h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Chinese old ladies hold these in great stead. I was born in 1983, the year of the Pig, and at the time my mother was told that Pigs from this year were prone to physical laziness and (so she claims) to spend too much time sitting about reading, etc. She reckons it has come true.

My mother bought a book on Chinese horoscopes when I was about 12, long before most people in the UK had even heard of them. From that, we discovered that she and I were born in the year of the Dragon, my dad was a Buffalo or Ox, and my sister's a Tiger. Certain things the book said were accurate:

If the parent's a Dragon and the child's a Dragon: Excellent. They will be proud of each other. (We are.)
If the paren'ts an Ox and the child's a Dragon: Not good. The child will regard the one responsible for its existence as an idiot, especially if it's the father that's the Ox. (I did, but mostly because of major personality differences.)

Chinese horoscopes also reckon that a marriage between Rat and Dragon will be a good one. Richard is a Rat, and our marriage is excellent. Western horoscopes generally reckon that it would be a non-starter, because we're both Pisceans.

Pointless tripe for the aimless thinker.

"If the paren'ts an Ox and the child's a Dragon: Not good. The child will regard the one responsible for
its existence as an idiot, especially if it's the father that's the Ox. (I did, but mostly because of major
personality differences.)"

Whoever wrote the horoscope would argue that the personality differences arose from the difference in horoscope.

"Pointless tripe for the aimless thinker"

I don't think it's really fair to dismiss it quite as that. In the east, it's a very serious cultural thing - Indian children for example have their horoscopes written down immediately they are born and these are deemed to be extremely important. Amongst the Chinese, the horoscope isn't something that you read in the daily papers; you go to the temple on specific days. It's also strongly tied into Chinese mythology.

Just because it's a serious part of a culture doesn't mean it shouldn't be dismissed as twaddle. Most cultures have been based on mutually incompatible superstitions for centuries, so at best 90% of traditional beliefs must be rubbish.

I think people make the shift too quickly from the equal respect that every individual deserves to the position that all beliefs are equally worthy of respect as well.

Sometimes the second idea gets in the way of the first, as when westerners fail to condemn the enforced wearing of the chador in Iran. It seems to suggest that what's not good enough for us is somehow good enough for them, because its part of their culture.

People shouldn't be embarrassed to say that the whole pack of priests, imams, clairvoyants, astrologers, psychics & rune-readers are either charlatans or self-deluding relics of an unenlightened age (not that this age doesn't need to enlighten up a bit).

And how can u be sure of that?
U can't decide what ppl believe in!

The burden isn't on me to be sure. I'm not the one making a positive claim for anything so in a very real sense I've got nothing to prove. It's for those who want to argue there are extra forces at work in the world beyond the physical to earn a place for their unseen powers.

You can't be sure that I'm not Beelzebub writing this through the demoniacal posession of an h2g2 researcher. But the onus would definitely be on me to get you to take that idea seriously.

Must rush. The damned souls broiling in the fiery lake need turning ...

Cashlessness - What proof have you got that it's all false?

There is the side that things are superstition and should be dismissed, but there is also the side that all these cockamamie ideas had to come from somewhere, and some of them may be incredibly valid. Some cannot be disproven; and while they cannot be proven, they are shown to be valid when the rules are not followed.
Take the people of Bali, as one example. They had worked out cycles, largely based on their mythology and their own mathematics (in a lot of cultures, the two tie in together completely), and they used these cyclic calendars to determine when they should plant and harvest and the like. Modern science came in with its knowledge - might I stress, its *limited* knowledge, as we do not know everything and ignoring that fact can lead do shortsightedness, closemindedness, and very often disaster - and modern science told them they had it all wrong and created a new schedule. Floods, draughts, and problems galore plagued the farmers by this new system (largely due to the change in irrigation systems), and science couldn't figure out what was going wrong. The farmers finally went back to their original cycles and everything worked perfectly again, just as it had for several centuries (perhaps even millenia?).

Just because you yourself have not become convinced that there are things outside the realm of your knowledge - or the collective knowledge of the western world - and things that cannot be proven by our current methods in a satisfactory way does not mean you should dismiss (and condemn!) it as a bunch of ballyhoo. Just for reminders, magnetics "didn't exist" a thousand years ago. Neither did germs. Is is because they were lies, or because they were undetectable by the means they had at the time?

