|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is Astrology a Science?
I have been reading quite a bit about astrology lately. Are there any web sites that provide statistical proof for or against astrology
| kirancnair wrote: |
| I have been reading quite a bit about astrology lately. Are there any web sites that provide statistical proof for or against astrology |
Statistical proof would not be sufficient. For a scientific conception of astrology, a mechanism would be needed.
No, its not a science, its crap. Using astrology to try to predict the future is like saying something good will happen cause you found a coin heads up, ridiculous.
Astrology is not a science, it's a pseudoscience. It is generally considered to have absolutely no scientific basis, and I agree with that. To add on to that, astrology relies a lot on assumptions and not facts.
Precisely. Even if you find statsitical proofs, you won't have a proper concept. There are some sites that I've come across a while ago and I'll post them if I find them. But trust me, they're no use.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Statistical proof would not be sufficient. For a scientific conception of astrology, a mechanism would be needed. |
Precisely. Even if you find statsitical proofs, you won't have a proper concept. There are some sites that I've come across a while ago and I'll post them if I find them. But trust me, they're no use.
| william wrote: | ||||
Astrology is not a science, it's a pseudoscience. It is generally considered to have absolutely no scientific basis, and I agree with that. To add on to that, astrology relies a lot on assumptions and not facts.
Precisely. Even if you find statsitical proofs, you won't have a proper concept. There are some sites that I've come across a while ago and I'll post them if I find them. But trust me, they're no use. |
I agree wholey with the ascertions in this post.
Somehow I find the second law of Themodynamics and its implications on the entropy of the universe...to be a scientific theory on which astrology can be based.
When a person is born he becomes an entity of the universe , as such he contributes to this entropy.
Astrology bases a lot of importance on time of birth and the above theory of entropy and astrology gives a platform for some thinking.
Could it be possible that there could be a mathematical relation between an individual and the heavenly bodies?
May be there are other yet unkown factor in the mathematics of human life..
When a person is born he becomes an entity of the universe , as such he contributes to this entropy.
Astrology bases a lot of importance on time of birth and the above theory of entropy and astrology gives a platform for some thinking.
Could it be possible that there could be a mathematical relation between an individual and the heavenly bodies?
May be there are other yet unkown factor in the mathematics of human life..
| kirancnair wrote: |
| Somehow I find the second law of Themodynamics and its implications on the entropy of the universe...to be a scientific theory on which astrology can be based.
When a person is born he becomes an entity of the universe , as such he contributes to this entropy. Astrology bases a lot of importance on time of birth and the above theory of entropy and astrology gives a platform for some thinking. Could it be possible that there could be a mathematical relation between an individual and the heavenly bodies? May be there are other yet unkown factor in the mathematics of human life.. |
No. The planets do not have an effect on peoples personality's or there future. If it were true the moon would have an effect far grater than any other planet, the moons gravity has a grater effect on us than any other planet and the pull of its gravity on us is equivalent to holding a pea over your head. And whens the last time an astrologer has ever taken into account asteroids and commits? Never. Yet if Neptune has an effect on us NEA would have a grater effect cause the gravitational pull of an NEA would be stronger cause even though Neptune is much bidder its very far away. The same can be said for Jupiter, Mars and Venus.
An Interesting link i found...
http://www.encosm.net/mars_effect.htm
Its more on the lines of statistical proof I has mentioned while starting this post.
http://www.encosm.net/mars_effect.htm
Its more on the lines of statistical proof I has mentioned while starting this post.
Astrology is not a science. There is no scientific method in astrology. Either predicting the future or find out personality characteristics based on the position of planets and stars and the moon is ridiculous. In most cases astrologists make general and vague considerations about the future and personality just to make easy money.
| kirancnair wrote: |
| An Interesting link i found...
http://www.encosm.net/mars_effect.htm Its more on the lines of statistical proof I has mentioned while starting this post. |
There is a reason that simple statistical correlations do not count as proof in science. There is a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means (if you want to impress your friends with some mad Latin sk1llz) "after this, therefore because of this". Basically, assuming that because two things always happen close together (temporally) means that one causes the other is flawed.
The classic example of this is the rooster example. A rooster always crows before sunrise. The statistical correlation between the rooster crowing and the sun rising is very, very good. Does that mean that the rooster's crow causes the sun to rise?
