Astrology

[vanizorc]

It should be obvious that silly psuedosciences like astrology, numerology, etc.. are utter bullshit.

People should not be comparing these sorts of things to standardized, psychological tests such as the MBTI. Something as outlandish as interpreting the "position of the planets" upon birth is clearly not in the same scientific league as the empirical evidence involved in standardized personality tests (albeit even if the evidence is self-administered).
Psychological inventories actually do measure something - they have been shown to be valid, and they do indeed correlate to other traits/behaviours/patterns, and they do have predictive powers.

Astrology/numerology/tarot cards, on the other hand, do not have a scientific basis at all. I mean it's common sense - "position of the planets" influencing one's personality? You've got to be kidding me. There are giant flaws everywhere: why only at the moment of birth? Why not at conception, etc..? Should I build myself a house of ham, and expect to be shielded from the planets' effects? Why use planets in the first place? Why not the refrigerator in the hospital kitchen? And why is it limited to planets in our solar system?
Another major player is the "Barnum Effect/Forer Effect" - people tend to accept short, general, vague descriptions as accurately describing their personalities, regardless of who the intended target is. (There have been numerous studies demonstrating the impact and validity of the Barnum Effect.)

I mean, I could see how there might be a correlation regarding what time of the year (summer, spring, fall, winter) you were born, as environmental factors related to a specific season could've theoretically affected the fetus. But astrology to discern personality types? Nonsense.

Seriously, where is the evidence for things like astrology, numerology, etc..? I want to see proof. (And if there is some sort of pattern to astrology, the most likely culprit would be the effects of the different seasons upon the mother and fetus; for example, Seasonal Affective Disorder during the fall or winter. As such, different amounts of hormones could be distributed to the fetus based on season, and that in turn could lead to certain personality predispositions.)

To blindly accept these kinds of psuedosciences without logical justification is an INTJ fail.

[Haumea]

It should be obvious that silly psuedosciences like astrology, numerology, etc.. are utter bullshit.

It should be obvious that apriori dismissing things you haven't studied is a sign of epistemic closure.

Our academic establishment (which on some things couldn't find its ass with two hands) wouldn't even know how to begin to study astrology. Whenever I read some study of astrology that conclusively proves there's nothing to it I laugh my head off -- they have no clue what it is they are studying.

I've studied astrology for over a decade, and it took me almost a decade to even begin to understand exactly why it works as well as it does (and no, sun sign horoscopes are very inadequate.)

There are giant flaws everywhere: why only at the moment of birth? Why not at conception, etc..? Should I build myself a house of ham, and expect to be shielded from the planets' effects? Why use planets in the first place?

Answers to your questions: umm, because it works? Because you're more likely to know the time of birth than the time of conception? There are no "effects of planets". The entire universe is looking to serious physicists more and more like a fractal pattern (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and astrology is merely a special case. Why planets? See the answer above. "The planets" are "one level removed" from matter on earth - easily observable, hence easily described.

Excuse my bluntness - astrology is a hell of a lot more truthful and accurate than a shitload of intellectual output of our fine higher educational system. Don't get me started.

Astrology, in my definition, is a special case of fractal cosmology, and it works not by emitting some special influence rays, but by virtue of self-similarity between the two phenomena involved. S'all there's to it.

[RBM]

It should be obvious that apriori dismissing things you haven't studied is a sign of epistemic closure.

Assuming non-study is the true state of the commenter, I would agree with the observation.

Our academic establishment (which on some things couldn't find its ass with two hands) wouldn't even know how to begin to study astrology. Whenever I read some study of astrology that conclusively proves there's nothing to it I laugh my head off -- they have no clue what it is they are studying.

This is totally understandable and should be totally expected given the Scientific orthodox view of Astrology as 'paranormal'. This effectively places it 'on a shelf' outside of the significant resources generally available to the larger Scientific community. If one adopts a view in a model of which Consciousness is an assumption, 'para' becomes merely normal.

I've studied astrology for over a decade, and it took me almost a decade to even begin to understand exactly why it works as well as it does (and no, sun sign horoscopes are very inadequate.)

While I've not studied it directly I was in social circles in which in was studied for about 20 years. I have 2 sun charts done, one by a vocational psychologist, one by a vocational housewife. (I'm a Leo sun, with Libra ascendant and a Libra moon, for starters)

My last romantic relationship was to a Sagittarius woman 10 years my elder who at that time of initial meeting had read Tarot for over 20 years. Her first comment to me upon hearing my Sun sign was 'So you can fix things !?'

