Astrology - Are you a believer?

[forzen]

This doesn't really work when the people are trying to push it down. It needs an open mind and actual research and diving into.
So if it's 'bullshit', then why hasn't it died out yet? You may think: "But religion hasn't died out either!". Well...religion has all the books, churches and physical 'evidence' behind all of it, apparently buying people into believing it.
But astrology has not. All it has is the astronomical placements and they have been backing it up for millenniums. But that's apparently enough to manage to keep it alive.
Indeed, astrology actually is a valid system and it will probably be used for a very long time.

From a person with a chart highly similar to mine:

""Sir, I have studied it, you have not" -Isaac Newton, Astrologer (190 IQ) said in defense of astrology to disbeliever in Halley (comet discoverer)"

I don't know how many people had called astrology "bullshit" in the thread. But, i'm one of them and I like to point out that I'm only speaking for myself. If I seem like i'm conveying my opinion to represent the collective ideas of more than myself, I appologize.

However, I agree that forcing opinions upon other people is never a good way to win a debate or getting people to change their views.

 

[matmos]

From a person with a chart highly similar to mine:

""Sir, I have studied it, you have not" -Isaac Newton, Astrologer (190 IQ) said in defense of astrology to disbeliever in Halley (comet discoverer)"

"During the past few decades, an enormous amount of studies have been published on Newton... However, none of these studies have turned up one shred of evidence that Newton ever conducted any research on astrology. One of the foremost Newton scholars, the English historian of science Derek Thomas Whiteside has stated that he never found any reference to astrology among the 50 million words which have been preserved from Newton’s hand."

From Isaac Newton: Witness for the defence or for the prosecution? - SkepticReport

One would suppose that Newton's reference library would give some clue as to his interests. Astrology does not appear to be that highly placed. From the same source:

"At his death, Newton’s library possessed no more than four books [of the 1752 books with identifiable titles] on the subject of astrology: a work by the German astrologer Johann Essler from Mainz (end 15th/begin 16th century), a treatise on palmistry and astrology by the English doctor/astrologer Richard Saunders (1613-1675), an almanac from the same using the pseudonym Cardanus Rider[10] and finally a work debunking astrology by the philosopher-poet and Cambridge professor Henry More (1614-1687)."

And finally. The quote "Sir, I have studied it, you have not" used is actually a misquote.

" It will therefore not come as a surprise that the true source for our anecdote in fact derives from Newton’s latter interests. More than 50 years ago the American historian of science I. Bernard Cohen was able to trace it back to the highly regarded Newton biographies by the English physicist David Brewster (1781-1868) in which it is cited as:

‘… when Dr. Halley ventured to say anything disrespectful to religion, he invariably checked him, with the remark, “I have studied these things – you have not”.’

Newton had interest in theology, as the 477 theological books listed in his collection allude to. He evidently took umbridge at Halley's godlessness, not his skepticism of astrology.

Perhaps you may have a better source for the quote's sources, other than than a respected historian and Harvard professor whose speciality was... Isaac Newton.

 

[Zarathustra]

Four books, eh?

That's more than my one...

And I'd say I qualify as "interested in astrology"...

 

[matmos]

Well, three books - if you don't include the one debunking astrology by Henry More.

Which equates to 0.0017% of his collection.

Fair point, though, given his interest and expertise on astrology.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well, three books - if you don't include the one debunking astrology by Henry More.

Which equates to 0.0017% of his collection.

Umm, after you divide the numerator by the denominator, you're supposed to multiply by 100 to get the percentage.

You're about two decimal places (i.e., 100x) off, big guy...

 

[yenom]

I am sort of a half believer.

But then again, all psychology theories revolve around bullshit(MBTI included), becuase human nature is too complex and unpredictable. So I don't see how the MBTI and enneagram (especially enneagram) is superior to astrology.

Its all based all archetypes.

 

[matmos]

Umm, after you divide the numerator by the denominator, you're supposed to multiply by 100 to get the percentage.

You're about two decimal places (i.e., 100x) off, big guy...

Quite right. My bad. 0.17% is the correct figure. A grand total. Apologies for the error.

But you're correct - 3 books is 3 books. It does show an interest, as you say.

And using a woopsy percentage, rather than an absolute figure, doesn't establish that he had no interest.

