Astrology in the GNR camp

[SoulMonster]

Go for it SoulMonster. Post your studies disproving astrology etc. Waiting on you.

The game comes later.

I am afraid you didn't read my last post which you replied to. My point is that there is no evidence supporting astrology. To prove this I would have to present you with every scientific publication ever published, which is just not feasible. That being said, there have been some scientists who have wasted their time falsifying astrology and here is one such study:

Zarka, Philippe (2011). "Astronomy and astrology". Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 5 (S260): 420–425.

[SoulMonster]

There is nothing wrong with people having beliefs if that makes them happy.

That is one interesting idea. To a certain degree we agree. For instance we let children believe in Santa Clause for a few years because they enjoy that particular fantasy. But as they grow older we dispel the magic by telling them the truth. Why do we do that? Would it be so wrong if grown-ups believed in Santa Clause? Not more than grown-ups believing in unicorns, for sure. But what about astrology? Is it so wrong that grown-ups spend money and waste time listening to what astrology charlatans tell them? A bit more I think we would agree on. What about beliefs that are not only irrational but also hurting others? Like parents whipping their kids because they believe they are possessed by demons? I guess we would all object to that and not just "politely respect" their opinions. What about people who object to chemotherapy and treatment and rather spend their money on homoeopathy and other quack medicine? Shouldn't we for their sake argue with them so they have higher probability of winning over their disease and living their remaining years with a good quality of life? What about people who refuse to let their kids get blood transfusion because it is wrong according to their irrational beliefs? What about Anders Behring Breivik who decided to kill kids because he wanted to send a message about the dangers of multicultural societies? Irrational beliefs run the gamut from completely harmless to very destructive. But they ALL have in common that they replace truth with fantasy. Humanity would be better off if grown-ups didn't waste time on nonsense, there are plenty of real problems facing us that demands our attention.

So when presumably grown people claim that astrology works then I believe it is the responsibility of all the rest of us to tell them they are wrong. Yes, tearing down their delusion may be uncomfortable to them, after all there is a reason why they have taken refuge in their fantasy world, but they will be better off long-term, and humanity even more.

You believe that their beliefs are wrong and seem pretty frustrated about them not conforming to your beliefs, even sinking so low as to questions one's intellect by petty namecalling. Keep it up good sir.

I am not frustrated at all. What makes you think I am? In fact, I find this discussion very entertaining.

"Namecalling"? Would you not call people who believe in nonsense for "ignorant and/or stupid"? I mean, if they believe in nonsense they are per definition either a victim of being shielded from facts (aka ignorant, like millions of people growing up in cultures suffused with that particular superstition) or too stupid to sort fact from fiction.

[Nick83]

SoulMonster, I could only find an abstract which said nothing. Post the whole study.

I see you're good at skimming Wikipedia, but that's unfortunately not good enough. Try again.

[The Black]

There is nothing wrong with people having beliefs if that makes them happy.

That is one interesting idea. To a certain degree we agree. For instance we let children believe in Santa Clause for a few years because they enjoy that particular fantasy. But as they grow older we dispel the magic by telling them the truth. Why do we do that? Would it be so wrong if grown-ups believed in Santa Clause? Not more than grown-ups believing in unicorns, for sure. But what about astrology? Is it so wrong that grown-ups spend money and waste time listening to what astrology charlatans tell them? A bit more I think we would agree on. What about beliefs that are not only irrational but also hurting others? Like parents whipping their kids because they believe they are possessed by demons? I guess we would all object to that and not just "politely respect" their opinions. What about people who object to chemotherapy and treatment and rather spend their money on homoeopathy and other quack medicine? Shouldn't we for their sake argue with them so they have higher probability of winning over their disease and living their remaining years with a good quality of life? What about people who refuse to let their kids get blood transfusion because it is wrong according to their irrational beliefs? What about Anders Behring Breivik who decided to kill kids because he wanted to send a message about the dangers of multicultural societies? Irrational beliefs run the gamut from completely harmless to very destructive. But they ALL have in common that they replace truth with fantasy. Humanity would be better off if grown-ups didn't waste time on nonsense, there are plenty of real problems facing us that demands our attention.

So when presumably grown people claim that astrology works then I believe it is the responsibility of all the rest of us to tell them they are wrong. Yes, tearing down their delusion may be uncomfortable to them, after all there is a reason why they have taken refuge in their fantasy world, but they will be better off long-term, and humanity even more.

