…and this is a 
Dara O'Briain and Brian Cox aggravated a great many astrologers when they announced on a UK television program that "astrology is rubbish" and "astrology is nonsense". The Astrological Association of Great Britain was so incensed that they created a petition demanding that the BBC commit to "making a fair and balanced representation of astrology in the future" — which left me amusedly discombobulated that there is a formal Astrological Association of Great Britain, and that they don't realize that tossing their whole goofy discipline in the rubbish heap is a fair and balanced representation.
Now we get a whole new level of foolishness, though: Martin Robbins has posted a criticism of the skeptics from a serious historian who doesn't get it. She demands that we take astrology more seriously and respectfully, and explains that many astrologers are intelligent people who study astronomy (you know, the real science), and are fully aware of concepts like precession and the actual physical arrangements of the stars in the sky, and have quite sophisticated explanations to account for superficial discrepancies like the absence of Ophiuchus from the official list of zodiacal constellations, and that they are right to be annoyed when they are portrayed as unaware of obvious physical phenomena.
This is all true, but stupid.
I've had long conversations with Very Serious Astrologers; early in my skeptical career, I spent a fair amount of time engaging them, and I'm familiar with the diverse ways in which their brains work. They were generally engrossed with the behavior of those lights in the sky; if you wanted to know what constellation you could spot on the horizon in the western sky in August, you could ask an astronomer and get a good answer, or you could ask a dedicated astrologer and they'd tell you the same thing, and they were certainly far more reliable sources for that sort of information than I am. I've played with some of their software, and it is intricate and elaborate and uses genuine astronomical data that they gather from astronomical databases.
But so what? It's still all rubbish. There's more to science than mastering mechanics, there's this little thing called "understanding" that is absolutely essential. A great piano tuner is not necessarily a good musician, and memorizing the periodic table of the elements does not turn you into a chemist. Imagine a conversation with your mother: "I'm sure your father can fix the electronic ignition system in your Honda, dear…why, he managed to drive from Owatonna to the Mall of America last week, and he only got lost once!" One thing does not have anything to do with the other. Knowing a bunch of solid facts about stars does not justify explanations about magical influences that are antagonistic to known processes and which are built, not on the trustworthy foundation of that data, but on unfounded beliefs in magical influences from distant objects.
This is especially true when that specialized scientific knowledge is used as part of the pseudo-scientific patter marshalled to justify their supernatural explanations. Science is window dressing to modern astrologers; they don't get to fulminate indignantly by pointing at the astronomy element they've incorporated into their delusions when someone points out that their conclusions are all wrong and completely unwarranted. Those don't matter. Their rationalizations are like 'sophisticated theology' — vapor and noise that they make flashier by throwing in a few modern scientific terms.
Rebekah Higgitt wants to claim that astrologers are justified "if they are presented as idiots who don't understand precession and do nothing but write newspaper horoscopes that cover around a twelfth of the population in one go." OK. Then we should present them as idiots who don't have a mechanism for their claimed influences, ignore all the logical arguments and empirical evidence that shows astrology doesn't work, and abuse astronomy to put up a phony façade of scienciness.
They're still idiots.
Comments
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
January 28, 2011 10:47 AM
(Cackles at headline.)
Posted by: Britatheist
|
January 28, 2011 10:48 AM
Sadly, they are also, in many cases, rich idiots. Probably wealthier than most astronomers.
Posted by: Monkey's Uncle
|
January 28, 2011 10:48 AM
I just can't understand the slavish adoration to a supposed 'science' that's been discredited so many times!
Props to Dara and Briain though, the stargazing live programme (from which this quote is from) was a great attempt at mainstreaming science.
Posted by: tsig0
|
January 28, 2011 10:49 AM
We use real words and form them into real sentences and stars and planets are real therefore astrology is real\astronomer apologist :)
Posted by: Monkey's Uncle
|
January 28, 2011 10:50 AM
re #3:
of course I meant Dara and BRIAN!
*headdesk*
Posted by: rob
|
January 28, 2011 10:57 AM
you mean i'm not going to have a 5 star day?
damn you constellations! damn you! and your little planets too!
Posted by: Pete Moulton
|
January 28, 2011 10:57 AM
Britatheist: "Sadly, they are also, in many cases, rich idiots. Probably wealthier than most astronomers."
Woo pays well. I keep telling PZ he's doing this all wrong.
Posted by: э̀иэЯ
|
January 28, 2011 11:00 AM
I think it should be γ2 Sagitarii, subscripted.
