Tropical or Sidereal: Which is the REAL Astrology?
- Thread starter Athelwulf
- Start date
OverTheStars
Registered Senior Member
It doesn't make sense, I was hoping someone would explain to me, in easy science, how it works. But I have noticed, ALL Libra men I have encountered were real a**holes. That's pretty weird, eh?
Athelwulf said:
No it is not. It cannot make a single _accurate_ prediction.
Why at the moment of birth? Why not the moment of conception? What about babies who are born premature, or through Caesarian section? Birth date is arbitrary nonsense, and you know it.
Ah, but which planets? Astrological ephemeris have been changed over the years to accomodate discoveries of new planets. The properties of the newly discovered planets were assigned in a purely arbitrary fashion, as were the assignments made to the planets visible to the naked eye. Astrological ephemeris don't accurately record the position of the planets anyway, so there can be no value in astrology.
Nope, it's spurious bunkum.
An ex girlfriend of mine was into astrology, and I saw enough of it to know it has no merit. I worked with Astronomers for several years. That subject has merit. It probably won't surprise you to know that none of the astronomers I worked with believed in astrology, as it doesn't bear serious scrutiny.
Nope, the papers catch the essence of it. Spurious bunkum in _any_ form.
Nope, I suggest you go and read a science book, and stop filling your head with nonsense.
Already did. But in case you missed, it, there IS NO TRUTH IN ASTROLOGY, it's all spurious bunkum
Last edited:
What do ya mean there's no evidence?
Usually, in the course of figuring out how things work, a provisional explanation is determined from an observation (hypothesis) and is used to make predictions. By testing the predictions and making further observations, the hypothesis is modified to reflect those results. After repeated tests and observations, the divergences between explanation and observation/tests have been illiminated leaving us with a consistent theory.
One would think that Astrologers began noticing similar behaviors between people born in the same months and began testing food and water, climatic changes, etc. and eventually concluded the patterns of the stars and planets were consistent with their observations.
They did no such thing. Instead they began with a theory and since then have been trying to find evidence to support their theory.
In other words, very bad science.
Or, more precisely, pseudoscience.
Usually, in the course of figuring out how things work, a provisional explanation is determined from an observation (hypothesis) and is used to make predictions. By testing the predictions and making further observations, the hypothesis is modified to reflect those results. After repeated tests and observations, the divergences between explanation and observation/tests have been illiminated leaving us with a consistent theory.
One would think that Astrologers began noticing similar behaviors between people born in the same months and began testing food and water, climatic changes, etc. and eventually concluded the patterns of the stars and planets were consistent with their observations.
They did no such thing. Instead they began with a theory and since then have been trying to find evidence to support their theory.
In other words, very bad science.
Or, more precisely, pseudoscience.
You said, the planets "imprint" you personality at birth.
I asked "How? Where is this "imprint?" What evidence exists of its presence?"
Don't give us a bunch of links... just tell us in your own words. That shouldn't be difficult if, as you say, you "know" astrology.
I asked "How? Where is this "imprint?" What evidence exists of its presence?"
Don't give us a bunch of links... just tell us in your own words. That shouldn't be difficult if, as you say, you "know" astrology.
phlogistician,
Astrology isn't just for predicting. The thread originally pertained to natal astrology.
Chinese astrology (I think) does believe that the moment of conception is more important than that of birth. I haven't looked into it yet, so I don't have an opinion on that yet. As for premature babies, they still have a birthdate. The fact that they are premature changes nothing. Nor does the fact that they are born through Cesarian section.
Mainly, the sun, moon (and I realize they aren't "planets" in astronomical terms), and the planets from Mercury to Pluto. The characteristics aren't assigned arbitrarily. Astrologers study these planets to find out their properties. They did that thousands of years ago for the planets out to Saturn too.
As for the ephemerides, they are the positions in tropical astrology. They don't correspond to today's true positions (which are the positions in sidereal astrology).
