So Zara, you're saying you believe in astrology, and it's because of something that had a 1/144 chance of happening?
No, if you read closely, you'd see that I repeatedly said that I don't necessarily believe in astrology (in the sense of it being representationally/correspondentially true). Also, because of the 1/144 chance event, I didn't start believing in astrology, or even finding value in it (the latter of which, I now do): it simply prodded me to look into it more.
Once I looked into it, I read a very intelligent book that I'd already been given by my ex-girlfriend's best friend (an INFP).
I found the author to be highly intelligent, and his argument to be internally consistent.
I think I already mentioned him before: his name is Richard Tarnas.
I'm pretty sure he's an INFJ, much like yourself.
This is him:
And these are his books:
Praise for 'The Passion of the Western Mind':
"The most lucid and concise presentation I have read of the grand lines of what every student should know about the history of Western thought." - Joseph Campbell
"No other such overview provides, in equal compass, as clear and cogent a survey. Its scholarship is impeccable....For its length it is the best intellectual history of the West I have ever seen." - Huston Smith
Um, so I have a question -- why would star movements affect brain development?
They don't.
That's not the idea.
You're working from a materialist paradigm.
From that paradigm, astrology makes no sense.
The point is that that paradigm is not the only one, and that, from others, it can make sense.
Materialism is the dominant paradigm of our age, but it is not the only paradigm we've had in our history.
Astrology only makes sense (in the sense that it is representationally/correspondentially true) under the assumption/paradigm/cosmological view that we do not live in a (solely) material universe.
It is internally consistent/coherent, though, and, regardless of whether or not it's representationally/correspondentially true, it can prove pragmatically true/valuable as a method of self-reflection/self-inquiry/self-analysis.
More importantly, even if brain development were magically affected, why would high-level personality traits conform so specifically to archetypes based on arbitrary time periods (months)?
Well, I think I've partially answered this question with the above: that working from a materialist paradigm, astrology will never make sense.
As for the (newer) part about arbitrary time periods (i.e., "months"): it's not based off arbitrary time periods, it's based off how the planetary bodies (sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune, pluto, et al), the signs (capricorn, aquarius, pisces, aries, taurus, gemini, cancer, leo, virgo, scorpio, sagitarrius), and the houses (1-12) are aligned at the moment and location of your birth.
Why has no one mentioned the Forer Effect?
I did actually.
Did you read my first post?
This is the second thing you've said now that makes it seem like you didn't.
[Sorry, I thought I did write about the Forer effect in my OP. I certainly thought about it. Give me a sec to compose a response.]
I mean, the Forer Effect is rather obvious, no? Obviously, it could all just be the Forer effect...
But, if you go into it simply assuming that it's wrong, then you're probably gunna find that it's wrong, no?
Similarly, if you go into it simply assuming that it's right, then you're probably gunna find that it's right, right?
Well, in light of this, the only way to study the matter fairly would seem to be to go into it with an open mind, correct?
That is the method I condone: don't go into studying it thinking of it being representationally/correspondentially true.
But do go into it knowing the strongest argument in favor of its potential representational/correspondential truth.
Then, go into it with an open mind, a truly open mind, and see whether you get anything out of it.
If you don't, then who cares. It's free, easy, and doesn't take much time.
On the other hand, maybe you do get something out of it.
You can't know until you try.
I really just don't see any value to the system whatsoever. Personality types are not chosen based on personality data, so they are essentially randomly assigned. And now with random type assignments, we assign specific personality characteristics that are no more likely than chance to be descriptively valid.
As I'm sure you've gathered by now, and as is perfectly fair, considering all your writing came from the same response, the way you're looking at things is obviously through a materialist paradigm, which is why you would state that it is all "no more likely than chance". If you start from a different paradigm, it can all make perfect sense. My approach is not to have a paradigm (although, that's really a paradigm in and of itself). As such, I look foremost to see whether there's any
value (in the sense of pragmatic truth) to astrology. I have found that, whether or not it is representationally/correspondentially true, there is pragmatic value to it, as has every person with whom I've gone over their natal chart.
As our first hard skeptic to pose a thoughtful question: would you like to give it a try?
<[MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13147]senza_tema[/MENTION]: I'm sorry, I know I've been holding off on you two, I'll try to get to both of you tonight.>
How could it be[...] anything but hand-waving and unscientific vagueness?
It's not scientific, and that is largely the point.
Not all kinds of knowledge are scientific.
The real question is not "how could it be...?", but "why must it not be...?".