That he possessed three books on the subject and one against it is salient. But exactly how salient? We could hold up the 3 books as evidence of his (evident) interest and ownership More's book to speculate something else.

But, mere possession of a book (or three) doesn't necessarily mean he endorsed it, only that he had an "interest". The depth of his interest is speculative, and moderated by the possession of a tome debunking astrology.

You confuse an interest (of whatever magnitude) with an endorsement. It is not.

What we do know, Zarathustra, is that the quote ascribed to him - which has him defending astrology with Dr Halley - is false.

I believe I have a couple of books on astrology somewhere. Both are rubbish.

 

[Zarathustra]

Fair point, though, given his interest and expertise on astrology.

I'm sorry, I've read this about fourteen times, and I'm still not sure whether you were being sarcastic or sincere...

Was Newton, in fact, interested in astrology, or not?

EDIT: sorry, hadn't seen your above post before writing this.

 

[Zarathustra]

Umm, I never said Newton endorsed astrology...

 

[Zarathustra]

You should read Richard Tarnas' book.

 

[kingofdufferin]

It seems like kind of a fun idea, but I don't believe in it. I find nothing spiritual about the positions of space objects. Their positions are based on the laws of physics such as gravity and centrifugal force, where there is no aspect of personality, nor is there a reciprocal spiritual relationship between your soul and an inanimate object such as a star or planet. It is also unsettling for me to leave my beliefs in the hands of a scientfic system created by people. For me, there is no natural spiritual connection.

 

[PeaceBaby]

NT debates are fun. One person believes, others don't believe, then play the same back and forth games, for ages it seems. "Astrology is stupid - no it's not - yes it is - and so on."

The coolest part - no one goes and gets some data.

Oh I know, Z has put up a couple of links, and sim linked to one meta-analyses, but - here:

Scientific Proof for Astrology?

You will easily discern the web author's perspective BUT - there are links to 100's of genuine reseach studies here. If you wanted to draw your own conclusions, do your own meta-analysis of them, find flaws in them or design your own study, here's enough material to keep you busy for the next year of your life.

(And there are even more I could link to but will not for the sake of brevity.)

In a way, everyone is right in this thread.

- One should be open-minded, or one can't truly be available to new insights in their lives.

- The burden of proof rests on astrology, not on critics of it.

So, since this is a classic non-winnable debate, do your due diligence people and decide what importance you want to give astrology in your own life.

 

[MacabreCharade]

Overall about half of the information offered fits me well, and about half is grossly incorrect. That's about what I expected.

The Aries Sun sign fits moderately well, the Gemini Moon sign fits very well, and the Taurus Rising sign is horribly, horribly wrong.

Well, the rising sign usually just gives an edge to your other placements and you've actually really got to think about it to find those traits.
Those descriptions are, indeed, meant to go for the general sign overall. As in what has been noticed in the majority of individuals sharing the same placement.
Anything in your chart could cancel out or balance the qualities of other placements. So if someone had, for example, five cancer conjuncts or something and a leo rising, then you're not going to want to give them the typical description of a flamboyant leo, because it is likely that its' qualities are difficult to look up in the person.
Also, the rising sign is said to show the way the world sees you, so that could not always be noticed by self.

I don't think many take the general MBTI descriptions word-to-word. It's bound to be made easier to take in for the people who may be new to it. It wouldn't alienate them and could possibly keep an interest.
There's also a lot more going on in astrology than in MBTI. There are the four qualities in MBTI, which sum up to be the type. And for astrology there are more. Other than the placements of the planets, often the houses projected by the rising are also taken into consideration, etc.

I just sort of use them hand-to-hand. When the reader finds themselves frustrated and can't really put their finger on something, then the other systems could be used. Yes, system. It's not about whether a person believes in it or not. It's their loss if they don't. Why should they be proven of any of this if they're not willing to look into it themselves. And if they can't find anything, obviously they aren't looking into it enough or just can't see into it. It would just be helpful to have ways of backing things up because it would be more accurate.

 

[Ming]

I already cited two scientific studies earlier in thread, but Z brushed them off, saying that he's already dismissed the idea of astrology having predictive power.

Personally, I don't understand what value it might have at all if it has no predictive power (unless, of course, you just use the sun signs as personality categories like typology, but evidently that's totally offensive.) I hope we'll get an explanation for that at some point.

