Jump to content

is astrology really a pseudoscience? [yes]


ark200
 Share

Recommended Posts

i am asking it because i have found that astrology is based on geocentric model of cosmos. we test it on heliocentric model and it failed. is not it obvious? something is tested on a model on which it is not based. is not it bound to fail?

 

but if we took geocentric astrological data and convert them into heliocentric data, will astrology fail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that it works. And no possible mechanism.

 

 

but if we took geocentric astrological data and convert them into heliocentric data, will astrology fail?

 

I don't see how this would make any difference. Horoscopes are based on the apparent positions of objects so it makes no difference what your model is.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't fail because of an error in the modeling.

It failed because its crap.

 

Do you realize how far away the stars that make up the constallations are ?

A causal connection ( back and forth influence ) probably requires longer than your lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on one's view, intellectuality and preference. If you would love to learn more about the cosmos and astronomy, stick to this topic. If you have other interests, just get out without bothering others. Astrology is not deemed pseudoscience, as there is not enough evidence to prove it. Though based on the mechanics of cosmos, that's how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Astrology is not deemed pseudoscience,

I think you will find that it is.

"Astrology consists of several pseudoscientific systems of divination[1] based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. "

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

though I personally think it's not even close enough to being science to count as pseudoscience. I think it's more of a religion.

 

More importantly, it's not a case of "there is not enough evidence to prove it.":

the fact is that there is plenty of evidence to disprove it.

For example, why does this

http://www.horoscopes.co.uk/Sagittarius/Weekly-Horoscope.php

not tally with this?

https://uk.astrology.yahoo.com/horoscopes/sagittarius/

 

Ironically, I just looked at my"horoscope" from a TV listings magazine.

It tells me that I'm not at my most confident, but that my humility will endear me to others.

Anyone taking bets?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on one's view, intellectuality and preference. If you would love to learn more about the cosmos and astronomy, stick to this topic. If you have other interests, just get out without bothering others. Astrology is not deemed pseudoscience, as there is not enough evidence to prove it. Though based on the mechanics of cosmos, that's how it works.

 

!

Moderator Note

No, it really depends on the evidence and what kind of model you can make. If anyone wishes to come up with some kind of defense of Astrology they may try to do so in the Speculations forum. Otherwise, I think the OP has been answered: yes, it is

 

e.g.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/17/20030817-105449-9384r/

http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1197-data-from-22000-horoscopes-show-true-nature-of-astrology.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astrology is not deemed pseudoscience, as there is not enough evidence to prove it. Though based on the mechanics of cosmos, that's how it works.

It is not even pseudoscience. It is based on making general enough statements so that any individual will find some parallel with their own lives. On the few occasions I have read my horoscope in the news paper I an surprised just how 'accurate' they can be. There is a real art in this, but no science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

!

Moderator Note

No, it really depends on the evidence and what kind of model you can make. If anyone wishes to come up with some kind of defense of Astrology they may try to do so in the Speculations forum. Otherwise, I think the OP has been answered: yes, it is

 

e.g.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/17/20030817-105449-9384r/

http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1197-data-from-22000-horoscopes-show-true-nature-of-astrology.html

Noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am asking it because i have found that astrology is based on geocentric model of cosmos. we test it on heliocentric model and it failed. is not it obvious? something is tested on a model on which it is not based. is not it bound to fail?

 

but if we took geocentric astrological data and convert them into heliocentric data, will astrology fail?

Dude,astrology is called a pseudoscience because the things said in it may apply to anyone. Now take a pair of twins for example. They were born on the same date,and almost the same time too. That means that they have the same zodiac sign and therefore the same fate according to astrology. But there are many incidents in which a twin dies at an early age while the other lives to a ripe old age. Therefore astrology is obviously a pseudoscience.

Edited by Hades007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We tested it the real world, and it failed.

There is only one universe and it's not one where astrology works.

 

once geocentric model was the real world. now heliocentric model becomes real world. it makes no difference. really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am asking it because i have found that astrology is based on geocentric model of cosmos. we test it on heliocentric model and it failed. is not it obvious? something is tested on a model on which it is not based. is not it bound to fail?

 

but if we took geocentric astrological data and convert them into heliocentric data, will astrology fail?

 

Fun fact: there are people out there doing heliocentric astrology.

We tested it the real world, and it failed.

There is only one universe and it's not one where astrology works.

