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

I define astrology has believing that the sun, moon, stars, and planets
have an influence on us.
So by using star charts, to study their positions in relation to each other,
and other information, i.e. someone's date of birth it is possible to make
forecasts about the future horoscopes.
Also that a persons character, and trait if not determined by the position
of the sun, moon , stars, and planets is at least influenced by them
So that astrologers again using star charts , and other information i.e.
date of birth are able to tell just what these are, and give readings based
on their findings

"unless someone actually knows what astrology is and how it claims it works,
then that person isn't in a position to criticise it. dismissing something
you when you don't know what it is isn't logic, its superstition."

One of my dictionary defines superstition.
A religion or or practice based on a belief on luck or magic
An excessive belief in the supernatural

Logic
The art of reasoning

Has I think astrology is complete nonsense I hardly think that your
remarks about logic, and superstition are correct

I would be superstitious if I believed in astrology

P.J.L., don't think of the stars influencing people's destiny; rather, everybody's mental and physical state is cyclic, and the position of certain celestial bodies in the sky is just a convenient way of keeping track of those cycles. In that context, "Astrology" may have slightly more merit than you give it credit for.

It can't say "you will win the lottery next week", but it might well be able to say "next week would be a good time to indulge in physical activity"...

Quite a few flaccid statements being made against the validity of astrology...

flaccid! *snickers*

Hmm, isn't that rather a coincidence, Peet, given that the orbital periods of celestial bodies (with the exception of the sun and moon) are essentially random numbers and have no direct correlation -- that I can think of, anyway -- with events on earth?

It's not the orbital periods of near bodies that's the key, but rather the rising and falling of constellations which follow an annual cycle as the Earth tilts on its way around the Sun. These would correlate to earth-bound variances in temperature, magnetic field, solar radiation and possibly other side effects of following a slightly eliptical orbit around a nuclear furnace... Other orbital periods may have been assimilated as convenient subdivisions, but I'm really not qualified to say. It would explain the 12-year (or whatever) "cycle", as that could be the lowest common denominator of the frequencies of the orbits being observed, but I'm just speculating there.

At this stage in the conversation I think it might be interesting to take a
vote on who believes, and who does not believe in astrology.
No explanations of why you believe , or don't believe in it , or how
astrology works

Just
Believe in astrology
Don't believe in astrology
Not certain

I don't believe in astrology

I believe in Biorhythms. I suspect Astrology is an old way of keeping track of them.

Thereoretical question: When humankind does eventually decide to spread its wings and leave Earth to explore the cosmos and maybe settle on aother world, will astronomy be defunct? As the positions of the stars or planets in some far flung solar system will be very different to the ones we can see from our planet now.....

Astronomy won't, but astrology just might...

Are you sure you haven't got that the wrong way round? The astrologers will have to come up with some new ideas like "Asteroid 24355645/01 is in conjunction with planet 4435266661/98, so that looks like love is just around the corner for Sagitarians..."

I don't believe in astrology


as you define it

I believe in what I see astrology as. Which doesn't necessarily concur with what other people think.

I don't believe in astrology.

Noggin

I don't believe in astrology.

There's no evidence that it is true, and there is no mechanism by which the sun, moon and planets could affect your personality based on your time of birth.

You sound very sure of yourself. Would you care to present your evidence? Do you know everything there is to know about the universe? What about things we haven't discovered yet and categorised in a neat scientific manner? There may not be any, but then again there might be. Who knows?

I certainly don't.

i don't really believe in anything.

i've found astrology to be a very interesting and useful tool for understanding myself and other human beings though. i understand *that* it works (depending on how you apply it).

the 'nonbelievers' might like to have a go at explaining why accupuncture works. this is a system (or part of a system) of health care that was for a long time allocated the same weirdo status as astrology in the west.

now it is relatively mainstream and acceptable to medical science. AFAIK there is no definitive explanation on how or why it works from a mainstream science point of view. so according to some of the arguments presented in this thread should not be 'believed in'.

kea, I saw a documentary a good ten years ago on acupuncture that showed that scientists might have at least started looking in the right place to find the mechanisms. A developmental scientist was looking at an acupuncture chart, and suddenly realised there *was* a connection between the places where the needles were put and the places they affected! According to him the areas were linked because they were areas that developed together in the first few weeks of foetal development; apparently different body areas receive growth spurts, and, for example, the shoulders and the place where you placed a needle to relieve shoulder pain were part of the same "group spurt". (ooh, err, vicar )

On noticing this correlation he went and checked the rest of the points on the chart against developmental literature and found that in almost every case, the place where the needle was put and the area it affected were paired in the same growth spurt. It still didn't show how it worked, but it hinted that a "scientific" explaination was there somewhere, waiting to be found.