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

Winnoch2, don't take this personally its just that there are certain misguided or misinformed statements that are invariably used to 'prove' how wrong astrology is and most of the usual suspects appear in your postings, starting with the est first -

'none of our little planets can have any influence on any of the stars on any of the constellations, and therefore to say that they as a system they affect us - miscule beings on earth- is absurd'

Absolutely! The whole sentence is absurd! Not even the worst astrologer claims that the planets have any influence on the stars or constellations (although 'miniscule beings on ' could possibly be far more important than was your intent).

'i am 100% sure the giant balls of super-heated gas/ nuclear reactors, that are the stars, have nothing to do with it.'

And youre 100% right too, they have nothing to do with it, so why do you still try to use them to 'disprove' astrology?

'If we were observing from pluto, mars would be against a totally different set of stars!!

Most of the confusion surrounding astrology, and many of the arguments usually rolled out against it stem from the common misconception that the stars and constellations actually have something to do with it....
'Theyre not in the same positions as they were.... the light takes so long to reach us.......they only appear to form those shapes when viewed from here' and so...

'when an astrologer says ' mars is in cancer'.. that is a TOTALLY meaningless statement!'

ONLY to someone who doesn't correctly understand what the astrologer is actually saying.
If you know how to find the constellation of Cancer, you could go outside right now and(weather and location permitting of course) you will be able to see Jupiter. Not far from there you can see Saturn , against a backdrop of the constellation of Taurus. Look again at about 6 tomorrow morning and you might see not only Venus but Mars is there too, near to where you will find the constellation of Libra, a bit down and to the left of the
That is all the stars have to do with it! Sign posts, position markers. A convenient way to describe the layout of our solar system at a given time, in reference to a given place.

Why? Because not everyone finds it so difficult to suppose that perhaps, given the overwhelmingly blimey-its-big-ness' of the solar system, that it and its ever changing layout might have an influence on such 'miniscule beings' such as us on Earth, or that given its state of permanent motion its effect may vary subtly from day to day, month to month.

'I personally thing the explanation mooted earlier for starsign differences is very likely. i.e. the time of year that people are born in affects their personality.'

And what exactly is the variation there if not the basic layout of the solar system and our position within it in relation to the Sun?

'I do concede, however, that there have been studies carried out that show some correclation between people of the same star-signs. So there is a mystery to be solved.'

Thing is, why carry on with in-depth discussions on how sophisticated modern astrology is with all it's various complex procedures, when there is an elequent theory, as postulated above. I.e.the seasons/ birthday correlation. That makes perfect sense to me, and would do away with the need for astrology!

So you can accept the idea, its just the very irrelevant 'stars' explanation you have a problem with? There is a mystery to be solved, I don't think any astrologer claims to know for certain the mechanism by which any influence operates, simply that effects have been observed and studied over immense periods of time. It is not a matter of a 'need for astrology' it is a matter of making sense of thousands of years worth of observation.

'When i believe in something or dismiss an idea, it's usually based on some facts.'

That's fine but youre trying to dismiss something based on unrelated facts, we could use similar methods to disprove the existence of leather sofas using cheese

'As someone who's interested in astronomy, i happen to know facts(if not figures that make a mockery of astrology, that's all!'

Then please share them with us rather than trying to disprove claims that nobody is actually making.


P J L
'If astrologers believe the position of the planets has an affect on us,why isn't that affect the same on every one?'

?
Do I need to say that the positions are constantly changing? Or that astrology does not rule out the influence of a persons surroundings, upbringing, parents, peers etc?

26199
'people refer to science as if it's a person, or group of people, and it isn't either of those things... it's just a methodology where you work from evidence and build theories that fit the evidence)'

And astrology is one of the oldest branches of science where people more attuned to the annual variations than you or I and much more familiar with the sky and all its apparent motions have done just that. Their findings are there for you to study and use should you wish to do so. Of course you don't have to, you do have the option to ignore and you'll get by just fine, but why try to rubbish something you obviously have not studied in any depth?

TSF

Hi Snockerty Friddle

I'm confused, which in itself is nothing new

From your previous post, I get the impression that neither the planets nor the stars are overly relevant to astrology

You say that stars are simply <>

Please explain...

how knowing this 'layout' can have a bearing on us mere mortals

And

the relevance (to astrology) of statements such as
'planet x is entering the constellation y'

Also...

