If I get a vote, it would rock to be a Cetus!
I was about to say – I remember Asimov writing about this in the 60s.
Would the symbol be a propellor beanie?
While we’re at it, Ophiochus is actually one of the largest constellations in the sky-- It’s just that the zodiac only slices off a little corner of it, which is why it has relatively low representation as a sign.
And serious, hard-core astrologers do take into account the precession of the equinoces: That’s where the astrological “ages” come from. When the system was first set up, the vernal equinox point (where the Sun is in the sky at the time of vernal equinox) was in the constellation Aries, that being therefore the Age of Aries. For the past couple of thousand years, the vernal equinox point has been in Pisces, making this the Age of Pisces. And some time in the next few decades, it’ll cross the line into Aquarius, leading to the Age of Aquarius that you’ve probably heard about in song.
According to the familiar system, each sign takes up 1/12 of the ecliptic (the path of the sun across the zodiac), regardless of the actual width of the constellation itself. The “revised” system reflects the amount of time that the sun spends within the actual astronomical constellation.Scorpius just barely enters the ecliptic, so the sun doesn’t spend much time there. (The constellation to the left is Ophiuchus, which has a greater extent on the ecliptic than Scorpius does.)
Astrology can’t win here.
If this change is accepted by “mainstream” astrologers, it is an admission that they’ve been completely wrong all these years.
If this change is not accepted by “mainstream” astrologers, it is an admission that the whole system was arbitrary from the get-go.
Well, I would, but since I’m no longer a Sag, I’ve lost my arrows. Can I interest you in a Scorpion sting, instead? 
A scorpion sting doesn’t sound like a bad idea, but it’s a little early in the day…
I’m pessimistic maybe, but in any case it’s a lost battle. 40% people will still go on believing that astrology is an exact science :rolleyes:.
Arbitrary? Nonsense. Astrologers have been talking about Signs and Houses forever. The actual *constellations *are merely convenient symbols for something deeper.
It’s always been my understanding that astrologers have been aware of this for millenia. But the reason the current system is fine is because it’s not so much that the constellations are affecting one’s astrology, but the time of one’s birth relative to the the solstices/equinoxes. Though the actual sign that someone is born under may change, the original descriptions were still accurate because that persons birth relative to those events remains unchanged. So, it was really just more of a convenient way of using the stars to indicate when those phases began and ended.
So, for instance, under the current system, I’m a Pisces, but under the new system I’ve edged into Aquarius. But because someone sharing my birthday 2000 years ago would still have been equally close to the spring equinox, I, as a modern day Aquarius, should still fall under the same description as an ancient Piscean. So, why not just keep calling me a Piscean and let the old system stick?
Of course, its all just a sort of modern fun superstition anyway, so why does it even matter?
Because the characteristics attributed to birth under the various signs are based on the animals or other figures supposedly formed by the constellations that occupied that area thousands of years ago. For example, a Leo is confident and bold like a lion; a Gemini shows a dual nature, symbolized by twins. This correlation between the constellation figures and the attributes of the signs disappears under a revised system.
Click on the little speaker icon and make sure your speakers are turned on.
True, but playing devils advocate here, imagine if they were looking at the stars as they are now and seeing the characteristics they do, maybe they wouldn’t see the Leo constellation, but an animal or another symbol they would have associated with those characteristics. Or maybe they would have found some way to justify those these different characteristics with this symbol.
It was really more that, regardless of how they figured whatever traits were associated with the various signs, that, despite knowing that the precession would change them, it wasn’t the sign that actually gave the characteristics but the relation of that person’s birth to the equinox/solistice, which remains unchanged. If this is true then, though it may be technically inaccurate to call me by the sign under the old system, if the characteristics were true before, they ought to still be true now, even if the correlation with the sign is lost.
Now, of course, I don’t believe any of this, as I’ve seen no evidence that the correlation of characteristics and astrological predictions of them are any higher than random chance, but if my understanding is true, then the line of argument that the signs have changed and invalidated them doesn’t seem to be meaningful.
Which is all, at its core, arbitrary. Not one single correlation between a “star sign” and a human characteristic has ever been proven. It doesn’t matter whether people made this stuff up last week or a thousand years ago, it still boils down to a combination of confirmation bias and bad science. And fraud, in the case of people who make money doing readings.
Ah, so that’s why the constellation of the Teapot is instead described as being an archer, because that’s what they needed to match the characteristics of people born under that sign!
And it’s not the Great Bear, it’s the Big Dipper!
Charles’ Wain.
This has probably already been answered in the links somewhere, but I really don’t want to read articles about astrology, so let me ask: why is this in the news?
Like others, I’ve known this since I was a kid. Is the astrology community changing something or debating the signs, or was there just a story on this bit of trivia that caught on for no real reason?
I thought of that possible rationalization, but I don’t believe there’s any evidence that the attributes of the astrological signs came first, and then were projected back on the background of stars in order to visualize constellations with animals or other figures that had those attributes. In fact, the Hellenistic signs we use now are derived in part from the Babylonian zodiac, which consisted of 17 or 18 constellations instead of 12. Some are identifiable with modern signs (Steer/Taurus, Lion/Leo), while others are divergent (“The Agricultural Worker” somehow became a ram).
The actual situation is that the Greeks assigned the attributes of the signs to match the constellations they were aligned with thousands of years ago. As time went on astrologers failed to update the system. The idea that the attributes of the signs are based on their position relative to the solstices and equinoxes is simply a post-hoc rationalization that does not reflect the history of how the signs developed.