Star Signs v Dancers

[ducasi]

The gist is that I don't believe astrology predicts the future, but I think it's possible to devised mechanisms by which people born at the same time of year may share personality traits.

[ducasi]

OK, I'm on a roll now, bring up your sacred cows for slaughter...

Hmm... Better not say anything about my theory on names... (But did you ever wonder why there are so many Davids on this forum???)

[David Bailey]

Hmm... Better not say anything about my theory on names... (But did you ever wonder why there are so many Davids on this forum???)

No, coz it's a common name - second commonest name in Britan, apparently.

Next?

David The Commoner

[ducasi]

No, coz it's a common name - second commonest name in Britan, apparently.

What's the most common?

[David Bailey]

What's the most common?

Hey, I don't do useful, just destruction.

[bigdjiver]

Father Christmas.

Re: telepathy - given that the nervous system works on electrical signals then there is, scientifically, a possibility that someone could recognise/read these. But very very very very unlikely IMO, so (invoking Occam's Razor), I would always cry "coincidence" to any claim of psychic powers unless it could be scientifically proved that there is no other explanation.

I would go for "coincidence" too, but the mind remains open. During the war my Mother dreamt that she was following a bobbing green light, and whenever it turned red she had to stop. For some reason she felt petrified with fear. She told her friend Trixie about it. Later that day the news broke about the El Alemain offensive. When my father got back he told my mother how scared he had been on that night, following through the wire the guys prodding for mines with bayonets, with little lights on their back, green for proceed ...

[bigdjiver]

I remeber a talk by Dick Pick in which he said that the most common 1st name on his database was Mohammed, and the most common surname was Smith. Curiously there were no Mohammed Smiths.

[JoC]

What's the most common?

John?

Remember being told how my name was the female version of the most basic name by the German teacher, then followed a year of being called 'Basic' (amongst other derogatory nick-names, how I loved school...).

That doesn't help at all in determining the most common I expect.

Now then, is there any correlation between names and star signs?

[Ash]

If it's not at least partially science-based, then why spend all this time on detailed mathematical calculations, following fairly strict rules, etc.? If you have rules / theories, that almost by definition means those can and should be tested and questioned.DavidJames

When you construct a birthchart it's unique to the person in question. (The horoscopes in the papers are a bit of fun and shouldn't be taken seriously.) Even a difference of 5 minutes can be significant. You take the date, time and place of birth and construct a unique picture. (This has been tested by Michel and Françoise Gauquelin, both statisticians and psychologists, who studied thousands of charts and found many patterns, including the way planets corresponded with particular jobs.)

I'm a sceptic and I usually need to test things out and I know from first hand experience that it works. Like tarot cards, esp., ghosts etc. it doesn't lend itself to the narrow confines of science: it's too black and white. (The best scientist go beyond logic and use their intuition, like Einstein, who dreamt his theory of relativity.)

I find that 98% of interest for astrology (and the mystical stuff) comes from females. I think it's because they're in touch with their feminine side and have an open mind. I think males, generally, are more rigid in their thinking and need to rationalize everything. (That's why they can find it harder to talk about their emotions etc.)

Don't ask me how but I know it works. To quote Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Lou]

No, coz it's a common name - second commonest name in Britan, apparently.

But falling rapidly. According to this article in the Times on-line, David was only the 52nd most popular name for boys last year.

You're an endangered species!

[David Bailey]

Ding, ding! Places please...

Even a difference of 5 minutes can be significant. You take the date, time and place of birth

OK, then my next awkward question is: why birth? Surely the time conception would be more of a the key moment to determining life etc. Especially now that birth dates can be altered artificially.

Surely it couldn't be that birth is easier to measure... I'll also be amazed if people know their conception date to within 5 minutes.

I'm a sceptic and I usually need to test things out and I know from first hand experience that it works.

Err, technically, a sceptic starts from the premise that it doesn't work, and tries to devise tests to prove that it doesn't work. If all these tests fail, the sceptic may then grudgingly accept the hypothesis, mumbling and whingeing all the time, and trying to devise more tests to disprove the hypothesis. That's how human knowledge advances.

Like tarot cards, esp., ghosts etc. it doesn't lend itself to the narrow confines of science: it's too black and white. (The best scientist go beyond logic and use their intuition, like Einstein, who dreamt his theory of relativity.)

