What do you think of astrology?

[QuickSilver]

Yes I am sure you are right chic, when I had my chart done many years ago, the astrologer said I appeared to be a Capricorn on first meeting, and she later discovered that I have Capricorn rising I think which is why I presented myself in that way. I don't know much about the details of charts etc., but each time I have had conversations with astrologers they all come up with an accurate description of my personality. nthego:

Yes.. Your Ascendent sign is how others see you.. I have had that problem.. I'm Cancer rising.. people tend to think I'm an easy mark and a pushover at first blush.. However they soon learn... Capricorn through and through, and not that easy going. It has taken quite a few by surprise I must say..

Your Sun sign indicates your basic approach to life and general nature. Your moon sign indicates your inner self.. and your rising sign is how others see you.

One more important cardinal point is the MC (midheaven sign) It relates to our career or "life path" and suggests our social standing and reputation.

 

[Warrigal]

Yes thanks for that Dame Warrigal, as you say familiar faces, interestingly before Hugh Laurie disputed the reading, I thought it was a pretty accurate one of him or Stephen Fry, I think what is at work here, is the old adage You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. or better put Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

It works in laboratories where scientists by observation affect the outcome of their experiments, here is an interesting video on the subject:

Quantum physics is very perplexing but we don't have to fully understand it to apply it. In chemistry for example, thermodynamics depends on quantum physics principles. It is a very practical field and you don't have to be a genius to use it.

You don't reckon that the astrologer in the experiment was aware of Fry and Laurie sitting in the front row?

 

[merlin]

Quantum physics is very perplexing but we don't have to fully understand it to apply it. In chemistry for example, thermodynamics depends on quantum physics principles. It is a very practical field and you don't have to be a genius to use it.

You don't reckon that the astrologer in the experiment was aware of Fry and Laurie sitting in the front row?

I think consciousness itself is very perplexing, and we don't fully understand that at all, the mind itself is also untrustworthy when it comes to truth.

I assume the astrologer was aware of Laurie & Fry when on camera but not when he prepared the chart, is that what you meant?

 

[Warrigal]

Perhaps Randi's astrologist was aware that both men were to be present but was not told which one's details he was given. Randi would not have been above setting him up in some way.

 

[merlin]

Perhaps Randi's astrologist was aware that both men were to be present but was not told which one's details he was given. Randi would not have been above setting him up in some way.

I am sure you are right Dame Warrigal, we used to have a lot of those debunking programmes here, and the set up always seemed biased and suspect to me.

 

[Rob]

Yes, astrology is pseudo-scientific nonsense, but why?

Firstly, if the stars and planets can in some way affect us, then by what mechanism. There are only two forces which can influence us, excluding psychological; 1. Electromagnetic (light and other wavelengths) and 2. Gravitational (and possibly, highly energetic charged particles).

It's true that the effects of these forces never completely die away but, apart from the sun and the moon, they are so insignificant as to be effectively zero.

Secondly, the constellations (star signs) used in astrology are purely a result of the mind's need to find patterns in the chaos of the night sky. What to the Phoenicians or Persians might be known as, for instance, Scorpio, was imagined as a completely different entity by the Aztecs or Maya. Not only that, but whatever WAS imagined was purely the result of line-of-sight effects, the stars in a constellation may well be separated by tens or hundreds of light years and would show a completely different pattern if viewed from a great distance from Earth.

I'm not that well up on astrology but I believe the positions of the planets at birth is supposed to influence us in some way. Does this mean that all astrological calculations prior to the discovery by telescope of the planets beyond Saturn were inaccurate?

The sun and moon certainly do exert a physical effect on us; the sun can burn and the moon, due to the gravitation gradient between one side of the Earth and the other, causes the tides. To assume that either of these effects can affect a persons personality or future, to me seems utter bunkum.

Having said all that, we owe a great debt to the ancient astrologers, as, due to their efforts to fine tune the positions and timings of astronomical objects and events, we now have the science of observational astronomy.

 

[Rob]

Everything you need to know about Quantum Electrodynamics. QED ...

 

[Underock1]

Yes, astrology is pseudo-scientific nonsense, but why?

Firstly, if the stars and planets can in some way affect us, then by what mechanism. There are only two forces which can influence us, excluding psychological; 1. Electromagnetic (light and other wavelengths) and 2. Gravitational (and possibly, highly energetic charged particles).

It's true that the effects of these forces never completely die away but, apart from the sun and the moon, they are so insignificant as to be effectively zero.

Secondly, the constellations (star signs) used in astrology are purely a result of the mind's need to find patterns in the chaos of the night sky. What to the Phoenicians or Persians might be known as, for instance, Scorpio, was imagined as a completely different entity by the Aztecs or Maya. Not only that, but whatever WAS imagined was purely the result of line-of-sight effects, the stars in a constellation may well be separated by tens or hundreds of light years and would show a completely different pattern if viewed from a great distance from Earth.

I'm not that well up on astrology but I believe the positions of the planets at birth is supposed to influence us in some way. Does this mean that all astrological calculations prior to the discovery by telescope of the planets beyond Saturn were inaccurate?

The sun and moon certainly do exert a physical effect on us; the sun can burn and the moon, due to the gravitation gradient between one side of the Earth and the other, causes the tides. To assume that either of these effects can affect a persons personality or future, to me seems utter bunkum.

Having said all that, we owe a great debt to the ancient astrologers, as, due to their efforts to fine tune the positions and timings of astronomical objects and events, we now have the science of observational astronomy.

Thank you, Rob. I was going to make a similar post, but too lazy to put it together. Everyone to their own tastes. I, personally, do not know what the appeal is in believing something that was made up in 3000,BC, by completely unkown individuals, who thought the movements of the planets were messages from the Gods. The same guys thought the same about the markings on livers. They had no conception of planetary motion. Thought they sometimes moved "retrograde". Besides being completely wrong in the first place, others over the centuries hashed things up and added to it to suit there own imaginations. The daily horoscopes are written so that one size fits all. "You are aggressive and outgoing, but prefer meditating alone with your thoughts". Astrology may be amusing. I would never run my life by it.