I suspect that astrological charts are at least as accurate as Patriarchal Blessings. Mine (the latter) was over 50 correct while science has found predictions based on astrology are about 50/50 -- the same odds as chance.

Clipped from Wiki -- if you care: "Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.[1]:424 The most famous test was headed by Shawn Carlson and included a committee of scientists and a committee of astrologers. It led to the conclusion that natal astrology performed no better than chance. Astrologer and psychologist Michel Gauquelin claimed to have found statistical support for "the Mars effect" in the birth dates of athletes, but it could not be replicated in further studies.[2]:213–214 The organisers of later studies claimed that Gauquelin had tried to influence their inclusion criteria for the study by suggesting specific individuals be removed. It has also been suggested, by Geoffrey Dean, that the reporting of birth times by parents (before the 1950s) may have caused the apparent effect."

More from Wiki: "Astrology has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity,[1][3]:85 and is thus regarded as pseudoscience.[4][5]:1350 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth in the way astrologers say they do that does not contradict well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.[6]:249[7]"

So much for the science.

What I was wondering about -- why do I find it so annoying? People often use it to smugly announce that they know all about you, know you better than you know yourself, because they know your birth sign. It's not only irritating as h*ll, the people I know who do that are observably stupid at people and tend to not know anything important about anyone, often including themselves. What's up with that? I think they turn to astrology to help them feel one up on a new acquaintance and say what's your sign -- because they are rather social idiots who don't know how to get to know anyone genuinely.

Others treat signs as a club -- and you're not in it -- neiner neiner neiner. I have one friend to whom it is a Big Deal that she shares the same birth sign as her dad -- and Bob Dylan. Of course her poetry is NOWHERE as well known as the last and she isn't quite the loved bon vivant her father was, but WHATEVER. She can feel she shares something with them -- and she makes it perfectly clear she is SUPERIOR because of her sign.

Also the ethno-centrism makes me nuts. Let's say you are a Aborigine living in Australia. Some completely goofy white woman half way around the world is going to tell you all about yourself -- and this will be based on constellations you rarely or never see which have been grouped, stories told about them, in cultures that have NOTHING to do with yours traditions and stories as alien to them as they are to us. Kind of the very definition of ethnocentric, wouldn't you say? Makes the Mormon missionaries look good, human, in comparison.

Alrighty!

I bear my testimony that no matter what science says, astrology has worked in my life and can work in yours.

Would you like to know more?

All that calculating, writing stuff down, consulting charts and tables, while knowing all that time that the stars can only impel, they do not compel.

Why not just ask your friendly neighborhood Ouija board, which giveth liberally and upbraideth not?

I would like to bear my testimony of Ouija boards. . .

The Magic 8 Ball says “ask again later”.

"All that calculating, writing stuff down, consulting charts and tables" were actually the only things about astrology that appealed to me when I dabbled back in the day.

In ancient times eclipses and other unusual signs were suppose to mean something bad (or good) was gunna happen. Like the sign of Abraham's birth that scared Nimrod, or Moses birth that scared Pharaoh. Nat Turners rebellion also happened after an eclipse. Astrology is something we probably don't pay enough attention to.
And I"m sure there are other events linked to astrology that I"m not remembering right now.

There's a name for that. It's called "coincidence". The fancy name is "post hoc fallacy"

You guys are a hoot.

Thanks for making me laugh my way out of my snit.

As for the rather serious fellow -- er -- you are kidding, right? There were NO celestial events that portended the sinking of the Titanic, the fall of Paris to the Nazis, the Rwandan genocide, the detonation of the first atomic bomb, the Yellowstone quake, the assassination of Lincoln, the assassination of Kennedy, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the Haymarket riot, the death of Jonestown, the eruption of Mount Tambora, the Wreck of the Hesperus, the Great Quake of San Francisco, the Great Chicago Fire, any of the times London burned to the ground, the rise of Stalin... I could go on as long as I had breath.

Something happens after every eclipse for an extremely simple and obvious reason -- something is always happening here on earth. "Oh look! An eclipse! Something (and of course we have no idea what that something is or where it will be) is going to happen!" "Oh look! No eclipse! Something (and of course we have no idea what that something is or where it will be) is going to happen!"

As a predictive measure, it's worthless.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2019 12:54PM by janeeliot.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a predictive measure, it's worthless.

Mormons just put their predictive powers of the heavens out lightyears away to Kolob and only their authorized by Kolob priesthood reps can receive a "predictive measure" from there.

He went in at length yesterday about how UCLA was a waste of money, has said that the quadratic equation, which Babylonians had figured out 3,500 years ago, is a waste of time in school, yet thinks we need to be open minded about astrology, and he thinks climate change is a big fat lie (his exact words, multiple times) and we would all realize that if only we had a stat class and understood the limits of linear regression.

All people make mistakes. But some people come down so unerringly on the side of pseudoscience that they clearly have a working baloney detector, theirs is just wired backwards.

