User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you believe in astrology?

Voters
182. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    33 18.13%
  • No

    142 78.02%
  • I have no idea what it is? So I'm not sure.

    7 3.85%
First 210111213142262 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 648

  1. #111
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Night, check out this interview with Richard Tarnas on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) to which I provided a link earlier.

    It's the second link. It runs about 45 minutes and addresses every question you've asked.
    I'll have to back burner that for the moment. I'm at work. Thanks for the link.

  2. #112
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

  3. #113
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Only an Ni using T would actually believe in the accuracy/validity of astrology.

    Hmmmm, I wonder what that tells you about Ni.

    *suddenly misses INTJ123*

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  4. #114
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The claim of predictive power based on a supposed correlation between time of birth and the positions of stellar bodies is the only thing wrong with astrology.

    If it doesn't do that, it's identical to typology--just an arbitrary, untestable and unfalsifiable set of labels for categorization purposes. I have no problem with astrology if you remove the claim of predicted power based on the aforementioned supposed correlation.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Take out the part about the falsifiable correlation and I "believe" in astrology just as much as I "believe" in Jungian typology or any other comparable made up system for classifying personalities.

    In fact, if you take out that claim, astrology can no longer be evaluated in terms of truth value because it's no longer falsifiable (exactly like typology.) I could see some value in using the personality traits associated with each sign to categorize personalities for comparative analysis, just as typology does.

    If that were the case, it would be "true" that I'm an Aries in the same way it's "true" that I'm an ENTP--and neither claim would be falsifiable.
    Wait, are you really an Aries?

  5. #115
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Only an Ni using T would actually believe in the accuracy/validity of astrology.
    That is a truly retarded claim...


  6. #116
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Having studied astrology as well, I know that the aspects and houses are just as important if not more important than the stuff you just mentioned.



    This would only matter if INTJ (or MBTI, in general) were capable of describing your entire personality.

    If you're going to believe in astrology, you have to let go of that belief.
    Z, I used to have all sorts of pet theories as to how astrology really could work, e.g., while there is only a short window of time w/r to a few weeks where a child could be born, it would "tend" to happen at a time when certain aspects/planets/energies were in alignment. I wouldn't use gravity to explain it, but rather the earth's electromagnetic field. And so on, and so forth.

    In the end, however, if there were something objectively true about it, it would be proven. It wouldn't be an issue of belief. However, the reason it seems true, that it feels true, is that it takes normal human dynamics, codifies them as signs and aspects, and then recites random ones to you like a fortune cookie, the only difference being that you don't get a funny joke when you end the reading with "... in bed."

    All of these normal human dynamics are common to about 80-100% of people. The 1-20% where it's off can be ascribed to the natural inaccuracy of trying to describe a complete personality.

    In other words, it seems true due to confirmation bias. In fact, it's a rather good case study in the concept.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  7. #117
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    I'll have to back burner that for the moment. I'm at work. Thanks for the link.
    My mission in life is the opening of minds.


  8. #118
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ragashree
    It would be a reasonable inference, however, that IF a phenomenon was demonstrated, an explanation would lie outside Newtonian physics, therefore probably in the qauntum realm, because there is nothing in Newtonian physics that could explain it. I'm not, however, assuming that anything WILL be discovered.
    Why might it be reasonable to presume that an answer must necessarily be found in quantum theory?
    Infering a possibility from a hypothetical postulation is not at all the same as presuming
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  9. #119
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post

    In other words, it seems true due to confirmation bias. In fact, it's a rather good case study in the concept.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Hmm. I don't know, Z...

    I think you've strengthened my doubts with this link. Seems like the article's authors are "borrowing" certain philosophical cornerstones and grafting their validity over astrological jargon.

    Insofar as I could develop it, here's the paper's premise:

    I believe that a more plausible and comprehensive explanation is that the universe is informed and pervaded by a fundamental holistic patterning which extends through every level, so that a constant synchronicity or meaningful correlation exists between astronomical and human events.

    From this perspective, the planets are not "causing" anything to be happening in our lives, any more than the hands of a clock are causing it to be 7:30PM. Rather, the planetary positions are indicative of the cosmic state of the archetypal forces at that time
    This is just a bunch of big, complicated words sewn together without saying very much at all. "Fundamental holistic patterning"? "A constant synchronicity of meaningful correlation"? "Achetypal forces"?

    I'll keep reading, out of good faith to you, but my skepticism has been intensified. . .

  10. #120
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I think the developmental history and methodology of astrology and MBTI differ pretty significantly, to be honest.
    What's your point? I'm talking about the way they function, not the the developmental history. If they do the same thing, I don't care how each was developed for purposes of this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It's actually birth date, time, and location.
    How does this change anything meaningful?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    All assumptions.

    Also, you're putting too much emphasis on the sun sign.
    It's not an unreasonable assumption that each astrological type has personality traits associated with it. That's in the definition of the system.

    As for the sun sign emphasis, it makes no difference to my point.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You believe that "all human behavior" can be easily chopped up into categories? And then you call these categories "arbitrary", even if you're dividing it up into exactly twelve of em?
    Yes, it's as simple as making up a labeling system. Twelve is an arbitrarily chosen number just as sixteen is an arbitrarily chosen number in typology.

    We could make up an equally valid system using only two personality types, or two-hundred, or whatever number we want; it just depends on where you draw the distinctions between people and how many you choose to draw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And then you claim a correlation between personality and birth date is (easily) falsifiable...

    ...my heads starting to hurt from all this horrible reasoning...
    I'm afraid the horrible reasoning is coming from your Ti fail, here.

    A correlation between birth date and personality is clearly falsifiable because we can compare people's behavior to their objective birth data and see that for the vast majority of people there's no real correlation. This is unrelated to the idea of making up arbitrary personality categories that cannot be falsified (as in typology.)

    When you introduce any objective variable into the system (like birth date), you open yourself up to falsifiability. Since Jungian typology contains no objective variables, it is not making any falsifiable claim and thus has no truth/falsehood value.

    Is it "true" that people who ignore the feelings of others are "assholes"? We don't have an objective definition of "asshole", so calling someone an asshole is not a falsifiable claim, and yet somehow people still generally understand what the term means. Not everyone will agree on who's an asshole and who isn't--but if we were to introduce the condition that, say, everyone born in April is an asshole, we'd be introducing an objective variable which creates falsifiability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yes, birth date can be tested empirically, but personality, well, that's a much shakier claim...
    That's exactly my point. Personality type cannot be tested empirically, so systems of personality classification such as Jungian typology cannot be tested empirically and therefore do not make any falsifiable claim.

    If you remove the falsifiable claim about correlation between birth date and personality from astrology, then it works just like typology because it no longer makes any falsifiable claim.

    If this were the case, there would be no empirical test for astrological type...so it would just be one big arbitrary labeling system, just like typology, and determining your type would be a purely subjective endeavor (just like typology.)

    The difference is that there would be no objective definition of who fits which type. People who have studied the categories, though, would still be able to come to a general consensus about the types of most people based on behavioral observation (just like typology) but there would be no objective criteria necessitating that anyone be a definite member of any type group.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Height/How tall are you?
    By niffer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 360
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 02:44 PM
  2. What are you wearing right now?
    By Sartorial in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 04-29-2016, 02:28 PM
  3. Followers of Astrology: Why are you a believer?
    By iwakar in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-18-2011, 02:17 AM
  4. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  5. Happiness, Children, and Are you that one girl?
    By Wolf in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 03:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO