# The power of the Planets



## pedro0001

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary "astrology" is defined as:

The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.

In Wikipedia there is a small report about astrology (which I don't thing is going to change your opinion about astrology, but at least there is a little history).

I, personally, don't believe in astrology. But I'm also atheist and don't even believe in the existence of the soul. 

I'm _frighten_ to see how many people do believe in astrology. Even some people I know and that I consider intelligent people believe in things like the _natal chart_ or in the _zodiac signs_.

I have two questions for this thread:

Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?
In case you don't, what do you think about the people who do believe?


----------



## cuchuflete

I believe in the beauty of daylilies.  To each his own.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

I don't see there's anything I can believe that astrology is real. As a currently-deist, I don't believe such supernatural events or soul either, I simply believe what science says.

I have many friends reading their horoscopes everyday, I think they follow simple Turkish saying: "Don't believe future telling, but keep listening to it."


----------



## Tsoman

I don't believe in astrology, but I do believe in the supernatural


----------



## cubaMania

> Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?


No, of course not.  After all this time there is not one single shred of evidence for it, and astrologers present us with no logical basis for their beliefs.



> In case you don't, what do you think about the people who do believe?


It is tempting to ascribe this to ignorance, lack of education, and probably most of the time it is.  However, I know one very intelligent, otherwise-rational, highly-educated person who believes astrology.  It is a complete mystery to me how this can be true.


----------



## pedro0001

Tsoman said:


> I don't believe in astrology, but I do believe in the supernatural



Don't you want to explain better what you mean?


----------



## pedro0001

cubaMania said:


> No, of course not. After all this time there is not one single shred of evidence for it, and astrologers present us with no logical basis for their beliefs.
> 
> 
> It is tempting to ascribe this to ignorance, lack of education, and probably most of the time it is. However, I know one very intelligent, otherwise-rational, highly-educated person who believes astrology.



As there is no evidence for the existence of God. Nevertheless many educated and intelligent people, as in your example, believe.



cubaMania said:


> It is a complete mystery to me how this can be true.



I feel for you.


----------



## la reine victoria

> *Pedro*
> As there is no evidence for the existence of God


 

Perhaps not to you, personally. He probably hasn't revealed himself to you or you haven't looked for him.

I believe in a "higher power" whatever name you like to give that power. I have plenty of evidence to support my belief (this topic has been discussed many times before in the forum). That is why I don't believe in astrology.

For those who do believe in it, that is entirely their own business.






LRV


----------



## pedro0001

la reine victoria said:


> Perhaps not to you, personally. He probably hasn't revealed himself to you or you haven't looked for him.



Even when He would have revealed himself to me, from the scientific point of view is no proof, no evidence. But let's remain on topic


----------



## Maja

cubaMania said:


> No, of course not. After all this time there is not one single shred of evidence for it, and astrologers present us with no logical basis for their beliefs.


Do you deny Moon's  influence on the tide as well?


----------



## argosdex

Utterly pointless discussion. Those that believe in a "higher" being will never be convinced otheriwise, some claim to have "evidence", however said evidence would never stand up in a court of law. At least not in countries where the laws were not written by religious fanatics.

Therefore when you claim that god told tou to do XYZ, if it's illegal you still go to jail.

Those who do NOT belive in a higher being and who base their opinion on scientific fact will never be convinced either, that there is some old man in a white beard wearing a toga that's going to punish you if you are a bad boy. He loves you but if you are bad he will kill you, and send you to a very bad place where there is lots of fire and pain that is run by a guy with horns in his forhead. 

Meanwhile a lot of us silently think, it's ok you can send me to hell, I'm married it can't be any worse than this.

Astrology is yet another pile of gibberish, like witches, elves, fairies, etc. So, there's 6, 7 (?) billion people on the planet and they all got the same basic 12 different characteristics depending on what day of the month they were born and according to the position of 8 planets, but ooops now it turns out that Pluto is not even a planet anymore. Wait a minute, I feel like I am changing... 

Back to the drawing board... must be a real pain having to do all those charts over again, I can just see the lawsuits.

Ultimately we humans are still very primitive, despite all our little electronic toys, and we're still very much afraid of the dark and of the uncertain, most people can't deal with this, so they cling to the idea that there is an afterlife or that they can chart out their lives and somehow have control over something they really don't.

But in a way I envy them because they will die a lot more at peace than I will, because all that's going to go through my head is, "oh boy, that's all folks".

Meanwhile I will live out my primitive, savage life in my 100 acres of land with my shotgun by my side and shoot at anyone that dares bring religion onto my property.


----------



## Tsoman

pedro0001 said:


> Don't you want to explain better what you mean?



I think that there is more than the physical world that we see around us. We go somewhere when we die.



There is no nothingness


----------



## Brioche

I don't believe in astrology.
I'm a Leo, and Leos aren't taken in by bunkum.


