I think that there is good reason to consider the characteristic quality of astrological lore to be much like the excrement of the male bovine, to use a description that the late Dr. Isaac Asimov had used.

Here is the Skeptic Dictionary entry on astrology: http://www.skepdic.com/astrolgy.html

And here are some more interesting pages:

http://home.wxs.nl/~skepsis/astrot.html
http://aries.phys.yorku.ca/~mmdr/180...-synopsis.html

Notes that if the more "serious" astrologers are correct, that one has to look at a person's whole chart and not just one's Sun Sign, then that means that Sun Sign astrology is worthless.

http://www.skepdic.com/essays/jones.html

Notes that astrology is based on symbolic significance. To expand on that, consider that Venus is thought to rule one's love life -- but in actual fact, Venus's surface has a pressure 90 times Earth's, a surface temperature of 460 C (900 F), and clouds composed mostly of sulfuric acid. This seems much like the traditional picture of Hell. But why weren't the astrologers aware of that?

And Mars is the most Earthlike of the other planets, yet the astrologers were unaware of that. If they were, they'd make Mars into a "friendly" planet and Venus into a "hostile" planet. But they didn't.

Also, there is the question of what influences to include. Indian astrology is borrowed from Western astrology, but adds the Moon's ascending node, where it crosses the ecliptic northward. Why didn't Western astrologers notice a missing influence and deduce that it was the Moon's ascending node? Or why didn't Indian astrologers discover that the Moon's ascending node does not predict anything?

And the same can be said about how some recent astrologers include Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Though no asteroids or outer-planet satellites. At least not yet.

However, astronomers have been capable of such feats of prediction: consider that Neptune's presence was predicted from unaccounted-for perturbations in Uranus's motion.

Val:

Fine. I guess the idea that there could exist a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god who simultaneously can make mistakes and throw people into eternal tormentn and gets angry is equal to the fact that there may be a grain of truth somewhere hidden in astrology. Ok. That is logical.

Whoa, slow down! I never said I didn't like it--- stop putting words into my mouth! What I said was that it is not a valid experiment--- IMHO. The sample is too narrowly defined.

too simple, is my point. I am not saying that the effect doesn't exist--- I have done cold readings--- what I am saying is that experiment to 'prove it' is flawed. I have no problem believeing in it.

Ok, let me put it this way: they are using a bunch of first year undergrads (poor sample right there--- please don't force me to pull out my texts and cite you chapter and verse why), and the 'answer' is self contradictory. The second experiment, of mixing up the personalitly traits, is simply laughable by anyone with experience inhuman psychology. You are relying on people to voluntarily and correctly understand their own personalities to disprove astrology!?! Hah!?! What they should have done was get friends/family of the subject to read each one and pick out the one which described the subject. Self description is inherently flawed. (I could site experiments 'proveing' this as well, if you make me)

does this make sense now?

Is it clear now? I would need to know the sample tested to judge. 'the average' does little for me.

Duh, yourself. I could devise an experiment to show eggs are fragile by running a bulldozer over it. Doesn't mean that it is a legitimate experiment, or that saying it is not makes eggs somehow not fragile.

Bingo. For why the second 'experiment' listed is toro poopoo.

<sigh>
Can't we just be friends?
jess

ANSIMC

There was a glitch yesterday morning which caused the consignment of posts to an eternal hell.

I am sorry about it, and it is being looked into by people near the actual machine.

Thank you for reposting.

I repeat, this was not an example of moderators going insane and deleting posts willy nilly...

really!

jess

ASIMC

Because it wasn't the planet surface that mattered, it was the god who ruled that planet.

I am not arguing for it, ok? just that bit of logic seems off... same with That's using your resoning, not theirs. That's all.

jess
ANSIMC

First of all, not all Christians hold that belief. Sure, many do, but not all. To say that "the Christian God exists" is less likely than "Astrology works" depends upon the particular Christian's view of God.