Statistical relationships like the one talked about in that article are necessary for scientific proof... but they are not sufficient. In other words, making a table of the relationships between certain astrological conditions and certain characteristics may be fun (if that's what floats your boat), but it is meaningless in the context of science.
i try to impress on people how very strict science is about what constitutes evidence, and how very hard it is for something to be called a scientific fact. It is not easy at all, it is a very, very harsh and rigorous process. This "Mars effect", as legitimate as it appears to be, doesn't even qualify as scientifically interesting information, let alone scientific evidence - let alone scientific fact. By comparison, something like the theory of evolution by natural selection has stood up to so much strict and merciless scrutiny that it is one of the most confidently held facts in science... and yet people still say that it's "just a theory", as if given a bunch of possibilities, science just randomly picked evolution over the others although they were all equally possible.
All this is not to say that there is no possibility that astrology is real. However, in order for it to be even seriously considered as a candidate for becoming a science - let alone actually be a science - a HUGE amount of work has to be done. And i do mean HUUUUUUGE.
This "Mars effect" correllation isn't even a first step.
No I don't think Astrology is science, but I think Astrology is an art greater than Science!
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| No, its not a science, its crap. Using astrology to try to predict the future is like saying something good will happen cause you found a coin heads up, ridiculous. |
I agree completely.
| Quote: |
|
Please use quote tags when posting other peoples work. Tags added by Moderating Team Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer, or, less often, an astrologist. Historically, the term mathematicus was used to denote a person proficient in astrology, astronomy, and mathematics. Although the two fields share a common origin, modern astronomy is entirely distinct from astrology. Astronomy is the scientific study of astronomical objects and phenomena, whereas astrology is concerned with the attempt to correlate these phenomena with earthly affairs. Astrology is variously considered by its proponents to be a symbolic language, a form of art, science,[this source's reliability may need verification] or divination. The scientific community generally considers astrology to be a pseudoscience or superstition as astrologers have failed empirical tests in controlled studies. Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology is widespread. The word astrology is derived from the Greek αστρολογία, from άστηρ (aster, "star") and λόγος (logos, "speech, statement, reason"). The -λογία suffix is written in English as -logy, "study" or "discipline". |
So astrology is not a science. I thought it was then I realized that I was thinking about astronomy. hehe
I don't consider astrology a science!!!
It most likely used, because back in time they used a lot of astronamy, and most likely astrology came about trying to tell the fate of people by using the stars
It most likely used, because back in time they used a lot of astronamy, and most likely astrology came about trying to tell the fate of people by using the stars
glad to know 0% think astrology is a science. reason is not yet a scarce commodity.......
wow didnt think it would be 100-0... good to know though LOL
I guess it depends on the defn of science. Some people think of behaviour science as being science and in that case some folks have used astrology to predict the behaviour of people based on their birth sign. And although some say the guess would be so vague I have heard some that are pretty specific and 100% correct for me but would not be for my friends nor wife.
I guess it depends on the defn of science. Some people think of behaviour science as being science and in that case some folks have used astrology to predict the behaviour of people based on their birth sign. And although some say the guess would be so vague I have heard some that are pretty specific and 100% correct for me but would not be for my friends nor wife.
Basically I go along with Indi almost completely on this one so there is no need to reiterate what has already been said. The only addition I would make is the same tune I often sing in these threads....you don't prove it right, you try to prove it wrong. If it is not possible to prove it wrong (as opposed to trying and failing to do so) then it isn't science. Astrology cannot easily be falsified in the manner it is most often practised today since it generally makes predictions which are either too subjective to subject to proper scrutiny or it relies on statistical probabilities in a very unscientific manner.
Let us consider an example...I am now going to go and choose 3 horoscopes for myself for today. My sample selection will be by Googling "Horoscope" "Virgo" and "March 4th 2007". I will then select the first three hits. (The sample selection is scientifically very dodgy, I'll admit here and now, since I don't have time to randomise a sample group and check for factors which might be important but we'll see what happens).
OK - result 1 from http://www.mastitunes.com/horoscope.html
Virgo Horoscope for Sunday, 4th March 2007
You might be seriously considering making changes but are you doing this for yourself, or someone else?