----------



## Daddyo

I believe in astrology. 
It doesn't matter to me that the planets are so far away that the next closest one would take me about five months to reach if I were travelling at about 60,000 miles an hour.
Never mind that the closest star is so far away that light takes a bit longer than four years to get there even travelling at the jaw-dropping speed of 299 792 458 m/s. 
Doesn't even matter that (as far as science can tell) the only long-range force in the universe is gravity, and as to gravitational influences in my life none can overcome the 5.976 × 1024 kilograms of Earth right under my feet.
Faith and, consequently, belief are irrational.
So I think that anyone that doesn't have a little something in their life that has to be taken on faith is missing out on a good chunk of the universe.


----------



## spakh

Simply, no.


----------



## Etcetera

I don't believe in astrology. I believe in God. 
Horoscopes are just silly. How can totally different people experience the same things just because they were born on one and the same day?


----------



## spakh

Etcetera said:


> I don't believe in astrology. I believe in God.
> Horoscopes are just silly. How can totally different people experience the same things just because they were born on one and the same day?


I just agree with you.


----------



## maxiogee

pedro0001 said:


> Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?
> In case you don't, what do you think about the people who do believe?



The expression "believe in" is usually only used when one is discussing things for which there has been no proof and for which there is no rational explanation. We tend not to talk of "do you believe in volcanoes" or "do you believe in French".

There are many things I don't believe.
Many people don't agree with me.
As long as they don't try to 'sell me' their beliefs that's fine by me.
As long as their beliefs don't impact on my life, that's fine by me also.

If Mary X consults an astrological chart before she decides where to go on holiday next year, good for her.
If Bill Y consults an astrological chart before deciding whether to employ me, I might begin to be worried.
If Prime Minister Z consults an astrological chart before enacting some law, that's going to seriously disconcert me.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> If Mary X consults an astrological chart before she decides where to go on holiday next year, good for her.
> If Bill Y consults an astrological chart before deciding whether to employ me, I might begin to be worried.
> If Prime Minister Z consults an astrological chart before enacting some law, that's going to seriously disconcert me.


Tony, that's great! Fine examples.  
I wholeheartedly agree with you.


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> Do you deny Moon's  influence on the tide as well?


Well we now know that the moon doesn't "influence" the tides, they react to its gravitational effects. Science proved that.

To suggest that the planets affect people in some way analogous with the moon affecting the tides, wouldn't those drawing up the charts need to know the size of the planets, their mass and their motion?

Would anyone here who believes in astrology care to show even one recognised study which proves it works?


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:


> Tony, that's great! Fine examples.
> I wholeheartedly agree with you.



Yes but, I feel exactly the same way about people who would insert "talks to God" where those examples have "consults an astrological chart"


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


pedro0001 said:


> Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?
> In case you don't, what do you think about the people who do believe?



No, I don't believe in astrology: the idea that the constellation of the universe, the planets, the stars could tell something about an insignificatant living creature on a small blue planet somewhere in the corner of this universe sounds pretty silly. Neither do I believe in  the supernatural, in small or big invisible friends, galactic Bob the Builders etc.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

I can't answer this question as I'm not interested in astrology today. I should study it to know after if I can believe it, if it has serious facts allowing me to believe it as a sort of "science".
Now, I can't tell (so I didn't vote as this option is not proposed!).


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator note:  We are talking about believing in astrology, not believing in God.  Please keep to the topic.

I see no reason not to believe that the planets influence us to some extent.

I see no reason to believe that we've arrived at such a sophisticated understanding that we can understand and interpret these influences...

... and therefore believe that astrology is hogwash.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Chaska Ñawi said:


> I see no reason not to believe that the planets influence us to some extent.
> I see no reason to believe that we've arrived at such a sophisticated understanding that we can understand and interpret these influences...
> ... and there believe that astrology is hogwash.



Your starting point is that there _are_ astrological influences, but that we (maybe) don't understand them (yet). How do you arrive at the idea that there _are_ 'these influences'?
Second question: why exactly the stars and the planets, and not, for example, the falling raindrops, the grass seeds flowing through the air, the movement of the ants, the place of dog dung on the pavement... [*edit: *or any other natural phenomenon].

Just wondering 

Frank


----------



## Maja

maxiogee said:


> Well we now know that the moon doesn't "influence" the tides, they react to its gravitational effects. Science proved that.


And that is not an influence???


maxiogee said:


> To suggest that the planets affect people in some way analogous with the moon affecting the tides, wouldn't those drawing up the charts need to know the size of the planets, their mass and their motion?


I didn't suggested that!!! But if it is proven (favorite word in this thread I see) that Moon's gravitation has a certain influence onto the nature of our planet, I don't see how can anyone easily dismiss a probability that other planets can have influences as well? It is rather inconsistent.


----------



## Maja

Etcetera said:


> How can totally different people experience the same things just because they were born on one and the same day?


As far as I know, "real" astrology is not based on that. Everyone has its own personal natal chart, and planets "influence" every persons differently depending on their natal charts!

I am not saying that I do believe, or that I don't. My position is: EVERYTHING is possible. Whether it is probable or likely to happen, that's another story!!! 