If astrology is a valid topic for scientific enquiry, then please let me know where to find information about any such research or, even better, some documented results - something along the lines of an astrologer predicting a succession of improbable events

Or is this not what astrology is about either?

And if not, then what *is* it about?

six7s

Astrology isn't a science. That doesn't automatically make it invalid...

But science is not about 'people more attuned to the annual variations than you or I'. It's about cold, hard, boring facts and figures, and showing -- proving -- that you can predict them to a certain degree of accuracy. It's also about trying to understand why; it's not about 'not everyone finds it so difficult to suppose that perhaps'.

Science has discovered some truly wonderful things -- things which, frankly, are a lot more amazing than Astrology. Relativity, for example, and the fact that time and space don't work quite how you think they do. Quantum mechanics, and the fact that uncertainty lies at the heart of every particle in the universe. Genetics, and how life changes and adapts.

Compared to these, Astrology is very, very easy to investigate. If there's an effect, it would be possible to prove it in a matter of years.

It hasn't been done.

(although, positivist science doesn't even worry about the 'why'... taking that to be irrelevant because it's unprovable and quite possibly nonexistant... and simply worries about coming up with theories that make good predictions)

from Ictoan S.H.A.D.O.W. Secretary
""if you think the planets don't affect us go back to the posts about the moon."

Which isn't a planet....."

which just proves my earlier point about thinking this is a discussion about science. sure science may say the moon isn't a planet. but if you are talking astrology it is. in astrology there are 10 planets commonly used, including the sun . planet is the word used in astrology to describe amongst others the sun and moon.

"But science is not about 'people more attuned to the annual variations than you or I'. It's about cold, hard, boring facts and figures, and showing -- proving -- that you can predict them to a certain degree of accuracy. It's also about trying to understand why; "

i think its a huge misconception that science is about cold hard facts, and its a dangerous misconception. the whole age of reason thing, the idea that everything is measureable, and that those measurements are repeatable is a relatively new human way of thinking.

i agree about the trying to understand why bit though.

i think science is the process of using theory interelated with the physical world to generate better understanding of reality. its not an absolute thing. if it was we wouldn't have thalidomide babies and the world would still be made up of building blocks of matter. what was 'proof' and fact for one generation becomes history and jumping off points for another.

astrology and astronomy used to be closely connected. the reasons they are not now is a cultural and political phenomenon, not a scientific one.

its interesting that you mention quantum mechanics, because i would say its that that has the best chance of theorising why astrology works.

there have been some studies on astrology, i'll go get the references.

'The idea that everything is measureable, and that those measurements are repeatable is a relatively new human way of thinking.'

Maybe -- but look at what it's achieved. It's certainly not in doubt that it works.

Empirical science can never be absolute -- but it can at least give you a figure on *how* absolute it is...

Quantum mechanics is often claimed to be the root cause of otherwise unjustifiable theories... mostly because so few people understand it, I suspect. (I've done enough physics at uni to know precisely which bits I don't understand ). This makes it impossible for most people to refute, and it sounds cool... I have yet to hear a case that has any merit, however...

the fact that reductionist science is relatively new doesn't undermine it inherently. i'm just saying humans have had many other totally valid ways of understanding reality for thousands of years.

and i agree that its has achieved some very amazing things and that that has been a good thing. its also going to be an integral part of us getting ourselves out ot the ecological mess we are in now.

however there is also a lot of (a) bogus science, and (b) unethical science. in this sense its not science that's the problem, its how its being used. but the west definitely holds a dominant view that science is absolute and other versions of reality are superstitious (hence this thread). its extremely arrogant and as i said dangerous. dellusional in fact. most people who have lived on the planet haven't experienced life through a science paradigm. but now we are being told that if you can't prove something scientifically it must be bullshit ?


i agree with you about the dangers of simplifying quantum physics. i tend to refer to it as the branch of science that will have the most to say on topics that other branches of science are failing with eg astrology, prayer.

i've come to quantums physics from a non-science source. 'the dancing wu li masters' type stuff. or fritjoff capra who is a physicist but i'm reading him in deep ecology and systems theory fields. this is where its most exciting for me because physicists like capra work in multiple realities and so can make the links between 'hard' science and all the weird stuff.