Result 2 from http://astrospeak.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1710867.cms
Virgo:- Do not venture into any new project without weighing the pros and cons.
Result 3 from http://www.0800-horoscope.com/virgo.php
Weekly Overview by Deborah Browning
This week's scenario is highlighted by your ability to be calm and patient, even while preparing for exciting times. Put your hand on the energy and feel its life-force. This week's adventures will include experiences with new people, places and things. Your outlook will benefit by many unique discoveries that you find along the way. Good things always come to those who wait. Good fortune will put you on an even keel with more privileged people. Watch for the quiet beauty unfolding through a slow process of success. You'll be able to handle the unusual with ordinary conventional methods. You'll be calm and unshaken when others lose their heads.
OK...now at first sight there appears to be some correspondence (agreement) between the first two - they both seem to caution against change. On closer analysis there is almost no information content at all.
The first starts with a statement of the obvious - everyone makes numerous changes everyday, unless they are in a coma. It then adds a question which can be interpreted to mean exactly what you want it to mean - who are you making a change for?
So if I have my hair cut and my wife really likes it..WOW spooky....or if I don't have my hair cut and my wife mentions I'm due for a cut..WOW spooky....and so on through the whole list of possible changes to my routine in previous days...
Result 2 is almost identical in the way it operates. Don't make changes without thinking through...so if I do make a change and it works favourably then SPOOKY...glad I thought it through like I was told...if I make a change and it rebounds badly...SPOOKY..I should have thought it through like I was told.
Result 3 (a weekly horoscope covering until midnight) starts with a staple of the art....flatter the reader....everyone likes to think good things about themselves (examples abound, I'll just give one - 85% of drivers in one study, rate their driving as better than average or much better than average- The Paper can be read here if interested ).
It immediately follows up with a piece of gibberish which has no meaning I can discern - "Put your hand on the energy and feel it's life force" ?? It seems to be either inviting me to stick my fingers in a plug socket or perhaps sexually molest a household appliance....I just can't fathom it.
Next we have more statements of the bleedin obvious - "This week's adventures will include experiences with new people, places and things. "..Err....well...d'ya think so? That would be as opposed to the normal weekly routine which doesn't include experiences with new places people and things then would it?
Then we get a peach - this is actually testable at first glance - "Your outlook will benefit by many unique discoveries that you find along the way". Unique discoveries....hmm...so I will uncover something, no, actually MANY somethings, which have never previously been witnessed? 3 hours to go...should I be scared?
Next we get another platitude - "Good things always come to those who wait." Err....tell that to the meek who are still waiting patiently outside to inherit some real estate they were promised..
Then we get something apparently testable again - "Good fortune will put you on an even keel with more privileged people." So anything good that happens unexpectedly this week was predicted (the 'even keel' addition is just noise since, of course, I will be able to convince myself that a £10 lottery win means I can now afford a deposit on a new car since that show-off next door got his).
Next we are back to gibberish - "Watch for the quiet beauty unfolding through a slow process of success." - what the heck does that mean? Anyone?
Finally she runs out of steam and has to repeat her first bit of flattery again to fill the space.
I'm not going to bother working out whether any of that can be said to apply to me (after all I am a Virgo) because there is simply nothing to test apart from the fact that I will have some good fortune sometime this week (which is a statistical near certainty if I widen the definition sufficiently) and that I will make several unique discoveries (which is also a statistical near certainty as long as I limit my aspirations - I'm bound to discover a hitherto unseen mole on my left toe; the fact that my dog Max can lick his own genitals whilst growling at the same time; a newly sprouted dandelion in the back garden or some other such 'unique discovery').
You may gather from my tone that I remain to be convinced on this issue
In fact I remain to be convinced that the majority of people practising astrology are not in the same category as the majority of spiritualists - self serving, morally stunted, intellectually indefensible chancers, who prey on vulnerable people to make a profit and then have the cheek to make sanctimonious claims that they provide a useful and needed service to the community.
Maybe I'm being a bit hard on them do you think?
As Indi hints at - I think it IS possible to subject Astrology to some proper scientific analysis, since it must be capable of phrasing predictions in a manner which can be statistically tested in a meaningful way.