Many of you said: I believe in proof and science. Did science proved that there IS no God or that there is NO influence of the planets??? 
Science today is quite different that it was say 50 years ago... Scientists' "proofs" change every day, they refute their own claims and positions that they once vigorously defended... They dispute each other. One says this, other that... Where is certainty in that?
No, there is  much more to life than science and there are things that science cannot  explain!


----------



## pedro0001

Maja said:


> I am not saying that I do believe, or that I don't. My position is: EVERYTHING is possible. Whether it is probable or likely to happen, that's another story!!!



No, not everything is possible.



Maja said:


> Many of you said: I believe in proof and science. Did science proved that there IS no God or that there is NO influence of the planets???



We are talking here about the influence of the planets over the characteristics of a person, which somehow allows also the prediction of some instances in the live of the person. Of course that planets have influence on earth. For example, without Jupiter the Earth would be bombed with meteorits. But this is not the kind of influence we are discussing.



Maja said:


> Science today is quite different that it was say 50 years ago... Scientists' "proofs" change every day, they refute their own claims and positions that they once vigorously defended... They dispute each other. One says this, other that... Where is certainty in that?
> No, there is  much more to life than science and there are things that science cannot  explain!



I agree.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Maja said:


> Many of you said: I believe in proof and science. Did science proved that there IS no God or that there is NO influence of the planets???


I am terribly sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Nobody has to come up with proof that something is NOT, that something does not exist. That's not how science works.
From a scientific point of view, nobody has to prove God does *not* exist, or to stay on topic, nobody has to prove that there is *NO* *astrological* influence from the planets and stars.
BTW, I don't think that you can proove that there is *not* a magic green dwarf under my bed.



> Scientists' "proofs" change every day, they refute their own claims and positions that they once vigorously defended... They dispute each other. One says this, other that... Where is certainty in that? No, there is  much more to life than science and there are things that science cannot  explain!


After this paragraph, I start to doubt what you mean by "I believe in proof and science", since there seems to be some misunderstanding about what  science is about. 
A key phrase is "Science generally uses the formulation of *falsifiable hypotheses*." That's far away removed from your straw man argument that they 'dispute each other' and 'where is certainty in that?'

Some interesting articles about astrology can be found here.
Some introductory reading on science (What is science?) can be found here and here (edit: see the paragraph *What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty)*).

In short: nobody has to prove that astrology does not work. Somebody must prove it does. So far, nobody using the scientific method and the  scientific methodology could, however.

Take good care.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> I am not saying that I do believe, or that I don't. My position is: EVERYTHING is possible. Whether it is probable or likely to happen, that's another story!!!


No, not everything is possible. I am never, no matter what I do, going to be able to fly, or to walk on the surface of the moon having arrived there under my own power.




> Did science proved that there IS no God


Science has repeatedly asked those who say there is a god, who say that they 'know' this, for evidence. None has been forthcoming. Science says, as a result, that the existence of God cannot be proved. Not that there is no God, and not that the existence of God can never be proved, but that - at present - no evidence has been found.




> or that there is NO influence of the planets???


Science has challenged those who say that there is planetary influence to provide evidence, again, none has been offered which stands up to scientific scrutiny - i.e. offers results which are predictable, measurable, understandable and repeatable.




> Science today is quite different that it was say 50 years ago... Scientists' "proofs" change every day, they refute their own claims and positions that they once vigorously defended... They dispute each other. One says this, other that... Where is certainty in that?


It would appear that you are right, but true scientists make hypotheses, offer explanations, conduct experiments and publish their results. Then their colleagues try the same experiments, or try to find flaws in the logic. Science is a progress - a constant updating of knowledge - and does not require anyone to believe anything "because I say so", or "because I know it to be true, but cannot explain it."




> No, there is much more to life than science and there are things that science cannot explain!


This is very true, and science tries constantly to push back the boundaries of our ignorance, by bringing an open, sceptical and inquiring mind to bear on the dark areas of our interaction with the universe. Science accepts no boundaries to our knowledge, only current lacks in it.


The "things which science cannot explain" are getting fewer and fewer, and the ancient explanations for them are regularly and routinely found to be fallacious and non-sensical.


----------



## Maja

Frank06 said:


> Some introductory reading on science (What is science?) can be found here and here (edit: see the paragraph *What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty)*).


Thanks for the info. I am puzzled, however, why did you post this. If you don't believe that science is the truth, then what are we talking about here?


maxiogee said:


> The "things which science cannot explain" are getting fewer and fewer, and the ancient explanations for them are regularly and routinely found to be fallacious and non-sensical.


I respectfully disagree. Sure there are many, many things that we know now and didn't ten years ago. But even the scientist agree that one "because" opens several new "whys". In other words, as soon as they figure smt out, several more topics are being open.

If smt is NOT proven yet, it doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. Who is to say what "the science" will discover or find proofs for in 10 or 20 years... I just think we should be open-minded and wait to see what the future holds for us...