Answers to your questions: umm, because it works? Because you're more likely to know the time of birth than the time of conception? There are no "effects of planets". The entire universe is looking to serious physicists more and more like a fractal pattern (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and astrology is merely a special case. Why planets? See the answer above. "The planets" are "one level removed" from matter on earth - easily observable, hence easily described.

I have yet to see a quantified demonstration of operational status. 'It works' is a bit of overstatement and misleading. As a model it has limited usefulness due to the uncertainty of it's results.

Science as it's practiced will have to be modified in order to address the topic correctly. There are some scientists who have already executed such modification, William A. Teller, being one, Dean Radin being another.

And in the foreseeable future a holometer (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. or.all.whether.reality.is.just.illusion) will come online to show those fractals fit in a holographic universe just as Michael Talbot has written in The Holographic Universe .

Excuse my bluntness - astrology is a hell of a lot more truthful and accurate than a shitload of intellectual output of our fine higher educational system. Don't get me started.

Astrology, in my definition, is a special case of fractal cosmology, and it works not by emitting some special influence rays, but by virtue of self-similarity between the two phenomena involved. S'all there's to it.

There is no truth in astrology.

The quoted view is couched in conventional framing which implies an objective reality. That's a myth, as quantum physics strongly suggests.

The 'truth' in astrology is in the Consciousness of the astrologer.

[xboss360]

I don't believe in astronomy.

I think that I could convince myself that it's true if I try hard enough.

The same could be said about any given religion, superstition, or perception.

I've caught myself doing it before and I'm careful to not do it again.

[davai]

The big problem i have found is that even within astrology circles there is almost no consensus on which is the correct system to use. Sidereal and tropical have already been touched upon briefly i think and there's loads more too! It's almost a case of 'my religion is better than yours' and to say that gets astrology no-where is a massive understatement.

The general criticisms that astrology hasn't performed well under scientific analysis are correct.... to a point ... the problem is that like most atheists they will use a particular conception of god to refute any possibility of any kind of god - and as we know this is usually the god that sits in the clouds creating shit storms for humanity - an obvious contradiction of the loving almighty god etc. This is no different to astrology. Unfortunately i believe most scientists who have had the will or budget to research it have tended to use their particular conception of it - the sun sign astrology you see in the daily rags. Astrology has a lot more depth to that (whether you believe in it or not that fact is irrefutable) - and so if one bases their entire view of astrology based on tabloid sun sign astrology they are almost certainly going to confirm what they already believe - why? Because sun sign astrology is almost certainly bullshit.

Let's for a moment go back to the fact that astrology has many different systems. In the regular tropical system (which we all know and hate) i am a scorpio sun. In sidereal i am a Libra sun - and thus all my planets will be in different signs with different aspects - the sun will rise in a different sign on my birthday etc. Even sidereal is not a 100% accurate picture of the positions of the planets at the moment i was born (but it is closer than western tropical (which we all know and hate). Now try and verify astrology scientifically based on these various misconceptions and what do you get - a completely misrepresented picture of astrology.

If you've read this far and think i believe in astrology you are much mistaken, though there are bits of evidence that whilst do not prove astrology out right do lend some food for thought and as such i would be wary of dismissing it totally out of hand.

Firstly this neat little bit of information (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) shows the roots of astrology as metaphors (not literal scientific truth) derived from the use of dichotomies that we use (and have used) to make sense of the world (included our beloved MBTI and mathematics).

This obviously is not enough, so what about considering chronobiology (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) when attempting to find some sort of causal explanation as to how astrology might work? There are many rhythms that life on earth adheres to in respect of planetary cycles, is this not something closely resembling what astrology purports to happen?

What about quantum non-locality as a possible mechanism? Bohm's physics of the explicate and implicate order? This document (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) presents some very interesting theories which i would like to see refuted beyond doubt before i could begin to accept there is nothing to astrology.

Lastly, Gauquelin's Mars effect (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) - im sure most of you will be familiar with his work if you are participating in this thread, if you are not i would advise having a little read and see what you think to his study. Was it a one off? I can't say for sure, but as long as we (as scientists) continue to fallaciously study astrology based on our own construction of it, then we will never come to any final agreement or truth on the matter.

