Astrology and "science", lets take a look.

I see ... Hmm ... Newton, Galileo, Kepler ... these guys just didn't get it did they, but you do don't you, physics 101?

They just had do catch-up to your brilliance. If only they had the pleasure of your presence and your insight ...

By the way, just what ARE your brilliant insights about the Universe? Just one. Just ONE brilliant insight. Please man.

All you seem to offer is criticism, which is fine if you have some conclusion, or even an even an inferance to a conclusion, but … really, what do you have to offer? Just give me one of your insights on how the Universe works! Hmm?

But you don't have any insights do you my friend, just bravado and brow-beating and crapping on other people's opinions about astrology and cropping stuff off the web to support your opinion, without knowing what you are even talking about. ...

BTW Newton's Principia Mathematica was refuted only by Russel and White ... 300 years later pal. Hmm. Took 'em 300 years to update the old boy.

Wanna get going about Einstein refuting Newton ... lets rock ... !

And since you are obviously out of your depth perhaps it is time to get one of your professors involved …

 

Rather than creating a bunch of new threads to make your straw-man attacks, perhaps you'd care to address any of the points I've made about astrology's accuracy, or lack thereof. Hell, even address the points I've made about Newton, Kepler, et al.

Here's one: The universe can be explained entirely through science, the scientific method, mathematics, and logic. Astrology is pseudoscience.

Well that's the way science works. Good ideas stick around until they are replaced by better ones. This is in stark contrast to something like astrology - which is more or less the same as it was in Ptolemy's day - where people (like yourself) take personal offense at any scientific examination of the concept.

I'm a part-time professor at a major university. Not in physics, but in a science field. Needless to say, I've had plenty of exposure to science and the methods thereof.

I can't think of a single professor in my department that believes in astrology. Thinking back over the last few years, I can't think of a single one of my professors in undergraduate or graduate school that believed in astrology. Granted, I didn't go around asking them, but I got to know many of them fairly well and I'm sure I would've remembered something like that had they mentioned it.

...or maybe belief in astrology is simply non-existent among the scientific community.

 

i'm not going to argue. i think everything in some way affects everything else. why fight it? let it go. who cares? i mean honestly?

 

Don't you see the awful tautology the scientific community has created for itself, “ … astrology is absurd therefore there is no need to bother investigating it to prove it is absurd!”
You are supposed to be a smart guy, at least by your reckoning, so don’t you see what a bizarre position that is?
You have people like Bart Bok, a decent astronomer no doubt, who wrote an absurd little book refuting astrology based on HIS reputation - HE didn’t believe in it so how could it be true! One wants to weep.

That is not a straw-man fallacy. That is the way narrow-minded people and professionals who refuse to, or are too afraid to think outside their discipline view astrology.

As a member of Mensa I meet lots of science academics. A Mensan acquaintance of mine is an MD and we argue a bit, but because he studies the human body he realizes that there is “something” to astrology, and he has told me that in private. He would never say it publicly though. Another Mensan I know, a doctor in Canada, studies astrology, but in private.

Like you, I have not met one (hard) scientist who believes in astrology PUBLICLY but neither have I ever met one who has actually STUDIED the subject. That is the whole bloody point.

I know many people with extremely high IQ’s who believe in astrology. A lot of stupid people believe in it too. So what?
But why do people with IQ’s over 140, who could easily master even the most abstruse subject, study astrology and believe in astrology? I don’t think you can answer that.

Numerous times you have swaggered in with your opinion, “Astrology is pseudoscience” without having anything to back it up, the problem being that you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

YOUR summation of astrology simply is NOT what astrology IS, so in fact it is YOU who is setting up the straw-man, not I. I hope you see the irony of that.

By the way, astrology has evolved considerably since Ptolemy, although many of his observations, especially relating to the Fixed Stars, remain extant.

 

That's not the way it happens. Astrology has a chance to present its merits before the scientific community, and the scientific community has judged them fairly and found the claims to have no supporting evidence. It would be silly to continue to waste time with the same silly ideas for years, instead of investigating more promising ideas.

And it isn't like astrology is ruled out just because the "scientific community deems it absurd." Other absurd, even heretical ideas have gained the approval of the science community because the evidence supported them. In this case, the evidence does not support the claims of astrologers.

Again, which is the cause and which is the effect? Do scientists believe astrology to be untrue because they have not studied it, or do they not study it because they believe it to be untrue?

Very very few people with IQs over 140 believe in astrology. If you are truthful in knowing multiple people like that, then it is an anomaly and not representative of the entire "smart" population.

I've never seen statistics on correlations between IQ and belief in astrology (since it is so difficult to measure), but such beliefs decrease dramatically as education increases. Something like 25% of Americans believe that astrology has some merits to it, compared to only 8 or 9% of college graduates.

Isn't it a coincidence that the only heavenly bodies that matter in astrology were those visible to second-century astronomers? Why is it that Mars and Jupiter affect our lives, but Neptune and Pluto don't? Why doesn't astrology consider atmospheric refraction in its calculations?

 

i believe in, study & use astrology because I dig it immensely. I couldn't care less what anyone scholar or study or ignorant 'scientific' group says.