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> If smt is NOT proven yet, it doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. Who is to say what "the science" will discover or find proofs for in 10 or 20 years... I just think we should be open-minded and wait to see what the future holds for us...



You seem to misunderstand me.
I have said that people who have made claims about certain things have been asked by scientists to show how they work, that they can be predicted and repeated and verified. 
Those who make claims for astrology, homeopathy and other pseudo-sciences have all failed to meet these requests.
Science doesn't say that they don't work - those who claim that they do have been unable to show that they do. There is a _huge_ difference between a scientist saying "In laboratory conditions we invited Mr X to show that ABC works and he couldn't." and a scientist saying "ABC doesn't work." 
You will find few scientists who make such emphatic claims about anything —> it is not in their nature or training to reject things categorically.


----------



## Porteño

I may be a romantic or maybe just stupid, but I like to believe that there is something out there more powerful than our puny selves, although I would not attempt to define it. I like to believe that at some time in the past, men had knowledge and skills that have been lost in time  History shows us how civilizations have come and gone, some of which were, at the time, relatively advanced in scientific knowledge. Indigenous people have perceptions of time and relationship with the Earth which are beyong our comprehension. While I don't read nor believe in horoscopes, fortune tellers and other such trivia, it seems to me that astrology might pertain to one of those lost 'arts'. Today's purveyors thereof I consider to be nothing more than 'fortune seekers', but there are others, like many of the oriental gurus and Tibetan and Buddhist monks, who appear to have a better in-depth understanding of man's relation to the universe. 

Of course, I suppose everyone has asked the questions 'Why are we here?' or 'What's the purpose of life?' at some time during their lives but nobody has yet come up with a convincing answer yet, at least not for me  Therefore, I have to fall back on the idea that there is some extraterrestrial force or power out there that does know the answer and that maybe I will find that answer when I die.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Maja said:


> Thanks for the info. I am puzzled, however, why did you post this. If you don't believe that science is the truth, then what are we talking about here?



Why? Because I am surprised by your claims about what science is supposed to be.
And right now we're talking about the simple fact that science is not about truth and certainty. This is so _utterly basic_ in a discussion about science.

BTW, the "info" comes from the sites of the University of Georgia and California (Berkely), and were written by scientists. 
If my teeth need some care, I ask a dentist to have a look. If I need some information about science, I ask a scientist, since I think they know what they are talking about.

Take care.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Maja

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> Why? Because I am surprised by your claims about what science is supposed to be.


My claims? When did I claim anything of the sort? If you think I did, then you  misunderstood me.


Frank06 said:


> And right now we're talking about the simple fact that science is not about truth and certainty. This is so _utterly basic_ in a discussion about science.


 Here you are, going all touchy again! No need for anger and "implied"  insults... Really.


----------



## cuchuflete

There may be an option missing from the poll:
If you believe in a god or God, does that god or God believe in astrology?

This may seem absurd, at first, but for the believers in some sort of extra-human intelligence/force/creator or whatever they may ascribe to their it/IT, the question is pertinent.
Call it the theology of planetary objects, if you will.

1- (optional) Believe in a creator of the universe
2- That creator would have had to have made planets, suns, galaxies, etc.
3- (Question) Did that creator intend that such objects, together with the date of birth of another creation--human--should influence said human's life?

I suppose the absence of astro-physical material from the sacred books of some larger religions suggest that the believers in those religions should not accept astrology.
But....that's logical, and neither religion nor astrology depend on logic.


Hmmm...I think I'll stick to daylilies.  They are not logical either, but they sure are pretty.


----------



## Maja

maxiogee said:


> You will find few scientists who make such emphatic claims about anything —> it is not in their nature or training to reject things categorically.


 OK. I agree. Scientist usually don't reject things categorically. Nor did I attack the science or scientists!!! Don't get me wrong, I do go to a doctor.  I do believe in gravity, 3 main groups of clouds etc. 
But I  also know people who got better after seeing homoeopathist or acupuncturist...

I do have a question for you: if "astrology, homeopathy and other pseudo-sciences" meet requests and become proven, are you going to believe in them?


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> I do have a question for you: if "astrology, homeopathy and other pseudo-sciences" meet requests and become proven, are you going to believe in them?



One doesn't "believe in" facts. One accepts them. I accept that it is gravity which keeps me glued to the earth. If 'the memory of water' ever becomes proven, I'll probably die of shock. If anyone ever proves that my life would have been different if Saturn had been in a different place the day I was born, I'll want to read the evidence personally.


----------



## french4beth

maxiogee said:


> Those who make claims for astrology, homeopathy and other pseudo-sciences have all failed to meet these requests.
> Science doesn't say that they don't work - those who claim that they do have been unable to show that they do. There is a _huge_ difference between a scientist saying "In laboratory conditions we invited Mr X to show that ABC works and he couldn't." and a scientist saying "ABC doesn't work."
> You will find few scientists who make such emphatic claims about anything —> it is not in their nature or training to reject things categorically.