Posted by: crich83
|
January 28, 2011 11:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVWvO0_hTY
8:44 for a response from Brian Cox and an insight into his thoughts on "balance".
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
January 28, 2011 11:07 AM
Some very intelligent people take astrology seriously? Gosh, I'm sure I've heard something like that before. Where could that be…
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
January 28, 2011 11:07 AM
those astrologers should have seen this coming.
Posted by: AJKamper
|
January 28, 2011 11:08 AM
I'd note, too, that the reason we make fun of them for not knowing it is that it's a classic example of post hoc reasoning; they don't change their ideas as new data comes in, but somehow redefine everything so it fits with their own framework.
I'm trying to think of other beliefs that do the same thing. It start with "rel-" something, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
January 28, 2011 11:09 AM
I tested astrology once.
I knew a pair of identical twins, so same birth same sign should have the same horoscope. Waited for a way when the horoscope gave them a 10, chloroformed one, black bagged him, dragged him to a ware house and spent the next hour beating him with a large salted leg of lamb. I then tracked down his brother, before news of such an abduction took place and asked how his day was. He said it was 'pretty good'
Myth busted.
Posted by: Erik The Viking
|
January 28, 2011 11:09 AM
Cue the "modern western astrology doesn't deal with the stars just the planets" mumbo jumbo.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
January 28, 2011 11:10 AM
No, I know woo pays well. I figure in a few years, when senility destroys my sense of integrity, I'll be able to get rich quick by selling out to the creationists. Do you realize how valuable I'd be to creationists if I found Jesus and repudiated evilution?
Posted by: Kevin
|
January 28, 2011 11:12 AM
I predict that this will be one of the longest and most-contentious threads in Pharyngula history.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
January 28, 2011 11:12 AM
Yup, Wells and Behe know way more biology than your average person, hence they make good sense on ID.
Well, nope, you have to actually think from the evidence to a reasonable conclusion, rather than marshalling facts to prop up one's own prejudices, in order to act the scientist.
Whether it's IDiots or astrologers, some people just learn good knowledge in order to support bad apologetics.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Pigdowndog
|
January 28, 2011 11:13 AM
You can access the petition through the Richard Dawkins website. I went to the petition and filled out the box requesting my name as "Astrology" for my forename and "Isbollocks" as my surname.
I received an email from the society thanking "Dear Astrology Isbollocks", which I though was amusing so I filled out several more along the same lines.
Go do it, it's fun.
Posted by: RT, not RTL
|
January 28, 2011 11:20 AM
PZ@ 15
Or as Sarah would put it, refudiate it. :)
I was just talking with a fellow godless heathen about that very thing. We could make a ton of money by publishing a sciency sounding book that is full of Proof Of (insert diety here). It would sell in all of the creationist book stores. We just can't bring ourselves to do it. Damn intergity.
Posted by: ereador
|
January 28, 2011 11:21 AM
It is very unsettling to hear this nonsense, so similar to the religionists claims. My 10yo knows astrology is bullshit all the way down. You don't have to be an astronomer to understand different cultures have totally different astrologies (they can't all be right, but they are all wrong), Not to mention the fact the stars in the "constellations" are nowhere near each other. The youngster pointed that one out to me. Jeez.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
January 28, 2011 11:21 AM
I think creationists can only refudiate, as repudiation or refutation is beyond them.
Posted by: Moon Dragon
|
January 28, 2011 11:23 AM
There is a potential explanation (however unlikely) for astrology: Non-causal correlation.
Astrology began with herding/agrarian cultures.
Activities in such cultures are seasonally dependent.
Such cultures anticipate seasons by observing the astronomical indicators.
Seasonal activity has effects on treatment of infants and toddlers, affecting their personality development.
Correlations are formed with time of birth and personality.
Actually, by this reckoning, there should only be four to six personality types, but people with lots of time on their hands (no TV or books), and acute powers of observation might subdivide.
It's also totally inapplicable for most of the world today.
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 28, 2011 11:25 AM
But if you take away astrology, what will you replace it with? Astrology is not just about the movements of the stars and planets influencing our lives, you know. It's about having a sense of connection and harmony with the universe, a deep feeling of holism which would be lost if the stars mean nothing. Astrology gives us a way to feel in control, an ability to focus on problems and come up with solutions in creative ways. It draws from our past -- the ancient sense that there is wisdom to be found in Nature.