You believe that their beliefs are wrong and seem pretty frustrated about them not conforming to your beliefs, even sinking so low as to questions one's intellect by petty namecalling. Keep it up good sir.

I am not frustrated at all. What makes you think I am? In fact, I find this discussion very entertaining.

"Namecalling"? Would you not call people who believe in nonsense for "ignorant and/or stupid"? I mean, if they believe in nonsense they are per definition either a victim of being shielded from facts (aka ignorant, like millions of people growing up in cultures suffused with that particular superstition) or too stupid to sort fact from fiction.

You know santa clause is not the same as religion or astrology.

Parents whipping kids because "the devil is in them" are not people who are happy with their beliefs. They see the negative side of things, I've said many times that I have empathy for people who are HAPPY with their beliefs. If a person turns to homeopathic medicine because it's their choice and it makes them happy, then why not? And chemotherapy does not essentially mean living the rest of your life in good quality, I can tell you that by experience.

You once again go one about irrational beliefs, to you they may seem irrational, to others not. What Breivik did was once again the negative side of his belief.

I'm an atheist, but no way would I call anybody that's leading a positive life because of religon stupid and/or ignorant. You seem to take to that task well though.

[saber_]

People are so bitter... can't one just have some fun reading n posting horoscopes? Is it that big a deal?

[axl8302]

SoulMonster, you should stop, you're coming across terribly. What a prick!

[SoulMonster]

SoulMonster, I could only find an abstract which said nothing. Post the whole study.

I see you're good at skimming Wikipedia, but that's unfortunately not good enough. Try again.

You will need to pay for it or get it through a university subscription or similar. But again, you are the one responsible for proving that astrology is anything but nonsense, it is not my job to prove that it is. Do you want a search engine for scientific literature so you can get a head start on verifying that the accumulated body of science doesn't have any evidence supporting astrology? .

You know santa clause is not the same as religion or astrology.

Parents whipping kids because "the devil is in them" are not people who are happy with their beliefs. They see the negative side of things, I've said many times that I have empathy for people who are HAPPY with their beliefs. If a person turns to homeopathic medicine because it's their choice and it makes them happy, then why not?

First off, you have no way of knowing they wouldn't be happier without their irrational belief. Perhaps they would appreciate getting help to get rid of their silly beliefs? Perhaps they would thank us afterwards and actually be ashamed of being grown-ups who believed in crap? And even if they are happier in their little fantasy worlds, as a species we would benefit from not having a large part of our people wasting time on nonsense when there are actual real, factual things to be concerned about. So no, I don't want people to hide in their own make believe world of astrology, reincarnation, fairies and whatnot, even if it makes them happy.

And chemotherapy does not essentially mean living the rest of your life in good quality, I can tell you that by experience.

I actually carefully worded it to having a higher probability of living the rest of your life with good quality of life...

You once again go one about irrational beliefs, to you they may seem irrational, to others not.

If they don't know it is irrational then it is our duty to tell them there isn't any evidence supporting their beliefs and hence they are irrational. To not help them out of their ignorance would be cruel.

I'm an atheist, but no way would I call anybody that's leading a positive life because of religon stupid and/or ignorant. You seem to take to that task well though.

What would you call a grown-up man who believed in Santa Clause and was happy with that belief because it made Christmas so more jolly? Would you seriously NOT call that person either ignorant or stupid or a combination of both? You might not say it to his face, because after all you are so afraid of not being "polite" and so afraid of not being "respectful" enough, but you would know that he would have to be ignorant or stupid.

And what makes a life "positive"? Is your life positive just because you are happy? What about the effect you have on others? Isn't it better to instil a sense of logic and rationality in those you interact with than to lead a bad example by embracing things that clearly are false? If you already have accepted that something as innocent as astrology is sensible, what prevents you from adopting other irrational beliefs that might not be as innocent? Do I seriously have to argue for why rationality is good?

SoulMonster, you should stop, you're coming across terribly. What a prick!

How come? By letting people in on the fact that if you believe in things which are not supported by any evidence then you must either be ignorant of stupid or a combination of both?

EDIT: I actually hadn't watched that clip before. I am astonished by how similar I have become to Dawkins

Edited September 10, 2012 by SoulMonster

[The Black]

SoulMonster, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. We both agree to disagree.