I am not trying to attack you, but I think you dismiss things too easily without giving any (necessary) thought to possibility. Don't believe it if you don't want, but keep in mind that if it can't be disproven - and currently it can't - then it is _possible_, and what is possible cannot be discounted. Sherlock Holmes operated on that principle, and it's not a bad example to follow.

Cheerful Dragon: About the Piscean thing....

Pisces is the most changeable and most easily influenced sign in the Western zodiac (mutable water), and isn't inherently unstable but doesn't actually have a stability on its own. That means that whatever else is in your chart is likely to have as much sway in your temperament and behaviour and all that as the Pisces itself, whereas with other signs usually the Sun sign "rules" the apparent personality.

So, for example, say you had a Taurus moon, and the other person had a Virgo moon... That would probably get along fine; earth signs are likely to be stable and get on with things, and having element crossovers between your two charts works well for most cases.

Of course, two double Pisceans probably wouldn't ever actually egt close to the other, but that's like asking the water of two streams to go in a specific direction.....

"It's for those who want to argue there
are extra forces at work in the world beyond the physical to earn a place for their
unseen powers."

I'm not saying that astrology has any real meaning or bearing on people's lives in terms of 'unseen powers' - personally, I don't believe that it does - but it is certainly important to me culturally. I am half Chinese (as you might have guessed from my current title) and have just celebrated Chinese New Year. This is an event based entirely on a lunar calendar, and is to us the most important festival in the year. I may not believe in what the astrology all means - I don't - but I know that it is important to my personal identity - hell, we wouldn't know what day it was each year without it. Are we therefore 'self-deluding relics of an unenlightened age' for celebrating something like that? I'm not Christian, but I wouldn't condemn people currently fasting for Lent and tell them that they're being stupid, because I wouldn't do them the disservice of believing that their beliefs are any less valid than my own. I think your position, cashlessness, that 'people make the shift too quickly from the equal respect that every individual deserves to the position that all beliefs are equally worthy of respect as well' is essentially contradictory. I live as a part of modern Western society, I speak English as my first language, but my culture and its beliefs are part of my identity. Since you clearly have no respect for my beliefs, how can you possibly have respect for me as an individual?

We may have simulposted, MH, if that's the phrase. I'm not suggesting that modern western science has a monopoly on the facts. But it's important to separate out tested practice (ie irrigation) from the supernatural bolt-ons (astrology).

For example, "new" plant-based medicines are being "discovered" all the time, when they've been in use for centuries. For those who use it, traditional medicine may not be distinct from the spiritual beliefs that explain it. But from another perspective, it is possible to separate the two.

If a medicine is found to work just as well without the hocus-pocus, it's not then down to science to disprove the existence of the appropriate deity. Not bringing extra entities into an argumnet without a pressing need is so fundamental to reason we only notice it when reminded by a statement like Occam's razor. It's the permanent background to how we think.

If something can't be disproven, it's logically possible, fair enough. But it doesn't follow that because something is possible it can't be discounted. Otherwise we would never be able to decide anything because the number of possibilities is always infinite.

You have to have a reason for singling out those particular possibilities that are worth of considering. Sherlock Holmes wouldn't, for instance, have considered the possibility that by spinning his pipe on the table he could divine the location of the guilty party. He would have had no reason to do so. And the fact that someone believes something to be the case may only be a temporary reason for considering that possibility - until you find out there's no other basis for their belief than that someone else believes the same etc etc.

One of the salutary things about studying other religions is that people begin to see that the set of possibilities that loom large in their beliefs are only a tiny subset of the enormous range of beliefs people have, which are in turn an insignificant proportion of the religious beliefs and superstitions that have been held through time. Since the only thing privileging the possibility they have got used to is its familiarity, it's only a kind of vanity that allows people to persist in supernatural beliefs.

I must find a job that uses my brain during the day so that I don't have to inflict myself on others at such length before I can get to sleep. Thanks.

Yes, I do understand the need for exercising thr brain... I can very much sympathize with that feeling.

And yes, I think we did simulpost. Mine went up not two minutes after yours, and I had been writing it for ten or so minutes...

Understand that I do realise the difference between a supernatural belief in a god or whatever to explain phenomena vs. methodically working out solutions.
However, I've noticed you take into account religion - when you have a phenomena that isn't explained, and multiple unrelated groups come to similar conclusions, that should count for something.

