the birth of astrology rather than a natural science hypothesis on it’s accuracy. You claimed that his hypothesis failed the most simple analysis by citing that you knew of no studies (which are easily found) and a bit about post-historic astrology. None of that amounts to a failure of his hypothesis. I’m not claiming his hypothesis is sound. I’m claiming your reasons for dismissing it aren’t. Of course his hypothesis is going to lack evidence - that’s what a hypothesis is. He came here asking if there was any evidence. I’m not wildly speculating that his hypothesis is true - you and others are wildly speculating that it isn’t. Appeals to Ignorance are just as fallacious as those of personal validation a la the Barnum effect. I’m upholding standards of GQ, not violating them.

[Colibri]

@KidCharlemagne

I’m claiming your reasons for dismissing it aren’t. Of course his hypothesis is going to lack evidence - that’s what a hypothesis is.

If that’s your understanding of what a hypothesis is, your understanding of science isn’t very good. A hypothesis is based on preliminary evidence that has been observe, and is the basis for developing an explanation for this evidence. The extent of actual evidence presented in the OP is “astrology exists,” which is not a real basis for a hypothesis. Everything is speculation.

He came here asking if there was any evidence. I’m not wildly speculating that his hypothesis is true - you and others are wildly speculating that it isn’t. Appeals to Ignorance are just as fallacious as those of personal validation a la the Barnum effect. I’m upholding standards of GQ, not violating them.

Again, you don’t seem to understand science. it’s up to him to support his hypothesis, not up to us to refute it. And pointing out that the hypothesis lacks supporting evidence is not an “appeal to ignorance,” it’s basic science.

[Colibri]

@Ynnad

(1) It can only be used exclusively to describe the belief system created by the ancient Mesopotamians and later adopted by the ancient Greeks.

That is the system that is most commonly referred to when people talk about “astrology.”

(2) It can be used to describe any system of predictions about non-astronomical phenomena based on the observation of celestial objects in the night sky including systems independently developed by non-Mesopotamian cultures.

It can be used to describe other systems such as Mayan, Chinese, etc. However, as has been pointed out, these generally involve predictions of political or economic events, good or bad fortune, etc. They do not involve the identification of the personality and abilities of individuals based on their birth dates. This is primarily a feature of Western astrology, which is descended from Mesopotamian astrology. You are seeking to explain a feature of Western/Mesopotamian astrology, so these other systems are largely irrelevant.

[Ynnad]

@Colibri

That is the system that is most commonly referred to when people talk about “astrology.”

It can be used to describe other systems such as Mayan, Chinese, etc. However, as has been pointed out, these generally involve predictions of political or economic events, good or bad fortune, etc. They do not involve the identification of the personality and abilities of individuals based on their birth dates. This is primarily a feature of Western astrology, which is descended from Mesopotamian astrology. You are seeking to explain a feature of Western/Mesopotamian astrology, so these other systems are largely irrelevant.

When did I ever say that I was trying to explain a feature of Western/Mesopotamian astrology?

[Ynnad]

Why can’t I “[pull] speculations about prehistory out of [my] ass”? Has anyone ever heard of a Gedankenexperiment? A Gedankenexperiment does not prove anything but it might give useful insight as to which direction to proceed in an investigation.

[Colibri]

@Ynnad

When did I ever say that I was trying to explain a feature of Western/Mesopotamian astrology?

From the OP:

@Ynnad

A child born in the late fall or early winter would be bundled in clothing and held closely for the first few months of his or her life to keep it warm. I child born in the late spring or early summer might be given little or no clothing and allowed to crawl about freely. **Wouldn’t these different conditions in the first months of life have an impact on personality and abilities of the child **as he or she grows older?

Bolding mine.

The idea that the time of year that a person is born determines their personality and abilities is largely specific to Western/Mesopotamian astrology. (Chinese astrology, in contrast, attributes these to the year of birth, not the season.) The origin of the belief seems to be what you are trying to explain. If not, where did you get this idea>

[Colibri]

@Ynnad

When did I ever say that I was trying to explain a feature of Western/Mesopotamian astrology?

From the OP:

@Ynnad

A child born in the late fall or early winter would be bundled in clothing and held closely for the first few months of his or her life to keep it warm. I child born in the late spring or early summer might be given little or no clothing and allowed to crawl about freely. **Wouldn’t these different conditions in the first months of life have an impact on personality and abilities of the child **as he or she grows older?

Bolding mine.