Ah, but I am very scientific. Obviously, you view astrology as unscientific. Well, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. As I have said before, astrologers study the planets to see what influences they have on a person. Their minds are just as scientific as a scientist's.
Are you sure you looked at it with an open mind? Are you sure you know enough of astrology to make a proper judgement. You won't go to the library and look for a good astrology book. And you say I stick my fingers in my ears and shout "La la la, not listening!".
(Q),
*Sigh*
Look at the first two entries in dictionary.com's definition of "hypothesis":
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
So what you just described was not a theory, but in fact a hypothesis.
Astrologers began thinking, for example, "Hey, Alex and Carl are both born in August, and both are proud and have a knack for leadership." Later, they began thinking, "Hey, a lot of the people here born in August are elementarily similar to Alex and Carl."
So they studied. They found out that all these people were born when the sun was transiting the constellation Leo.
They looked into other constellations the sun transits every year. They started thinking, "Hey, Janis was born in November, and she's somewhat intense. So are a lot of the other people here born in November. There's definitely a pattern here!"
Eventually they reached a point where they could say, "Whatever constellation the sun was moving through when a person was born affects that person's general personality."
Sounds like this hypothesis was tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis.
Skinwalker,
The imprint is in your personality. Technically, the imprint is your personality. And obviously, your personality would be pretty good evidence of this imprint's presence if you found patterns that fit with your sign.
Astrology isn't just for predicting. The thread originally pertained to natal astrology.
Chinese astrology (I think) does believe that the moment of conception is more important than that of birth. I haven't looked into it yet, so I don't have an opinion on that yet. As for premature babies, they still have a birthdate. The fact that they are premature changes nothing. Nor does the fact that they are born through Cesarian section.
Mainly, the sun, moon (and I realize they aren't "planets" in astronomical terms), and the planets from Mercury to Pluto. The characteristics aren't assigned arbitrarily. Astrologers study these planets to find out their properties. They did that thousands of years ago for the planets out to Saturn too.
As for the ephemerides, they are the positions in tropical astrology. They don't correspond to today's true positions (which are the positions in sidereal astrology).
Ah, but I am very scientific. Obviously, you view astrology as unscientific. Well, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. As I have said before, astrologers study the planets to see what influences they have on a person. Their minds are just as scientific as a scientist's.
Are you sure you looked at it with an open mind? Are you sure you know enough of astrology to make a proper judgement. You won't go to the library and look for a good astrology book. And you say I stick my fingers in my ears and shout "La la la, not listening!".
(Q),
*Sigh*
Look at the first two entries in dictionary.com's definition of "hypothesis":
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
So what you just described was not a theory, but in fact a hypothesis.
Astrologers began thinking, for example, "Hey, Alex and Carl are both born in August, and both are proud and have a knack for leadership." Later, they began thinking, "Hey, a lot of the people here born in August are elementarily similar to Alex and Carl."
So they studied. They found out that all these people were born when the sun was transiting the constellation Leo.
They looked into other constellations the sun transits every year. They started thinking, "Hey, Janis was born in November, and she's somewhat intense. So are a lot of the other people here born in November. There's definitely a pattern here!"
Eventually they reached a point where they could say, "Whatever constellation the sun was moving through when a person was born affects that person's general personality."
Sounds like this hypothesis was tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis.
Skinwalker,
The imprint is in your personality. Technically, the imprint is your personality. And obviously, your personality would be pretty good evidence of this imprint's presence if you found patterns that fit with your sign.
Attention all posters in this thread:
I have started the thread entitled [THREAD=39915]Let's Debate Astrology Here![/THREAD], because I've grown tired of defending astrology in this thread when almost no one has posted for the intended topic.
Please move to that new thread to say "Astrology is fake".
I started this thread because I'm self-studying astrology, and I'm trying to learn some things. At this rate, I'm not learning anything, except that there are more people against astrology than I had anticipated.
So again, Please move to [THREAD=39915]Let's Debate Astrology Here![/THREAD] if you are against astrology.