Your stance= People should change and see "the light".

My stance= People should do whatever makes them happy.

[SONOFABITCH]

I guess you have to be an Axlite to believe in voodoo.

[axl8302]

No, SoulMonster, you're just coming across as a prick in general. You sound as if you're about to cry.

Edited September 10, 2012 by axl8302

[UK SUBS]

No, SoulMonster, you're just coming across as a prick in general. You sound as if you're about to cry.

relax on the name calling please.

everyone else - really?

[SONOFABITCH]

Sorry UK Subs I forgot this wasn't the Attitude section. I shall rephrase my sentence. It seems those who stronly favor most if not all the actions of Axl Rose are indeed more likely to accept and or condone astrology.

[SoulMonster]

SoulMonster, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. We both agree to disagree.

Your stance= People should change and see "the light".

My stance= People should do whatever makes them happy.

Yes, that is a pretty good summary of the situation. I just don't believe that it is necessary to believe in nonsense to be happy

No, SoulMonster, you're just coming across as a prick in general. You sound as if you're about to cry.

It's not uncommon to be called names when you argue against irrational beliefs, since most people are affected by them but few can argue for why, but to hear I am about to cry was a new one, so you'll be getting a creativity point, at least.

[PirateChick]

There is nothing wrong with people having beliefs if that makes them happy.

That is one interesting idea. To a certain degree we agree. For instance we let children believe in Santa Clause for a few years because they enjoy that particular fantasy. But as they grow older we dispel the magic by telling them the truth. Why do we do that? Would it be so wrong if grown-ups believed in Santa Clause? Not more than grown-ups believing in unicorns, for sure. But what about astrology? Is it so wrong that grown-ups spend money and waste time listening to what astrology charlatans tell them? A bit more I think we would agree on. What about beliefs that are not only irrational but also hurting others? Like parents whipping their kids because they believe they are possessed by demons? I guess we would all object to that and not just "politely respect" their opinions. What about people who object to chemotherapy and treatment and rather spend their money on homoeopathy and other quack medicine? Shouldn't we for their sake argue with them so they have higher probability of winning over their disease and living their remaining years with a good quality of life? What about people who refuse to let their kids get blood transfusion because it is wrong according to their irrational beliefs? What about Anders Behring Breivik who decided to kill kids because he wanted to send a message about the dangers of multicultural societies? Irrational beliefs run the gamut from completely harmless to very destructive. But they ALL have in common that they replace truth with fantasy. Humanity would be better off if grown-ups didn't waste time on nonsense, there are plenty of real problems facing us that demands our attention.

So when presumably grown people claim that astrology works then I believe it is the responsibility of all the rest of us to tell them they are wrong. Yes, tearing down their delusion may be uncomfortable to them, after all there is a reason why they have taken refuge in their fantasy world, but they will be better off long-term, and humanity even more.

You believe that their beliefs are wrong and seem pretty frustrated about them not conforming to your beliefs, even sinking so low as to questions one's intellect by petty namecalling. Keep it up good sir.

I am not frustrated at all. What makes you think I am? In fact, I find this discussion very entertaining.

"Namecalling"? Would you not call people who believe in nonsense for "ignorant and/or stupid"? I mean, if they believe in nonsense they are per definition either a victim of being shielded from facts (aka ignorant, like millions of people growing up in cultures suffused with that particular superstition) or too stupid to sort fact from fiction.

Why do you even care Soul? People will believe whatever makes them feel good. I don't believe in a lot of stuff but if others do it doesn't bother me

[SoulMonster]

Why do you even care Soul? People will believe whatever makes them feel good. I don't believe in a lot of stuff but if others do it doesn't bother me

Because I believe irrational beliefs in general are a huge problem to humankind by being an obstacle to clear thinking, to science, and to sensible allocation of valuable and limited resources, and hence progress. Astrology is for the most parts harmless, but by not opposing this particular irrational belief because of its lack of evidence, we risk coming off as hypocritical when we try to oppose other irrational beliefs for the very same reason.

These guys said it better than I can:

Objections to Astrology

A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists

(The following statement first appeared in The Humanist of September/October 1975.)

Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world. We, the undersigned—astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other fields—wish to caution the public against the unquestioning acceptance of the predictions and advice given privately and publicly by astrologers. Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets.