For example, I don't believe in the "monsters" of the Greek myths, or of the bible. Leviathans are what we now call whales. Charbydis was what we call a whirlpool (or maelstrom, as it may have been). But these are explanations created to fit into a mythos because the people had no other way to explain it.

In the situation with the irrigation, science could not explain the difference in result. All science could figure out was that under the Balinese system, things worked, and under the system of western science, it did not. By all that western science new, it should have worked. This would count as an unexplained phenomena.

If you want an idea of why I hold astrology as different from a lot of "hocus-pokus" or religious matters, check out my post to the forum (accessible from somewhere on the conversations on my page, or in the "talking point" forum under the title "Tip of the Iceberg"). I go on to explain, in it, why horoscopes, inasmuch as we know them, are complete bunk; yet astrology is not the same thing and may have a very accountable basis in fact.

There are a lot of things unexplainable by science without bringing metaphysics into it. To make replying to a specific statement easier, I'll quote:
"If something can't be disproven, it's logically possible, fair enough. But it doesn't follow that because something is possible it can't be discounted. Otherwise we would never be able to decide anything because the number of possibilities is always infinite. "
This actually is the case. Talk to physicists. We can go about our daily lives fine and dandy as you please because we don't think of the implications of a lot of the new science. Einstein made waves and freaked everybody out, as did Feynman (in more ways than one), and it didn't end there. Quantum physics has forever disrupted our happy view of the universe.
Metaphysics is a good midpoint as a springboard for interpreting the possibilities of things we can't explain without abandoning the code of science.

There are still a lot of things that cannot be explained or even speculated on by science: Most people are familiar with the effects of LSD, if not personally, but there is *no way* to predict what any one person will see. Why is that? We don't even understand the human brain, really, or how trees get water to the topmost branches. (They still haven't quite figured that out...) I believe they also haven't found the cat's "purr-box" yet. If there is evidence that something is so, and science is at a loss to explain it, I don't find it beyond the realm of acceptance to consider outside possibilities, ones we hadn't thought of yet.

That;s really my major point with astrology. There is no "god" that is doing it, or any other weird hooey going on that is caused by some old doctor with a lot of weird herbs and a particular dance; it's caused by influences that can't be found, and _everyone_ I've ever met that has taken a look in depth at astrology - that is, really learned about it - finds it to be, well, not 100% reliable, as we still can't figure out exactly how it works, but it can be an amazingly steady guideline, and it can explain a lot.

I mean, you might take the stance that just because someone is a show-off isn't because they're a Leo, that it's from their childhood. I thought about this at one point, and I decided that someday I'd like to see a study, because with what I've gleaned something occured to me: Take one child from each of the 12 signs. Put them in the exact same situation (or, find 12 in the exact same situation) or as close as you can get. Say, somewhat abusive home life, not very welcome at school, or whatever. Each of the 12 will react the way their sign does. The Sure, the Leo would act out in school, but the Capricorn would just work harder, believing that hard work will cure the problems.

Astrology is a much more complex and diverse "science" than people give it credit for. It hasn't been used in any culture that I know of as some annex to their myth and deity system, but several different cultures have come up with similar concepts - that influences from the cosmos will affect someone's personality. Is it not possible that something akin to a magnetosphere influences the way an embryo's or fetus' cells develop, in such a way as to influence whatever part of the brain determines personality? It is mysteries like these that I speak of when I talk about possibilities and what science has so far not been able to touch, for lack of equipment or vision or both.

I must say it's nice to chat with someone on the same sort of intellectual wavelength - it doesn't always have to do with whether someone's as smart, or smarter, or whatever, as it is to find someone who can think in the same circles.

Ultramarine - I think what I'm getting at is a secular version of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." which I think I understand. You can have equal regard for two people while thinking one of them is right about something and the other is not just wrong, but has wilfully persisted in using a discredited method to arrive at their conclusions.

I don't think it's showing a lack of respect for someone to say that they're stupid or wrongheaded about a particular issue, even if it's something very important and central to their identity. In fact, the more important the issue, the more regard you show for someone by trying to convince them to what you believe is the right point of view.

For example, if one of my Christian friends tried to convert me, I wouldn't be offended - rather I'd take it as a token of their affection that they wanted to save me from what they thought was the biggest mistake I could make in my life. Actually I'm rather offended that they haven't made more of an effort - maybe they think I'm a lost cause.