I'm not a scientist, but I'm a firm believer in homeopathy - I've used it many times over the years on myself & my children as an alternative to needless courses of antibiotics & other such medications. I cannot scientifically prove to you that it works, but have seen the results for myself.

I can't prove that oxygen is present, yet I can breathe & walk around. I can't prove that electricity exists or how it works, but if I flick a switch & something powers up , that's good enough for me.

If you look at the timeline of our planet, and imagine the introduction of the human species along this same timeline but with the earth's history being related to a 1 year period, it has been estimated that humans came along at approximately 11:59pm/23:59 hours. If the moon and other non-earth related forces have such an incredible impact on life on ur planet, I find it arrogant to think that these same forces would not have an incredible impact on our puny little species.


----------



## Etcetera

cuchuflete said:


> I suppose the absence of astro-physical material from the sacred books of some larger religions suggest that the believers in those religions should not accept astrology.
> But....that's logical, and neither religion nor astrology depend on logic.


I am just sure that Christianity disapproves of astrology, as well as of palmistry, fortune-telling, and so on. But my being a Christian isn't the only reason why I don't believe in astrology.


----------



## timpeac

Brioche said:


> I don't believe in astrology.
> I'm a Leo, and Leos aren't taken in by bunkum.


I'd like to say great answer! 

Anyway, back to the question. I find this question inadequately defined. What do you mean by "believe in"? Because of the lack of definition I find I have to answer yes and no.

No in the sense I think you probably mean. I don't believe that there is any direct influence of the position of astral bodies on our lives.

However, I don't think that "mystic" disciplines such as astrology are without value so yes in the sense that it can teach us something. I think that they provide a structure which allows you yourself to analyse your situation. It's like when you don't know what to do and you toss a coin. How often when you do that do you feel a twinge of annoyance that it has come up with one result showing that you knew the right answer all along?

Come on now - best of three?


----------



## Victoria32

pedro0001 said:


> According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary "astrology" is defined as:
> 
> The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.
> 
> In Wikipedia there is a small report about astrology (which I don't thing is going to change your opinion about astrology, but at least there is a little history).
> 
> I, personally, don't believe in astrology. But I'm also atheist and don't even believe in the existence of the soul.
> 
> I'm _frighten_ to see how many people do believe in astrology. Even some people I know and that I consider intelligent people believe in things like the _natal chart_ or in the _zodiac signs_.
> 
> I have two questions for this thread:
> 
> Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?
> In case you don't, what do you think about the people who do believe?


(I am a Christian and I believe in the existence of the soul - which I mention because you did...) and I absolutely do not believe in astrology! I know some people who take it very seriously.. and I just can't understand them, they are _otherwise intelligent people_! 
The main reason why not, is that I just can't see the (alleged) mechanism... How is it supposed to work?


----------



## maxiogee

Victoria32 said:


> (I am a Christian and I believe in the existence of the soul - which I mention because you did...) and I absolutely do not believe in astrology! I know some people who take it very seriously.. and I just can't understand them, they are _otherwise intelligent people_!
> The main reason why not, is that I just can't see the (alleged) mechanism... How is it supposed to work?



I'm not sure that this is a good enough reason not to accept it. 
We can't 'see' much of the solar wind, but it's there - and doing dreadful things to Mercury and Mars and would do to Earth also were it not for our magnetic field.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> I'm not sure that this is a good enough reason not to accept it.
> We can't 'see' much of the solar wind, but it's there - and doing dreadful things to Mercury and Mars and would do to Earth also were it not for our magnetic field.


True... but the 'influence' of the planets should be (as I know from my astrologer friends) over character, and I just can't see how that works (or is supposed to).
Plus, there's the argument someone else used in this thread. 1/12th of the population, shares characteristics with everyone else born that month... My brother and I, both Libra, were very similar - my ex and I (both Libra) very different!


----------



## tolkienmex

pedro0001 said:


> I have two questions for this thread:
> 
> Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?
> In case you don't, what do you think about the people who do believe?


 
I don't belive in astrology because to me is only a way to steal people, if you talk with an astroligist he'll only tell you about "misterious forces" but without any logical basis

I think that most of those who belive in it only use it as a hobby


----------



## geve

pedro0001 said:


> Do you believe in astrology? Why? Why not?


I believe that many many things, more than we'll ever know, have an influence on us to a certain extent. The various objects hanging out there in the sky may be one, I don't know... So I should probably vote "yes"? 
But then I don't believe that one can predict anything based on the analysis of just one factor of influence. There are just too many elements to be taken into account, no human mind can do the math. So I guess that would make me vote "no".

Since I don't know if you can vote twice in the same poll I haven't voted at all. 



maxiogee said:


> Homeopathy = quackery


The fact that we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean that something doesn't work. 
Ignaz Semmelweis is one example: he prompted doctors to wash carefully their hands before examining patients. For a while they did - reluctantly - and maternal mortality rate dropped from 12% to 3%. Impressive figure, isn't it? But since the influence of microorganisms on diseases was not to be discovered until 20 years later with Pasteur, he was thrown out of the hospital and died miserably. Doctors found it extremely tedious to wash their hands.
When my father was diagnosed with a particular syndrome (a syndrome, not a disease), we were told that a treatment could be performed. Science couldn't explain how the treatment could be efficient on the symptoms, there was no logical explanation, but it had proven to be efficient nonetheless. We didn't think once of saying "There is no scientific proof! I don't believe in it!"