And not to pick on this particular poster. He has plenty of company, and all of them can post opinions I find insightful, given the right subject. Hey, they all got out of Mormonism. But oy, the pseudoscience. I think they finally burned out ificouldhietokolob!

As the only true prophet, seer, and revelator said: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

In short, it is not this poster's astrological sign that is the problem here.

The combination of spiritual credulity and political impulse (not "thought") is a real problem at RfM.

A moderator once told me that the misogyny and racism here were definitely violations of board rules but that s/he thought it should be allowed because those who expressed it would learn from debate with the objects of that bigotry. I think the passage of time has shown that to be unduly optimistic. As "anybody" once wrote, we live in a post-factual era in which a great number of people are not interested in science or evidence or analysis. What they want is the freedom to believe and act as they please without being held to account for the accuracy of their views.

Dostoevsky and Nietzsche wrote of the late 19th century in similar terms. There are times in history, they said, when people rebel against science and logic and order and embrace unadulterated emotion. Nietzsche went on to explain that such movements often result in political totalitarianism and great human suffering.

Those words merit consideration. Reconciliation with those who willfully refuse to recognize empirical facts is impossible even when the moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2019 05:50PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
As "anybody" once wrote, we live in a
> post-factual era in which a great number of people
> are not interested in science or evidence or
> analysis. What they want is the freedom to
> believe and act as they please without being held
> to account for the accuracy of their views.
>
> Dostoevsky and Nietzsche wrote of the late 19th
> century in similar terms.

This seems true, but very, very depressing. Dostoevsky, of course, understood the bad craziness Russia was headed into in the next century. And Nietzsche foreshadowed Nazism.

Oh yay

Yes, Nietzsche was adamantly opposed to nationalism and anti-Semitism, but he saw where things were heading. It is the height of irony, and tragedy, that his sister and the Nazis appropriated his name and legacy to enhance the movement's legitimacy.

But as you note, the deeply religious Dostoevsky and the deeply atheistic Nietzsche both saw where Europe was heading.

“What they want is the freedom to believe and act as they please without being held to account for the accuracy of their views.”

Isn’t that what America is all about?

There’s also the issue of truth being in the eye of the beholder. The search for truth led us out of Mormonism and in many cases wrecked our lives. The truth matters, but whose truth?

What of the Mormon experience? Did it not happen? I know I’m not crazy. Metaphysics is the confusing part of Mormonism, the part that you can’t wash off like spraying dog poop off your shoe.

> “What they want is the freedom to believe and
> act as they please without being held to account
> for the accuracy of their views.”
>
> Isn’t that what America is all about?

America is all about the "freedom to believe... as they please." It is NOT about the freedom to "act as they please without being held to account." That is why religious murder is illegal; polygamy is illegal; discrimination on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity, and gender, unconstitutional.

Nor is America all about the freedom to not be "held to account for the accuracy of their views." The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to say anything one wants short of certain constraints such as inciting violence or ruining people's reputations via libel or slander. More importantly, the First Amendment gives the opponents of one's views the right to criticize them.

So no, the United States is not "all about"the freedom... to act as they please without being held to account." It is about freedom of belief, speech and action within legal limits and subject to the rights of others.


-------------------
> There’s also the issue of truth being in the eye
> of the beholder. The search for truth led us out
> of Mormonism and in many cases wrecked our lives.
> The truth matters, but whose truth?

Some truths are not up for debate. The rights of people are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and a few other amendments. One cannot assert, and act on the notion that, those of different ethnicities or appearances qualify for the rights innumerated in the constitution. People can harbor those beliefs, but if they at on them they should be imprisoned like polygamists.

And there is never and nowhere a right to silence and silence the advocates of science. People are free to assert that research, analysis, data, facts, etc., are wrong, but they have no right to tell others to shut up about those facts. Put the other way round, those who disagree with you have the freedom to present, without constraint, views that the obscurantists disfavor.


-------------
> What of the Mormon experience? Did it not happen?
> I know I’m not crazy. Metaphysics is the
> confusing part of Mormonism, the part that you
> can’t wash off like spraying dog poop off your
> shoe.

Agreed. The danger I indicate is different: it is when people carry into ex-Mormonism their epistemological habits, namely the notion that political or social power empower them to tell others to shut up about facts.

There are a cohort of posters here who, like some groups in broader society, think that they can speak and act as they want in defiance of reality. As long as they act within the bounds of constitutional and legal propriety, have at it. But don't ever, ever tell us that we are wrong to insist that actual facts are unacceptable in a dialogue.

You must mean the posters who just don’t listen. It’s hard to carry on a one way conversation. You can usually pick up on the buzzwords of indoctrinated people. When you ask what those words mean, they don’t know.

I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average person. The right to have and voice stupid beliefs, as long as you don’t hurt anybody, is the great innovation of American law. The only way to tell if someone is crazy is to let them talk.

This formulation is a little too self-serving to your own (and anybody's) political views and political 'side' to let go by.