In ancient times people believed in the predictions and advice of astrologers because astrology was part and parcel of their magical world view. They looked upon celestial objects as abodes or omens of the gods and, thus, intimately connected with events here on earth; they had no concept of the vast distances from the earth to the planets and stars. Now that these distances can and have been calculated, we can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures. Neither is it true that the position of distant heavenly bodies make certain days or periods more favorable to particular kinds of action, or that the sign under which one was born determines one's compatibility or incompatibility with other people.

Why do people believe in astrology? In these uncertain times many long for the comfort of having guidance in making decisions. They would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces beyond their control. However, we must all face the world, and we must realize that our futures lie in ourselves, and not in the stars.

One would imagine, in this day of widespread enlightenment and education, that it would be unnecessary to debunk beliefs based on magic and superstition. Yet, acceptance of astrology pervades modern society. We are especially disturbed by the continued uncritical dissemination of astrological charts, forecasts, and horoscopes by the media and by otherwise reputable newspapers, magazines, and book publishers. This can only contribute to the growth of irrationalism and obscurantism. We believe that the time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans.

It should be apparent that those individuals who continue to have faith in astrology do so in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary.

Sponsoring Committee

(Affiliations, as of 1975, given for identification only.)

Bart J. Bok, emeritus

Professor of Astronomy

University of Arizona

Lawrence E. Jerome

Science Writer

Santa Clara, California

Paul Kurtz

Professor of Philosophy

SUNY at Buffalo

Signed by 183 others, including 18 Nobel Prizewinners

This essay by Richard Dawkins also explain it way more eloquently than I could ever hope for:

WE SHOULD take astrology seriously. No, I don't mean we should believe in it. I am talking about fighting it seriously instead of humouring it as a piece of harmless fun. Frivolous tolerance, probably the dominant stance towards astrology among educated people who don't actually believe in it, ran right through a recent article in the Independent on Sunday by Justine Picardie, "Spinning after Patric's Star". As the headline writer put it, "Astrology has never been so popular, or such big business. But when the late, great [sic] Patric Walker (Libra) died, it wasn't just his billion readers - or his income - that attracted his aspirant successors; it was his reputation as the Henry James of horoscope writers, as the man who'd made the trade respectable."

Hardly respectable, but surely something must be going on when even the Independent on Sunday can devote two pages plus a double picture spread to the question of who would inherit the mantle of a dead charlatan. Picardie's attitude to these well-heeled quacks ranges from affection (the Queen Mother's favourite astrologer is "roly poly") to something perilously near respect (Patric Walker is described without irony as "eminent"). Respect might indeed be prompted by the wealth of these glitzy con-artists, which is lovingly dwelt upon (chauffeurs whisk them in white stretch limos to fashionable restaurants where head waiters fawn over them).

The popular scientist David Bellamy, who ought to know better and probably does, contributed to Patric Walker's astrology page in Radio Times, writing that he has the "Capricorn caution" over certain things, but mostly he puts his head down and charges like a real goat. Such shallow light-heartedness sets a mood in which questioning astrology's validity is made to seem pedantic Gradgrindery. To ask whether the astrologers themselves believe in it also comes over as a bit long-faced, on the killjoy side. On Picardie's evidence, some are foolish enough to believe anything (one of them met Patric Walker "just before Mercury went retrograde" and immediately recognised him from "a past life"). The roly-poly one sounds a bit more fly and may understand exactly what he is doing, but it is hard to penetrate his high- camp posturing. Mystic Meg by all accounts could be the best of the bunch, an old-fashioned crystal-ball toter, showing up the pretensions of the others, which is presumably why they try to disown her.

The serious newspapers seem to be embarking on a self-conscious flirtation with astrology. Until recently they had nothing to do with such tabloid stuff. Then the Sunday Times succumbed and introduced its own astrology column, presumably with the excuse that it was just a bit of a giggle. The others haven't yet stooped so low, but some are acknowledging the pressure in more subtle ways. For the article by Justine Picardie the ostensible excuse was a story about financial success and succession. The same writer, incidentally, has followed it with an article on angels, again humorously open-minded ("There's this thing called going down in spirit"), teetering on the brink of outright respect for the lucrative profession of "angelologist" - one of them is an "eminent" Sorbonne professor of "philosophy" (which turns out to mean the usual "cultural studies" metatwaddle). There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out.

