Who Here Believes in Horoscopes?

[NarutoKage2]

Apparently people still do, some very fervently.

For instance, a personal friend of mine was completely convinced of the literal validity of the following:

The zodiac states that your'e more likely to get along with someone who has a star not sandwiching you, e.g if your a Pisces,your'e less likely to get along with an Aries, or an Aquarius, but you'll be fine in compatibility with a Taurus or a Capricorn, i.e each star after a gap from the ones directly succeeding or preceding yours. Conversely, stars falling within the 'sandwich zone' might not be openly hostile to you, but your nature will always conflict with theirs at some point.

FYI: Astrology owes its origins to ancient greek astronomy(a fact very well detailed by Carl Sagan in his book 'the cosmos'). Originally, ancient man did not differentiate between what we today recognize as the 'natural sciences'(physics,chemistry, geology,biology etc) and superstitious belief. So, while there was originally a legitimate study of the heavenly bodies that we observe at night, it was simultaneously mixed with an assertion of purpose, and belief. But like much from the ancient world, this 'belief' has endured to this day.


What do you think about astrology? Do you think the horoscopes are anything other than a deliberately vague assertion of future events, or is there somehow some truth to them?

My personal thoughts:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[Ricardo]

I don't believe in that. I think it's just coincidence.

 

[DominiqueX]

I think it's bulls!t, nothing more, nothing less :/

 

[Mellow]

idk but theyre pretty accurate.

 

[Avani]

Apparently people still do, some very fervently.

For instance, a personal friend of mine was completely convinced of the literal validity of the following:

The zodiac states that your'e more likely to get along with someone who has a star not sandwiching you, e.g if your a Pisces,your'e less likely to get along with an Aries, or an Aquarius, but you'll be fine in compatibility with a Taurus or a Capricorn, i.e each star after a gap from the ones directly succeeding or preceding yours. Conversely, stars falling within the 'sandwich zone' might not be openly hostile to you, but your nature will always conflict with theirs at some point.

FYI: Astrology owes its origins to ancient greek astronomy(a fact very well detailed by Carl Sagan in his book 'the cosmos'). Originally, ancient man did not differentiate between what we today recognize as the 'natural sciences'(physics,chemistry, geology,biology etc) and superstitious belief. So, while there was originally a legitimate study of the heavenly bodies that we observe at night, it was simultaneously mixed with an assertion of purpose, and belief. But like much from the ancient world, this 'belief' has endured to this day.


What do you think about astrology? Do you think the horoscopes are anything other than a deliberately vague assertion of future events, or is there somehow some truth to them?

My personal thoughts:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Aquarius traits fit me a lot .. what can I say. ( yes if you read you can fit in most descriptions in any of the zodiac or at least 3-4 of them)

Whether the star affect us or not ( Scientific logic says no and I can't remember if anything my horoscope told me, happened that year or came true for me ever) it sure is interesting and fun to read the types of personalities according to stars by LG.

PS: Sometimes, some of the coincidence are freaky.

 

[Lyke]

bullshit .

 

[Dantee]

Probably bs but since I like my sign i indulge it from time to time.

 

[Alien X]

the planets positioning and the solar Ecliptic only signifies when a sodiac/constellation is at its "period", or rather said when its overshadowed by the sun. ,these 12 constellations crosses a specific Ecliptic line through the year.

You can certainly believe that you are related to the solar system in various ways, but with distant stars? not really . Why would i ever think there is connections between me and a star like regulus.

 

[Ciao]

It's fun to read but shouldn't be taken as prophetic advice or whatever

 

[Urda]

Not a strong believer. But it's fun to read.

#TeamScorpio

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

<div class="bbWrapper">They're cancer. Pun intended.<br /> <br /> Anyone can do them.<br /> <br /> Scorpio, eh? You're going to be happier some time soon but this will quickly decline with the weather.</div>

 

[Narushima]

Telling horoscopes is a very important part of the enterprise known as science. In fact, arguably it is the most prominent aspect of science in the social context of the real world because more often than anything else, the testing of a novel prediction is what makes or breaks a theory.