Our era is "post-facial" for multifarious reasons; but not least of which because, one, craven, corrupt elites have lied and lied and lied. People have noticed. Their greed seems boundless, as does their heedlessness, and their lack of care for people and the environment is felt in the everyday lives of almost everybody. But also, the very institutions that are tasked to hold Power to account, and to offset Power's ill consequences, have failed, utterly. People simply do not believe the elites and the institutions designed to keep the elites in check. Nor should they.

So it is for good and obvious reasons that people are trying to form their own opinions.

What "anybody" calls "the freedom to believe and act as they please without being held to account" is the natural desire to be free from the lies and cons of the elite, and free from the Institutions that would rather bully everyday people than to hold Power to account.

When you use the word "rebel" in, "when people rebel against science and logic and order" you leave out why people feel it necessary to rebel. It's not because they have embraced "unadulterated emotion", an overstatement at best, but because people have noticed that "science" lies and cheats them, "logic" is used to cheat and bully them, and "order" is used to shut them up and keep them in their place. The emotion is justified.

And then on top of it all, you satirize the people's legitimate emotions and place them all beyond "reconciliation". You believe people, *those* people, are beyond conversation. In other words, you ape the very attitudes Power and the failed Institutions of our era have towards everyday people.


Now I bet you'd like some examples.*** I stripped them out because leaving them in would invite being scrubbed. We would quibble and disagree a lot on the examples, I think. But the overall point is the condescending, demeaning attitude and the finger-pointing (I'd say insufferable if I was addressing someone else). You punch down in an era when we should be punching up, waaaaaaaaaaay up.

If we limit ourselves to the failing neo-liberal order of the past 40 or so years, step by step by step it can be shown that elites have grown bolder, greedier and more reckless *precisely* because no one holds them to account. Not once. As a consequence, the planet and its people have suffered.

We are where we are NOT because all of a sudden people have grown more irrational and emotional than some other time. We are where we are because elites have withdrawn an emotional connection to the planet and to the people, and have mindlessly pursued their "logic" no matter the consequences and no matter how faulty their premises have been shown to be. They continue on this path because it serves them; but even more to the point, NO ONE IS HOLDING THEM TO ACCOUNT. Those who should be, who are tasked to do so, as I have said, are too busy punching down.

Bottom line: Institutions ('order', 'logic', 'evidence', 'empiricism', 'analysis' what-you-will) serve the elite and not the people. People have noticed. Their thoughts and emotions are legitimate.

As to the spectre of Totalitarianism: it comes about not because everyday people are too emotional and too illogical, but because Institutions fail to do their jobs. You are victim blaming. Stop punching down.

Human, unsurprised people are putting their Yellow-Vests on...


***See John Ralston Saul, Sheldon Wolin, Mark Blyth, Richard Wolff, Chris Hedges, and others...


(Lot's Wife, I welcome you and others taking this apart if desired; but time won't allow me to respond. Cheers.)

> Our era is "post-facial" for multifarious reasons;
> but not least of which because, one, craven,
> corrupt elites have lied and lied and lied.

You say that there was/is an order that is informed by lies. That is true. The lies conceal the facts. That is why more lies, more disavowal not just of facts but of the utility of facts is so horribly wrong. There are people here who frequently say things about race or women or politics and then assert that no one has the right to challenge their views because all views are equal regardless of those facts. That is the attitude of people who want social and political powers to insist upon a certain "reality;" it is the basis of totalitarianism.


---------------
> People have noticed. Their greed seems boundless,
> as does their heedlessness, and their lack of care
> for people and the environment is felt in the
> everyday lives of almost everybody. But also, the
> very institutions that are tasked to hold Power to
> account, and to offset Power's ill consequences,
> have failed, utterly. People simply do not
> believe the elites and the institutions designed
> to keep the elites in check. Nor should they.

I don't believe any elites should be liberated from responsibility for facts. My point is actually that those who hold power (the old elite or the new elite or any future elite) must never receive license against factual accountability. Ten years ago I would never have thought that the country would enter a period in which people and politicians prevented the release of facts on climate change simply because they didn't like those facts, refused to abide by existing legal and constitutional norms simply because they were inconvenient, etc. Yet that is where we are. Some of those with power globally, and some with influence in our community, insist on certain things and seek to crush opposition as illegitimate even when that opposition stands on firm factual ground.


------------------
> So it is for good and obvious reasons that people
> are trying to form their own opinions.

Absolutely. And it is conversely wrong when the powerful tell people that they are not free to form their own opinions--or that facts are irrelevant to the discussion. No one should enjoy factual unaccountability; no one should be able to shut down debate by saying facts don't matter.


----------------------------
> What "anybody" calls "the freedom to believe and
> act as they please without being held to account"
> is the natural desire to be free from the lies and
> cons of the elite, and free from the Institutions
> that would rather bully everyday people than to
> hold Power to account.

That is not at all what she was saying. She is arguing in favor of free speech and the freedom to challenge beliefs, without apology, under the same constitutional freedom. She was saying that a new elite, if you will, is insisting that their views and policies are totally okay even if they are factually untrue. Anyone was saying that when authorities shut down factual analysis, they become totalitarian. She, as I, criticizes the bully you describe and anyone else who wants to shut down "reality" in order to win a debate.