I'm happy to accept that it's not a science, it's a faith; in which case it's pointless discussing belief, because these things almost by definition are non-debatable; you either believe or you don't. Or discussing "Is Swing better than Latin" - it depends on your taste.

But most astrologers seem to want to insist astrology has a rational basis, and certainly attempt to use the tools of much-derided science. And it's the "Look, it works" argument which implies a set of rules "it" must "work" to.

I'm happy with "Look, it works for me" - as I would be for a discussion on dance styles, art preferences, religion, favourite foods, or other personal-taste areas.

What I have a problem with is someone attempting to claim simultaneous "proof" and "it's not science" - the two aren't compatible in my opinion.

(The best scientist go beyond logic and use their intuition, like Einstein, who dreamt his theory of relativity.)

After a heavy chicken tikka I imagine, I get these dreams myself...

Einstein and his contemporaries devised tests of his theories, the results of which would either confirm or deny his theories. Lots and lots of tests. Very boring to go through, as anyone who's studied physics will tell you, but necessary.

And Einstein famously got it "wrong" (for the scientific value of "wrong") when his intuition told him "God does not play dice with the universe". And tests proved him wrong with that one. Intuition is great, but if you can't prove it, it's just faith.

I find that 98% of interest for astrology (and the mystical stuff) comes from females. I think it's because they're in touch with their feminine side and have an open mind. I think males, generally, are more rigid in their thinking and need to rationalize everything. (That's why they can find it harder to talk about their emotions etc.)

Well, I'm going to go and have a good cry about that, right now.

You may be right, but I'll avoid the dicussion of male / female behavioural patterns for a while...

Oh, and:

You're an endangered species!

Or, I'm acquiring novelty value

[JoC]

Ash??? (probably take some time to respond to that one I suppose...)


how will this end? the suspense is unbearable!

[Ash]

What I have a problem with is someone attempting to claim simultaneous "proof" and "it's not science" - the two aren't compatible in my opinion.DavidJames

Astrology isn’t a pure science or a pure art…the science part is the mathematical construction of the birthchart-but the art is in the interpretation. It doesn’t fit into a convenient box.

I think Einstein was right when he said that God doesn’t play dice with the cosmos. I think there is a design to the universe:

‘Only the pattern is cosmically determined, not any particular event; within that pattern Man is free.’
Johannes Kepler: astronomer and astrologer

I think if you’re going to look at it in a purely logical way then we could talk about this ad infinitum. Have you tried using your intuition? Some things we can just know without having to know them in pedantic detail. (When you’re in love, for example, it’s a feeling and not a long winded essay.)

Maybe you should try studying astrology.

[David Bailey]

Astrology isn’t a pure science or a pure art…the science part is the mathematical construction of the birthchart-but the art is in the interpretation. It doesn’t fit into a convenient box.

Sure, many areas of study - psychology and economics come to mind - are "soft science", sometimes more guesswork than not, with different and often conflicting models. But all these areas still have basic models, which always have reasons why something happens. For example, in economics, trade promotes economic growth because improved communications of ideas and materials leads to improved utilisation of resources (I'm not an economist, but I think that's the basic idea).

I've still heard no basic theory as to why the orbit of Pluto affects my behaviour, characteristics and destiny. Without that, you just have faith - which as I said, is "either believe in it or not", so is pointless to debate.

I need a "why"...

I think Einstein was right when he said that God doesn’t play dice with the cosmos. I think there is a design to the universe:

‘Only the pattern is cosmically determined, not any particular event; within that pattern Man is free.’
Johannes Kepler: astronomer and astrologer

The actual Einstein quote is:
"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice."

The main part is the last sentence of course; it refers to the sceptism Einstein felt towards the Uncertainty Principle - the whole concept of randomness and unpredictability at the basic level of the natural order. But, empirical progress via observation and testing has led to the general scientific consensus that quantum mechanics is a valid (or at least a more valid) way of modelling physical behaviour. So far

There's always room for disagreement, but if you don't offer any proof to back up your opinion, we're again reduced to discussing different basic faiths and beliefs.

Have you tried using your intuition? Some things we can just know without having to know them in pedantic detail. (When you’re in love, for example, it’s a feeling and not a long winded essay.)

