Science isn't about describing the universe based on certain preconceptions, it's about developing theories that explain observable phenomena. How does that describe Astrology?
All I see here are twelve constellations mapped out with relative positions of some planets in there.
What I don't see is what effect the moon's relative position has on my chart. Or Charon, or Sedna, or Quaoar, or Titan. I also don't see the effect of the Galactic Hub or the Andromeda Galaxy or the 150+ extrasolar planets we've discovered so far, or the millions of tons of rock in the asteroid belt. Why? Because astrologers choose to ignore those things because they're inconvenient.
These charts are pure fiction, so it doesn't matter what they include or what they omit, because it would have absolutely no meaningful bearing on the outcome.
On any chart or astrological analysis there are enough sufficiently general statements that at least some of them would apply to anyone (things like "You like to be loved" or "You are sometimes extroverted sometimes introverted"). And because people like to believe in magic, we'll only notice the hits and ignore the misses.
It might as well say "Tomorrow you'll wake up, do a bunch of stuff and then go back to sleep". The only people that won't apply to are people in comas... and they can't read horoscopes.
It's very compelling, and as I said a useful tool for self analysis, but there is no scientific basis for it whatsoever.
I think it bears reporting that ScienceDaily has since removed the horoscopes from their site following many concerned emails from science enthusiasts.
Don't get me started...it is so a science!
ReplyDeleteLike Intelligent Design, Astrology is not completely worthless, it's just not science.
ReplyDeleteThere is some value in using astrology as a tool for self analysis (tips hat to JB), but there's nothing scientific about it.
Here's why:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
Oh, bllllllrrrrrrrrrr!!!
ReplyDeleteFor every page you find that disses astrology I can find ten who don't...what is your point?
My point is Astrology is not science.
ReplyDeleteScience isn't about describing the universe based on certain preconceptions, it's about developing theories that explain observable phenomena. How does that describe Astrology?
Have you ever seen a proper astrological chart based on birth time and date and planetary alignment? Clearly not.
ReplyDeleteYes I have.
ReplyDeleteHere's mine
All I see here are twelve constellations mapped out with relative positions of some planets in there.
What I don't see is what effect the moon's relative position has on my chart. Or Charon, or Sedna, or Quaoar, or Titan. I also don't see the effect of the Galactic Hub or the Andromeda Galaxy or the 150+ extrasolar planets we've discovered so far, or the millions of tons of rock in the asteroid belt. Why? Because astrologers choose to ignore those things because they're inconvenient.
These charts are pure fiction, so it doesn't matter what they include or what they omit, because it would have absolutely no meaningful bearing on the outcome.
On any chart or astrological analysis there are enough sufficiently general statements that at least some of them would apply to anyone (things like "You like to be loved" or "You are sometimes extroverted sometimes introverted"). And because people like to believe in magic, we'll only notice the hits and ignore the misses.
It might as well say "Tomorrow you'll wake up, do a bunch of stuff and then go back to sleep". The only people that won't apply to are people in comas... and they can't read horoscopes.
It's very compelling, and as I said a useful tool for self analysis, but there is no scientific basis for it whatsoever.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Would you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteI think it bears reporting that ScienceDaily has since removed the horoscopes from their site following many concerned emails from science enthusiasts.
ReplyDeleteHere's the story.