-----------------
> When you use the word "rebel" in, "when people
> rebel against science and logic and order" you
> leave out why people feel it necessary to rebel.
> It's not because they have embraced "unadulterated
> emotion", an overstatement at best, but because
> people have noticed that "science" lies and cheats
> them, "logic" is used to cheat and bully them, and
> "order" is used to shut them up and keep them in
> their place. The emotion is justified.

So you are saying that the emotional impulse should free a person from facts? My view is that facts are the tool with which one challenges an abusive power structure and that "escaping" from facts is simply obscurantism. And yes, if they "rebel against science and logic and order," people are acting on emotion, they are seeking a post-reality world, and they are the soil from whom totalitarianism arises. Why? Because if there are no facts, one can create and enforce whatever system one wants.

Science and facts are what liberate me from the errors of others, what saves others from my errors. They are the closest thing we can get to objective "truth." It is NEVER a good idea personally, as in Mormonism; or politically, as in demogogic movements, to surrender the importance of demonstrable facts.


-----------------
> And then on top of it all, you satirize the
> people's legitimate emotions and place them all
> beyond "reconciliation". You believe people,
> *those* people, are beyond conversation. In other
> words, you ape the very attitudes Power and the
> failed Institutions of our era have towards
> everyday people.

I disagree. My target in this instance was those who believe astrology leads to truth. If they insist on such a proposition, which means emotion is as valid, if not more so, than facts, there is no foundation for dialogue. For every fact elicits another statement of faith, usually counter-factual faith. I have no desire to shut such people up for the simple reason that their analysis reveals its own flaws. There is no reconciliation because the prophets of ignorance won't accept factual analysis, but most observers will walk away from that conversation with a wry smile on their faces.

I am merely stating that those who embrace ignorance won't ever reconcile with those who demand facts. I add that freedom of speech is a blessing insofar as it allows the willfully ignorant to discredit themselves. I tell no one to shut up: I merely assert that both sides should be legitimate targets of verbal critique. And I predict that until the irrationalists develop an interest in empirical facts, debate without reconciliation is all that one can hope for.


---------------------
> If we limit ourselves to the failing neo-liberal
> order of the past 40 or so years, step by step by
> step it can be shown that elites have grown
> bolder, greedier and more reckless *precisely*
> because no one holds them to account. Not once.
> As a consequence, the planet and its people have
> suffered.

Would it surprise you if I said that I agree with almost all of that?


---------
> We are where we are NOT because all of a sudden
> people have grown more irrational and emotional
> than some other time.

Here I disagree. The understandable reaction to what you described in your previous paragraph has been a burst of irrationalism and emotionalism. Historically this often happens; it is a dangerous time because such, again understandable, emotional impulse often leads to bad outcomes--often even worse than the flawed original system.


----------------
> We are where we are because
> elites have withdrawn an emotional connection to
> the planet and to the people, and have mindlessly
> pursued their "logic" no matter the consequences
> and no matter how faulty their premises have been
> shown to be.

I agree.


---------------------
> They continue on this path because
> it serves them; but even more to the point, NO ONE
> IS HOLDING THEM TO ACCOUNT.

You don't think there has been a change in the "elite" in the major OECD countries in the last 10 years? I do. And I believe we are in one of those historical periods in which the predictable bursts of emotionalism are doing great damage. Anger at a corrupt system is fine; an emotional determination to fix it is great. But that transition must be founded in facts and logic or bad things will soon ensue.


-------------------
> Bottom line: Institutions ('order', 'logic',
> 'evidence', 'empiricism', 'analysis'
> what-you-will) serve the elite and not the people.

That is utterly false. Facts, order, logic, evidence, empiricism, analysis, etc., are the things you and I have used to identify the flaws in a flawed system and they indicate the way forward. The moment you disavow facts and rationality, you condemn yourself and others to servility under a new elite.


-----------------
> People have noticed. Their thoughts and emotions
> are legitimate.

Legitimate, yes. But dangerous as well. Emotions lead to pogroms, to needless wars, to class structure, and even to greater disparities in income and wealth. If emotions lead to a break with a bad system, they should soon be curtailed so a new one can be built on a solid foundation.


-----------------
> As to the spectre of Totalitarianism: it comes
> about not because everyday people are too
> emotional and too illogical, but because
> Institutions fail to do their jobs. You are
> victim blaming. Stop punching down.

I think that is a misguided view of history. The way it usually goes is the old system proves flawed, there is a widespread emotional reaction, and the question then becomes what change ensues? There can be a quick return to factual reality as in the US Revolution, or there can be a perpetuation of the emotional phase in which Robespierre, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others arise.

Emotion is a great motivator. It is terrible, however, as a constructive force.


-----------------
> Human, unsurprised people are putting their
> Yellow-Vests on...

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more. People's fury at the old system is entirely reasonable, even rational. The problem is that if the reaction remains emotional too long, the outcome is likely to be an equally or even more unfair new system.