[RBM]

Keepin on Consciousness:

And while I was open to certain things
such as consciousness expansion and Buddhist concepts of nirvana and shunyata, the absolute last straw for a rigorous scientist is astrology.

One of the things that Stan said, after 30 years of
working in the realm of consciousness, was that his deepest
conviction is that "each of us is everything."
By which he meant, that if we go inward, we can find within ourselves every manifest form of consciousness that there is, which is a kind of psychic version of what we're talking about here.

Keepin seems to be coming for the physical side of the 'equation', just as the ancients like Buddha did. It's not clear from my quick browse of the link if he appreciates the nature of Consciousness as fundamental, though.

[sircockburn]

dude, why do people go on these rants "enlightening" people that astrology is unscientific when it's obvious that no one actually even truly believes in the stuff?

It's entertainment, lighten up. It's no worse than watching Star Trek. Pure fantasy that's not taken seriously.

(you're just jealous that you're not an Aquarius like me. You probably got some crappy sign like Virgin Cancer or smth) :p

[davai]

Keepin seems to be coming for the physical side of the 'equation', just as the ancients like Buddha did. It's not clear from my quick browse of the link if he appreciates the nature of Consciousness as fundamental, though.

Is this necessary for his theories to be valid?

dude, why do people go on these rants "enlightening" people that astrology is unscientific when it's obvious that no one actually even truly believes in the stuff?


There are plenty of people who believe, your obviously not mixing in those circles. Hopefully there are others who know , making any belief irrelevant.

Those vehemently against astrology seem to take the usual popularist route offering many negatives in the form of expletives and 'rants' but next to no (or faulty) reasoning to back up their position.

[Zombicide]

dude, why do people go on these rants "enlightening" people that astrology is unscientific when it's obvious that no one actually even truly believes in the stuff.

Yes, they do. I've seen people express vehement rage over astrology types. It's so annoying when people claim religious people don't really believe or assert that no one actually believes in this astrology sorts of shit.

[metallingus]

Well ..I'm from Transylania (Romania) and here people know very little about MBTI and typing. Everybody uses astrology as a way of gathering extra-information about others. They try to predict you via astrological signs. Almost everyday i'm asked about my sign. For instance I'm pisces , but picsces are described in a way that really doesn't suite with my INTJ style. So silly!

[RBM]

dude, why do people go on these rants "enlightening" people that astrology is unscientific when it's obvious that no one actually even truly believes in the stuff?

Hahaha, dudette ( right, eventhough your avatar is 'Sir'), Jump to conclusions much ?

It's entertainment, lighten up. It's no worse than watching Star Trek. Pure fantasy that's not taken seriously.

Some don't take it seriously like you obviously don't, some most certainly do ?

As I've said, I've traveled with those that do. What I mean by 'traveled' is I've been 'in the business' and lot of people get VERY uptight when their 'living' is threatened, as they see it.

As I recall,f in one of your posts that had something to the effect of calling yourself an entrepreneur. Might you have had an actual experience with someone's living being adversely affected and see the person get stressed ? ^o)

(you're just jealous that you're not an Aquarius like me. You probably got some crappy sign like Virgin Cancer or smth) :p

Hahah an Assquarious, eh ? Nice to meet you :p

You apparently missed this: (I'm a Leo sun, with Libra ascendant and a Libra moon, for starters) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) 3:

From the humor in your reply, you seem to be feeling better. If so, glad to have you around to share some ribbing. ( )

---------- Post added 03-30-2011 at 06:49 AM ----------

Is this necessary for his theories to be valid?

The term validity in logic (also logical validity) is largely synonymous with logical truth.

In a relatively minor way it depends on who is communication target is for one thing and how they determine validity.

But the real importance is how it affects his perspective which is directly related in the quality of his hypothesis/conclusion.

Have you ever read/hear of Stanislav Grof (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)or David Bohm (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) ?

You can apply the 'box' metaphor to gain insight; any Reality Box (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) has a bigger box outside it. For the ancient mystics such as Buddha before the use of the scientific method, they were limited to that approach via meditation.

Otherwise, to gain insight, you can apply only intellectual deductive logic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) as Einstein did:

"You can't solve a problem on the same level you created it."

Here's a fundamental truism: Truth is not fragile.

So, the more perspectives one has on the Truth the more knowledge one has of the Truth. Coming from inside the box to get outside where the NEXT layer of Truth is means there is more work to be done and thus the perspective is not yet complete - and the potential for mistakes is still possible.

