I hate astrology!

@hue-man,

hue-man;86596 wrote:

Get real. The study doesn't need to be global in order to falsify the proposition. You can accept it or reject it but evidence is evidence. I presented evidence for my claim, but you did not. If you don't accept the scientific method then we have nothing more to discuss on this topic.

Have you considered all the accuracies of people globally from natal charts? Just because one study shows them to be false, doesnt mean that they are false, it means that the participation was false. There are many witnesses to this fact that natal charts are accurate because some natal charts come with specifics regarding one's "houses" in a natal chart and there is accuracy there. You cannot refute that because accuracy is accuracy.

Jamie

@Caroline,

Caroline;86581 wrote:

I think horoscopes in the paper are trash because when you read your own horoscope you can apply what it says to pretty much anything that's going on in your life but I've often wondered about things like character traits, for instance, I'm a sagittarius which is a fire sign and I am definitely a fiery person so is there some truth in it, such as character traits?

You don't come of "fiery" to me, but I don't know you personally. Even if it is true that you are fiery as you say, that doesn't mean astrology has some truth to it. Many people do not actually fit their astrology signs, and it's funny how people who really believe in the signs are more likely to mimic the traits of their sign. The signs also have a way of being general, meaning that they can apply to many different people.

P.S. *Those who believe in the scientific method say I?*

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 01:41 PM ----------

Twistedgypsychil;86599 wrote:

Have you considered all the accuracies of people globally from natal charts? Just because one study shows them to be false, doesnt mean that they are false, it means that the participation was false. There are many witnesses to this fact that natal charts are accurate because some natal charts come with specifics regarding one's "houses" in a natal chart and there is accuracy there. You cannot refute that because accuracy is accuracy.

Jamie

The participation was not false! Double blind studies are conducted in order to rule that excuse out. There have been plenty of studies done on natal charts and they always prove it to be wrong.

Anecdotes say nothing about the accuracy of a claim. That's equivalent to saying that because most people believe that UFOs contain little gray men, the claim of UFOs containing little gray men is accurate.

@hue-man,

Here is the link to the double-blind study done on Astrology at Berkeley:

http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf

From its conclusion:

Quote:

"We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by the advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50 percent as the minimum effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance. Tested using double-blind methods, the astrologers' predictions proved to be wrong."

This study was done close to 25 years ago and pretty much closed the case on the issue at that time. It's debunked.

@hue-man,

hue-man;86603 wrote:

You don't come of "fiery" to me, but I don't know you personally. Even if it is true that you are fiery as you say, that doesn't mean astrology has some truth to it. Many people do not actually fit their astrology signs, and it's funny how people who really believe in the signs are more likely to mimic the traits of their sign. The signs also have a way of being general, meaning that they can apply to many different people.

P.S. *Those who believe in the scientific method say I?*

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 01:41 PM ----------

The participation was not false! Double blind studies are conducted in order to rule that excuse out. There have been plenty of studies done on natal charts and they always prove it to be wrong.

Anecdotes say nothing about the accuracy of a claim. That's equivalent to saying that because most people believe that UFOs contain little gray men, the claim of UFOs containing little gray men is accurate.

In natal charts, the person more fits their House #1 which relates to personality moreso than their sun sign. Astrology in that area can be, in my eyes debunked in opinion because of the mass amount of inaccuracies. Natal Charts on the other hand include specifics regarding a person right down to the nodes on it and when things may occur. This means that to be accurate, the chart must be charted correctly with the exact moment of birth and such, not approximations. I know for instance, on my natal chart, it is so specific that when I went back and looked at childhood markers on the natal chart, those things happened in the exact years that they were told to have happened and my natal chart wasnt done face to face. You cannot refute the accuracy of my own natal chart because you do not know me and you've never seen my natal chart. Nor have you seen anyone elses in the masses. Just because one study shows inaccuracy, doesnt mean that the whole account is debunked or proven false. The ONLY way that it can be proven false is through mathematical means showing that the planets and their alignments have nothing to do with personality or character traits and situations in life...challenges with nodes and such.

Jamie

@hue-man,

hue-man;86603 wrote:

You don't come of "fiery" to me, but I don't know you personally. Even if it is true that you are fiery as you say, that doesn't mean astrology has some truth to it. Many people do not actually fit their astrology signs,

That's funny because I think they do, I've read alot of astrology character signs and a lot of people I know fit as opposed to never fitting.
Thanks.

hue-man;86603 wrote:

and it's funny how people who really believe in the signs are more likely to mimic the traits of their sign.

Well that's certainly not true in my case and I'm pretty sure that most people I know don't live by what their horoscopes say and yet portray these character traits.

hue-man;86603 wrote:

The signs also have a way of being general, meaning that they can apply to many different people.

I don't think my friend who is a cancer is fiery at all.

hue-man;86603 wrote:

P.S. *Those who believe in the scientific method say I?*

I don't know what you mean?

@hue-man,

hue-man;86603 wrote:

P.S. *Those who believe in the scientific method say I?*

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 01:41 PM ----------

You can not deal in scientific method dealing in the metaphysical.

Jamie

@Twistedgypsychil,

Twistedgypsychil;86625 wrote:

You can not deal in scientific method dealing in the metaphysical.