Astrology is unsupported by data, but so what? Beliefs drive the outcomes so what’s the difference. It’s like personal manifest destiny.

The scientific bias against metaphysics is something I’ve had to deal with for years. Data that goes against this bias is basically taboo. How does LW know she’s not in the trap of taboo?

As for the institutional rot of our political system, isn’t that a reflection of our individual problems? If the success of Trump’s scapegoating of refugees gets him re-elected, isn’t that on us? The problem with punching up is that it’s same old same old. New solutions are needed because the old ones are unworkable.

The transcendent solutions to the world’s problems begin with the understanding that the mind is not within the skull. That intention and belief are real physical processes with wide ranging consequences. Love is the answer, but it needs to be backed up by effective methods.

I think technology will get us there. I’m still chasing unicorns on that front, but I’ve already caught one unicorn so I have hope to catch another. Science always catches up, but I’m too impatient. This is where religion is ahead of the curve. The fact that Mormonism is a big lie is beside the point because that’s the only way it could exist. That’s one of the reasons I hate it, or used to hate it. But still, as belief systems go it had some interesting functionality. Functionality that science can’t match. Yet.

I'm happy to have negated all the blessings of the PB by my unfaithfulness.

Well I was certainly happy to get out of the temple marriage part!

My stepdaughter is into Astrology, much to the chagrin of her mom and I. We find it baffling that someone raised without religion would gravitate towards something that stupid.

I suspect it is because she wants to create some predictability within her world and this gives her the magic feather to do so...even though it is fake. Our hope is that this will clear up as she continues with college.

I venture an alternative explanation, though one that doesn't offer much encouragement.

People are emotional as well as logical beings. The desire for visceral resonance, for a sense of metaphysical meaning, is very powerful. People thus evince religiosity even if they reject religion.

Put differently, it may not be the "predictability" your stepdaughter finds appealing but rather the "magic feather" itself.

I feel you may be right on this one. Your post makes a lot of sense. Hopefully she will outgrow this phase soon enough.

It's scary though. My friend raised her brilliant daughter without religion. This young woman went to college, found religion, and moved to central America for full time church service. She tossed her full ride scholarships.

I hope for the best for you and your daughter, praydude. I've benefited greatly from the things you've posted over the years.

Seriously? I wouldn't worry too much about a college kid. It's a crazy time. I didn't like much of that stuff, but I did get into throwing the I Ching -- and even though I was familiar with Jung and Joseph Campbell and gave it all that sophisticated spin that it helped me understand my own not-quite conscious hopes and fears, I look back on that as a lost time. A NORMALLY lost time. I think it's okay to experiment with various nonsense practices -- and a little pot -- as long as you don't get hung up in either world too long.

Astrology was actually the beginning of science, or at least one particular, and major, branch of science. So we owe it a little respect for at least that.

Back in the day, life was nasty, brutish and short, and wildly unpredictable. It is still pretty unpredictable today, but for most of us here most of the time, it is a walk in the park compared to what it used to be. Anything that gave ancient peoples a sense of predictability was prized.

In my book, the two gold standards for pseudoscience are crystal therapy, and astrology. Crystals have these sharp, precise, repeatable angles and smooth, perfectly flat surfaces, and are often transparent, and none of those features are common in the natural world. A lot of people, especially children, are fascinated by the texture and color of tumbled gemstones, and the facets of crystals. Crystals represent a universe with rules, rules that create flat facets and precise angles. We cling to that. We want to believe the universe has rules and is predictable. For adults, crystal therapy is the adult equivalent of thumb sucking. It comforts them and shows them at least some part of the world is predictable and safe.

Ancient peoples saw the stars, a lot. With the development of agriculture, seasons became important. When was the right time to plant? They learned how to figure out when the sun was highest and lowest in the sky, and defined that as a year. They saw that the stars came up in a slightly different position every evening, and that after a year the positions repeated. I doubt they noticed that the star positions each year didn't repeat exactly, they were off by 20 minutes, but eventually, people noticed even that and discovered the precession of the earth's axis.

They saw tides daily, and lunar cycles monthly, and planets. Mercury and Venus moved quickly and always stayed close to the sun, only visible at sunrise and sunset. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn could be anywhere in the sky, and moved much more slowly. All of the star-like planets had sometimes when they moved backwards. The rest of the stars in the heavens never did this, nor did the sun or the moon. Why five planets could move backwards mystified people. They were so fascinated by the planets that entire cultures named their days of the week after them, and created 7 day weeks for the seven "wanderers" in the sky.

Cultures started keeping detailed records of the heavens. They began to predict the date of the maximum sun angle and lowest sun angle, which happened also to be the longest and shortest day of the year. If you, say, walked 8 days straight north, they could tell you what the sun angle would be there. This impressed people all to hell. Eventually, they could predict a few comets and lunar and solar eclipses, with absolute precision.