Nonetheless, your statement just verifies what I've suspected. It's merely your personal incredulty that judges the one less fantastic than the other, and not any sort of, you know, evidence.




*sigh* That was only the first experiment of hundreds. Subjective Validation and the Forer effect are well known and experiments verify them constantly.




Personally, I don't "believe" in it or not. It's a matter of the evidence, which suggests that people are poor judges of subjective evidence. But then, that's all Subjective Validation is all about.




Which answer is self contradictory, exactly? This was simply an experiment to determine if an individual could recognize their own "personality type" by giving them a control sample (that is, the made up one). This isn't the ONLY experiment that has been done like this, merely the first that is recognized.




Um, the Forer effect is a measure of a person's ability to pick out their own personality from a written description, yes. Since it is EXACTLY THIS that many people cite as evidence to believe in Astrology, it is worthwhile to investigate why.




So you're saying an experiment that is made to measure a person's ability to judge their own character should use friends and family? I think you're misunderstanding what the experiment was designed to test.




I never claimed otherwise. Indeed, that's exactly the stance that the Forer effect is demonstrating.




You obviously don't understand that this is exactly what the experiment is testing for: "Can people accurately determine their own personality type from a written description".

That you discard it as invalid BECAUSE you've already jumped to the SAME conclusion that the Forer effect makes is baffling to me.

It seems you're not understanding that Subjective Validation isn't something that has this ONE experiment to support it. Indeed, it's so well known that minimizing it is built right into the scientific method.

*sigh*

Do you want the last word? You got it. Just tell me.

Did you miss the fact that there were two experiments listed on that link? I have seperate arguements against each one. I am not lumping them together.

Fine. We disagree. I really don't give a cursed fig tree what you personally think of me. You aren't in my head, you don't see what I am saying. Think I believe in men who live in Fozzie's little finger, for all I care. It won't change how valid my ideas and belifs are.

According to your link, with first year undergrad psych students. Flawed. If you have different experiments/reports, please please send me article names/links so I can read them myself.

The 'answer' to the initial 'personality test'. It is almost impossible not to agree with some of it, because it is internally contradictory.

If I say to you, 'your favorite color is either a warm color or a cool color' I am dead on orrect, although it is internally off.

Whoa again! I thought this was an experiment you are showing debunks Astrology. How does the established fact that people can't subjectively tell their own personality debunk astrology?

oh. I don't agree. You will call my reasoning 'personal incredulty'.

yes, I guess I did. To judge the validity of astrology's ability to pick out your personality, it should be done that way. What you are saying has nothing to do with astrology, except in a slim, tangential manner.

NOT the second experiment--- the one where they had readings done, and mixed them up to see how many people picked out their own reading. The first experiment proves the results of the second were caused by the inability to judge their own personalities.


It should. I discard it as legitimate because of the manner in which it was done and the sample group used. I agree that the effect is probably there--- although it seems we are changing the 'effect' now--- and I have training in this, both psychological and parapsychological and professional, academic and personal. I am hardly 'jumping to a conslusion'.

Unless you stop telling me what I am thinking, you get the last word.

jess
ANSIMC

This is a message board. The purpose of it is a discussion. If you're no longer interested in the discussion, perhaps not responding WOULD be in your best interest. I, however, am interested in the discussion, so of course I'm going to reply.

Your seeming accusation that I'm trying to get the "last word" is unfounded.




Or invalid for that matter. I'm simply pointing out that you place the two into separate categories out of personal incredulty, not for any evidential reason.. *shrug* If that's what you want to do, so be it.




Would I ask you to cite me article names and links for all sorts of basic scientific concepts? Please. If you're interested in the Forer Effect you HAVE a search engine or two at your disposal. Use them. I cited you ONE link to get you started, there are further references at the bottom of that article. What's more, subjective validation (of which the Forer effect is one type) is extensively taken into account in scientific experimentation.

It's not exactly unknown.




It was taken randomly from an astrological reading in that case. Not so in all of them. Look, if you want to look into the Forer effect, nobody is stopping you, but plunging your head in the sand and shouting "invalid experiment!" doesn't mean much.