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. You could try to start a fire with wet sticks all day long and it wouldn't prove "making fire doesn't work" - certainly you can point to all of the tests which have failed to show any validity and discourage people from pursuing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

 

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/may/18/research.highereducation

It didn't fail because of an error in the modeling.

It failed because its crap.

 

Do you realize how far away the stars that make up the constallations are ?

A causal connection ( back and forth influence ) probably requires longer than your lifetime.

In the western world, the stars don't play much of a part in astrology. Western astrology has signs based upon the seasonal quadrants, not positions of distant stars.

In any event, the distance of the stars doesn't prevent them to be visible to us.

It is not completely impossible to seek some type of influence there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. You could try to start a fire with wet sticks all day long and it wouldn't prove "making fire doesn't work" - certainly you can point to all of the tests which have failed to show any validity and discourage people from pursuing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

No, but it is evidence that making fire with wet sticks doesn't work. And while absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, if I feel around in my pocket and come across no evidence that my keys are present, that is evidence that my keys are absent from my pocket.

 

If you want to make the claim that all previous attempts at astrology have been done incorrectly and that there is some never-before-tried method of doing astrology that actually does work, fine. That's straying too far into Russell's Teapot territory for me, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but it is evidence that making fire with wet sticks doesn't work. And while absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, if I feel around in my pocket and come across no evidence that my keys are present, that is evidence that my keys are absent from my pocket.

 

If you want to make the claim that all previous attempts at astrology have been done incorrectly and that there is some never-before-tried method of doing astrology that actually does work, fine. That's straying too far into Russell's Teapot territory for me, though.

 

Some people think they have a method that does work. Probably most are deluding themselves. However, it might be that some have something that hasn't been tested, or simply couldn't meet the high bar of the kinds of tests which have been performed.

Edited by whiskers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

How can you get to sleep at night with that tiger in your room?

Obviously there's no evidence for that tiger but, as you say, that's no reason to suppose he's not there.

Or do you realise that you were overstating the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not absolute disproof - which is impossible. The issue is what is worth pursuing or worrying about. Without any indication of a tiger in the room, can I state conclusively that there no tiger? No I cannot. Substitute snake or scorpion and you'll see what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

sunshaker's attempt to create a physics model for astrology has been split off into speculations

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87876-astrology-split-from-is-astrology-pseudoscience/

 

I just wish I had posted something earlier, maybe earlier this very morning telling folks to pursue such discussion there.[/sarcasm]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not absolute disproof - which is impossible. The issue is what is worth pursuing or worrying about. Without any indication of a tiger in the room, can I state conclusively that there no tiger? No I cannot. Substitute snake or scorpion and you'll see what I mean.

Substitute astrology and you will see what I mean.

There is no more valid evidence for astrology than there is for a tiger in your room.

 

Feel free to show that I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those 'seasonal quadrants' you're talking about, like Capricorn, Leo, Sagittarius, etc. ARE constellations, the apparent position of specific stars in the sky, some of whose light was emitted hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

 

But you go on thinking they have a causal connection with you.

Let me know how that works out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those 'seasonal quadrants' you're talking about, like Capricorn, Leo, Sagittarius, etc. ARE constellations, the apparent position of specific stars in the sky, some of whose light was emitted hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

 

But you go on thinking they have a causal connection with you.

Let me know how that works out.

Causal connection or no, western astrology uses the 360 degrees of celestial longitude, which begins at the vernal equinox point, even though the *names* of the signs derive from a time when the imaginative/arbitrary constellations matched up with the seasonal framework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to astrology, I'm supposed to be a Gemini because of when I was born. This is supposed to mean that the Sun was in Gemini on my birth date. I guess this means that the constellation Gemini was behind the Sun on that date (at noon?). Anyway, this is wrong.

 

Astrology charts are based on how the heavens were some 2000 years ago. Positions of stars and constellations have moved relative to Earth since the charts were generated. We are now in the Age of Aquarius. I would have been a Gemini had I been born 2000 years ago, but I'm not a Gemini now. Similarly, your so-called birth sign is not necessarily what the charts tell you either.

 

So as far as I can see, astrology doesn't even keep up with changes to the positions of stars and constellations over time. Pseudoscience indeed.

Edited by IM Egdall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The western astrological tradition is well-aware of the differences between tropical and sidereal coordinates. Gemini is simply used as a name for a particular segment of space which used to house the constellation Gemini. The whole rap about how tropical astrology "didn't keep up" is a straw man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology

 

Interesting example of how detailed the issue goes:

http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic2_e.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.