This year-end the Guardian commissioned various individuals to look ahead to the future. Tucked away among some real scientists, historians and philosophers is none other than our roly-poly friend, the "First astrologer to play Nostradamus on TV". Here are his expert views: "On 12 January, Uranus moves into Aquarius and it's the dawning of a new age. It will be altruistic, humanitarian, brotherhood of man. I'm really looking forward to this. The energy [he obviously doesn't understand what this technical term means] will last until November 2008 because Uranus will be eight years in Aquarius and Pluto 13 years in Sagittarius. Thank God I'm Aquarius." And lots more in the same vein, which the Guardian considered fit to print. The Princess of Wales, herself an enthusiast for astrology as one might expect, has "got her moon in Aquarius" and so has Tony Blair. "Could he do for the country what Di has done for the monarchy?" I have a better question. Why does a decent newspaper hand out free publicity to this phoney? Just a giggle, again? Or is the Guardian bending over backwards not to be elitist?

On a moonless night when the only clouds to be seen are the Magellanic Clouds of the Milky Way, go out to a place far from street light pollution, lie on the grass and gaze out at the stars. What are you seeing? Superficially you notice constellations, but a constellation is of no more significance than a patch of curiously shaped damp on the bathroom ceiling. Note, accordingly, how little it means to say something like "Uranus moves into Aquarius". Aquarius is a miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no connection with each other except that they constitute a (meaningless) pattern when seen from a certain (not particularly special) place in the galaxy (here). A constellation is not an entity at all, not the kind of thing that Uranus, or anything else, can sensibly be said to "move into".

The shape of a constellation, moreover, is ephemeral. A million years ago our Homo erectus ancestors gazed out nightly (no light pollution then, unless it came from that species' brilliant innovation, the camp fire) at a set of very different constellations (see picture). A million years hence, our descendants will see yet other shapes in the sky, and their astrologers (if our species has not grown up and sent them packing long since) will be fabricating their oracles on the basis of a different zodiac.

A far more rapid astronomical shift is the precession of the equinoxes. My birthday (26 March) is listed in the papers as Aries but this is the zodiacal sun sign which somebody with my birthday would have had when Ptolemy codified all that stuff. Because of the precessional shift of approximately one whole zodiacal sign over the AD era, my sun sign is in fact (if you can call it a fact) Pisces. If astrologers were doing something that had any connection with reality, this presumably ought to make a difference. Since they aren't, it doesn't. Scorpio could go retrograde up Uranus and it wouldn't make any difference.

Actually, of course, only planets can "go retrograde", and even then it is an illusion. As they, and we, orbit the sun, planets will on occasion appear to reverse their direction from our point of view. But these occasions have no significance. From a third planet they would be seen to "go retrograde" at different times. Planets do not really "wander", and certainly not remotely near any constellations, which are the distant backdrops of our viewpoint. Even if "going retrograde" or "moving into Aquarius" were real phenomena, something that planets actually do, what influence could they possibly have on human events? A planet is so far away that its gravitational pull on a new-born baby would be swamped by the gravitational pull of the doctor's paunch.

No, we can forget planets going retrograde, and we can forget constellations except as a convenient way of finding our way around. What else are we seeing when we gaze up at the night sky? One thing we are seeing is history. When you look at the great galaxy in Andromeda you are seeing it as it was 2.3 million years ago and Australopithecus stalked the African savannah. You are looking back in time. Shift your gaze a few degrees to the nearest bright star in the constellation of Andromeda and you are seeing Mirach, but much more recently, as it was when Wall Street crashed. The sun, when you see it, is only eight minutes ago. But look through a large telescope at the Sombrero Galaxy and you are seeing a trillion suns as they were when your tailed ancestors peered shyly through the canopy and India collided with Asia to raise the Himalayas. A collision on a larger scale, between two galaxies in Stephan's Quintet, is shown to us at a time when on Earth dinosaurs were dawning and the trilobites fresh dead.

Name any year in history and there will be a star up there whose light gives you a glimpse of something happening that very year. Whatever the year of your birth, somewhere up in the night sky you could find your birth star (or stars, for the number is proportional to the third power of your age). Its light enables you to look back and see a thermonuclear glow that heralds your birth. A pleasing conceit, but that is all. Your birth star will not deign to tell anything about your personality, your future or your sexual compatibilities. The stars have larger agendas, in which the preoccupations of human pettiness do not figure.