We take this away at our peril. You have to understand. For those who are so heavily invested, losing belief in astrology would be like losing what anchors their worldview and provides their meaning in life. You leave them adrift in an uncaring universe. Astrologers are knit together by love of their craft -- and for each other -- as well as love for the heavenly bodies. For many people, this is their sole community.
You can't just take it away without offering an alternative which will satisfy the exact same deep-seated needs. Study some neurology, if you doubt this.
Posted by: jbricker
|
January 28, 2011 11:28 AM
"managed to drive from Owatonna to the Mall of America last week"
Wow, there's a cryptic Minnesota reference if I've ever heard one!
Posted by: nathaniel.tagg
|
January 28, 2011 11:29 AM
I thought that the BBC already HAD given the astrologers their chance..
http://www.davegorman.com/projects_astrology_experiment.html
In any case, this is nothing really new. The lure of astrology has always been because of something that looked technical and difficult, even before the word 'science' was invented. All those rules.. it MUST be right if it's so complex! We'll have to trust the experts!
Posted by: Cliff Hendroval
|
January 28, 2011 11:32 AM
I actually had the head of a construction company run my horoscope during a job interview. I was so desperate for a job that I didn't say anything.
Since I don't keep up with woo all that much, have any astrologers managed to come up with a mechanism for astrology to actually work? I mean, what is it that planets and/or stars emit that can penetrate buildings but cannot penetrate a few inches of human flesh to act on a fetus?
Posted by: hznfrst
|
January 28, 2011 11:38 AM
Lapses in integrity when it comes to astrology also work when it comes to dating...
Posted by: Tulse
|
January 28, 2011 11:38 AM
Gosh, Sastra, that seems like such a silly argumen... wait a minute...
(For the record, I also love heavenly bodies.)
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
January 28, 2011 11:39 AM
Re #23:
(Evil laugh...)
Y'know, what with Venus being ascendant and Saturn descendant (and in rehab, poor thing), besides the fact that Mercury is moving into Poe, you can probably look for a Pisces, Gemini, Taurus, Virgo, Aquarius--or, hey, someone born between the months January and December--to take that seriously.
Posted by: taylorbad
|
January 28, 2011 11:40 AM
Keith Richard of the Rolling Stones once said (paraphrasing here)" I'm a Sagittarius. You know what that is? Half man, half horse with a license to crap in the street." That, my friends, is the chief reason I like astrology.
Posted by: Kevin
|
January 28, 2011 11:41 AM
Wow. Sastra, please use the /snark or /Poe designation. Someone WILL take you seriously.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
January 28, 2011 11:43 AM
Sastra, I heart you soooo much.
Posted by: TC48
|
January 28, 2011 11:45 AM
Guys, I am disappoint.
I can't believe it hasn't occurred to anyone among you to explain the title: it's the Teapot asterism in Sagittarius. As in "tempest in a Teapot".
/rant
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
January 28, 2011 11:47 AM
Re 7 & 15, I figured out long ago that it's pretty easy to make money if you have no integrity. Sadly, my conscience insists on keeping me poor. (But I like PZ's point about senility; perhaps I can look forward to a comfortable retirement after all!)
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
January 28, 2011 11:49 AM
Re #33:
Also, the hammer is my penis.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
January 28, 2011 11:54 AM
Astrology in the UK?!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2011/01/27/salem.witches.foreclosure.cnn?hpt=C2
The rise in foreclosures has some residents of Salem, Massachusetts, turning to witches to bless newly-acquired homes.
Posted by: englemanknowledgebase
|
January 28, 2011 11:56 AM
Before I became and atheist and skeptic, I had a brief love affair with all things woo. I was trying to distance myself from christianity but not willing to give up the "spiritual" crap. I ended up really into astrology. But even when I was making charts and looking things up, I still kept wondering why they all sounded so much alike...and so vague. I finally just had to admit that astrology and the other woo I had fallen in with was bullshit. After that, reality let me back in. It's a wonderful place.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 28, 2011 11:57 AM
PZ overlooks the fact that science can't answer everything, and that astrology and astronomy encompass non-overlapping magisteria:
Astrology doesn't pretend to explain the formation of stars and galaxies, and science can't tell me whether or not today is a good day to take a chance on a new relationship, as long as I don't overextend myself.
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
|
January 28, 2011 12:02 PM
"I figured out long ago that it's pretty easy to make money if you have no integrity. Sadly, my conscience insists on keeping me poor."
Quite an accurate, but depressing summary of our society these days, isn't it?