[bonus gift: the memory of water illustrated - just for the beauty of the pictures ]


----------



## timpeac

Victoria32 said:


> How is it supposed to work?


As I said in my post - one possible way is simply by providing a framework for analysis so that you take what seems relevant.

For the 1/12 of the population bit - as I say, I'm not a believer in all this really but I understand that readings can be as accurate as you like if you know exact time and place of birth.


----------



## pedro0001

geve said:


> I believe that many many things, more than we'll ever know, have an influence on us to a certain extent. The various objects hanging out there in the sky may be one, I don't know... So I should probably vote "yes"?
> But then I don't believe that one can predict anything based on the analysis of just one factor of influence. There are just too many elements to be taken into account, no human mind can do the math. So I guess that would make me vote "no". Since I don't know if you can vote twice in the same poll I haven't voted at all.



I wanted to add one more option to the Poll but it was too late since there were too many votes already. 



geve said:


> The fact that we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean that something doesn't work.
> Ignaz Semmelweis is one example: he prompted doctors to wash carefully their hands before examining patients. For a while they did - reluctantly - and maternal mortality rate dropped from 12% to 3%. Impressive figure, isn't it? But since the influence of microorganisms on diseases was not to be discovered until 20 years later with Pasteur, he was thrown out of the hospital and died miserably. Doctors found it extremely tedious to wash their hands.



Exactly, at that moment the science was a still baby. Therefore, no one had the idea to analyze the correlation between washing hands and maternal and infant mortality. That would have been enough to prove the fact that washing helps. The actual reason might remain unknown, but the fact could have been proven.


----------



## Victoria32

timpeac said:


> As I said in my post - one possible way is simply by providing a framework for analysis so that you take what seems relevant.
> 
> For the 1/12 of the population bit - as I say, I'm not a believer in all this really but I understand that readings can be as accurate as you like if you know exact time and place of birth.


Well, sadly for me I don't - I was born in a time when mothers were often heavily medicated and not capable of taking note!
(Though I did with my sons, if they should ever want to know.) 
For me, it can only ever be within two-three hours...


----------



## geve

pedro0001 said:


> Exactly, at that moment the science was a still baby. Therefore, no one had the idea to analyze the correlation between washing hands and maternal and infant mortality. That would have been enough to prove the fact that washing helps. The actual reason might remain unknown, but the fact could have been proven.


He did - it was the whole point of his experiment! The mortality rate decreased, but no one could explain how handwashing could have played a part in this result, so the hypothesis was simply rejected by the scientific community. 
The tendency to say "I can't explain it, so it can't work" seems a bit childish to me - or vain.


----------



## maxiogee

Victoria32 said:


> True... but the 'influence' of the planets should be (as I know from my astrologer friends) over character, and I just can't see how that works (or is supposed to).
> Plus, there's the argument someone else used in this thread. 1/12th of the population, shares characteristics with everyone else born that month... My brother and I, both Libra, were very similar - my ex and I (both Libra) very different!



It shouldn't fall to me, an utter non-believer in the art to point out what anyone who speaks of Astrology _ought to know_ before they comment about it. "The Stars" as featured in newspapers and magazines bear about as much reality to astrology as alchemy does to pharmacy. 
True astrology is dependent not just on month of birth, but day and time, and even place. In true astrology twins would have different charts.
I honestly thought that everyone knew this.

Look at the stuff in the papers, and see if it isn't just "sound advice". It's written by the word, on demand, and the same writer often sends different texts to different publications. One can often see the same form of offering being made for different signs.


----------



## LV4-26

Can someone writing in a magazine predict what's going to happen to me in the next days, months or years ? Definitely not.
Can the precise relative position of the planets at the time and in the place I was born influence my future? Certainly not.
Can it influence some features of my personality? I don't know.

I didn't vote. I'd have voted for "I don't know".


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator Note:  Posts on the topic of homeopathy have been given their own thread in Cultura.  Please feel free to continue with the discussion of astrology, however.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> .............
> 
> Look at the stuff in the papers, and see if it isn't just "sound advice". It's written by the word, on demand, and the same writer often sends different texts to different publications. One can often see the same form of offering being made for different signs.


My mother was a believer, and now I have friends who are (New Age-y types for the most part), and I did know that, but even so, I still find the mechanism hard to accept... 

As I don't know my own time of birth, (though as I said, I took note of my sons' ones, in case they ever wanted to know) no one can accurately make a horoscope for me. 

Mind, I abominate a lot of things, Freudian psychotherapy, (supposedly scientific - hah!) and even homeopathy, although once again, I have friends who are believers... 

