Astrology - Fact or Myth?

[Witchy Bee]

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I think it's extremely fascinating. Most modern science regards Astrology as unscientific. Never the less, you cannot deny the profound effect it has had on the world as we know it. So perhaps the real question is, what classifies something as being unscientific? Is it the measure of effect it has on the world or the good it does to advance our knowledge of the universe? Or simply if you can prove it or not? And if so, does that make it any less important?

Perhaps this is better suited for the philosophy forum...I couldn't decide where to put this. These are just some idle thoughts really, feel free to post your opinion on the subject if you like.

 

[BobW188]

To the extent that astrologers identified planets, stars and other celestial bodies, and developed ways to predict their movements, astrology certainly had its scientific aspects; but insofar as it purports to be a predictor of human events and behavior, the evidence just isn't there. We just haven't been shown that the positions and paths of stars and planets have predictable, measurable effects on us.

 

[Ruckhard82]

The phases of the moon have a profound pyschological impact on humans. But then again, we can see the moon easily with the naked eye. Astrology simply serves to provide a material basis for selling people on predictions. Certainly in the past the science of astronomy has been heavily linked to the practices of astrology, that is no longer the case. Astrology today is simply a mix of cold reading and the art of the vague prediction.

 

[Brother Cavil]

So perhaps the real question is, what classifies something as being unscientific? Is it the measure of effect it has on the world or the good it does to advance our knowledge of the universe?

Essentially, something is scientific if it's conclusions are arrived at through the scientific method. For example, evolution is considered scientific in nature, intelligent design/creationism, at present, is not. Similarly, astronomy is science, astrology isn't.

Or simply if you can prove it or not? And if so, does that make it any less important?

Nothing in science can ever be proven.

Astrology, in the modern world, is virtually meaningless, but the people that believed in it throughout history based their decisions on astrology, so it is certainly important in a historical context.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I think it's extremely fascinating. Most modern science regards Astrology as unscientific. Never the less, you cannot deny the profound effect it has had on the world as we know it. So perhaps the real question is, what classifies something as being unscientific? Is it the measure of effect it has on the world or the good it does to advance our knowledge of the universe? Or simply if you can prove it or not? And if so, does that make it any less important?

Perhaps this is better suited for the philosophy forum...I couldn't decide where to put this. These are just some idle thoughts really, feel free to post your opinion on the subject if you like.

Something's unscientific if it cannot substantiate its claims. Astrology claims to be able to predict your personality based on time and place of birth, or predict future events based on the current position of the planets (God help you if Mercury is retrograde!). But since it cannot verify either of these claims, it is unscientific.

The truth is that the 'predictions' of astrology are so vague as to be meaningless. Watch:

YouTube - James Randi on Astrology

 

[Gracchus]

Something's unscientific if it cannot substantiate its claims. Astrology claims to be able to predict your personality based on time and place of birth, or predict future events based on the current position of the planets (God help you if Mercury is retrograde!). But since it cannot verify either of these claims, it is unscientific.

The truth is that the 'predictions' of astrology are so vague as to be meaningless. Watch:

YouTube - James Randi on Astrology

I saw that one coming, and I didn't even have to consult the stars!

 

[Deadbolt]

Think about it, the universe is a very big place. So big that our position in it is quite meaningless. Many of the stars in constellations are as far or father from each other than we are from them and only seem to form shapes from this perspective. (Actually, the sky would look relatively similar in a pretty big area of out stellar neighbourhood.) Astrology is based on the positions of the physical planets (Balls of ice, gas or rock around a molten core) and the path of the sun (A massive sphere of burning hydrogen.) as it appears to move through the constellations AS VIEWED FROM THE MINUSCULE SPECK OF A PLANET THAT IS EARTH. The sun in fact does not move through these constellations, the planets wobble on their orbits and sometimes do not appear where astrologers would place them and a whole host of other things you don't even have to research. Just think about it. Knowing what you do about the way the universe actually works, Does it sound the least bit plausible in any way?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

When Halley questioned Newton as to why he considered astrology to be scientific Newton replied, "I have studied the matter Sir; you have not!"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When Halley questioned Newton as to why he considered astrology to be scientific Newton replied, "I have studied the matter Sir; you have not!"

Arrogant people are funny.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Arrogant people are funny.

I agree.

You know what's even more funny?

When an entire nation worships that person.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3151333.stm

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree.

You know what's even more funny?

When an entire nation worships that person.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3151333.stm

'Worship' is a tad strong. And to his credit, despite his belief in the supernatural, he still contributed massively to many fields of science and mathematics. His arrogance is funny, but his legacy is worthy of admiration.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

And to his credit, despite his belief in the supernatural

Newton didn't believe in the supernatural.