The ascendant business might be all wrong for you; it's just like that for some people. Astrology can't solve EVERYTHING. Just like Science, and God, etc. (No intention to bash anything).

BTW Ascendant is how you appear on the outside. It has nothing to do with you much; other than maybe your appearance. You're probably shorter than average, but very good looking.

But since you rely on your emotions more; you're a Gemini Moon. You might not see the Taurus ascendant. Somebody else might.

Unlike you, I have an Aries Moon and Ascendant, so I guess I really do act how I feel. Whatever I feel/think like, I'll say it. I find it really hard to hide my emotions. It's that kind of thing..

And you realise that your Moon is conjunct the Ascendant. Planets that conjunct the Ascendant usually has more power than the ascendant itself. You have the Moon and the Mars (the fiery warrior planet!) conjunction your ascendant.

Your Chiron...Possibly, there were restrictions in early childhood that will have had the effect on you of either retreating into yourself or having to fight to be noticed. There will be a need to find personal meaning in existence. Some will do this by being overly aggressive, others by withdrawing. Having a job or interest that is really enjoyed will give a positive direction to your life.The nervous system, communication skills and ability to tap race consciousness are all keywords of Chiron in Gemini. There can be early injuries to the voice, or painful shyness that comes from an early problem with self-expression. You may find that the native with Chiron in Gemini takes their time with thoughts and words, because they want to be certain that they express themselves correctly. Later in life, they may express themselves with painful precision to over-compensate.

Venus and Mercury in Pisces -> Pisces rules art/illusions. I really think you would have wanted to become a singer (because of that Taurus ASC, rules throat), but you were to shy to tell your parents/guidance about your dreams...

Your North Node is in 12th house!
NorthNodeastrology.com: South Node 6th House (Virgo), North Node 12th House (Pisces) I think that explains why you are a thinker, haha!

I don't want to spam you with astrology; just reply if you want more, or argue against it, w/e.

You should be a quick to smile person too. You probably smile every sentence you speak! (It's the Moon Conjunct ASC thing!)

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, the rising sign usually just gives an edge to your other placements and you've actually really got to think about it to find those traits.
Those descriptions are, indeed, meant to go for the general sign overall. As in what has been noticed in the majority of individuals sharing the same placement.
Anything in your chart could cancel out or balance the qualities of other placements. So if someone had, for example, five cancer conjuncts or something and a leo rising, then you're not going to want to give them the typical description of a flamboyant leo, because it is likely that its' qualities are difficult to look up in the person.
Also, the rising sign is said to show the way the world sees you, so that could not always be noticed by self.

I don't think many take the general MBTI descriptions word-to-word. It's bound to be made easier to take in for the people who may be new to it. It wouldn't alienate them and could possibly keep an interest.
There's also a lot more going on in astrology than in MBTI. There are the four qualities in MBTI, which sum up to be the type. And for astrology there are more. Other than the placements of the planets, often the houses projected by the rising are also taken into consideration, etc.

I just sort of use them hand-to-hand. When the reader finds themselves frustrated and can't really put their finger on something, then the other systems could be used. Yes, system. It's not about whether a person believes in it or not. It's their loss if they don't. Why should they be proven of any of this if they're not willing to look into it themselves. And if they can't find anything, obviously they aren't looking into it enough or just can't see into it. It would just be helpful to have ways of backing things up because it would be more accurate.

I doubt that many people perceive those Taurus traits in me but I can ask some friends and family.

Quantity doesn't make quality. You're suggesting I should pay more attention to astrology because it has more stuff going on?

And look, I know that astrology does help some people because sometimes the random traits given to you will line up with some of your real traits and that can facilitate new awareness of things you could improve. In that way I see some value in it.

The only thing I've wanted to establish is that the traits in your profile are still assigned essentially randomly--they mention a lot of generalized, common weaknesses and then describe what should be done to improve on them, so most people can find something useful somewhere in the reading.

Most people can find at least a few things that sound accurate somewhere in their charts, which leads us to think, "Gosh, that gave me new insight about myself--it must have some real power!", excited enough about the parts that it (randomly) got right to ignore the ones it didn't.

So yeah, there can be some value in it--and in a way, I guess believing that the locations of stellar bodies at time of birth can actually causally influence one's personality is necessary for some people to really take the profile's self-improvement advice to heart, so...if it's working for you, go for it.