Similarly, although a lot of people think of the utter rejection of religion and any hint of superstition as being a negative thing, I regard it as a state of mind to be treasured and shared. That's why I'm prepared to be pretty blunt.

In one sense, nobody else's beliefs are less valid than my own, because each person is of equal value. But that wouldn't stop me thinking someone was stupid for fasting during Lent (unless they were doing it to lose weight) or for believing in astrology. If I didn't think they were stupid, I'd be doing the same myself.

I just went to your space, to see what I could learn... What on Earth is 360?? There was some weird system and... well, anyway...

I have to wonder - without any offense meant - if you've thoroughly thought out your ideas, or if you've arrived at a momentary conclusion and didn't go beyond what you thought you needed to. I don;t want to call your ideas shallow, but they are lacking something, perhaps in how you word it.

There is an issue of mutual respect - Trying to force others to your beliefs, even if it is for good intentions, is choosing disregard for their own. If a Christian tried to convert me, I would be offended, because even if they were acting in good faith, it is very annoying that they never thought of the possibility that *perhaps they have it wrong*, and perhaps my own way of life works perfectly for me (or is the "true" way to be, for all anyone knows).

And there is a dsifference between thinking someone is stupid and thinking they are doing a stupid thing. A very large difference. It's kind of like the difference between disliking a person and disliking some of that person's behaviours.

And I would point out that I would sooner think someone stupid if they were fasting to lose weight than for Lent, because at least Lent would be part of their spiritual being, which (use any explanation you want) upholds their morale and ability to live, whereas not eating for the sake of losing weight is merely poorly informed or ignorant (in the vast majority of cases, anyway, it is very bad for the body... Anorexia stems from the belief that fasting will allow you to lose weight).

While I do not agree with a lot of people's beliefs, I must quote a friend of mine: "Whatever gets you through the day." As long as it does not infringe upon my (or anyone else's, for that matter) abilioty to live my life, then whatever.

You seem very committed to what you call fact, but not, apparently, to science. You do not seem to accept that we don't know everything, and that anything that cannot be explained by science - without quoting an absolute improbability - doesn't happen. Explain precognition. Explain dreams. Explain how multiple people can have the same "delusion" when it comes from nowhere and the people have never met (it has happened before in history). I can't explain how I've had dreams of buildings that didn't exist until two years after my dream, and because of my love for observing the beauty of this incredible fabrication - this universe - around me, because of the beauty hidden within mathematics, because of all the incredible things that happen that cannot be explained - why is it that a sack of proteins, chained together, can walk around and ponder the universe - I am what I would call a true scientist: accepting the concept of the size of the breadth of what we don't know, and pursuing the knowledge in hopes of finding something.

MH It would be very interesting to run a trial of astrology - could be done very easily on this site. I'm sure you know what conclusion I'd be anticipating, but of course if it went the other way I'd have to make some substantial adjustments to my web of beliefs!

I did mean that the number of possibilities always is infinite, so we always need ways of narrowing down the ones we consider. I tend to think in terms of "possible worlds" a rather elegant notion from modern philosophy. The idea is you imagine there to be an infinite number of possible worlds the closest of which only differ from this one in the tinest aspects, with the worlds further away being more and more different. Must see if there's an article about it.

I think astrology keeps going strong exactly because there is no Heavenly Head Honcho involved, so it doesn't offend against peoples sense of individuality as much. I suspect any differences between star signs are more to do with, for instance, a child's position in the school year (an extraordinary proportion of premiership football players are born in September as they get to laud it over the August born runts at the young end of the year).

G'night.. catch you another time. Cheers.

It would seem in my experience that the reason so many people believe - really believe, not just follow - astrology is because they have studied it and found it reliable to an unexplainable degree.

Your discussion of kids in school is not very satisfactory either - half a week won't make a difference as far as age in school is concerned. But in astrology, it can be the difference between being very socialble and active and sprty and all that good stuff and being withdrawn, contemplative, and subtly forceful. And that's for the November babies. Or the difference between being coinstantly on the go and loving to stay at home. Both of these can occur in June, on opposite ends. Or even half a week apart again.

I don't suppose I'd have as much faith if I hadn't studied it. Actuallyu it's not faith; it's knowledge. It may not be provable or explainable by current methods, but I don';t believe it to be any less valid because I put things through a very rigorous test. here is a lot of "science" I don't believe.