Posted by: э̀иэЯ
|
January 28, 2011 12:03 PM
How true. Astronomy can only look into the past, and astrology claims to look into the future.Posted by: AmVik
|
January 28, 2011 12:04 PM
Reality will always be there for you. You just have to allow reality into your heart, and reality will forgive you.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
January 28, 2011 12:06 PM
I was unaware of the existence of the Astrological Association of Great Britain. I initially assumed they were fringe cranks, like Flat Earthers. But look at the page about the Association's current officers:
The University of Wales Lampeter is a real university, not some degree mill... so why does it run an MA in "cultural astronomy and astrology"? I can understand that the history of astrology as a cultural and historical phenomenon might be an important field of study - and the course seems to be real enough - but it seems odd to me that, evidently, at least some of the faculty seriously believe that astrology actually works. :-/
Several others seem to be doing PhDs at reputable institutions:
Posted by: alistair.coleman
|
January 28, 2011 12:07 PM
#38 Science *can't* answer everything, but is trying to find out.
Astrology can't answer anything, and make it up as it goes along"
Your horoscope for today: "You will be told that you are an asshat."
Posted by: alistair.coleman
|
January 28, 2011 12:09 PM
My comment @ #43 That's the horoscope for anyone who believes in astrology, but the way
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
January 28, 2011 12:11 PM
Myth busted.
Nope, sorry. You *COMPLETELY* forgot to control for your *OWN* horoscope's predictions on that day, which said explicitly that you were going to try but fail to discredit astrology.
Never neglect the hidden variable.
Posted by: Cannabinaceae
|
January 28, 2011 12:13 PM
Maybe this belongs in the Hate Thread™, but I hate when I respect and get along with someone, and after I've known them for a while they blurt out something like "oh, no wonder so-and-so didn't appreciate such-and-such. They're such a Gemini".
All I can do is either start talking about something else, or walk away or something. People take it so personally when you call bullshit on their favored beliefs.
Not that I have that many friends anyway, but I hate to alienate people who are otherwise positive and intelligent.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
January 28, 2011 12:14 PM
PS--I tried to check my own horoscope for today before posting that, but for some reasons it's hard to get predictions for my sign, Ophiuchus.
Posted by: Always Curious
|
January 28, 2011 12:15 PM
I hosted a dinner party a few years ago and a number of my friends came (along with some of their friends). As it happened, my sister's husband dabbles a bit in woo and astrology happened to become a topic. Naturally he explained how important and predictive it was...
Before I could counter, a guest brought by one of my friends spoke up, "It's all crap". How did he know? He worked for a major newspaper in southern California and his first assignment as a for them had been: write a year's worth of astrology columns so they will be ready at a moment's notice [oh, and here's last year's columns, don't copy them word-for-word, but they might help you formulate ideas]. The look on my brother-in-law's face was priceless.
Posted by: Lystrosaurus
|
January 28, 2011 12:18 PM
Please note the distinction between aggravate and irritate.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
January 28, 2011 12:21 PM
Re #43:
I'm still claiming a hit. Clearly, Brownian and Sastra are the same sign.
Posted by: Mister Wizard
|
January 28, 2011 12:30 PM
@crich83 #9
Thank you for that link. It really made my day!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 28, 2011 12:39 PM
Your horoscope for today:
You will do something undescribable. We'd tell you what it is but it can't be described. Avoid hitchhikers carrying axes or chainsaws. Today is a good day to spend money on something frivilous. Please see my advertisements for suggestions.
Posted by: Is it fishing season yet?
|
January 28, 2011 12:45 PM
I signed the petition as Briancox Isright and got a very polite thankyou. The astrologers may be full of crap, but they are polite about it.
Yeah, history departments are full of people who don't know anything about the past affecting what the present is like. I guess I should stop paying for my daughter's history degree since atrology is the way.
Posted by: BrianX
|
January 28, 2011 12:48 PM
Fred the Hun:
Salem does throw one hell of a Halloween party, but when you get right down to it, downtown Salem is just Sedona East.
Posted by: mferrari
|
January 28, 2011 12:52 PM
Hahaha!
"Dear Astrologyis Bullshit
Thank you for registering your name"
I think you all know what to do :)
Posted by: kieran
|
January 28, 2011 12:54 PM
I always read my horoscope for the day before just to see if it was accurate... it wasn't even if I filled in the blanks of vagueness for them.