(Just know that it isn't really giving you specially personalized information based on your birthday/time/place, and people who share your birthday/time/place are no more inclined to be like you than anyone else.)

The ascendant business might be all wrong for you; it's just like that for some people. Astrology can't solve EVERYTHING. Just like Science, and God, etc. (No intention to bash anything).

Just to be clear, do you believe that the positions of stellar bodies at time of birth actually has a direct impact on personality? Or are you just using astrology more for fun/to see if it happens to tell you anything useful about yourself?

BTW Ascendant is how you appear on the outside. It has nothing to do with you much; other than maybe your appearance. You're probably shorter than average, but very good looking.

I'm taller than average. In fact, my parents are both short (5'7" and 5'3") but I'm actually 6'1". And very good looking, well...we'll have to let someone else speak for me.

But since you rely on your emotions more; you're a Gemini Moon. You might not see the Taurus ascendant. Somebody else might.

Unlike you, I have an Aries Moon and Ascendant, so I guess I really do act how I feel. Whatever I feel/think like, I'll say it. I find it really hard to hide my emotions. It's that kind of thing..

I'll ask some people who know me well and see if I appear that way.

And you realise that your Moon is conjunct the Ascendant. Planets that conjunct the Ascendant usually has more power than the ascendant itself. You have the Moon and the Mars (the fiery warrior planet!) conjunction your ascendant.

Your Chiron...Possibly, there were restrictions in early childhood that will have had the effect on you of either retreating into yourself or having to fight to be noticed. There will be a need to find personal meaning in existence. Some will do this by being overly aggressive, others by withdrawing. Having a job or interest that is really enjoyed will give a positive direction to your life.The nervous system, communication skills and ability to tap race consciousness are all keywords of Chiron in Gemini. There can be early injuries to the voice, or painful shyness that comes from an early problem with self-expression. You may find that the native with Chiron in Gemini takes their time with thoughts and words, because they want to be certain that they express themselves correctly. Later in life, they may express themselves with painful precision to over-compensate.

Don't nearly all children either retreat into themselves or fight to be noticed? Aren't most people's childhoods somehow restricted? Don't most people want to find personal meaning in existence? Doesn't everybody get positive direction in life from having a job or interest that's really enjoyable?

I express myself with precision but I'm not shy and I've never really had a problem with self-expression. This section is totally wrong...but I guess that just happens sometimes, right?

I'm having trouble imagining who most of these things wouldn't apply to. "You desire to find personal meaning in existence"? Really?

Venus and Mercury in Pisces -> Pisces rules art/illusions. I really think you would have wanted to become a singer (because of that Taurus ASC, rules throat), but you were to shy to tell your parents/guidance about your dreams...

Uh well I actually do sing in a couple of local bands (and I also happen to think singing for a living would be pretty cool, yeah) in Atlanta and my parents know all about my musical pursuits and have since I was young.

Your North Node is in 12th house!
NorthNodeastrology.com: South Node 6th House (Virgo), North Node 12th House (Pisces) I think that explains why you are a thinker, haha!

I don't want to spam you with astrology; just reply if you want more, or argue against it, w/e.

You should be a quick to smile person too. You probably smile every sentence you speak! (It's the Moon Conjunct ASC thing!)

I certainly don't smile every time I speak. I smile often when in the company of people I really like. Otherwise I don't smile much at all.


We can keep going, if you like. I imagine we'll find a mix of:

A) Really applicable information,
B) Semi-applicable information, and
C) Really inapplicable information

as we've been getting thus far...

 

[Zarathustra]

What do you make of the studies I've offered?

That was actually the next part of my post that I hadn't finished yet.

I skimmed the second one, and would like to spend more time reading it.

I've always felt "time-space twins" would probably be the only way to come up with a scientific test with even the slightest chance to disprove astrology, but, at the same time, I've also always been able to come up with counterarguments that refute the results...

So...

I know you said they're not relevant because you don't claim astrology has predictive value--if that is the case, what is it that you, personally, use astrology for?

I said astrology has no predictive value in foretelling future events.

Not that it can't potentially tell you about yourself.

 

[simulatedworld]

I said astrology has no predictive value in foretelling future events.

Not that it can't potentially tell you about yourself.

I agree that it can sometimes tell you about yourself--but I suspect this is because it offers a wide enough and generalized enough variety of common traits and feelings that almost anyone can find something correct in there, and use its advice to somehow improve himself.