A perspective of looking into the box from the outside means the initial work is already done. Further work of looking back into the box is corroboration work. Corroboration work is important because it provides multiple perspectives of the Truth and the best we have to communicate is language which is all metaphor.

[MiaoPurrington]

I like astrology, but I am distancing myself from the subject for awhile. The dismissal of astrology without proper research first is a flawed stance to begin with. Astrology is definitely not a science, but the is a structure to it; when reviewed properly the system is very beautiful and combines early scientific methods and inquiry, with the appeal of the spiritual universe.

The problem I have with astrology currently is the fact that the are traits that are assigned to the signs are usually not specific and not wholly accurate, which is what I typically expect. Not every person born "under the sign" of Leo will have traits that exhibit Leo characteristics. I don't fit into the Libra label that much, although the associated element of Libra, Air, is compatible with my rational temperament. So, as I explained very briefly (but not very coherently I am afraid) is that while astrology can be a helpful tool used in the means of understanding yourself, this soul-searching should be approached with the same caution that we would approach other pseudosciences that claim to accurately describe personality, like I don't know, the MBTI perhaps.

[davai]

I hope all those anti-astrology people out there don't give up on this discussion. Past experience tells me it's likely though, and that the thread and the ideas/theories presented which challenge the conventional position will fade into obscurity - until the next time some poor unsuspecting fool tries to bring up a topic about astrology - and are resolutely ridiculed and crushed by the anti-astrology orthodoxy.... ad nauseam

[Sinequanon]

Astrology appears to be one of the only subjects that fails every large-scale test but whose adherents swear satisfies every small-scale test. Other such subjects include conspiracy theories, religion and magic.

[davai]

Astrology appears to be one of the only subjects that fails every large-scale test but whose adherents swear satisfies every small-scale test.

Well my argument (which others have mentioned also) is that astrology has not been researched accurately - leading to false conclusions about it.

[RBM]

Astrology appears to be one of the only subjects that fails every large-scale test but whose adherents swear satisfies every small-scale test. Other such subjects include conspiracy theories, religion and magic.

This is, in part a direct result of poor hypothesis formulation which is, I didn't previously know, a matter of Abductive Reasoning:

Abduction is a kind of logical inference described by Charles Sanders Peirce as "guessing".[1] The term refers to the process of arriving at an explanatory hypothesis. Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation a from an observed surprising circumstance b is to surmise that a may be true because then b would be a matter of course.[2] Thus, to abduce a from b involves determining that a is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not necessary, for b.

---------- Post added 03-31-2011 at 08:16 AM ----------

Well my argument (which others have mentioned also) is that astrology has not been researched accurately - leading to false conclusions about it.

That is what I'd call a meta-argument - it's about the study of astrology, not about astrology itself - it's presumptions for example.

[Sinequanon]

Well my argument (which others have mentioned also) is that astrology has not been researched accurately - leading to false conclusions about it.
No, because it makes claims that are either unfalsifiable, or it fails every predictive metric that it lays out over a large scale. On the micro-level, a "reading" by astrology is indistinguishable from cold reading, various styles of psychological observation, pure chance and outright fraud.

[RBM]

No, because it makes claims that are either unfalsifiable, or it fails every predictive metric that it lays out over a large scale. On the micro-level, a "reading" by astrology is indistinguishable from cold reading, various styles of psychological observation, pure chance and outright fraud.

It's quite easily distinguishable from 'cold-reading' but once again, this time in the analysis process, incorrect hypothesis formulation is to blame.

[Sinequanon]

It's quite easily distinguishable from 'cold-reading' but once again, this time in the analysis process, incorrect hypothesis formulation is to blame.
Fill the rest of the class in on the correct hypothesis, then.

[RBM]

Fill the rest of the class in on the correct hypothesis, then.

Insufficient data to accomplish formulation.

But refer to the thread Is Reality Virtual ? for proper methodology insight.

[davai]

a "reading" by astrology is indistinguishable from cold reading

Not at all, cold reading requires one to one communication and high probability guess work. An astrology reading requires a birth time and place (exact calculations or thereabouts) and no personal communication with anyone - for a natal chart at least. Maybe there are branches that deal with cold reading methods but not to my knowledge.