I suppose you know more than I


I know her, which is sooo enough for me

 

Sorry pal, again you err, and more tautology, and even more logical fallacy ... tut tut! Who cares what "Americans" think or "college graduates" think, whatever opinion polls you are using to compare ... What a load of crap! Please do not insult my intelligence with such simplistic nonsense.


My IQ is 148 on the Cattell scale, so I’m in the top 10 percent of Mensa. (Big deal! I can be the dumbest ass on the planet - I can’t even make a decent ham sandwich! So what, I write software used by large corporations even though I can’t make a damned ham sandwich. So we each have our areas …)

You probably don’t believe me so my Mensa membership number is 1152126 3/31/2007 so go and look me up as Wayne Penner at the Mensa website. I have been a member for 22 years.


I couldn’t care less about being smart (in fact it’s a huge pain in the ass as the brain never stops working) but I DO care that astrology and it’s axioms are accorded respect. Astrology works beyond your wildest beliefs if you know how to use it.
It is beautiful beyond description and flys higher than even the dreams of imagination. It describes everything in life, it warns you of everything in life and guards you from the storms of life if you read it’s writings well.

I would say know at least 50 people in Mensa, each of whom has an IQ over 140 who believe astrology has “something” to it.

So, once again, why do you think people with genius IQ’s think there is “something” to astrology?

 

Why would refraction have anything to do with astrology? It is a purely physical phenomenon that causes bent light rays distorted by the atmosphere. Huh?


And Uranus, Neptune and Pluto DO have an effect on you, a mighty big one.

 

Well, those statistics don't matter much to me, but you're the one that brought it up... I simply stated that I had not seen any statistics regarding belief in astrology vs. IQ, so I cited similar statistics (substituting education for IQ which, while not an identical point, is still roughly the same point you were trying to make)

Then why can two different astrologers interpret the same data in such wildly different ways? Why can identical twins - born at the same time, on the same date, in the same place - have such wildly different lives and personalities?

While scientists might not always agree on unproven hypotheses, eventually the evidence will prove (at most) one of many exclusive hypotheses to be accurate, and all the others wrong. Astrologers tend to ignore this.

The same reasons as anyone else...inadequate education in the scientific method, an uncritical mind, a desire to believe that it is true. While there is a strong negative correlation between education and credulity, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

It affects the measurements of the position of the planets, thus altering your data. Why don't astrologers update their methods from thousands of years ago, when refraction was unknown?

It seems like astrologers want to have it both ways...the credibility and respect of scientists, without the hassle of experimentation, supporting evidence, and changing their system in light of new scientific evidence.

How about Sedna? How about the asteroid belt? If a new planet is discovered, will it be incorporated into your system or ignored? And what about the moons of the planets?

 

Well the whole area of identical twins is indeed interesting ... there are many astrological studies that track twins and find incredible coincidences ... they are all over the web and I won't bore you with anecdotal junk, but I disagree with the wildly different lives point. Simply not true. More and more evidence is amassing that in fact being born close to another person assures a similar life experience, at least symbolically.

However, you will admit I am sure that theoretically no two persons can actually be born at the same time AND place. It doesn't matter even if there are only minutes different in the births, even seconds ... they are two different individuals regardless that they have the same genetic structure and VERY similar charts. And this is true even of Siamese twins. They are separate individuals as the umbilical cord is cut at different times.

What must be understood, and must always be kept in mind is that the Universe does not IMPOSE its energies upon us, rather it we who CHOOSE to respond to those energies, and like chefs in a kitchen CHOOSE the utensils we use to bake the pie … (Not exactly an elegant analogy that but I trust I made my point.)

For one who should understand the concept of the nanosecond or the pica second or whatever this should not warrant a philosophical problem for you.

 

Kandahar,

First, astrologers are concerned with the ACTUAL position of the planets, not perceived, although there may be some symbolic value there I have not thought about.

Refraction actually varies according to latitude, but it never varies more than a degree or so. Refraction is a negligible issue, it’s not important, and besides since accurate ephemerides have been published since the mid 19th Century we have been able to track the planets’ placements exactly for the past 150 years or so.

Astrologers are less concerned with refraction than they are with actual distortions caused by latitudinal elevation from the ecliptic, so that House systems are much in dispute. According to the House system you use planets can be in different Houses for the same time of birth.

While I don’t wish to give barbarians such as you ammunition to use against astrology it is definitely a problem that has not yet been resolved.

There are about a dozen House systems, but from personal experience I find Placidus and Equal to be the most reliable. But there is a furious debate on this issue among serious astrologers, as there should be. We need to get this one settled.

Second, you raise a good point regarding the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes, and why we use a different zodiac than the Vedic astrologers, actually 23 degrees of longitude in advance of the Hindu zodiac. I have a problem with the Vedic zodiac, although Vedic astrology uses different rules and I do know a Vedic astrologer who is extremely accurate in her predictions. I cannot quite explain that and it is an issue I need to resolve in my own head ... my first sense is the Vedic zodiac is rigid and therefore untenable to life, but I haven't yet spent a month thinking it though.

I will respond to your question regarding “New” planets and asteroids later because those are indeed extremely interesting and rich areas of astrological investigation.