Island3

<a href="http://einstein.stcloudstate.edu/Dome/clicks/constlist.html" target="_blank">This site</a> is pretty interesting. Sometimes they will be able to provide alternate views on certain constellations like <a href="http://einstein.stcloudstate.edu/Dome/constellns/psa.html" target="_blank">Piscus Austrinus</a> instead of the traditional Greek origins.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: blind watchmaker ]</p>

liquid

Read Sagan's 'Cosmos', a classic piece of popular science literature, if not THE classic piece. He not only describes numerous other cultural interpretations of constellations, but describes how they change when run in simulations over time, or with position in space.

ohwilleke

I certainly don't believe in astrology, but I still think its fun. What makes astrology fun is that it makes an effort to try to describe personalities and to force you inspect your own personality and that of others . . . to try to find out what makes people tick.

When you discuss sun signs, you inevitably end up discussing what the elements of your personality are, and what the elements of your friend's personalities are. Indeed, I think that typing people by sun sign (without regard to when they are actually born) can be a fun little parlor game that allows you to get to know people better.

Another fun thing that astrology brings out is that it provides a rare moment when you are allowed to focus on what your personal desires in life are. What sort of person would you like to have as a mate? What sort of person will your children turn out to be? What sort of relationship will you have with your children? Will they have with each other? What would be "lucky" if it happened today? What would be "unlucky"?

What astrology has, that atheists do not in many cases, is a language and context within which to discuss issues that mean a lot to people. Until we can feel that void with meaningful discussions of those issues not based on tripe, it will go on for that reason.

Jack the Bodiless

I woudn't be surprised to see very slight statistical correlations. Part of it could be a tendency for some to model themselves on the alleged characteristics of their sign: "I'm stubborn because I'm Taurus".

And there may be a "birthday effect": a kid's favorite time of year could depend on when his/her birthday is, and that might bias them to be a "summer person" or a "winter person".

Arrowman

ohwilleke, you make some excellent points.

I commonly say "well I don't believe in astrology but as it happens I do think Taurus is not a bad description for me".

Very few people I know take astrology seriously (or will admit to it) but lots of people know their star signs and the supposed basic characteristics of those signs; and now that you mention it, yes, I think they do (unconsciously) use it as a "conversation starter" or an excuse to disclose something about themselves.

Trouble is
1. Still, too many people take it seriously, and
2. It's a pity that people need an excuse or mechanism to talk about themselves in that way.

I don't think your comments about atheism "lacking a language and context..." are valid however:

1. Point of pedantry: It's skepticism, not atheism, which excludes astrology. It would be quite possible (although perhaps extremely uncommon) for an atheist to believe in astrology.
2. It is not the responsibility of either atheism or skepticism to provide social constructs such as those you describe. I mean, how can I conclude a devastating critique of astrology, convincing my audience that it's crap, only to be confronted with the accusation that I haven't provided a meaningful alternative for people to talk about themselves and their personality traits?
3. We DO have the language and context in which to talk about these issues. It's called English. People's incapacity for such discussion it a result of a range of social influences and personal traits - not because they haven't been given an alternative to the mystical. I mean, I'm a skeptic and an atheist, and I have no problems (all right, very few problems) in that area.

cricket

AND. you perpetuate the silliness and another generation is reared under the assumption that there's something valid about all this. Otherwise, why would Mom and Dad talk about it at parties? Otherwise, why would we see it in the newspapers? Otherwise why would we hear about it on the news? Just saw this posted on another board

&lt;hurling&gt; Will the nonsense ever end?

It would be more responsible to discuss Enneagram types or Myers-Briggs types. Otherwise we'll have another generation of fools reading newspaper horoscopes "for entertainment purposes only." LOL! *Some* entertainment! Like people are pathetic enough to read this as their choice of fiction, for *entertainment*! (If they do, they're really sad sacks. Even worse than those who seriously follow astrology.)

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: cricket ]</p>

David Gould

I read a book on the history of chemistry (it was called Mendeleyev's Dream, I think, and was about the Periodoic Table). As a digression in the book based on the following of alchemy into chemistry, the author surmised that astrology developed into pscyhology, which I find plausible.

I was appalled at the report into car accidents.

I noted with relief that insurance agencies are not bothering about applying it's findings to their rates...

cricket

Jack,

It's worse than this. Seemingly rational people will look you in the eye and say "I always knew I would marry only a Leo or a Sagittarius, since I am a Libra." You wait for them to wink, and they don't.

David,

That's two of us. News reports like this seemingly confirm the legitimacy of astrological beliefs. Why do this to OUR CHILDREN? It could be decades before they sort it all out, and finally realize it's bullshit.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: cricket ]</p>

cricket

Not yet.

Arrowman

But, we do have health insurance companies which provide benefits under Extras cover for things such as homeopathy and iridology. And with the government rebate on premiums, this means that not only are fund members subsidising this stuff, so is the taxpayer generally.

I have written on this subject to both my fund and the Minister. Neither has replied.