Your birth star, of course, is yours for only this year. Next year you must look to another shell of stars, one light year more distant. Think of this expanding bubble as a radius of good news, the news of your birth, broadcast steadily outwards. In the Einsteinian universe in which most physicists now think we live, nothing can in principle travel faster than light. So, if you are 50 years old, you have a personal news sphere of 50 light years radius. Within that sphere it is in principle possible (obviously not in practice) for news of your existence to have permeated. Outside that sphere you might as well not exist - in an Einsteinian sense you do not exist. Older people have larger existence spheres than younger people, but nobody's existence sphere extends to more than a tiny fraction of the universe. The birth of Jesus may seem an ancient and momentous event to us. But the news of it is actually so recent that, even in the most theoretically ideal circumstances, it could in principle have been proclaimed to less than one 200-million-millionth of the stars in the universe. Many, if not most, of the stars out there will be orbited by planets. The numbers are so vast that probably some of them have life forms, some have evolved intelligence and technology. Yet the distances and times that separate us are so great that thousands of life forms could independently evolve and go extinct without it being possible for any to know of the existence of any other. The real universe has mystery enough to need no help from obscurantist hucksters.

Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles. By existing law neither Beethoven nor nature can sue, but perhaps existing law could be changed. If the methods of astrologers were really shown to be valid it would be a fact of signal importance for science. Under such circumstances astrology should be taken seriously indeed. But if - as all indications agree - there is not a smidgen of validity in any of the things that astrologers so profitably do, this, too, should be taken seriously and not indulgently trivialised. We should learn to see the debauching of science for profit as a crime.

I must make the usual defence against a charge of scientific arrogance. How do I know that there is no truth in astrology? Well, of course I don't know. I can't prove that there is nothing in horoscopes, any more than I can prove that there is nothing in the (rather more plausible) theory that chewing gum causes mad cow disease. There just isn't any evidence in favour (of either theory), and no reason why we should expect there to be evidence. It isn't as though it would be difficult to find evidence for astrology, if there were any to be had. It wouldn't take anything like that blissful cartoon in which a newsreader announces: "In a major breakthrough for the science of astrology, all people born under Scorpio were yesterday run over by egg lorries." A statistical tendency, however slight, for people's personalities to be predictable from their birthdays, over and above the expected difference between winter and summer babies, would be a promising start.

For us to take a hypothesis seriously, it should ideally be supported by at least a little bit of evidence.

If this is too much to ask, there should be some suggestion of a reason why it might be worth bothering to look for evidence. Graphology, as a means of reading personalities, is not supported by evidence either, but here the possibility that it might work is not hopelessly implausible a priori. The brain is the seat of the personality and the brain controls handwriting, so it is not in principle unlikely that style of handwriting might betray personality. It seems almost a pity that no good evidence has been forthcoming. But astrology has nothing going for it at all, neither evidence nor any inkling of a rationale which might prompt us to look for evidence.

Astrology not only demeans astronomy, shrivelling and cheapening the universe with its pre-Copernican dabblings. It is also an insult to the science of psychology and the richness of human personality. I am talking about the facile and potentially damaging way in which astrologers divide humans into 12 categories. Scorpios are cheerful, outgoing types, Leos with their methodical personalities go well with Libras (or whatever it is). My wife, Lalla Ward, recalls an occasion when a more than usually brainless hanger-on approached the director of the film they were working on with a "Gee, Mr Preminger, what sign are you?" and received the immortal rebuff, "I am a do-not-disturb sign." We love an opportunity to pigeonhole each other but we should resist the temptation. Are you an introvert or an extrovert? Does your body shape betray an endomorphic, a mesomorphic or an ectomorphic personality? "The ectomorph is much more of an introvert and more shrewd and calculating."

Personality is a real phenomenon and psychologists (real, scientific psychologists, not Freudians or Jungians) have had some success in developing mathematical models to handle many dimensions of personality variation. The initially large number of dimensions can be mathematically collapsed into fewer dimensions with measurable, and for some purposes conscionable, loss in predictive power. These fewer derived dimensions sometimes correspond to the dimensions that we intuitively think we recognise - aggressiveness, obstinacy, affectionateness and so on. Summarising an individual's personality as a point in multidimensional space is a serviceable approximation whose limitations can be measured and are known. It is a far cry from any mutually exclusive categorisation, certainly far from the preposterous fiction of astrology's 12 dumpbins. It is based upon genuinely relevant data about people themselves, not their birthdays. The psychologist's multidimensional scaling can be useful in deciding whether a person is suited to a particular career, or a couple to each other. The astrologer's 12 pigeonholes are, if nothing worse, a costly and irrelevant distraction.

