Astrology - Are you a believer?

[Ming]

The Chinese believe that to be born in the Year of the Fire Horse is "unlucky". In the year preceding the Year of the Fire Horse, many additional fetuses are aborted - for there own sake - for their lives will be "unlucky" ones.

Yet it is a relatively easy to disprove. Inspect everyone born in 1966, for example, and compare the various elements of there lives with those born in say 1968 or 1972.

And still the Year of the Fire Horse is unlucky for a quarter of the planet.

Women born in the Year of the Fire Horse are, apparently strong-willed and difficult to marry off, ergo undesirable. They are supposedly "world-changers". And that is why they are unwanted. Clearly this is complete bunkum.

But apparently astrology is "benign"...

Horse (zodiac) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit. Please forgive my generalisation, "the Chinese believe"... There's bound to be at least one that doesn't. Rendering the statement invalid.

Sorry.

Really? I'm chinese, and that has never been around for me. My mum's a fire horse.. 1966.

 

[Ginkgo]

Well, I'm not a believer, but I'll play devil's advocate.

Uhh... yeah I suspected that. You little conniving thing... you're like one of those zombies who pretends to be dead, but then spontaneously bites you in the neck. Like one of those sleeper cell terrorists, except most terrorists have worse oral hygiene than zombies.

... Were you born with a terrorist zombie near you?

 

[phthalocyanine]

zombie astrology might make a nifty coffee table book...

 

[Ginkgo]

zombie astrology might make a nifty coffee table book...

You drink coffee? Clearly you were born under the crack cocaine kangaroo constellation.

Can't make out the little marsupial bastard in his ethereal habitat? Good. That means you're spasming too quickly to see it. You're definitely crack cocaine kangaroo.

 

[matmos]

Really? I'm chinese, and that has never been around for me. My mum's a fire horse.. 1966.

Shoot. My bad. You're correct, the belief is not held so vigorously in China. The rise was in Japan.

A decrease of about 463 000 live births occurred in Japan in 1966, constituting a sharp departure from the linear trend before and after. This was partly caused by contraception and partly by induced abortion. The induced abortion rate, 43·1 per 1000 births in the year (a total of 65 000), was significantly higher than the 30·6 expected (46·200 total) from the regression trend computed from the years 1963 to 1969. No epidemics were reported in 1966 which might have caused the increase in abortion. It is more likely to be due to observance of Hinoe-Uma (Elder Fire-Horse), which comes round every sixty years by zodiac almanac. This event represents a superstition observed only by the Japanese, in which it is a bad omen for female babies to be born in the year. 1966 was the most recent year of Hinoe-Uma.

http://client.norc.org/jole/SOLEweb/8354.pdf

Sincere apologies if I this offended any Chinese members. I meant to offend the Japanese.

 

[phthalocyanine]

You drink coffee? Clearly you were born under the crack cocaine kangaroo constellation.

Can't make out the little marsupial bastard in his ethereal habitat? Good. That means you're spasming too quickly to see it. You're definitely crack cocaine kangaroo.

actually, i'm a tea drinker... and not usually one to read the leaves.
i always thought of myself more as an antelope with a jetpack...

 

[Zarathustra]

Uhh... yeah I suspected that. You little conniving thing... you're like one of those zombies who pretends to be dead, but then spontaneously bites you in the neck. Like one of those sleeper cell terrorists, except most terrorists have worse oral hygiene than zombies.

... Were you born with a terrorist zombie near you?

 

[Zarathustra]

At the same time, I'm not a disbeliever.

I think every argument I've seen against astrology on this thread has basically gone like this, "I don't think astrology is true. I mean, why would the stars have any correlation with our personalities! It hasn't been scientifically proven..."

Considering that last sentence has been the most highly represented argument, and that astrology is not really scientifically falsifiable or verifiable, it's a moot point. That anyone would even use it... well, let's not go there...

From my view of things, everyone has just been babbling on from their preconceived notions.

I'm not sure whether I've even heard the sound of an open mind on this thread, aside maybe from ragashree's (but I didn't really read his/her posts to carefully, so...).

I think the most telling example is here:

Why? Because there is nothing more to learn from the universe than physical laws and how they interact.

Really? Is this so?

This is a very clear explanation of a very particular cosmological view of the world. And I think it's clear that all those who have argued against the veracity of astrology have basically held this same view. This is not surprising, for, if one holds rigidly to this particular cosmological view, there is no way one will be open to the possibility of astrology being true. (One will also be closed to any signs in one's life as having any inherent meaning whatsoever, outside of the individual's subjective interpretation, and, moreover, be closed to the idea that anything whatsoever is inherently meaningful, outside of individual subjective interpretation.)

It's important to note that this cosmological view has come to be the dominant cosmological view in our world. It's also important to note that it has its own geneaology, and that this geneaology can be clearly studied in a historical manner. Furthermore, it is just one of many different cosmological views that human beings have held throughout time, and, just like all the others, has a high likelihood of change. Unless one believes that this single cosmological view, which is but one of many, many, many different cosmological views that have been held by various human societies throughout history, will never change, and will hold dominance from now til either the end of mankind or forever (and honestly, the nihilism often produced by this cosmological view will likely be just as much a reason for our demise, if it comes about, as any other cosmological view that's out there), then you believe this cosmological view will eventually change, and lose its dominant grip over the imagination of mankind.

