In 1972 Mad Magazine ran an article on the occult which, among other things, listed people born under the same astrological “sign” who in fact had little or nothing in common with each other: Sophia Loren (Sept. 20) and Twiggy (Sept. 30) in Virgo, and William F. Buckley (Nov. 29) and Abbie Hoffman (Nov. 30) in Sagittarius. But those are outdated. Are there modern pairs that can be listed as examples of dissimilar Virgans and Taureans and such?
I’m not a believer at all in astrology, but shouldn’t Sep 20th and Sep 30th be under different signs.
I don’t believe in astrology, but…
You do realize that the tidal effect of the moon, which moves through a conventional “sign” in two days, is much greater than the tidal effect of the sun, right? You have disproven naught.
I’m a Scorpio, we’re much too skeptical to believe in astrology.
I know what you’re asking, but what is it you’re going for? Entertainment? For every dissimilar pair you can find, you can find a pair that ARE similar, so what does that prove?
Well, this was from that respected peer-reviewed journal MAD.
This is not offered as support for astrology, but any attempt to use such examples for a debunking would be dismissed pretty quickly – anybody that’s interested in it will tell you that there aren’t going to be 12 cookie-cutter categories.
If you found two people who were born in the exact same place at the exact same instant, you might be on better ground, otherwise it’s a bit of a straw man.
My former sister in laws were fraternal twins with pretty much nothing in common.
Yes, but the sister who was born first, she hogged all the moonbeams.
Don’t tachyons acting at a distance add a little weight to the idea of astrology, or am I way off (moon)beam?
How would they do that?
Merely listing individuals with different characteristics wouldn’t be strong evidence against astrology, as others have already pointed out; there’ll always be enough fudging room.
If you’re merely interested in something factual undermining the foundations of astrology, consider this: solar astrology is based on the sun being in one of the twelve signs of the zodiac. The zodiac was drawn up a long time ago. However, because of something called precession (i.e. the axis of a rotating body performing a small circular movement), the relative position of the stars in the sky changes over time – they appear to move slowly westward. The earth completes such a precession movement in about 25,800 years, which means that the zodiac, today, doesn’t correspond to the constellations any more. Thus, there can be no connection between astrological sign and personality.
Of course, that usually just gets people to claim that the whole star thing was just incidental in the first place, and that it’s really all about, uhm, seasonal changes*, yeah that’s the ticket, this time for real. :rolleyes:
*Although there is evidence of some correlation between personality and time period of gestation, linked to changing hormone levels in the mother during the seasons.
Tachyons, if they do exist, preserve causality, i.e. you can’t use them to transport information faster than light.
Dividing all the people in the world into 12 categories? That’s insane!
The proper number is four.
I thought it may help to have the original journal articleto review.
There are two types of people in the world. Those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don’t.
Uh oh, I may have proved astrology.
July 15, 1935
One born in Gary, Indiana, the other just 120 miles away in Wolcottville, Indiana.
Both have surnames starting with a K.
Eerily, both men went on to star in oh-so-'80s prime time television shows.
Alex Karras in Webster and Ken Kercheval in Dallas.
Now that we’ve finally demonstrated the veracity of astrology I think this board can move on to other things.
Seriously though, I was amused that the first birthdate pair I found happened to be semi-contradictory to the OP’s intent.
No, no, no - there are 10 types of people in the world - those who read binary and those who don’t.
One of the best and most straight-forward debunkings of astrology ever - a big welcome for Phil Plait.
oops
An astrological chart has an influence corresponding to each of the planets. The Sun’s influence is regarded as the strongest, and it’s easiest to determine, but the moon sign and house rising (corresponding to the Earth itself) are supposedly nearly as important, and the moon sign requires a precision of a couple of days or so, while the house rising requires a precision of a couple of hours. So a thorough debunking of astrology would require two people with the same sun sign, moon sign, and house rising, which in practice probably means that they were born within a couple of hours of each other.