Lonely hearts advertisers frequently insert astrological references alongside relevant infor- mation such as musical tastes or sporting interests, and may even insist that the partner they are looking for must be, for instance, Taurus. Think what this means. The whole point of advertising in such columns is to increase the catchment area for meeting sexual partners (and indeed the circle provided by the workplace and by friends of friends is meagre and needs enriching). It is nothing short of ludicrous then to go out of your way to divide the available number of potential partners by twelve. Lonely people, whose life might be transformed by a longed- for compatible friendship, are deliberately encouraged, by their reading of astrological quacks in the newspapers, wantonly and pointlessly to throw away 11/12ths of the available population. This is not just silly, it is damaging, and the quacks concerned deserve our censure as strongly as their deluded victims deserve our pity.

There are some stupid people out there, and they should be pitied not exploited. On a famous occasion a few years ago a newspaper hack, who had drawn the short straw and been told to make up the day's astrological advice, relieved his boredom by writing under one star sign the following portentous lines: "All the sorrows of yesteryear are as nothing compared to what will befall you today." He was fired after the switchboard was jammed with panic-stricken readers, pathetic testimony to the simple trust people can place in astrology.

The American conjuror James Randi recounts in his book Flim Flam how as a young man he briefly got the astrology job on a Montreal newspaper, making up the horoscopes under the name Zo-ran. His method was to cut out the forecasts from old astrology magazines, shuffle them in a hat, distribute them at random among the 12 zodiacal signs and print the results. This was very successful of course (because all astrology works on the "Barnum principle" of saying things so vague and general that all readers think it applies to them). He describes how he overheard in a cafe a pair of office workers eagerly scanning Zo-ran's column in the paper.

"They squealed with delight on seeing their future so well laid out, and in response to my query said that Zo-ran had been 'right smack on' last week. I did not identify myself as Zo-ran ... Reaction in the mail to the column had been quite interesting, too, and sufficient for me to decide that many people will accept and rationalise almost any pronouncement made by someone they believe to be an authority with mystic powers. At this point, Zo-ran hung up his scissors, put away the paste pot, and went out of business."

My case is that Randi was morally right to hang up his scissors, that serious newspapers should never give named astrologers the oxygen of publicity, that astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and that we should fight it seriously as an enemy of truth. We have a Trade Descriptions Act which protects us from manufacturers making false claims for their products. The law has not so far been invoked in defence of simple, scientific truth. Why not? Astrologers provide as good a test case as could be desired. They make claims to forecast the future, and they take payment for this, as well as for professional advice to individuals on important decisions. A pharmaceuticals manufacturer who marketed a birth-control pill that had not the slightest demonstrable effect upon fertility would be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act, and sued by trusting customers who found themselves pregnant. If astrologers cannot be sued by individuals misadvised, say, into taking disastrous business decisions, why at least are they not prosecuted for false representation under the Trade Descriptions Act and driven out of business? Why, actually, are professional astrologers not jailed for fraud?

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-real-romance-in-the-stars-1527970.html

[axl8302]

You're still going with this? Haha, what a baby! No one cares about your views! Shut up already!

[SoulMonster]

You're still going with this? Haha, what a baby! No one cares about your views! Shut up already!

You seem to care.

[axl8302]

You're still going with this? Haha, what a baby! No one cares about your views! Shut up already!

You seem to care.

No I don't, I just enjoy playing with the mentally ill.

[UK SUBS]

You're still going with this? Haha, what a baby! No one cares about your views! Shut up already!

You seem to care.

No I don't, I just enjoy playing with the mentally ill.

Give it a rest with the hostility - i don't plan on sending another friendly warning out.

[axl8302]

You're still going with this? Haha, what a baby! No one cares about your views! Shut up already!

You seem to care.

No I don't, I just enjoy playing with the mentally ill.

Give it a rest with the hostility - i don't plan on sending another friendly warning out.