Jamie

From this statement I conclude that you don't believe that the propositions made by astrology can be positively verified. I believe that the truth value of the said propositions have been verified, but if indeed you believe that it cannot be positively verified, then the propositions you make on this subject are meaningless and not worth being uttered.

@hue-man,

hue-man;86628 wrote:

From this statement I conclude that you don't believe that the propositions made by astrology can be positively verified. I believe that the truth value of the said propositions have been verified, but if indeed you believe that it cannot be positively verified, then the propositions you make on this subject are meaningless and not worth being uttered.

Perception is everything isnt it. I am not definitive. I am basing my perceptions of the issue soley on probability. You cannot rule something false, however, definitely until you have a global proof. You can say that something in your opinion is debunked as you go along with the study, but you cannot say that it is definitely debunked because you have no way of proving that.

Jamie

@hue-man,

Also, to all of the astrology believers who didn't watch the Dawkins video, the zodiac made by Claudius Ptolemy is off by at least 23 degrees due to the discovery of new planets and the shift in the earth's rotational axis. This means that even if you do believe in this pseudo-scientific nonsense, you're still wrong by your own measure of "accuracy".

@hue-man,

hue-man;86633 wrote:

Also, to all of the astrology believers who didn't watch the Dawkins video, the zodiac made by Claudius Ptolemy is off by at least 23 degrees due to the discovery of new planets and the shift in the earth's rotational axis. This means that even if you do believe in this pseudo-scientific nonsense, you're still wrong by your own measure of "accuracy".

I dont believe that it had anything to do with the current forms of alignment. I can call into question the CPI as well since personality tests are constantly changing. A way to test that would be to give the person who filled out the CPI his/her own result sheet and that of 2 people chosen at random, and then have that person choose from the three samples which one they think reflects their personality. Now if the results were to be the same, then it can be said that the CPI is wrong.

Plus you have to factor in that in natal charts, they were only dealing with the first house. There are 12 houses to natal charts in all areas of life, other than personality. Id say the study wasnt accurate because of this fact alone.

Just because something moved in space, doesn't mean that the alignments of other things changed. It remains the same unless the entire universe adjusted itself to the new discovery...and we all know this is false.

Jamie

@hue-man,

Yea, science can't say anything about the metaphysical.

You have to be tuned in to the spirit world to figure all that stuff out...:uo: The last time I tuned in, I had a deep conversation with god and the wildflowers. Then I woke up in the hospital with some guy asking me how many "hits" I took. The spirits still pop in and out of my mind now...usually during a full moon or when the planets line up in cosmic power arrangement #6. They ask me for my advice, because they tell me I am very special...my mind is the key to figuring all this out!

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;86639 wrote:

Yea, science can't say anything about the metaphysical.

You have to be tuned in to the spirit world to figure all that stuff out...:uo: The last time I tuned in, I had a deep conversation with god and the wildflowers. Then I woke up in the hospital with some guy asking me how many "hits" I took. The spirits still pop in and out of my mind now...usually during a full moon or when the planets line up in cosmic power arrangement #6. They ask me for my advice, because they tell me I am very special...my mind is the key to figuring all this out!

And where did science form from other than the metaphysical first? Someone had to imagine things in order for them to come about.. so it must have been that mysterious "god" who told newton about gravity? Metaphysics can also be applied to common sense if you know what you are talking about. If not, then it is deemed to be superstitious and unknown..and it scares people - something that is unknown.

Jamie

@hue-man,

I think it's a very interesting subject worthy of investigation because it dates right back to the ancients where they divided the skies in to astrological signs.

@Caroline,

Caroline;86642 wrote:

I think it's a very interesting subject worthy of investigation because it dates right back to the ancients where they divided the skies in to astrological signs.

I believe that it is of value to discuss things such as this to find out other people's points of view. The topic itself is intriguing. There has to be some accuracy to it because in natal charts, there are 12 houses, each representing a portion of someone's life. In my own natal chart, there are so many accuracies that I cant even count them on both hands. They are not generalizations either - they are specific to my life. This is what makes me believe.

To assume that a few studies have "debunked" this "myth" is to say something along the lines of, "Since there is scant evidence that Jesus even existed, Christianity is false"...you just cannot prove or disprove something like this.

Jamie

@Twistedgypsychil,

Naturally, the Babylonians would revere the heavenly bodies greatly. After all, gazing at the stars led to advances which gave order and efficiency to everyday activities taken much for granted by us today. Imagine losing track how many days remained til winter as an agriculturalist. Try to communicate to your acquaintance that you'd like to meet him at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time without any timepiece available. The stars guided their time allocation and planning (try your hand at life without these rudiments), so erroneously but understandably they extended this guidance to the influence of all events in general.

As for its appearance today, its simply a survival from more primitive cultures. Of these, we have plenty and no one cares to get upset about them. We all know that the earth goes round the sun, but we'll still say the "sun sets" or the "sun rises." I just passed an astrologist on the road today while driving. I don't worry about it. If people are willing to pay up then someone will be there to set up shop.

Philosophy Forum

I hate astrology!

Quick Links

My Account

able2know