I would say that it's not even close to being a dominant view... sceptics are few and far between.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3902/skeptic_pitied.html appears to have been written by someone sharing my point of view...

Hmm, I've heard people claim that Quantum Mechanics could explain human intelligence -- or even the 'soul'... the effects of meditation on consciousness... load of nonsense, frankly. People like to play the 'science hasn't discovered everything yet' card and point to knew and interesting areas that will *obviously* ratify everything they believe. When electricity was first discovered, people thought that it could be what the 'soul' is made of...

Science will move on, and the crackpot theories -- and theorists -- will fall by the wayside, only to rush to take advantage of the next development to catch the public eye.

Cutting to the chase without reading any of the (extensive) backlog...

Science has accepted the existence of "Biorhythms" for centuries; the human body runs on cycles of varying length, and these can lead to cyclic fluctuations in energy, creativity, logical thought etc...

The apparent movements of the constellations in the sky are conveniently in synch with some of the longer rhythms the body follows, so in a time before clocks it would be natural to use them as an indicator when figuring out what "cycle" of a particular rhythm you were in at a given time in your life. So, someone approaching a shamen and asking whether now would be a good time for them to go out and start a new business enterprise would be asked their "birthsign", as a shorthand way of finding out at what position the constellations were in when they were born and figuring out what stage in the biorhythmic cycle they were in at the moment. If this indicated they were currently at a high level of mental and physical ability, but would soon experience a drop in one or both, the shamen would advise against it. The shorthand for this might be that "the stars say it's not a good time", but there's no real suggestion the position of a star in the sky is controlling their destiny, just that they form a convenient "ticking clock" for the skilled practitioner of the art to interpret.

A general horiscope, if done seriously, could indicate how appropriate it would be for you to engage in mental, physical or emotional activities at a given time; no more, no less. It's the same principle as a monthly biorhythm, but on something like a 12-year cycle. (I can't remember the exact length of the cycle, but it's somewhere in that order of magnitude) Any more specific advice aimed at a general audience is just showmanship, or an indication that the practicioner doesn't really understand what they are all about.

You can equate a non-practitioner's grasp of what a horiscope is and what it can do to a non-computer-user's grasp of what a computer is and what it can do. Just look at how desktop computers are used in any Hollywood film for a good analogy of how Horiscopes are used in newspapers etc.

Peet
(Not a practitioner, not even a user, just interested...)

Well -- that's certainly plausible, which in my book is a definite plus

Not something I'd accept off-hand, though, for two main reasons...

Firstly, effects akin to the placebo effect; it could all be psychological rather than having anything to do with biorhythms.

Secondly, it would be very useful as a leader/adviser to be able to wave your hands about a bit and say 'the stars say no'

Can you give me any good links describing/examining the effect?

Not immediately; I typed that from memory, hence the vagueness on the timescale... I got my info from assorted off-the-wall magazines, but I'm sure Google will show up something too. Have a look, and if you can't find something immediately post here again and I'll go a-searchin' tomorrow afternoon.

I (occasionally) run a website which covers belief systems and why people want to believe, at http://www.paranormal.org.uk - I read up on the subject a couple of years ago with a view to writing an article for the site, but never got round to actually writing it.

Hehe, alright... I'm suppose to be working now, so I'll have a look later

Well done, The Snockerty Friddle, but they won't believe you because they know absolutely everything about science!



Alji the Magus (don't forget to record your sun sign @ A712595 ) Pastor of the Church of Spiritual Humanism.

Ah, another familiar exchange...

'You don't know everything!'

'You're right, I don't. So explain it to me.'

'Errr...'

I'm open to new ideas -- but I'm under no obligation to give them an easy time!

I'm quite happy with the fact that my scepticism means I will sometimes end up not believing things that are, in fact, true. I much prefer this to the alternative of believing things that aren't true...

>'You don't know everything!'

'You're right, I don't. So explain it to me.'

Is there anyone who knows everything? I certainly don't, and I never read my horoscope in the papers.

What I do know is that the psychological description of me given just by my birth sign is 90% true.



Alji the Magus (don't forget to record your sun sign @ A712595 ) Pastor of the Church of Spiritual Humanism.

Err... the exchange was meant:

Someone else, directed at me: 'You don't know everything!'
Me: 'You're right, I don't.'

Have you tried reading the psychological description of you given by the other birth signs, and rating those?