I always had the idea of an autodialler service ringing people to phone my really expensive horoscope line to find out what I have to warn them about. You know the way if pscyhics really where they would give advanced warning.
Posted by: CJColucci
|
January 28, 2011 1:07 PM
Several years ago, I took what was then the annual National Enquirer predictions for the coming year, culled from leading astrologers. The article filled a two-page spread and included roughly 100 predictions, most quite specific. As the year went on I crossed off any prediction that had been definitively falsified by events.
When the year was over, exactly one prediction had unequivocally been correct. One other was somewhat ambiguous: in a charitable mood I could count it as a win, but there were solid arguments not to. In the end, since it didn't affect the overall results, I let the astrologers have it. Every other prediction was provably falsified.
Maybe I should do it again this year, if the Enquirer still runs the feature.
Posted by: CJO
|
January 28, 2011 1:09 PM
There is a potential explanation (however unlikely) for astrology: Non-causal correlation.
I've heard the seasonal explanation before. There's a perfectly easy way to test it: is the effect reversed in the Southern Hemisphere?
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
January 28, 2011 1:28 PM
Re Sastra @#23--
Did I miss the thread where Sastra got the Molly Of The Year? Cos I'm somehow reminded that it's long overdue...
Posted by: sqlrob
|
January 28, 2011 1:42 PM
I have no problems in treating astrology fairly.
They made a claim, they were fairly allowed to demonstrate it. No good demonstration yet? Too bad, so sad, it's bull.
That's fair, right? Methinks that's not what they mean though.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
January 28, 2011 1:46 PM
BrianX @ 54,
Well I guess the fact that witches are now a respected part of the foreclosure and real estate business is a sign of progress. They are only burned at the stake if the new homeowner also loses the house...then all bets are off!
Posted by: Moon Dragon
|
January 28, 2011 1:48 PM
Zsa Zsa Gabor, Ronald Reagan, and Bob Marley all born on 6 February. All I ever needed to know.
Posted by: SEF
|
January 28, 2011 1:52 PM
@ Randomfactor #47:
The astrology game needs an expansion kit or two.
Posted by: abb3w
|
January 28, 2011 2:04 PM
PZ Myers: Then we should present them as idiots who don't have a mechanism for their claimed influences
On this part, I would disagree. I'd point back to earlier this month, the collection of Edge essays on "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?", and in particular on V. S. Ramachandran's "Chunks with 'Handles'":
Lack of a mechanism is a secondary problem; the primary problem is lack of data validating the existence of those claimed influences - and the associated lack of consistent claims between one astrologer and the next as to what direction those influences will run. The fundamental flaw is the inability to empirically sustain and confirm even correlation. If they had that, they would deserve to be taken half-seriously.
As is, about the best you can turn up is a slight tendency for Capricorns to be more likely to think astrology is unscientific.
Posted by: Don1
|
January 28, 2011 2:11 PM
Probably not a good idea to bring up the issue of 'balance' with Dara.
You could find yourself in the fuckin' sack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RstwLzikmvA
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
January 28, 2011 2:21 PM
Astrology: because millions of planets and stars have spent billions of years lining themselves up, just to let her/him know that she'll/he'll "meet someone with nice eyes today."
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
January 28, 2011 2:21 PM
For me, the most annoying comment I saw attached to this article was from the individual who claimed it was up to the critics to come up with the evidence that Astrology was rubbish.
No it bloody well isn't.
It's up to the proponents of a theory (or to be more precise, a hypothesis, as it isn't a theory yet) to come up with evidence that the hypothesis has validity. If they can't, they're talking science fiction/fantasy, not science fact.
Astrology is science fiction/fantasy, and should be filed there in the book store of life, not under the Sciences.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 28, 2011 2:51 PM
@#33: The list of stars looks like it comes from Wikipedia -- which I think contains a typo; η should not be in there, for the Teapot, as shown in the sentence following (which does not list it), nor is it in the graphic of that particular asterism.
Harumph!
Posted by: Brian
|
January 28, 2011 3:05 PM
@ TC48 #33: Thank you. Milne's snark notwithstanding, I was completely in the dark as to the title.
Posted by: ereador
|
January 28, 2011 3:08 PM
lordshipmayhem @#67: That's because they got there first, you know, back in the day when people did not know shit about the real forces in the world. The older is always the truer, because it's closer to the source. For it is written, or something.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
January 28, 2011 3:11 PM
A practical disproof of astrology is to take a few days' horoscopes columns, cut them into separate predictions, mix them up and then select one at random. Read it out loud to your astrology believer, without the astronomical sign, and ask them if it fits. Do that for several in a row. Ask them if they can tell which one is really theirs. (for good luck, don't use this week's horoscopes or they might actually know already). Chances are, they'll all seem to apply.