In a world filled with chaos and unpredictability, humans had come up with mathematical relationships that allowed them to predict the formerly unpredictable. The mathematics for eclipses and retrograde planet motion is pretty complicated. Retrograde motion is a mess to calculate if you assume the earth is the center of the solar system. If you change the perspective and assume the sun is at the origin of your graph, then retrograde motion gets easily recognized for the illusion it is, and the math becomes dramatically simpler. That the ancients figured it out the hard way is impressive.

If the astrologers could predict the heavens with such precision, then it seemed only reasonable, and very much desired, that they could predict what was going to happen in our lives on earth.

And thus astrology was born. We had figured out some rock-solid laws about the universe, and we wanted the same kind of laws to govern our lives. I consider astrology to be the gold standard of pseudoscience because while the personality traits it assigns to various signs is essentially "magic 8 ball", there are charts and graphs and equations that look impressive, and can, in fact, predict where the planets will be.

Humans love patterns and predictability. The majestic curve of the cables of the Golden Gate or Verrazzano Narrow bridges leave almost everyone awestruck. Many people are fascinated by string art, where graceful curves are defined by hundreds of perfectly straight pieces of yarn. The contradiction fascinates. Screen savers back in the day that were based on dynamic string art were hugely popular. They were mesmerizing.

We love patterns, especially complex but predictable patterns, or mostly predictable patterns with an unexpected twist somewhere, like the off center collar lines popular on dresses right now.

So yeah, astrology/astronomy, crystals, string art, physics, chemistry, Versailles, and Picasso and Dali all grew out of our love of patterns.

I have read articles that speculated that we may never have come up with science as we know it if we had evolved on a cloud-covered world where it was impossible to see the stars and planets. Interesting thought, that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2019 02:59PM by Brother Of Jerry.

This is an excellent explanation of what very likely happened, and WHY "it" happened.

Kudos, Brother of Jerry.

Very well done.

He should write a book. ;)

I actually learn a great deal from RFM, so hopefully I am returning the favor a bit. Today I'm going to have to look up "wreck of the Hesperus"! :) I frequently look up stuff that is referenced here. Sometimes I write about it, but usually not. One time Lot's Wife and Darren Steers sent me off on an exploration of gravity that turned out to be delightful. I probably will write about that here some day.

But a book? Don't hold your breath! But thanks for the thought.

I would LOVE to read what you discovered about gravity.

I have a sinking feeling...

The Old Farmers Almanac relies on astrology and moon phases for optimal planting times.

Lunar observations make perfect sense for agricultural civilizations, which is why they once universally used lunar calendars. But timing the planting and harvesting seasons in increments of 30 days is not the same thing as astrology.

That was awesome! Seriously. It makes sense -- and now I don't find astrology so annoying!

You should publish that somewhere.

Thanks

There was a real wreck of the Herperus and the several imagined Wreck of the Herperus's in song, poetry, and painting.

There were no celestial predictions for any of them.

It's something my mom used to say -- I look like the Wreck of the Herperus.

Whenever I see something that sounds like I should have learned about it in a humanities class, I feel inadequate because I'm basically a wonky engineer type. Hesperus sounded vaguely familiar, and sounded like a name from Homer. I have a friend who can actually quote passages from Homer. In Greek. OK, I'd better try and keep up. So I asked of Google, who giveth liberally, and upbraideth not.

It's a ski resort by Durango, CO. In Greek mythology, he is the Evening Star, half-brother to Phosphorus, the Morning Star, son of the dawn, Eos (Roman: Aurora). How cool is that!! We're just dripping astrology here, not to mention a bit of Mormon War in Heaven, an idea JS stole. Milton?

I then read Wordsworth poem, the story of an actual wreck that it was based on, and found out that Norman's Woe is a real place. What a cool name, though I can't imagine a real estate developer liking it much. There must be a story about Norman.

Just looking stuff up often leads to fun rabbit holes. Thanks for the trigger.

So cool! I didn't know it was a place in Colorado -- but I did know about the fascinating Greek linage of the name.

I don't know if this will show up in the right place -- as I pretty much hate the way this site works (or doesn't might be a better way to put it) and I can never place my responses where I want. I didn't want it to be a response to any particular poster.

I was remembering that back in the day when men came up to me in bars and said, "What's your sign?) I always wanted to say, "Too intelligent to be talking to you. Which one is that?"

And -- if anyone cares -- here are a few links:

https://stateoftheartgallery.org/john-terelak/wreck-of-the-hesperus-24-x-30-oc/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wreck_of_the_Hesperus

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if this will show up in the right
> place -- as I pretty much hate the way this site
> works (or doesn't might be a better way to put it)
> and I can never place my responses where I want. I
> didn't want it to be a response to any particular
> poster.

If you want to post something that will not appear as a response to any particular poster, then go to the first post (the "Original Post," or OP) in the thread and click on "Reply."

Your response will automatically show up as a response to the Original Post only (although it will show up near the end of the thread, as the thread appears at that moment in time).

Oh thanks! That is about the most helpful thing anyone here has ever told me!

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh thanks! That is about the most helpful thing
> anyone here has ever told me!

You are welcome!