If it can't foretell future events, doesn't that mean that if I look up a newborn baby's natal chart immediately after he's born, the information that comes up won't be able to tell us any more about his future personality than random chance would allow?

No, not really, and I don't really respect Bertrand Russell (or that argument) all that much.

Why?

 

[Zarathustra]

I understand that the full chart contains a great number of data points and that many of the data conflict with each other. I just find "that's ok because we have contradictory elements to our personalities" kind of a convenient cop-out.

Well, you're not genuinely open to astrology, so do you really think I'd expect anything else?

I understand how, coming from the perspective of someone who's not open to astrology, and who wants to try and refute it, it can seem like a cop out, but, the fact of the matter is, if you understand how astrology supposedly works, this is just the effect yielded by the extremely complex methodology upon which the art is based.

Once again: actually knowing how it works helps...

We all express just about every sort of behavior at some point or another; if astrology isn't going to describe our average tendencies accurately it's hard to see the point.

The descriptions Ming has given you are boiler plate.

They're written for each individual data point in your astrological profile, not ad hoc and in light of all your other ones.

It's up to you to take those disparate pieces and find the balance between all of them to form the picture that is your overarching identity (MacabreCharade already made this point, and effectively so).

I imagine your argument lies in the complexity of interpreting such a multitude of potentially conflicting data and testing whether they describe a person accurately or not.

Numerous studies have been performed using partial charts and none have shown any patterns suggestive of supernatural accuracy...why doesn't this constitute scientific evidence? If the studies on parts of the charts don't turn up statistically above average accuracy, why should we expect that a larger study on the full chart would?

The point is that astrology doesn't make sense based on a partial chart.

You have to take the whole chart.

Hence, my explanation the other day about why it's futile to try and fit MBTI and astrology into the same box. (I think you're starting to get that now.)

I thought of this today, and it's a dangerous argument to make, cuz it draws an analogy between MBTI and astrology (although, solely for demonstrative purposes, not cuz I actually want to equate the two), but I'll make it anyway:

Looking at just a sun sign is similar to saying that someone has Ni somewhere in their functional preferences.

It really doesn't tell you that much.

You have to add on the rising. And the moon.

Then you've got at least a bit clearer of a picture.

Mind you (as I say elsewhere in this post), you really need to look at all three of these in conjunction with one another, so, in that sense, if you wanted to simplify astrology into types, a much more effective way than taking just the 12 sun signs would be to take all three of these elements (sun, moon, and rising signs) into account in conjunction with one another.

This would yield something like 1728 "types" I believe...?

(just did 12^3 in my head, that might be a little bit off...)

So, yeah, as you can imagine, that is a bit more difficult to manage than just 12 sun signs (or 16 types)...

But, the fact of the matter is: that's not even close to the end of it.

That's still just three data points out of a hundred or more, and all of these different data points are supposedly their own part of the overall caleidoscope that are the archetypal energies that will (supposedly) manifest in your life.

Now, I know you might want to use the "oh, that's so convenient" argument, but, honestly, Sim, that's just the effect of your coming from a close-minded point of view.

I'm not saying you've got to buy this shit. Personally, I take it all with a big ol' grain of salt. But I'm not closed to it either.

*Cue that Aristotle quote posted by PeaceBaby*

I'll grant you that it's possible that it might be true, in the same way it's possible that perhaps modern science has mistakenly discarded alchemy. There's always another level of "our perception could be misled by [x condition] and everything we think is true might not be", so I don't see any particular need to establish that it's "possible" it might be true. That's a given, right?

Did you read my explanation about how we can actually test whether something is gold or lead?

 

[Ming]

If it can't foretell future events, doesn't that mean that if I look up a newborn baby's natal chart immediately after he's born, the information that comes up won't be able to tell us any more about his future personality than random chance would allow?

You rule your own world/mind. The baby will rule its own world/mind.

The chart doesn't 'foretell' your personality. It just shows the influence.

 

[Zarathustra]

Oh, also, PeaceBaby:

Sim has provided links to "scientific" studies of astrology.

I'm open to looking at yours too, but could you provide links to the best ones, and maybe provide a summary of their methodology (if you know it).

Unfortunately, I don't have infinite time, and looking through astrology-related stuff is pretty low on my priorities nowadays...

Thanks...