Big problem for me is the necessity of accepting the definitions of why having a planet in a certain house etc. will produce a particular effect. Who says these definitions are correct and why should we accept them? My knowledge of this aspect of the history of astrology is lacking considerably though and it would be great if someone could come in and explain a few of these things. Even then we could still counter by saying that their opinion on the matter is subjective, given that even within astrology circles there seems to be next to no consensus on which are the correct methods and interpretations.

[Sinequanon]

Not at all, cold reading requires one to one communication and high probability guess work. An astrology reading requires a birth time and place (exact calculations or thereabouts) and no personal communication with anyone - for a natal chart at least. Maybe there are branches that deal with cold reading methods but not to my knowledge.

Big problem for me is the necessity of accepting the definitions of why having a planet in a certain house etc. will produce a particular effect. Who says these definitions are correct and why should we accept them? My knowledge of this aspect of the history of astrology is lacking considerably though and it would be great if someone could come in and explain a few of these things. Even then we could still counter by saying that their opinion on the matter is subjective, given that even within astrology circles there seems to be next to no consensus on which are the correct methods and interpretations.

Let me put it this way (and yes, I know we're keeping it simple):

Astrology posits a relationship between thing A (your birthdate), thing B (your place) and thing C (your personality).

Algebraically, one would expect that if you have two of the variables, figuring out the missing thing would be simplistic. In other words, A*B = C; (Born on December 22) * (Born at a/b lat/long) = Saggitarius in the house of the rising sun (or whatever).

It would stand to reason that if you were given, say, A and C as the known variables, or B and C as known variables, that you could derive the missing link. Astrology cannot accomplish this.

[davai]

Astrology cannot accomplish this.

My initial reaction is to disagree. But this is actually testable though isn't it? Devising experiments isn't a strength of mine but i'll give it some thought. If you have any ideas yourself that would be great.

---------- Post added 03-31-2011 at 04:12 PM ----------

I've had various charts done, and others are easily obtainable (by putting random dates/places into the computer), im sure there's a way to do this ...

[peppersasen]

I was just going to start a thread to ask people what they thought about Jung's penchant for astrology (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I got a book for Christmas as a prank and I accidentally discovered that Jung studied astrology and I sort of lost a little respect for the man. I'm pretty sure the contents of the book weren't a prank, though! He actually did study astrology. I would be interested in knowing how INTJs feel about that considering MBTI is based on Jung's types and he took astrology seriously.

Although reading about Jung's childhood (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._years) (only from that one Wikipedia page), I can sort of understand his fascination with the occult.

[reckful]

I'm not an expert on Jung's biography -- or, specifically, the exact nature and extent of his interest in astrology -- but I know a couple of things.

In Psychological Types, Jung expressly rejected astrology as a respectable source of psychological analysis, and you can read a little more about that in the first part of this post (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Most importantly, Jung believed in what is sometimes referred to as a "collective unconscious" -- by which he meant that the human psyche (including the all-important "unconscious") was far from a blank slate at birth, but instead contained all kinds of primordial archetypes and ways of thinking/feeling/etc. that were essentially products of our evolutionary history. He made extensive studies of myths and religions from different cultures and throughout history, for example, and it was his view that there were lots of characters, structures and other elements that tended to be common to many of these belief systems. Jung thought the explanation for these similarities was that the common elements corresponded to the inborn, common, archetypal aspects of our unconscious.

Jung believed that the personality dimensions that he described in Psychological Types were also the result of our common, evolutionarily-caused psychic structure -- and so he also found, e.g., introversion, feeling preferences, etc. manifested in particular myths and religions, and he believed that studying and working through myths and religious material could assist you in your own psychological growth and development -- not because the stuff was literally true, but because contact with that kind of material could be, in effect, therapeutic because it reflected things going on in your own unconscious that wouldn't necessarily be easy for you to access, understand or develop by more "rational" means.

Jung studied alchemy extensively at one point -- not because he thought it was literally going to teach him how to convert other metals to gold or anything, but because he thought the elaborate alchemical "mythology" was a rich source of material reflecting aspects of our "collective unconscious."

The index to Jung's autobiography (Memories, Dreams, Reflections) includes multiple references to alchemy but no references to astrology. Although it's undeniable that Jung's thinking included what it would be fair to call a "mystical" side, I suspect that whatever interest he may have had in astrology was more along the lines of his interest in alchemy and other myths -- rather than a belief in the literal truth of astrology's claims about the stars determining human personality. And in any case, I don't believe he ever devoted very much attention to astrology. His collected works fill 18 volumes, and include a substantial amount of writing on alchemy, myths, religions and various other human belief systems -- but little to nothing about astrology.