:)

Isaac Asimov, a man with a mind I trust, having read his guide to science, the Old Testament, and much more, said of astrology something like this: it is the occupation of the quasi-intellectual. Nothing displeased him more than hearing fevered testimonies of its efficacy.

I stand with him.

Love

So Jerry's Bro reconciled me -- a bit -- to astrology by setting it in historical perspective, which often works for me; it was good to remember it wasn't always as silly as can seem now or as divorced from people's real lives.

Then I came across this on a friend's Facebook page, and the old anger flamed.

She had posted a picture of the moon in a sunset, blaming a full moon for her tensions the last couple of days.

The following then happened:

Friend 1: Yes! I have been extremely sensitive.

Page Owner: I hear Mercury is in retrograde until the end of the month, too. Frustrating time!

Friend 2 to Page Owner: Aha - *that* explains it... :/


Grrrrrr! No it doesn't! And I haven't felt a thing! If I never hear about "Mercury in retrograde" again, it will be too soon!

I think I dislike at least these applications of astrology so much because they cut short real thinking about life and personal insights about one's own. It's like being with a Mormon and trying to explain to them something seems wrong -- and having them suggest prayer and scripture reading as a palliative. Uhm -- is it too much to ask people to look not to the moon or Mercurty but at themselves if they feel frustrated or unhappy?!?

Sometimes this gets serious. I have a long-standing Facebook friend who has been miserable for a long time. She is quite poor and was trapped in an abusive marriage for many years. She had never had a good enough job to leave so she kept staying through the cycle, believing things might get better when they weren't so bad and feeling horrible and trapped when the abuse would surface again, as it always did. Now she has finally left her husband, but as a single mother with no job skills and an incomplete education, she has ended up living with her mom -- and is still rather miserable, although not so acutely.

She also -- and I don't think it is just coincidence -- is a witch, deeply into crystals and astrology. It has never occurred to her that Mercury is not always retrograde, but she is always unhappy.

Of course it is easier to find solace in the perfection of crystals, to imagine herself with the powers of a witch, to wait for the planets to align, than to fix a seriously damaged life, than to face how powerless she really is -- and try to change that. Of course it is.

I almost think that at times, in some cases, even religion might be an improvement, Many have used Mormonism as a sort of comprehensive self-help group to improve their lives. Granted -- it would never work for ME, and there is a hefty price in any case, but I always thought that was Mormonism did best -- give people on the bottom a way out -- and up.

So part of my frustration with astrology is feminist. It is mostly women who get caught up in it -- women who often should be looking at their powerlessness and doing something about it.

+++1

“Grrrrr! No it doesn't! And I haven't felt a thing! If I never hear about "Mercury in retrograde" again, it will be too soon!”

That’s exactly the sort of thing someone under the influence of Mercury would say.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Grrrrr! No it doesn't! And I haven't felt a
> thing! If I never hear about "Mercury in
> retrograde" again, it will be too soon!”
>
> That’s exactly the sort of thing someone under
> the influence of Mercury would say.

He he he

Actually, I am under the influence of the devil. Isn't that how it goes?

The ethno-centrism criticism is definitely real: even WITHIN astrology there's an entirely different system, sidereal astrology, which is the Hindu tradition of astrology as opposed to the European one (tropical). To say nothing of white folks applying it non-consensually to PoC cultures :/.

The science is pretty clear about the lack of evidence for astrology but it is largely harmless for most people who are into it because most folks take it with a big grain a salt and don't make major life decisions or wild assumptions based on a horoscope. I know a LOT of people who are into it, I think a lot of us millennials & gen-z are into it as a replacement for the void of meaning left behind by abandoning a christian cosmology, they kind of use it in an explanatory rather than predictive way. I think people like it for the same reason they like other low-evidence stuff like Meyers-Briggs, it makes them feel secure that they understand the world around them.

One problem with your post is that you're engaging in a *biased sample fallacy* because you're noticing the people who are obnoxious about it because, well, they're more intense and vocal and pushy about it. Some people can get carried away with being pushy with it, like it's pretty obnoxious to say "Oh I can tell you're such a Scorpio" if the other person isn't also into astrology but the average astrology believer is probably more chill unless they know the other person is also into it.

The other problem you describe, the obnoxious superiority, is something you're doing a bit of yourself in this post. You're talking down on people who are into astrology as being generally stupid, which is of course implicitly positioning yourself as superior. I think it's very important that when we're applying rational skepticism to not give in to the temptation of thinking we're superior because we have access to superior knowledge, as that is one of the worst elements of traditional religion and we should be avoiding that just as much as we avoid irrationality itself.

I shyly offer my distorted view of this...

Here's a 1-minute video of dumbass kids doing donuts on the I-5, in CA. Besides looking at the one car, notice all the skid marks, indicating that a bunch of donuts had been 'fried'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at8aEm7v3ws


Now... Do I feel superior to these kids? Maybe yes, maybe no. But who, aside from donut 'friers', is going to think less of me for putting down, for criticizing, these kids? Likely, no one about whose opinion I care.