Take the example of that scientific legend, Albert Einstein. What made that man so famous was actually a particular foretelling of the future.

When Einstein formulated his theory of general relativity (his most significant unique contribution to physics), the one that says space and time have a unified physical-geometric structure and that gravity is fundamentally distortions in that structure, he made a very distinctive prediction: that light coming to us from nearby stars would be bent by our sun.

This is important because in classical physics, as we learn about in high-school, gravity is supposed to be nothing more than an attraction between objects with mass. Light does not have mass. Ergo light should not interact with massive objects like the sun at a distance.

But in general relativity, even mass-less objects like light cannot escape the influence of gravity because it moves in space (and gravity is just what happens when you move through a curved area in space).

In 1919 the English scientist Arthur Eddington tested that foretelling of Einstein's by going on a journey to Africa to look at a total solar eclipse (a solar eclipse was needed for this test because we need to observe star-light passing the sun in its journey to us but this is only possible during an eclipse as star-light is otherwise visible only at night where we face away from the sun). Technical story short, if our sun does bend light then the apparent positions of nearby stars in the background would be distorted when compared to the same image of the star cluster taken at night.

The results of that historic experiment was consistent with general relativity but inconsistent with classical physics. Albert Einstein became a household name not too long after.
*
Since then, the crystal ball known as the theory of general relativity has made many novel fortunes about physics and nearly all of them have been confirmed.

The last remaining fortune of that crystal-ball as used by physicists in Einstein's day has been discussed in another thread by Waindo (gravitational waves are among the last of GR's predictions that haven't been demonstrated with indubitable certainty).

Science is nature's horoscope. Hey I should write that one down, I just made it up but it looks like a half-decent aphorism, don't you think?

Of course not all horoscopes about nature are equal. Some like general relativity are constructed on observable physical patterns, can be readily tested, and the tests are replicable. Others like astrology are not.

Psychologists these days tout various alternatives to horoscopes - personality tests etc. Just how much more reliable those are than traditional horoscopes I am personally not too sure though.

*

Spoiler

* Ok I simplified that a bit to dramatize the narrative - classical physics does account for very slight bending of light by stars but the bending in reality is very large and only GR can account for this .

 

[Jack Spicer]

I'm open to believing anything, but I don't really believe in this. Again, open to, but just don't. I do like randomly reading them though.

 

[BLAZE]

no i don't

 

[Dark Sonic]

Nope.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Psychologists these days tout various alternatives to horoscopes - personality tests etc. Just how much more reliable those are than traditional horoscopes I am personally not too sure though.

Rather than basing your future, your personality, and your relationships to stars and planets, Psychology uses the MTBI (and other) personality tests using your BRAIN, a physical construct of neurons which comprise your mind and personality. In other words, Psychology has empirical evidence for a personality test, and horoscopes have jack ****.

 

[Narushima]

Rather than basing your future, your personality, and your relationships to stars and planets, Psychology uses the MTBI (and other) personality tests using your BRAIN, a physical construct of neurons which comprise your mind and personality. In other words, Psychology has empirical evidence for a personality test, and horoscopes have jack ****.

Come on Freakenstein you're a natural scientist so you should know well that the social sciences are always to be the butt of our jokes.

I've been told I need to work on my sense of humour. I find dry humour the easiest personally.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Aquarius traits fit me a lot .. what can I say. ( yes if you read you can fit in most descriptions in any of the zodiac or at least 3-4 of them)

Whether the star affect us or not ( Scientific logic says no and I can't remember if anything my horoscope told me, happened that year or came true for me ever) it sure is interesting and fun to read the types of personalities according to stars by LG.

PS: Sometimes, some of the coincidence are freaky.

Make anything vague and random enough and it could apply to almost anyone.