Thank you for your cooperation. Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all!
Âðelwulf
Athelwulf said:
OK, so what is it for? Surely, it is for predicting character traits in people?
Yes, premature babies have a birth date, but if an external event causes a baby to be born prematurely, is it tha date the baby was born, or the day it was supposed to be that matters. As babies born through Caesarian section aren't actualy 'born' but removed surgically, what is the event (and mechanism) that triggers the imprinting of the position (or not, as the Ephemeris are wildly innacurate) of the planets on the child?
Pluto was discovered in 1930. What method did astrologers use to assign characteristics to it? Had astrologers noticed a need for a new planet to make sense of some behaviours prior to this point?
Sounds like you've answered your own question then. As you admit tropical astronomy uses ephemeris which don't actually record the position of the planets, how can it then say a planet in a position, which it isn't in, has a specific effect? Or is it the numbers in the ephemris that are important. Or is it real, but the effect of the planets just happens to be offset by the exact amount of the inaccuracy of the ephemeris?
Cool, show me a direct application of astrology, or an accurate prediction made by astrology, using scientific method.
OK, let's see the statistical analysis of the population survey then. If astrology were science based, it would have asked a statistically significant portion of the population a set of blinded and controlled psychometric questions, and attibuted the influences of the planets to the variances in the answers within say, two sigma and demonstrated a relationship. As this hasn't happened, you _aren't_ a scientist.
Yes. I looked for evidence. There was none. Case closed.
Athelwulf said:
Show us the collated data then.
Of course, you can't. I however can disprove your supposed link easily. I share a birthday with a colleague, and have a friend who's birthday is just two days different from me. We are _not_ similar characters. In fact, we differ significantly.
OK, so show us the method that was used to test the hypothesis, and the data that was tested, so we can recreate the experiment ourselves and verify the results. THIS is how science is done, we just don't take your word for it.
Ah, but I am very scientific.
Yet, you had to look up the word, 'hypothesis' in the dictionary.
Look at the first two entries in dictionary.com's definition of "hypothesis":
So what you just described was not a theory, but in fact a hypothesis.
No, what I described was the scientific method - look that up in your dictionary.
Sounds like this hypothesis was tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis.
Although your lame description does not follow the scientific method, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to produce the data and results as per your description? Or did you just make it up?
And while you're at it, could you tell us why astrology is not taught along with other sciences and why astrologers usually have no credentials of any kind?
Why do astrologers so-called predictions differ from one another?
If you claim to be scientific, then please explain exactly what properties the planets possess that affect people?
Yet, you had to look up the word, 'hypothesis' in the dictionary.
Look at the first two entries in dictionary.com's definition of "hypothesis":
So what you just described was not a theory, but in fact a hypothesis.
No, what I described was the scientific method - look that up in your dictionary.
Sounds like this hypothesis was tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis.
Although your lame description does not follow the scientific method, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to produce the data and results as per your description? Or did you just make it up?
And while you're at it, could you tell us why astrology is not taught along with other sciences and why astrologers usually have no credentials of any kind?
Why do astrologers so-called predictions differ from one another?
If you claim to be scientific, then please explain exactly what properties the planets possess that affect people?
Well?
Do you have all of that in your mind, or did you get a chart somewhere? :bugeye:
See, everyone keeps saying that virgos are these boring unimaginative clean-freaks. And unless I find a genius who finally admits it is not so in his astrological predictions and analysis, I will not believe these astrological thingies.
:m:
Athelwulf said:
If I infer your definition of imprint to be "a distinctive influence," rather than "a concavity in a surface produced by pressing," what then is the distinguising characteristics that are defined by so-called astrological influences and what is the evidence that these so-called influences actually create the "influences?"
In other words, I think asking the question "Tropical or Sidereal: which is the REAL astrology" akin to saying "Saint Nicholas or Kriss Kringle: which is the REAL Santa Claus?"