I'm joking, no hostility going on here...

[SoulMonster]

I'm joking, no hostility going on here...

Haha, and what a great joke it was! But I feel the full extent of it may have been lost by most if it isn't accompanied by the triplet of hilarious messages you posted on my profile:

Intelligence and humour, you got it all, axl8302!

[Howard2k]

I'm joking, no hostility going on here...

Haha, and what a great joke it was! But I feel the full extent of it may have been lost by most if it isn't accompanied by the triplet of hilarious messages you posted on my profile:

Intelligence and humour, you got it all, axl8302!

Did not read the whole thread, but when you put people in a position of being able to make a decision to apply logic and reason to a comfortably ignorant part of their life, this happens. Common defence mechanism. You touched a nerve, obviously.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Howard2k

[PirateChick]

Why do you even care Soul? People will believe whatever makes them feel good. I don't believe in a lot of stuff but if others do it doesn't bother me

Because I believe irrational beliefs in general are a huge problem to humankind by being an obstacle to clear thinking, to science, and to sensible allocation of valuable and limited resources, and hence progress. Astrology is for the most parts harmless, but by not opposing this particular irrational belief because of its lack of evidence, we risk coming off as hypocritical when we try to oppose other irrational beliefs for the very same reason.

IMO astrology may be dangerous at an individual level if people become dependent. I mean, poor people who believe their fate is dominated by the stars and not by their good or bad choices, and the ones that can't make a decision without asking an astrologist for advice. But astrology is harmless compared to religion. Religion has had a global impact and it fucked up the world. Animals species have become extinct because as they are not supposed to have a soul it wasn't a sin to slaughter them. And the planet has been depleted because these people think god made it for humans to take profit of everything in it. Even people have been (and are still being) killed because of religion, and our huge population number is due in some cases to uneducated people refusing to use natality control methods because they were forbidden by church.

So I don't care about beliefs that only affect individuals in opposition to beliefs that can fuck the whole planet. But that's only the biology/conservation perspective, we don't think about individuals but about populations. And our population is extremely unhealthy because of the bad choices our ancestors made based in religions. Anyway, it's a boring conversation for a GNR forum Soul

[The Sandman]

RIP Yoda.

"Horoscopes are nothing more than a mass cultural delusion that the sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality."

[sailaway]

Why do you even care Soul? People will believe whatever makes them feel good. I don't believe in a lot of stuff but if others do it doesn't bother me

Because I believe irrational beliefs in general are a huge problem to humankind by being an obstacle to clear thinking, to science, and to sensible allocation of valuable and limited resources, and hence progress. Astrology is for the most parts harmless, but by not opposing this particular irrational belief because of its lack of evidence, we risk coming off as hypocritical when we try to oppose other irrational beliefs for the very same reason.

IMO astrology may be dangerous at an individual level if people become dependent. I mean, poor people who believe their fate is dominated by the stars and not by their good or bad choices, and the ones that can't make a decision without asking an astrologist for advice. But astrology is harmless compared to religion. Religion has had a global impact and it fucked up the world. Animals species have become extinct because as they are not supposed to have a soul it wasn't a sin to slaughter them. And the planet has been depleted because these people think god made it for humans to take profit of everything in it. Even people have been (and are still being) killed because of religion, and our huge population number is due in some cases to uneducated people refusing to use natality control methods because they were forbidden by church.

So I don't care about beliefs that only affect individuals in opposition to beliefs that can fuck the whole planet. But that's only the biology/conservation perspective, we don't think about individuals but about populations. And our population is extremely unhealthy because of the bad choices our ancestors made based in religions. Anyway, it's a boring conversation for a GNR forum Soul

Excellent point,religion can indeed become toxic,as can the deluded proponents of radical aspects of said religions,consider the crusades,and the bombing of abortion clinics.

Also the greedy televangelists who rake in piles of tax-free cash from the truly needy.

Honestly,there are people with less than honorable motives in religion,science,busi.ess,government,etc. So,you can't throw around blanket statements with any degree of accuracy.

I fully support several animal wildlife conservation groups,the ASPCA,only eat dolphin safe tuna,and prefer the company of animals over a long list of people I could name,but I won't.

Everybody Chillax,I seriously doubt this discussion will convert/change anyone's beliefs/convictions-hasn't affected mine in the slightest.

Edited September 12, 2012 by sailaway