And these are often the kinds of statements one gets from Astrological readings. (And yes, I have had "professional" astrologers do readings for me).




Whoa indeed. This experiment has nothing to do with determining the validity of astrology. Rather it has to do with subjective validation. There's plenty of evidence out there to demonstrate that astrology is bunk, this is simply an experiment to determine WHY people seem to accept it.




*sigh* No, I won't. However, it is personal validation that often causes people to believe in things like astrology or tarot readings. All one needs to do is examine statements like "it seems accurate to me". That's subjective validation. It MIGHT be accurate, but calling it accurate because it SEEMS to be to you based upon your own subjective evaluation of the "reading" isn't a good indicator.


Incidentally, your tone is becoming increasingly hostile, you might want to tone it down a bit.




On the contrary, the study cited is an attempt to explain why people believe astrological readings apply specifically to them and are particularly accurate. The point made is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE if the astrological reading is "for" that person or not, the "it seems to accurately apply to me" rating is high.




I find it surprising that you have psychological and parapsychological training and have not heard of the Forer effect. Have you at least heard of Subjective validation?

Val:

The 'hostility' you are feeling is frustration. Do you not see that you are once again telling me what I think? Maybe that is a sore spot for me right now, considering some people I have had the misfortune to embroil myself with here, and thus I am sorry for reacting to it. But you are still doing it.

As far as I am concerned, this is not a discussion. That involves both parties listening to what the other has to say, absorbing it and responding to it. I do not even think we have a clue what we are talking about.

If you would like to continue this, perhaps we should figure out what we are actually talking about. Then we can figure out the point of the discussion.

The reason I am simply not ignoring what I would have considered 'the last chance' is because Nick and Nora are gods as far as I am concerned, and anyone who can see that is intellegent enough for a second (third, forth and 100th) chance.

Should we start over? Or simply shake hands and meet again as friends? Your call.

Jess and Valmorian,

I'm going to hop in briefly and have my ten cents worth if you two don't mind. (I've just gone and done it anyway, so I hope you don't mind)

Years and years ago, when I was sixteen, I took some astrology lessons. We learnt the attributes of the planets, signs and houses.

We were given a birth chart of somebody who was famous at the time and told nothing about them except that they were famous.

There was something about Pluto being in Sagitarrius in whatever house suggested society or politics, there were a couple of other things that suggested mysticism and intense religious devotion. One said, Robert Redford, one said Malcolm Fraser (then Prime Minister of Australia), others said other things.

I said Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and was correct.

Based on this, based on stuff in my own chart which seems to correlate with my personality, based on being able to get a harpsichord when some momentous thing like a Jupiter twiddle or Saturn return or what the hell ever came up I cannot help thinking that there is something in it, somehow, somewhere.

Based on the fact that it's easy to see things where you want, that the Jupiter twiddle or Saturn return fell through at the time, and that I now have an instrument which really is all mine and there hasn't been a Jupiter twiddle, Saturn return or whatever....

and...if all things are interconnected, then what about the asteroids, other stars in other constellations that aren't part of astrology etc...

and....the precession of the equinoxes....really, why don't the signs move with the corresponding constellations? If the planets can move and the constellations move, and the style of thought known today as Hermeticism sets great store on universal flux, just as Buddhist philosophy does......how can astrology actually work?

Based on the above three paragraphs, I have to confess I do not believe in astrology.

Fortunately my mind can accommodate contradiction.

I'm sure that jess is correct about the inventors of astrology and how they thought, but the actual features of the planets are an interesting check into their level of insight.

Also, different people have seen different things in the stars; it would be interesting to find some collection of constellations from different parts of the world.

Of our canonical constellations, those visible from mid northern latitudes are derived from Greco-Roman antiquity, while many of the southernmost ones had been named by the astronomer Lacaille -- with names that reflect 18th-cy. techno-geekishness, such as "telescope", "microscope", and "clock".