Well here's the best study material I can find (I hope those who know my postings will confirm that I try to present source material in as unbiased a way as possible and that I genuinely try to present references from both sides where there is genuine controversy or debate. In this instance it makes me twitchy to do so since to represent the counter view to my own I am going to have to post some references which I regard as scientific claptrap by people who should know better. I will, therefore, post the references but I will also comment on any references which I personally believe to contain flawed, bogus, fallacious, dishonest or plain badly done science).
'Con' references.
Pro references
Let us consider an example...I am now going to go and choose 3 horoscopes for myself for today. My sample selection will be by Googling "Horoscope" "Virgo" and "March 4th 2007". I will then select the first three hits. (The sample selection is scientifically very dodgy, I'll admit here and now, since I don't have time to randomise a sample group and check for factors which might be important but we'll see what happens).
OK - result 1 from http://www.mastitunes.com/horoscope.html
Virgo Horoscope for Sunday, 4th March 2007
You might be seriously considering making changes but are you doing this for yourself, or someone else?
Result 2 from http://astrospeak.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1710867.cms
Virgo:- Do not venture into any new project without weighing the pros and cons.
Result 3 from http://www.0800-horoscope.com/virgo.php
Weekly Overview by Deborah Browning
This week's scenario is highlighted by your ability to be calm and patient, even while preparing for exciting times. Put your hand on the energy and feel its life-force. This week's adventures will include experiences with new people, places and things. Your outlook will benefit by many unique discoveries that you find along the way. Good things always come to those who wait. Good fortune will put you on an even keel with more privileged people. Watch for the quiet beauty unfolding through a slow process of success. You'll be able to handle the unusual with ordinary conventional methods. You'll be calm and unshaken when others lose their heads.
OK...now at first sight there appears to be some correspondence (agreement) between the first two - they both seem to caution against change. On closer analysis there is almost no information content at all.
The first starts with a statement of the obvious - everyone makes numerous changes everyday, unless they are in a coma. It then adds a question which can be interpreted to mean exactly what you want it to mean - who are you making a change for?
So if I have my hair cut and my wife really likes it..WOW spooky....or if I don't have my hair cut and my wife mentions I'm due for a cut..WOW spooky....and so on through the whole list of possible changes to my routine in previous days...
Result 2 is almost identical in the way it operates. Don't make changes without thinking through...so if I do make a change and it works favourably then SPOOKY...glad I thought it through like I was told...if I make a change and it rebounds badly...SPOOKY..I should have thought it through like I was told.
Result 3 (a weekly horoscope covering until midnight) starts with a staple of the art....flatter the reader....everyone likes to think good things about themselves (examples abound, I'll just give one - 85% of drivers in one study, rate their driving as better than average or much better than average- The Paper can be read here if interested ).
It immediately follows up with a piece of gibberish which has no meaning I can discern - "Put your hand on the energy and feel it's life force" ?? It seems to be either inviting me to stick my fingers in a plug socket or perhaps sexually molest a household appliance....I just can't fathom it.
Next we have more statements of the bleedin obvious - "This week's adventures will include experiences with new people, places and things. "..Err....well...d'ya think so? That would be as opposed to the normal weekly routine which doesn't include experiences with new places people and things then would it?
Then we get a peach - this is actually testable at first glance - "Your outlook will benefit by many unique discoveries that you find along the way". Unique discoveries....hmm...so I will uncover something, no, actually MANY somethings, which have never previously been witnessed? 3 hours to go...should I be scared?
Next we get another platitude - "Good things always come to those who wait." Err....tell that to the meek who are still waiting patiently outside to inherit some real estate they were promised..
Then we get something apparently testable again - "Good fortune will put you on an even keel with more privileged people." So anything good that happens unexpectedly this week was predicted (the 'even keel' addition is just noise since, of course, I will be able to convince myself that a £10 lottery win means I can now afford a deposit on a new car since that show-off next door got his).
Next we are back to gibberish - "Watch for the quiet beauty unfolding through a slow process of success." - what the heck does that mean? Anyone?
Finally she runs out of steam and has to repeat her first bit of flattery again to fill the space.
I'm not going to bother working out whether any of that can be said to apply to me (after all I am a Virgo) because there is simply nothing to test apart from the fact that I will have some good fortune sometime this week (which is a statistical near certainty if I widen the definition sufficiently) and that I will make several unique discoveries (which is also a statistical near certainty as long as I limit my aspirations - I'm bound to discover a hitherto unseen mole on my left toe; the fact that my dog Max can lick his own genitals whilst growling at the same time; a newly sprouted dandelion in the back garden or some other such 'unique discovery').