Maybe it can be fun, but its a slippery slope from there to embracing superstitions(in general).

Spoiler

Telling horoscopes is a very important part of the enterprise known as science. In fact, arguably it is the most prominent aspect of science in the social context of the real world because more often than anything else, the testing of a novel prediction is what makes or breaks a theory.

Take the example of that scientific legend, Albert Einstein. What made that man so famous was actually a particular foretelling of the future.

When Einstein formulated his theory of general relativity (his most significant unique contribution to physics), the one that says space and time have a unified physical-geometric structure and that gravity is fundamentally distortions in that structure, he made a very distinctive prediction: that light coming to us from nearby stars would be bent by our sun.

This is important because in classical physics, as we learn about in high-school, gravity is supposed to be nothing more than an attraction between objects with mass. Light does not have mass. Ergo light should not interact with massive objects like the sun at a distance.

But in general relativity, even mass-less objects like light cannot escape the influence of gravity because it moves in space (and gravity is just what happens when you move through a curved area in space).

In 1919 the English scientist Arthur Eddington tested that foretelling of Einstein's by going on a journey to Africa to look at a total solar eclipse (a solar eclipse was needed for this test because we need to observe star-light passing the sun in its journey to us but this is only possible during an eclipse as star-light is otherwise visible only at night where we face away from the sun). Technical story short, if our sun does bend light then the apparent positions of nearby stars in the background would be distorted when compared to the same image of the star cluster taken at night.

The results of that historic experiment was consistent with general relativity but inconsistent with classical physics. Albert Einstein became a household name not too long after.
*
Since then, the crystal ball known as the theory of general relativity has made many novel fortunes about physics and nearly all of them have been confirmed.

The last remaining fortune of that crystal-ball as used by physicists in Einstein's day has been discussed in another thread by Waindo (gravitational waves are among the last of GR's predictions that haven't been demonstrated with indubitable certainty).

Science is nature's horoscope. Hey I should write that one down, I just made it up but it looks like a half-decent aphorism, don't you think?

Of course not all horoscopes about nature are equal. Some like general relativity are constructed on observable physical patterns, can be readily tested, and the tests are replicable. Others like astrology are not.

Psychologists these days tout various alternatives to horoscopes - personality tests etc. Just how much more reliable those are than traditional horoscopes I am personally not too sure though.

*

Spoiler

* Ok I simplified that a bit to dramatize the narrative - classical physics does account for very slight bending of light by stars but the bending in reality is very large and only GR can account for this .

I think your definition of a horoscope differs fundamentally from mine. Also, in what respect are horoscopes able to make any 'predictions' that can be validated(sth that the scientific theories you mentioned could do) ?

Btw, i do agree in one sense, that the history of astronomy owes its existence to its predecessor astrology but that's about it.

Rather than basing your future, your personality, and your relationships to stars and planets, Psychology uses the MTBI (and other) personality tests using your BRAIN, a physical construct of neurons which comprise your mind and personality. In other words, Psychology has empirical evidence for a personality test, and horoscopes have jack ****.

But are those tests predictive, i.e can they explain an individual's likely future course/s of action?

 

[Deadlift]

People believing in horoscopes make me have doubt about the evolution of the mankind

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Come on Freakenstein you're a natural scientist so you should know well that the social sciences are always to be the butt of our jokes.

While it's true that psychology is the newest science by about 50 years and it has a lot of catching up to do, it is still applied Biology by being the study of the brain and mind. We should at the very least give it several modica of affirmation than astrology, because Psychology still uses the scientific method and measures and tests their hypotheses with experiments. Astrology does not. In this regard, Psychology is both a social and natural science.

But are those tests predictive, i.e can they explain an individual's likely future course/s of action?

Not to a T, but generally, yes. There are obviously degrees of bias and error, but that's indicative of every science we know. It depends on just how small the error is and how precise and accurate its measurements are.