The biggest thing I've never really gotten about astrology is how exactly it's supposed to work. What makes someone born May 21 have entirely different traits than someone born May 20? The person born at 11:50 PM on May 20 is a strong-headed "Taurus" and the person born at 1 AM on May 21 is a talkative and bubbly "Gemini." Yes, I know, there are "cusps" and all that, but logically, the entire idea of astrology makes no sense to me.
They don't in real astrology only in horoscopes. Real astrology a person's natal is made up of 10 variables, the sun is just one, a powerful one but loads more too it.
But do the planets (or what have you) move so much at those exact times and dates which represent the cut-offs between signs that it causes significant differences between people born within hours of each other but under different signs? I would imagine that is the theory, but just can't buy it.
I actually had a full report done once and thought it was pretty inaccurate - there were things here and there with which I identified, but nothing that really blew me away as being astoundingly accurate.
Yes they do - the moon can change sign, Mercury can move houses, the whole chart turns even in the birth of identical twins. Horoscopes boil things down to the lowest possible denominator, thats all.
The person born on one day has a very different chart to someone born the next day (there will be lots the same but possibly lots different).
As for Taurus v's gemini, A gemini sun with a Taurus Mercury will still sound like a Tarus person, but will present as a gemini. I have a friend who was born just at the end of Libra, they are a Scorpio, but Libra rules their chart, they have both signs fairl highly presented.
Perhaps because I'm in the arts, but I know a great many people into astrology. It makes me uncomfortable when they ask my sign or birth date because I know they will get busy building assumptions that don't belong to me, but I'll have to deal with it. The complexity or persistence of a system is not proof of its validity. Confirmation bias makes us see proof where it isn't. People have such a drive to comprehend the unknown that it is more comfortable to overlay an arbitrary system to explain things than to be uncertain. It could be a related drive in people who seek to explain the universe using science, but astrology is based on arbitrary assumptions and does not contain within it a method for revising and expanding knowledge. When there is no method for falsifying within a system, it has no means to grow and become more accurate over time.
The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas. H.G. WELLS
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. FEYNMAN If this is monkey pee, you're on your own.SCULLY
Undecided. I'd like it to learn for kicks, but then that stuff appeals to me somewhat. I taught myself tarot for fun. I don't use it for divination though.
BTW, you guys were discussing the scientific method, not science itself.
Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.
Perhaps because I'm in the arts, but I know a great many people into astrology. It makes me uncomfortable when they ask my sign or birth date because I know they will get busy building assumptions that don't belong to me, but I'll have to deal with it.
Handwriting personality analysis (graphology) might even be worse for these kinds of assumptions because itís more believable to a lot of people than astrology. Iíve read that in Europe itís widely used to screen job applicants. Supposedly, handwriting style can determine if someone is a thief, liar, etc. How would you like it if someone decided youíre a crook because you cross your Tís wrong or whatever?
i believe that i am in hell, therefore i am there.