Hmm, actually, let's try an experiment

I've found an Astrology site... http://www.dailyscopes.com... and I'm going to see how well what they say about each star sign applies to me...

Aries: http://www.dailyscopes.com/aries-sun.html

May or may not be demanding and infantile in their behavior -- void.
May or may not inspire others or be selfish -- void.
Doers/accomplish stuff -- of course I do.
Must learn the difference between being responsible and being agressive -- everyone should -- void.
React in a physical way to everything they experience in life -- too vague, of course I do.
Their tendency is to shoot first and ask questions later -- sometimes. I think everyone can say 'sometimes'.
Quickly forget frustration and anger -- sometimes.
Generous, any selfishness is a result of carelessness -- would like to believe so.
High spirited and energetic -- sometimes.
Eager athletes and generous players -- maybe one but not the other.
Enjoy the challenge of a good contest but can become agressive -- yes to the first part, who doesn't?
Birthmark on face -- well, I have three freckles in a line... spooky.
Headaches, black eyes, nose bleeds, and insect bites are common Aries complaints -- ... do you know *anyone* for whom insect bites are not a complaint?
Strength and physical force -- I'm a weakling, sorry.
Cut off from physical activity, they become depressed, unproductive, and overweight -- hehe, not me at all.

Summary: a few things just plain wrong, lots of things to which I can say 'hmm... well... yeah.' Some amusingly vague bits.

Taurus: http://www.dailyscopes.com/taurus-sun.html

Possessively cling to people they regard as their own -- of course I do.
Strongest desire is for personal security -- not really, although a lot of people could answer 'yes' to this.
Broken promises or the betrayal of others are threats to this security -- applies to anyone.
Their reaction to such personal affronts is likely to be bitter, and those who inflict such abuses will not be given another chance -- applies to almost everyone.
If disappointed may completely retreat from the world or go in the opposite direction -- void.
May end up sacrificing meaningful relationships -- applies to everyone.
Stubborn -- yep. Most people are.
Sticks to projects -- would like to believe so.
Quiet strength and determination, trustworthy -- would like to believe so.
Do not generally enjoy surprises or spontaneous changes -- applies to virtually everyone.
More comfortable when given sufficient time to prepare for things -- applies to virtually everyone.
React to experience by assessing its worth -- of course.
Will get rid of worn out items if they're no longer needed -- .
Seeker of physical comfort and physical pleasure -- of course .
Natural cautiousness prevents from making mistakes, but may lead to missed opportunities -- applies to everyone.
Physically strong and solidly built -- -- this is supposed to apply to people with a particular birthday? Yeah, right.
Even those who are not fat, may be physically more dense per pound of body weight -- ah, the disclaimer. Pretty lame one.
Readily engage in outdoor activities -- yep, I go outside sometimes.
Tend to be rather subdued but have a lively sense of humour -- pretty much opposites -- void.
Stiff necks, sore throats, and earaches are common Taurean complaints -- .

Summary: most of it applies to everyone, nothing much that isn't vague.

Alright, I'm bored -- I'm going for my sign.

Virgo: http://www.dailyscopes.com/virgo-sun.html

Need is to find ways to put my talents to use -- of course.
List of possible jobs -- nothing to do with me.
Uses guilt as a weapon -- of course I do.
Must learn that pushing people to a goal of perfection is unhelpful -- handy advice. Nothing to do with me though.
Adapts to change -- of course I do.
Vulnerable to demands and influences of other people -- of course I am.
Responsive to the needs of others, make myself useful -- would like to think so.
Shy -- oh my god... it's right! I am!... or rather was. I'm less shy these days.
Idealistic -- yep. Lots of people are.
React by assessing practical worth, blah blah blah -- of course I do.
Effective negotiator -- nope -- too shy and idealistic.
Will work hard if result seems justified -- of course.
Analytical approach to life -- I like to think so.
Love books, magazines, and writing -- hmm, maybe one out of three.
Very talkative -- nope.
May use inability to achieve perfection as an excuse for idleness -- hmmm, not really.
Hypocritical; excellent critic of those more skilled them myself -- hmm, at times, I suspect.
Want tangible proof of gratitude -- only sometimes... doesn't everyone?
Make an effort to stay physically fit -- not really.
Cartography, travel, philately -- nope.