[Chameleon]

I'm not 'studied' but from a scientific stand point, not only is it logical, it is very plausible that people born in a certain point in time and space can be connected. We are not only ran upon electricity but effected by it. At different points in the year we pass through different EM fields that shape the energy inside of us. While, due to the relatively theory each of us are born in a different space in time. This can cause a lack of exactness, when it comes to astronomy; thus the need for multiple forms of measurement (ie. Stars, year, planetary alignment, sun, etc). Of you are read using one of the methods you will get a generalization; if you use multiple methods it will hone in on who you truly abothBut in the end, believe what you want. I always tell myself to not be ignorant or to be silent...never both.

[Cake]

apparently with numerology it said in order for me to move on in my life path i need to stop leaning on people and being more independent. that's pretty accurate, i'm 20 and living at home. also it said although i have friends that last for years my love life is filled with people who dont really stay long.. very true.. anyway i think its weird how I can relate to it.

[Uncle Mort]

This astrological "effect" At what point is it supposed to happen? At conception? birth? or somewhere in between? Even maybe well after birth.

As far as I understand readings use the moment of birth. That implies some sort of "bolt from the blue" Suddenly, ZAP! and you're a Leo. How does that work then? Perhaps one of you believers can enlighten me.

[Yuri]

When I read a horoscope, it's so vague that anything
could mean "something" relevant. They're still fun to read once in a while, though.
Yay for taurus.

[NolaCocoon]

I've always found astrology interesting- I don't know about "believing" in it. I just recently had a personality test done and find the description for Virgos and INTJs to be very similar.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ZeroRequiem]

After contemplating about Tarot, astrology, and other things like that for a while. I figured there’s no way to know whether they are true or not. But ether way I don’t think it matters just because they can be used as pass times ether way. I use tarot cards and read horoscopes just for shits and giggles. Who cares if it’s true or not? At least you have something to think about.
It is annoying when people take it all seriously but then again it’s just as easy to tone them out then listen to them.

[davai]

As far as I understand readings use the moment of birth. That implies some sort of "bolt from the blue" Suddenly, ZAP! and you're a Leo. How does that work then? Perhaps one of you believers can enlighten me.

C'mon use your brain. It's what constellation the sun rises in on your birthday. If you belive western astrology (i.e mystic meg bollocks) then you're wrong ((think back to the sign BEFORE leo - more then likely - for accurate astronomics) +++ (even sidereal (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)is not even totally accurate- corrct me if im worng, i'm terribly drunk right now.

[21oPlato]

This is a very interesting thread. If you look at Astrology(Western, Eastern, & Indian) & Psychoanalytic(Jungian/MBTI) Theory from a CBT or Behaviorist perspective they are both pretty much in the same boat.
FWIW Astrology has been around for thousands of year.
Uncle Mort, maybe it's a part of a selection process from heaven(for lack of a better name)? We all have our parts to play on this vast machine.
Me, I think of astrology is a tool in learning about a person's personality. Not, the only tool. Making decision based on astrology. Now that is something I'd be very hesitant to do. Like Yuri said daily horoscopes are so vague. They are pretty much a novelty.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Enemies of Reason, by Richard Dawkins. Nuff' said.

[MrFreakaficial]

I do not think that traditional astrology holds credibility.

However, I am open to the possibility that it might be an inaccurate interpretation of a much more complicated aspect of the universe. It might be that we are simply trying to observe amoebae through reading glasses - trying to explain complex mathematics with very primitive methods, resulting in superstition.

Either that, or we simply noticed patterns that aren't there, and it's all bogus.

[jnoelle]

I'm a Taurus. The lunkheaded, extroverted, really not-so-observant linebacker in my gym class is a Taurus. So is the quiet dude at my lunch table who will take anything Oprah says 100% seriously and forms all of his opinions on what the mighty Queen Winfrey says.

I can't see any correlation with date of birth and personality or interests.

If anything, my personality is molded more by the fact that I was born 2 months early and was raised by pretty much every person my mom knew, along with the fact that I'm an only child.

[TylerRDA]

I find astrology plausible on the scale of social constructs and self-fulfilling prophecies.

[SarcasticVlad]

Astrology is for idiots. If you believe in it you're an idiot. It is that simple.