I think I could make an argument that donut 'frying', astrology, ouija board players and those who are Sabbath-observant are in the same category as masturbators: To some extent, there is no lasting harm, and it feels good, so why not?

Several points. First, sidereal astrology just means that the dates for the various constellations are adjusted for the precession of earth's axis, rather than leaving it fixed to a calendar date, even when the constellations no longer line up with those dates. Some western astrologers adjust the dates as well, realizing how silly it is to claim that the characteristics of an Aires apply starting March 21, when the actual constellation lines up with the sun starting April 18. But like I said in the earlier thread, since all the personality stuff is apparently made up from whole cloth, the dates that are picked can be totally arbitrary. Any of them are equally as useful, which is, not at all.

> To say nothing of white folks applying it non-consensually to PoC cultures :/.

How does anyone apply astrology to anyone else, consensually or non-consensually? Nobody applies astrology to me, not that I think it is all that difficult to wash off.

Meyers-Briggs does seem a bit parlor-gamey, but it is based on actual answers to questions you give about yourself, so it seems reasonable to assume the categories assigned have some relation to you. You can argue about the accuracy of their categorization, but the test has personal data more detailed than your birthdate and time. Astrology does not. I see no evidence that everyone born at a particular time has the same personality traits, nor do I see the tiniest hint of evidence of how such an effect could actually transpire even if there were any evidence that it, other than confirmation bias.

>Biased sample fallacy"

Actually the fallacy is that you are assuming Jane and I reject astrology because some of its adherents say preposterous things with an air of smug certainty, which annoys. I treat the snuggly annoying adherents as icing on the cake, as it were. I would reject astrology as pseudo science even if all its adherents were adorable little Tribbles. OK, bad example....:)

You say pseudoscience is harmless. Pseudosciences seem to run in packs. People who accept one are likely to accept a whole fleet of them. They are awful in general at evaluating evidence. People who are suckers for Mormonism are also suckers for MLMs and dietary supplements, and MLM based dietary supplements, and antivaxxing, and being low-grade or even high-grade survivalists, and yada yada yada.

I don't think Mormons are much into astrology because the Mormon god really resents the competition. He wants to do all the predicting.

Last:
Mercury is never in retrograde. It just looks that way from earth.

Stuff we see in a mirror isn't actually reversed, it just looks that way in the mirror.

The sun doesn't actually set. It just looks that way. We are actually on the surface of the earth, spinning into the earth's shadow. The sun is just sitting there minding its own business the entire time.

Evidence matters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2019 11:50PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Do you get invited to a lot of parties, BoJ?

I tend to be quiet at parties because I am occupied trying to figure out how one eats with a plate in one hand and a drink in the other. Holding two drinks OTOH is not a problem at all. It's a plot, I tell you!

BTW, I started all this a few weeks ago because I didn't know if the summer solstice will always be near June 21 (yes) or if it would move like the constellation dates. I also didn't know how much the constellation dates had moved since the dates were initially fixed (just under a month). I figured some people here would find that interesting. I guessed right. :)

Thank you, BoJ.

(That's my kind of party.)

>
> Last:
> Mercury is never in retrograde. It just looks that
> way from earth.
>
> Stuff we see in a mirror isn't actually reversed,
> it just looks that way in the mirror.
>
> The sun doesn't actually set. It just looks that
> way. We are actually on the surface of the earth,
> spinning into the earth's shadow. The sun is just
> sitting there minding its own business the entire
> time.
>
> Evidence matters.

Yes. Yes. Yes. The point.

And it continues that world where we see ourselves as the center of the universe -- and if we stick by astrology then we are suddenly on the side of the wicked Catholic Church against Galileo -- and you have to admit that is *fascinating.* Well -- at least to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2019 02:45PM by janeeliot.

I dunno. Feeling annoyed and feeling superior don't go together for me -- although maybe I haven't sorted it out properly. When kids are having public meltdowns, I feel annoyed. I certainly don't feel superior to the kids -- just annoyed -- and maybe a little inclined to pity them. Also their parents. Not that I am sure I would make a good parents or do any better. Just annoyed.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Also, hypocrisy has always been one of big buttons -- hence why I am here. Now that you have brought it up, I do find it irritating when a generation sneers at the silliness of religions -- and then indulges their own brands (and don't EVEN get me started on the eating disorders!) Being into astrology might not be as comprehensively destructive (or as possibly comprehensively supportive) as joining the Mormon Church, but astrology is no more supported by science and empirical evidence than the Book of Mormon. Period.

I just think if you get into astrology, in all fairness, you have to give Mormons et al. their due. YOU don't get to throw stones down on those misguided believers from your lofty glass tower -- because -- hello -- it's glass.

I think if we start the "feels good," "harmless nonsense" argument, we might find it has some disturbing applications -- like -- many social Mormons, Catholics, Christians in general who don't take it all that seriously or who thoughtfully choose from the buffet. As long as we don't grant to them the same tolerance (and frankly I do), then we can't claim it for astrology, for New Age -- for really, anyone. We can't claim it for ourselves.

Can we?