Do you know what astrology is? It comes from latin: astro = star; logy = study. Astrology is the study of the stars and their influences. It was widely accepted as the term for anything to do with star study up until about two hundred years ago. Astrology was all based in mathematics. Read up on the history of it; the modern term "horoscope" has most certainly not done justice to the science.

Let me make one thing clear. I do not truly believe in horoscopes of any variety, be they Western or Chinese. For my rejection of Western horoscopes, read my posting, 'Pure bunk, no matter what they say'. Chinese horoscopes aren't even based on planets, according to a book I have. There are two or three real stars that are used when plotting a horoscope, the rest of the 'stars' are 'just names', so don't ask me how it's supposed to work. (The position of these 'stars' in the chart is based on date and time of birth.) I just found it interesting that Chinese horoscopes said one thing about my relationship with Richard based on our years of birth, while Western horoscopes said another based on our month of birth. Richard and I have always got on extremely well. If the Chinese horoscope said we were heading for disaster, I would still have married him.

As for herbal medicines and local knowledge that Western science can't explain, I think that the 'developed' world has been too cocky and sure of itself for centuries. We've caused a lot of problems the world over with our arrogant belief in ourselves and our 'We know best' attitiudes. A lot of things like herbal medicine can be explained and understood if we look closely. Even the Bali problem could be solved if only the scientists would just stop and *observe* for a period of years. There are probably local conditions in force that we know nothing about. The locals probably don't *know* about them, either. They just know how to work with them, rather than trying to force an accepted way of working on to them.

One of the problems with this asynchrous conversation business is I'm often not sure if people are agreeing with me or we're at cross purposes. I agree with Chinese Dragon that western science can often be arrogant in its approach to local knowledge. And I agree with March Hare that there's a difference between saying someone's stupid and saying they're doing a stupid thing (hence "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

One thing I must disagree on is the idea that because astro-logy means star-study it gives it a special dignity. Astro-nomers (star measurers?) go into apoplexies when the two are confused. Astronomers are scientists, building up a body of knowledge which is open to peer review, testing and falsification. Astrologers make claims that distant bodies govern our lives which they are either unwilling or unable to test openly and scientifically. Just because someone gives themself an 'ology doesn't mean a thing (numerology, scientology etc.)

I prefer my mysteries to come in layers of wrapping, that are gradually peeled off in the game of scientific pass the parcel. Not the sort that come labelled "Warning - not for human comprehension"

Chinese horoscopes are a very elegant and ancient system and there's a lot to be said for having poetic models of how people interact. But if there were anything in it, it could be demonstrated in proper trials.

Hundreds of years ago, astrology *was* star study - there was no perceived difference between people who cast horoscopes and people who studied the stars for scientific purposes. It was only when science started to cast doubt on the validity of horoscopes that a new word was needed, because solid scientific types don't want to be confused with people they regard as charlatans.

Basically, I agree with cashlessness. Just because you've got an 'ology', it doesn't make you a scientist.

Pardon my backlog.

Actually, I was referring to the original root, not the current incarnations. It didn't get the name "astrology" because someone wanted credibility. It got the name "astrology" because it means "study of the stars" - the people who were mathematicians, scientists, and the like. The scientific revolution brought some very good points, but one of the bad ponts was that anything that couldn't be proven by their current methods was cast out entirely. We've had to un-learn a lot of things in science and chemistry and the like to allow room for what we didn't know at the time and still can't know, but at least now we're getting an inkling of our limitations.

"Astronomy" is "naming of the stars". It was differentiated frm astrology because the early astronomers only wished to catalogue what was in the sky. When atrologers fell into disrepute (and there are very few real astrologers left out there, if any, in my opinion), astronomers began doing more than counting and namng and cataloguing. In fact, doing a lot more than that is a recent phenomenon. Now it's also down to speculation, attempting tests, and actually learning about the world around us instead of just looking at it.

But my acceptance of astrology is only that. It's not a defense of the name, or every branch of it, or some of the charlatanous (is that a word?) hooey that often goes along with it. It is simply noting something that seems to work, and maybe someday we'll figure out why. For all you know, it is explainable by science, we're just coming at it from the wrong direction.

For that matter, psychology is screwed up too. Its even worse. It doesn't even go on fact, more often than not, I've been noticing.... but that's another subject.