I've seen this in action with Tarot. Any random tarot meaning can be applied to whatever situation a person is in.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
January 28, 2011 3:16 PM
Actually, I think that's the value of divination systems such as the I Ching. While you're puzzling out whatever-the-hell it means, you're turning over all the factors in your mind and making sense of your situation, until you derive a meaning that has some value for you. Since it isn't the Bible, the answer is unlikely to be "kill my demon-inhabited roommate."
Posted by: Monkey's Uncle
|
January 28, 2011 3:53 PM
What's annoying about this 'new star sign' business is that I used to answer when people asked my star sign, 'Ophiuchus' and then smile smugly in the knowledge of being really clever.
Unfortunately they can now turn round and tell me that I'll be mildly embarrassed with a watermelon falling on my head on Thursday. Or something. Boo.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
January 28, 2011 5:03 PM
Sorry, э̀иэЯ (#8) but it should be γ2.
Owlmirror (#68), I agree. The Wikipedia entry has been corrected.
η would be a drip falling from the bottom of the teapot and is ignored when constructing the asterism.
Posted by: DLC
|
January 28, 2011 5:41 PM
For Sastra @ 23: I enclose herein one (1) Internet.
"But . . . people Need their nonsense!" he pleaded, in a whiny voice.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
January 28, 2011 5:46 PM
I'm with DLC. Sastra should get another Molly just for #23. It's a classic.
Posted by: Frikle
|
January 28, 2011 5:47 PM
PZ, your position seems to be identical ro Rebekah Higgitt: "Astrology as a scientific hypothesis has been put to the test and found wanting: it is this that should be the focus of commentary by science communicators", so where's the stupidity?
Her point is that when someone argues that "most astrologers don't know about precession," their claim is simply false -- given your zealous interest in truth I can't possibly see what the problem is.
Posted by: doug.black
|
January 28, 2011 6:36 PM
@46
I've had the same experience with homeopathy believers/antivaxers. It's indeed unpleasant.
Posted by: gspahr
|
January 28, 2011 8:56 PM
Astrology is always right about its predictions... If not, how is it that there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Posted by: Marella
|
January 28, 2011 11:05 PM
In the days when our newspaper still had the astrology section near the cartoons I read it because it was there. For about 18 months instead of the usual 'Look before you leap' sort of thing my horoscope could have been losely translated as 'Stop being suck a dick!'. At first I was a bit miffed, but as it continued I realised something weird was going on and came to the conclusion that the writer must have been dumped by her boyfriend who must have been a Scorpio like me! She got over it eventually and my horoscope went back to the usual stuff. It was odd though.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-47rv8A5g661wy_D_1pdxmfBj7cSuTf0
|
January 29, 2011 4:01 AM
Why the hell does everyone think 'balanced' is a synonym for 'fair'?
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
January 29, 2011 6:09 AM
Marella: in D. Adams' "The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul", the main character has a friend who works as a newspaper astrologer. As a result, the m.c. occasionally sees horoscopes for his sign saying things like "you are very fat and stupid, constantly wear a ridiculous hat and should be ashamed of yourself".
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
January 29, 2011 8:06 AM
Yes Astrology is total BS - and modern intelligent and knowledgeable people that really believe in it must have some screws loose.
Having said that some of the real effects of the seasons - observed effects on animals and plants - could have driven more primitive (less knowledgeable) people to associate the periodicity of astronomical/celestial phenomena in ways that were rational at the time. A contributing factor to the rise of Astrology?
That is to say: those that could not have really known better (nor have been practitioners of modern science methods) did best they could to connect the dots rationally and intelligently.
The amount of sunlight, the foods available, the stresses caused by seasonal climates, etc. all can and do influence development. To what degree and to what scope modern science explores. Again more primitive people - in some basic way sensed "there is something about people born during ... " and jumped to more conclusions than we would and then there is and always will be charlatans to capitalize on a grain of truth or on something possibly true or on it "makes common sense".
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp
|
January 29, 2011 11:49 AM
There is only one source I trust for my horoscope - The Onion.
How did they know?!?! That's SPOOKY!
Posted by: jeffswensen
|
February 3, 2011 1:06 PM
Astrology is now legally a science in India.