Newton believed God was natural.

And as Newton himself claimed in the Principia Book III General Scholium, the hypothesis of gravitation specifically relies upon the existence of God.

Therefore it is logically absurd to believe in Newtonian gravitation and be an atheist.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

he still contributed massively to many fields of science and mathematics.

Newton contributed to many fields of science, the vast majority of which have been customarily ignored.

His greatest contributions were in the scientific fields of alchemy and astrology.

"The science in which Newton seems to have been chiefly interested, and on which he spent most of his time was alchemy." -- Arthur S. Eddington, physicist, 1938

His calculus he plagiarized from Archimedes.

His hypothesis of gravitation he admittedly plagiarized from the ancients, e.g. Pythagoras, Democritus, Lucretius, and Plutarch.

"The atoms, as their own weight bears them down...." -- Lucretius, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

His arrogance is funny, but his legacy is worthy of admiration.

I concur.

 

[DaisyDay]

When Halley questioned Newton as to why he considered astrology to be scientific Newton replied, "I have studied the matter Sir; you have not!"

Cute, but is it true? Evidence says, "Unlikely". The actual reference seems to be:

More than 50 years ago the American historian of science I. Bernard Cohen[20] was able to trace it back to the highly regarded Newton biographies by the English physicist David Brewster (1781-1868) in which it is cited in full as:[21]

‘... when Dr. Halley ventured to say anything disrespectful to religion, he invariably checked him, with the remark, “I have studied these things – you have not”.’[22]​

 

[jayem]

Therefore it is logically absurd to believe in Newtonian gravitation and be an atheist.

Newtonian gravity isn't the standard model anymore. Gravity is now understood as part of Einstein's general relativity. (And there are quantum and other alternative theories, too.)

If it matters, Einstein was ambiguous about a supreme being. In some of his writings, he was vaguely deist. But one doesn't have to buy into a scientist's personal beliefs in order to accept his professional work.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Newtonian gravity isn't the standard model anymore.

A heretical view and thank God for it.

Gravity is now understood as part of Einstein's general relativity.

Understood by whom?

"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

"...the basic knock against general relativity would be that it's geometry, it's not physics, and so I think this is a 300-pound gorilla that's sitting in the room with redshift written on him and nobody sees him and this is why they don't see it." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, June 2007

"It is claimed that the LIGO and LISA projects will detect Einstein's gravitational waves. The existence of these waves is entirely theoretical. Over the past forty years or so no Einstein gravitational waves have been detected. How long must the search go on, at great expense to the public purse, before the astrophysical scientists admit that their search is fruitless and a waste of vast sums of public money? The fact is, from day one, the search for these elusive waves has been destined to detect nothing." -- Stephen J. Crothers, astrophysicist, August 2009

(And there are quantum and other alternative theories, too.)

Thank God for alternative theories.

If it matters, Einstein was ambiguous about a supreme being. In some of his writings, he was vaguely deist. But one doesn't have to buy into a scientist's personal beliefs in order to accept his professional work.

I agree. However if one is to believe in Newtonian gravitation it is a requirement that they be a creationist.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

 

[Tiberius]

Astrology simply serves to provide a material basis for selling people on predictions. Certainly in the past the science of astronomy has been heavily linked to the practices of astrology, that is no longer the case. Astrology today is simply a mix of cold reading and the art of the vague prediction.

+1

There's never been any solid evidence that astrology is accurate or any better than guessing.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

+1

There's never been any solid evidence that astrology is accurate or any better than guessing.

So you think that when astrologers refer to the constellations, they are just guessing which stars are named Orion?

 

[Tiberius]

So you think that when astrologers refer to the constellations, they are just guessing which stars are named Orion?

I would call identifying stars astronomy, not astrology.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I would call identifying stars astronomy, not astrology.

Historically astrology and astronomy were synonymous.

"Afterwards, when most of the inhabitants of Greece were destroyed by flood, and all records and ancient monuments perished with them, the Egyptians took this occasion to appropriate the study of astrology solely to themselves; and whereas the Grecians (through ignorance) as yet valued not learning, it became a general opinion that the Egyptians were the first that found out the knowledge of the stars." -- Diodorus Siculus, historian, ~1st century B.C.

 

[Tiberius]

Historically astrology and astronomy were synonymous.

So what?

I am saying that astrology - looking at the stars and planets and whatnot and saying that you can tell by those what personality I have, or what kind of day I'm going to have - is complete and utter rubbish.

I don't care what people though of astrology in the past.