Well, OK then - my intuition tells me that, human nature and gullibility being what they are, it's easier for lots of people to believe in "psychic phenomena" than take the time and effort to research the area in question. It takes little effort to hold your mind way way open. So as most people (me included) are lazy, we're inclined to believe the simplistic and glamorous interpretations, especially if those interpretations give meaning to our lives.

Or putting it another way, people are easy to fool.

That's about as intuitive as I get...

how will this end? the suspense is unbearable!

Hee, maybe we should just stop and say "OK, you win", see how many people that annoys

[DavidY]

The "theory" I'm assuming as, put simply, "You can tell a lot about a person by knowing the time of year they were born in"

As you've expressed it there, this has elements of being a plausible theory.

Here's a mechanism:

(a) If you are at stage x of your development in the womb during darkness of cold winter, you are likely to be exposed to certain levels of various hormones (from the mother) as will other people conceived around the same time.

(b) If you are at stage x when it's bright warm summer, 6 months later, you might get exposed to different levels of hormones, and again these are likely to be similar to other people conceived at the same time.

If you assume that levels of hormones you are exposed to at stage x in the womb might affect your personality, then 1,000 people in (a) might share some similar traits with each other which they don't share with 1,000 people in (b).

So I think that, at a statistical-on-average-y sort of way, there could be something in the theory as you've described it.

I don't think it's an exact science - I think the month of birth might make a difference but not week/ day/ hour/ minute/second - and I don't think any celestial bodies have anything to do with it except the Sun and possibly the Moon.

I think there's a Dilbert cartoon along similar lines somewhere too (so there must be something in it)

[David Bailey]

As you've expressed it there, this has elements of being a plausible theory.

Oh good. 'Coz, you know, that's exactly what I was trying to do, create a plausible General Theory of Astrology.

{ snip argument about hormones }

OK, the one immediately obvious gaping hole in that argument is the implicit assumption that the climate is the same everywhere on the planet. Unless you're positing specific horoscopes based on specific geographical areas?

So, *trap-door opening and fading scream sound*, next?

I think there's a Dilbert cartoon along similar lines somewhere too (so there must be something in it)

Ah, now you're bringing out the big guns, hmm?

[JoC]

So, *trap-door opening and fading scream sound*, next?

Time travel please.

Just read mini article that says a couple of physicists "have shown that the most basic features of quantum theory may ensure that time travellers could never alter the past, even if they are able to go back in time". Doesn't discount the possibility of time travel though.

[JoC]

Ooh! Got another one!!! Are there extra-terrestrials living on earth? Oh no, don't start that one actually, I'll start having nightmares again

(while i'm there, a new crop circle appeared in Fife the other night, apparently shaped like an ovum with three sperm around it) I've not been to see it in case I get beamed up...

[DavidY]

OK, the one immediately obvious gaping hole in that argument is the implicit assumption that the climate is the same everywhere on the planet. Unless you're positing specific horoscopes based on specific geographical areas?

I didn't say anything about horoscopes or predicting the future. I was just saying it's a plausible theory that you can tell a lot about someone by knowing the time of year when they were born.

I think astrology has its origins in times when hardly anyone travelled very far from their place of birth so people with similar birthdays would be more homogeneous.

I notice Ash says you need to know the place of birth to do a horoscope though.

[ducasi]

I've still heard no basic theory as to why the orbit of Pluto affects my behaviour, characteristics and destiny. Without that, you just have faith - which as I said, is "either believe in it or not", so is pointless to debate.

I need a "why"...

Why?

There's lots of science which is ultimately based on belief because we have no way of knowing for sure, and no way to prove the hypothesis. Like so much of astronomy... Isn't the argument is "well it works with what we know to be true?"

I used to be a true-born sceptic of astrology. Then I was shown examples of (blind) astrological readings which had an uncanny match with the people involved. Further observations has shown to me that the broad sweeps of astronomy's brush can often hit the mark. (More often that statistical probability would allow.)

I would never, ever base any important decisions on astronomy, but it doesn't stop it being an interesting phenomena.

Likewise, I'm open to the possibility of all sorts of "far-out" stuff, based on ideas like the above Shakespearian quote, and "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." – Arthur C. Clarke.

Oh, and my signature quote... (Which, if it changes, will result in this post making even less sense that I think DJ will attribute it with. )