As the Americans say "go figure!"


----------



## timpeac

Since astrology has been around for millennia, I wonder how they would differentiate people in the past when accurate clocks were not common.


----------



## Outsider

LV4-26 said:


> Can the precise relative position of the planets at the time and in the place I was born influence my future? Certainly not.
> Can it influence some features of my personality? I don't know.


Take a look at what astronomer Phil Plait has to say about it.


----------



## Alxmrphi

The fundamental reason I disagree with astrology and hororscopes and dream books and all that rubbish is.
Ok...

a) let's take hororscopes, is it reasonable to assume that everyone born
within 3/4 weeks will have the SAME things happening to them, they are notoriously vague where everyone can "nearly always" extract a meaning from it *(Anyone seen Derran Brown and his essay about specific people? and they all said it scared them how close he was writing about their lives, and he did it for about 30 people, and it was all exactly the same letter?)*

b) Dream books / interpretation.

i) let's take a girl who grew up on a farm, running around vast open spaces with her three dogs running around her and barking and she is really happy, lying around and laughing and really enjoying herself

ii) now let's take city girl with no pets and a fear of open spaces, who was bitten by a dog and is really scared of them, when she was younger. If she has a dream about being in a field with loads of dogs around her barking her.

Now isn't it stupid for a book to assume if you dream of "dog + open space" that it would conjur up the same feelings for both people.

On a side-note, I do think we have some credible evidence to suggest the moon plays a part in our lives, it does control the waves and there have been some pretty convincing cases of lunatic studies.
As for the way "astrology" is labeled in our society today, I think that's a load of bull.


----------



## Outsider

Alex_Murphy said:


> On a side-note, I do think we have some credible evidence to suggest the moon plays a part in our lives, it does control the waves and there have been some pretty convincing cases of lunatic studies.


I don't think so.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I've read a few cases in my psychology lessons that were full studies, I wouldn't make up my mind because of a web page, though I am not saying that site isn't telling the truth.


----------



## Outsider

Fair enough, but you must know you shouldn't make up your mind based on the results of one or two studies, either. They may be just statistical fluctuations.


----------



## Alxmrphi

That's true as well, it was just, that site was based on statistics and the studies I looked at were scientific monitoring during month patterns, it seemed to have a little more cred. Ugh if only I could remember the name of the guy who did the study! 

I hate my memory! lol.


----------



## Victoria32

Alex_Murphy said:


> That's true as well, it was just, that site was based on statistics and the studies I looked at were scientific monitoring during month patterns, it seemed to have a little more cred. Ugh if only I could remember the name of the guy who did the study!
> 
> I hate my memory! lol.


I do know studies on astrology were done by Gauquelin (sp?) in the 1970s or 1980s... 

He claimed to have found an effect. AFAIK he's actually a Scientologist, which I offer for consideration...


----------



## Encolpius

There is a thread opened by myself about mother-in-laws...I've tried to find an answer why my mother and her daughter-in-law are getting along with each other so perfectly... The only rational answer is they have the same Zodiac, they are both Pisces...


----------



## Ёж!

I do not believe in astrology, yet think it is beautiful, this is why it deserves reverance. I think that the most foolish thing to do is to blame the ancients for its invention; any organisation of our knowledge about the world needs a guiding idea, and the idea of beauty is _a priori_ no worse than any other. In fact, it still governs our knowledge of the world, but on the more fine-grained level, in a more elaborate way, and together with two other ideas: that our world is homogenous, and that its physical motions can, in principle, be _understood_, that is, greatly _simplified_ in explanation, all, with no exceptions. Now let us try to look at the world with the eyes of the ancients: when the only regularity that we see around is the motion of stars, it is very natural in the best sense of the word, and I dare say it is very scientific, to try to find out how the rest of the world might depend on it. The systems of astrology had methods, the only problem is that their methods do not work.

I deeply reject the idea that astrology is about searching for a "higher power", a part of the world more respectful _and_ influental than we are. I also deeply reject the idea that the religion is about it. Many people would easily interpret both in such a way, because of people's inner wish to be governed, but this does not show that the goal of either the religion or astrology is to look for the deity to blindly serve to. The first is about people, the second is about the world; the first is about what remains to be learned, the second is about what the mankind successfully began to learn. The second is outdated, the first is not. Apart from both being not exactly mundane concepts (as well as science is not, by the way), I see nothing in common between them.

Still, I think that the whole of the universe is higher than we are, though I'd prefer not to think of it in terms of power or authority. Rather, I revere the universe's being so consistent, more consistent than we can ever be.


argosdex said:


> Those who do NOT belive in a higher being and who base their opinion on scientific fact will never be convinced either, that there is some old man in a white beard wearing a toga that's going to punish you if you are a bad boy.


This is a good proof that the religion is not about that. The question is: what it is about? What we study when listening to the religious literature are, in fact, we ourselves. What we study when trying to understand the God by any other means, the most important of which is just living, are, in the end, we ourselves, too.The fair conclusion is that, since we read fiction or religious  literature to know better ourselves and our life with other people, their goal is exactly that:  learning.