You may gather from my tone that I remain to be convinced on this issue
In fact I remain to be convinced that the majority of people practising astrology are not in the same category as the majority of spiritualists - self serving, morally stunted, intellectually indefensible chancers, who prey on vulnerable people to make a profit and then have the cheek to make sanctimonious claims that they provide a useful and needed service to the community.
Maybe I'm being a bit hard on them do you think?
As Indi hints at - I think it IS possible to subject Astrology to some proper scientific analysis, since it must be capable of phrasing predictions in a manner which can be statistically tested in a meaningful way.
Well here's the best study material I can find (I hope those who know my postings will confirm that I try to present source material in as unbiased a way as possible and that I genuinely try to present references from both sides where there is genuine controversy or debate. In this instance it makes me twitchy to do so since to represent the counter view to my own I am going to have to post some references which I regard as scientific claptrap by people who should know better. I will, therefore, post the references but I will also comment on any references which I personally believe to contain flawed, bogus, fallacious, dishonest or plain badly done science).
'Con' references.
- An astronomy Prof gets his pupils to analyse the most impressive apologists for Astrology he can assemble (and I believe he was genuine in this and really did present as strong a case for the Astrology supporters as he could find)
- Caution - I present this as an interesting rather than scientifically rigorous reference - it should be treated with scepticism but it does pose an interesting question)
- A proper scientific test of Astrology
- Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match 23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4 male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs, and test profiles from the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank and the Cattell 16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no better at matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was independent of astrologers' confidence rating for the predicted matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's predictions. - Subscription site which is why I post the summary (I'm not paying good money for astrology tests).
- Useful teaching resource on the issue
- Dawkins article in the Independent on the matter
- Sceptical Enquirer - Why is Pseudo-Science Dangerous
- Sceptic Enquirer - What's Your Sign
Pro references
Of course it is a science. Anything can be a science. Like cheese, cheese is scientifical. Really, though, when you think about it, our lives and actions are written in the skies. The only reason we exist is because of Earth, and the only reason Earth exists is because of long-past events during the formation of the universe.
| Shake wrote: |
| Of course it is a science. Anything can be a science. Like cheese, cheese is scientifical. Really, though, when you think about it, our lives and actions are written in the skies. The only reason we exist is because of Earth, and the only reason Earth exists is because of long-past events during the formation of the universe. |
Wow! Too may spiked shakes?
Astrology is not a science!
Why people read horoscopes - useless, vague sentences? To have hope that something good might happen to them?
...And yes you can scientifically predict that a piece of cheese will get moldy sooner or later if not eaten!
Or you can scientifically prove that a hungry mouse and a piece of cheese are best friends! I don't think it has anything to do with science. You'd read your zodiac and think "oh man, that's totally me." And that's when it starts. But in the past, I decided to read all the horoscopes, and all of them can apply to anybody.
It's not a science, no. If it were I think people would be a little more concerned that the actual positions of the planets in the heavens is different from the one represented in popular horoscopes.
In my opinion the zodiac is supposed to viewed as a cycle, from spring to summer to autumn to winter to spring, which can symbolize any cycle of transformation, a la Joseph Campbell's hero cycle. It's a tool for reflection, and it's no better or worse than any other form of divination, or any religion. All this poo-pooing of astrology because it's not scientific is just as silly as Christians insisting that the bible is 100% historically accurate. Mythic symbols do not exist to aid humanity in cataloging things which are demonstrably true, science does. Likewise, science does not exist to aid humanity in abstract thought and self reflection, myth does.
In my opinion the zodiac is supposed to viewed as a cycle, from spring to summer to autumn to winter to spring, which can symbolize any cycle of transformation, a la Joseph Campbell's hero cycle. It's a tool for reflection, and it's no better or worse than any other form of divination, or any religion. All this poo-pooing of astrology because it's not scientific is just as silly as Christians insisting that the bible is 100% historically accurate. Mythic symbols do not exist to aid humanity in cataloging things which are demonstrably true, science does. Likewise, science does not exist to aid humanity in abstract thought and self reflection, myth does.
 |