I, like everybody else, am not sure what will unfold, but I would put my money on a bet for change over a bet for permanence most any day.

Some things change, some things stay the same.

Cosmological views, throughout human history, have changed.

 

[musicnerd93]

I don't believe in it. The day you were born has nothing to do with your personality. I'm a gemini in astrology and an INFP in personality types. I'm more INFP than I am Gemini. I'm shy around people I hardly know, not a flirt, and faithful to my lovers, not like what people say geminis supposedly are.

 

[Mole]

astrology is not really scientifically falsifiable

Astrology is falsifiable.

And it has been falsified.

 

[Mole]

But why stop at astrology?

Why not believe in homeopathy?

 

[Zarathustra]

Astrology is falsifiable.

And it has been falsified.

Please, enlighten us with the proof.

 

[Mole]

Please, enlighten us with the proof.

What is this - a peer reviewed journal?

 

[ragashree]

I think every argument I've seen against astrology on this thread has basically gone like this, "I don't think astrology is true. I mean, why would the stars have any correlation with our personalities! It hasn't been scientifically proven..."

Considering that last sentence has been the most highly represented argument, and that astrology is not really scientifically falsifiable or verifiable, it's a moot point. That anyone would even use it... well, let's not go there...

To me the question we should be asking re the potential usefulness of astrology, as seems to have been studiously missed by most people despite my attempts at explaining the point (and perhaps one or two others, though I believe mine was the most explicit), is not "Why should it work?", but "Whether there is any evidence that it does work, and if so, in what respects?"

Supposing that the phenomenon itself is disproven because a mechanism cannot be indicated (or those that can be advanced can be easily disproven) is merely to engage in the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Anyone who can't see that could do with sharpening up their critical thinking skills a bit, frankly. In the absence of any compelling evidence there is no conclusive reason to consider either a "for" or "against" belief to be more correct. However, it is simply wrong to claim primacy for your "against" belief on the grounds that it can be objectively disproven by science when the claim proceeds from demonstrably fallacious reasoning.

From my view of things, everyone has just been babbling on from their preconceived notions.

This is just one of those subjects that seems to attract a preponderance of people with entrenched beliefs on either side; it's a bit like those discussions which attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the superiority or inferiority of a set of political beliefs.

I'm not sure whether I've even heard the sound of an open mind on this thread, aside maybe from ragashree's (but I didn't really read his/her posts to carefully, so...).

Ah, well, I'm used to it, not too many people DO seem to read my posts carefully if their responses are anything to go by! (this thread contains some prime examples...!)

I think the most telling example is here:

Originally Posted by Tater Typhoon
Why? Because there is nothing more to learn from the universe than physical laws and how they interact.

Really? Is this so?

This is a very clear explanation of a very particular cosmological view of the world. And I think it's clear that all those who have argued against the veracity of astrology have basically held this same view. This is not surprising, for, if one holds rigidly to this particular cosmological view, there is no way one will be open to the possibility of astrology being true.

I always find it fascinating to read such statements, and wonder whence it is that people obtain this steadfast certainty regarding the nature of things, a certainty which I am aware that I lack. It almost makes me feel inadequate, to know I can never believe so fully in something on the basis of my own necessarily limited knowledge that there is no room for doubt or openness to alterntate possibilites.

Perhaps there are just a lot of other people around who are so much more intelligent and insightful than I that they have penetrated the very fabric of reality and discovered for themselves the fundamental Truths of existence, whilst I, still in search of further knowledge, must remain forever condemmed to doubt and uncertainty. Or maybe some people just wouldn't recognise the scientific concept that our current state of knowledge is necessarily tentative if it jumped up and slapped them in the face? Hmm, on balance, perhaps I prefer the latter...

 

[Zarathustra]

What is this - a peer reviewed journal?

Well, apparently, it's a place where, if you make unsupported claims, you get called out on it.

 

[Mole]

Well, apparently, it's a place where, if you make unsupported claims, you get called out on it.

This is a conversation.

To call people out during a conversation is simply rude.

 

[Zarathustra]

This is a conversation.

To call people out during a conversation is simply rude.

Rudeness for the purpose of truth is excusable.

Unfortunately (for you), the same cannot be said for attempting to pass off unsupported claims as if they were truth.

 

[Mole]

Rudeness for the purpose of truth is excusable.

Unfortunately (for you), the same cannot be said for attempting to pass off unsupported claims as if they were truth.

Don't be silly. I am making conversation not establishing the truth.

 

[Jaguar]

Well, apparently, it's a place where, if you make unsupported claims, you get called out on it.

I'm still waiting for Victor to give me evidence that Jung sexually abused his patients and started a cult.

 

[Mole]

I'm still waiting for Victor to give me evidence that Jung sexually abused his patients and started a cult.

In a normal conversation you would just express your opinion, you would not demand evidence.

Demanding evidence seems to me to be somewhat peremptory.