The idea that the time of year that a person is born determines their personality and abilities is largely specific to Western/Mesopotamian astrology. (Chinese astrology, in contrast, attributes these to the year of birth, not the season.) The origin of the belief seems to be what you are trying to explain. If not, where did you get this idea?

[Colibri]

@Ynnad

Why can’t I “[pull] speculations about prehistory out of [my] ass”?

Of course you can! But then people will tell you you are talking out of your ass.

@Ynnad

Has anyone ever heard of a Gedankenexperiment? A Gedankenexperiment does not prove anything but it might give useful insight as to which direction to proceed in an investigation.

You’re misusing Gedankenexperiment. A proper Gedankenexperiment is based on known information, phenomena, or relationships, and is intended to prove (or refute) an idea. It doesn’t mean “talking out of your ass” (which Einstein referred to as Arschsprechen.)

Also from the OP:

@Ynnad

Does anyone want to argue against this proposition? A would like to hear your arguments.

Hey, you invited us specifically to “argue against this proposition,” but you don’t seem too happy with the arguments.

[Ynnad]

@Colibri

… Hey, you invited us specifically to “argue against this proposition,” but you don’t seem too happy with the arguments.

I concede that I invited everyone to “argue against this proposition.” But what did I ever say that makes you think that I am unhappy?

[Colibri]

@Ynnad

I concede that I invited everyone to “argue against this proposition.” But what did I ever say that makes you think that I am unhappy?

Are you pleased with the responses?

[Ynnad]

@Colibri

Are you pleased with the responses?

At least we’re having a discussion about the proposition. The thread could have just died.

I still haven’t made up my mind about the validity of the proposition.

[Colibri]

@Ynnad

I still haven’t made up my mind about the validity of the proposition.

Would you care to re-state your proposition based on the input so far?

[Ynnad]

@Kent_Clark

Children don’t “crawl about freely” in their first few months, because they don’t crawl at all.

Primitive societies all came up with similar ways to keep their babies handy. Cradle boards (often called papooses) in the Northern Hemisphere, and slings/pouches in other areas were the most common. Generally, you can expect at least two changes of season (i.e., spring to fall, winter to summer, etc.) before starts crawling.

You got me on that one. “[C]rawl around freely” was a poor choice of words. But still, a summer baby might get more sunshine, move their arms and legs a bit more, and get to flop around in the dirt more than a baby that is bundled up and held tightly so that it doesn’t freeze to death.

[Ynnad]

@Colibri

Would you care to re-state your proposition based on the input so far?

I have been thinking about a scientific basis for the prehistoric origins of astrology. It does involve stars and constellations, but their only function is that of a calendar. Consider a primitive society living where there is a sharp contrast between summer and winter weather and/or a sharp contrast between the amount and intensity of sunshine and between winter and summer. There may also be seasonal variations in rainfall and available nutrition. Also, this primitive society does not have modern housing or utilities so the effects of the seasons are very noticeable even when indoors. A child born in the late fall or early winter would be bundled in clothing and held closely for the first few months of his or her life to keep him or her warm. A child born in the late spring or early summer might be given little or no clothing and allowed to get more sunshine, move their arms and legs a bit more, and flop around in the dirt and mud more. Wouldn’t these different conditions **during gestation and **in the first months of life have had an impact, which was greater than the impact that has been observed and studied in modern children, on the personality and abilities of the child as he or she grew older? Of course, these effects would be much less pronounced in a temperate climate or when climate-controlled housing is available.

[zombywoof]

You’ve still got a lot there! How about picking ONE of the following

rainfall
nutrition
more/less clothing
bundling
sunshine
arm/leg movement
dirt/mud flopping

and making a proposition based on that?

[Ynnad]

@zombywoof

You’ve still got a lot there! How about picking ONE of the following

rainfall
nutrition
more/less clothing
bundling
sunshine
arm/leg movement
dirt/mud flopping

and making a proposition based on that?

Why? Its probably (if there is any effect at all) the cumulative effect of all these factors and hundreds more that we haven’t thought of. Inevitably, Mother Nature always turns out to be much more complicated than our human-derived models.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

If Ynnad’s hypothesis is that children’s personalities are impacted and partially formed by ongoing environmental factors, sure, I buy that. It just isn’t astrology. In astrology, the only relevant factor is, which star sign was this child born under? The same traits for a Sagittarius apply whether he was born in the arctic under great privation, or in affluence in the southern hemisphere. There’s no discernible connection between the two belief systems.