 Putting aside barbaric interpretations (by the way, churches often seem to insist on them, which is a pity and shows that churches often tend to be about politics, not religion), the religion is about truth, freedom, and healthiness – not about lie, restrictions or mental illness; this is why it was coined. There is a lot of devilry in ourselves that we don't understand. Literature – religious, fiction, and scientific – helps us to know it, and it helps us to know the world. Fiction, religion, and science all serve the same goal.


----------



## BezierCurve

> This is a good proof that the religion is not about that. The question is: what it is about? What we study when listening to the religious literature are, in fact, we ourselves. What we study when trying to understand the God by any other means, the most important of which is just living, are, in the end, we ourselves, too.The fair conclusion is that, since we read fiction or religious literature to know better ourselves and our life with other people, their goal is exactly that: learning.



I agree with your view on religion. Having tried to catch the glimpse of God in a few "major" religions I came to the conclusion, that in fact religious beliefs (which I consider something very far from any religious structures or organizations) are some sort of our own projection of what's deep inside our nature, what escapes our rational mind and what Jung would call archetypes.

At times I have a feeling that to explore that area we need to take that "naive" believing point of view to get there, otherwise when we try to define or explain these inner drives and images in a strictly scientific way something gets lost on the way (a view somehow shared by archetypal psychology, I believe).


----------



## Sepia

Tsoman said:


> I don't believe in astrology, but I do believe in the supernatural



Still, to determine what is supernatural we need to decide what we consider natural.


----------



## Mackinder

I believe in astrology because it is a science that exists like biology, economics, sociology, etc.


----------



## merquiades

I believe somewhat in Astrology but definitely not in those horoscopes they publish in newspapers or read on the radio.


----------



## djmc

My scepticism about astrology is profound. I would be slightly more convinced if those propounding it could identify any of the planets or indeed any of the constellations on the ecliptic or indeed explain why the idea of the ecliptic was  introduced.


----------



## learnerr

The idea of ecliptic is actually very natural and important, since it's the basis of the solar calendar, you won't do well with agriculture without it. The idea that celestial cycles have influence on earthly events is very natural, too, because it is natural and in line with the reductionist thought to suggest that more regular events cause and shape less regular ones, and ancient people even had examples of how movements in the sky correspond to changes on the earth (take regular weather changes, for example). I don't share your scepticism about astrology, though, since it's not a scientific idea anymore.


----------



## irinet

What influences  our planet directly, influences us indirectly.


----------



## djmc

I think learnerr misunderstood me. When I said I am sceptical I meant that I do not believe in astrology. For the ancients, even for modern navigators it is useful to be able to map the heavens (this is what the ecliptic is about). Very few astronomers either ancient or modern thought that heavenly bodies had any occult influence, but my point was/is that very few nowadays can look at the night sky and identify much more than the moon.


----------



## learnerr

Sorry for misunderstanding. But now my question is, what the ecliptic plane has to do with navigation? When making reference to the stars, we can make use of at least these two planes: the plane of the horizon (which is the one in relation to which we make direct measurement, which is why it is interesting), and the equatorial plane (which makes rather small changes of its angular position with time, that is, it is approximately constant in relation to the stars and the planets, which is why it is interesting). The method of juxtaposition of these two planes depends solely on the coordinates of the place where the measurement is being done, the local time in this place, the coordinates of the place where the equatorial coordinates of the celestial object were defined, and the local time in this place at the time of the measurement in the distant place. That's all, it does not depend on the month and the day of the measurement, unlike the method of juxtaposition of the horizon plane and the ecliptic plane; so, the coordinates of the celestial objects in the equatorial coordinates look to be more convenient for use in navigation than the ecliptic coordinates. What's wrong?

Next, the ecliptic plane shares with the equatorial plane the property of stability, it is even more stable in relation to the stars and the planets than the equatorial plane. Its advantage is that in it the Sun always belongs to the reference plane, and also that most planets are near it, too (with the exception for Pluto, which is not a planet anymore and which was not known until the XX century). So it appears to be a useful tool to describe Sun's motion around Earth, and thus useful for reckoning about calendars. Still, it looks that the invention of this notion had more effect on the history of people's illogical desire to know and organise their knowledge, rather than on the history of people's techniques for making useful things... I think, if an expert on astronomy and history could explain to us why the notion of ecliptic was probably invented and what impact it had on history of science, technology, culture and life, then it would be highly pertinent to this thread about astrology.

Back to the poll, I think the question is somewhat incorrect. One can believe in astrology in many ways. As for me: do I believe that astrology allows to predict things? No. Do I believe that astrology is connected with something supernatural? No. Do I believe that astrology permits to describe people well? Partly; astrology may initiate necessary thought about the persons in question. Do I believe that astrology is beautiful in its design and fascinating in its history? Yes, I do. It's just my belief, since I do not have enough knowledge neither about it, nor about its history.


----------

