Do you believe in horoscopes?

[Paulclem]

Well I believe horoscopes exist, yes because they are in every newspaper and women's magazine.

But do I believe horoscopes

Well, no, they are sly, ambiguous trash propagated by the same con artists and liars who 'tell' fortunes and 'read' Tarot cards.

It seems in in our ulfra rational western societies that there can't be any truth in horoscopes, and indeed where's the scientific proof? Proof has been discussed ad infinitum and causes an impasse as anecdotal evidence does not meet the criteria for proof.

Yet Brian raises an important point. Every rational sense says that astrology is rubbish, and we can all point at the tricksters and charlatans you mention.

Clearly newspaper horoscopes come under the designation of light entertainment, and I don't think they have anything to do with astrology. But if you said all astrology is rubbish then I would have to disagree. It has clearly served a purpose in the past - perhaps as means of making sense of human characters and situations - but I bet - like Brian - if people were asked, a good number could cite an unexplained event or reading from someone. I can - and I think most of the rest of it is rubbish.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I still think it is nonsense but what do other Litnetters think about Astrology?

I think it is nonsense too. In fact, nothing I have seen during my 51 years has made me hesitate even the slightest bit in calling it a load of crock. I have also one met a person who was writing horoscopes for magazines. She agreed that it was a load of crock, but added that it helped paying a few bills. She also admitted to trying to write the stuff in such a way that it would fit in to a lot of peoples everyday lives without really committing to anything.

However: Just as I have the right to consider it a load of crock, I also grant others their right to believe in it.

/Claes

[soundofmusic]

I'll be quite happy to give serious consideration to astrology when someone explains to me how it works.

Okay, I'll explain how this works When I meet a person I like, I start out by asking their sign; it seems a harmless question to them, and anyone from the 70s will relate. Of course, at this point, it opens up the way to ask what side of the month they were born...usually, at some point, they tell me their birthdate and then:
I look their names up in public records, court records, property records...before having coffee with them...


By the way, I am a Scorpio and totally awesome and it is true...very sexy

[Paulclem]

Just to add - when we think of horoscopes, we often think of newspaper and magazine versions. There are different versions though - such as in Sri Lanka. I wonder if people from those cultures where horoscopes are considered differently have a different take on them? I once was fortunate to meet and have some teachings from a Sri Lankan Buddhist Monk who told me that he did horoscopes. I would regard one from him very differently, though it would perhaps have a different purpose to the ones we have in the West.

[Dodo25]

It seems in in our ulfra rational western societies that there can't be any truth in horoscopes, and indeed where's the scientific proof?

Oh aren't we bad we Westeners? All this talk about that common sense thing and this rationality!

No, seriously, 'ultra rational'? I wish it were! Our society is an esoteric jungle, a mumbo-jumbo of bronze age mythology and pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Proof has been discussed ad infinitum and causes an impasse as anecdotal evidence does not meet the criteria for proof.

There's no impasse, if it worked, it could be demonstrated scientifically in simple experiments. One just needs enough data to get statistically significant results. This has been done, and of course, it didn't produce any results in favor of astrology.

But if you said all astrology is rubbish then I would have to disagree. It has clearly served a purpose in the past - perhaps as means of making sense of human characters and situations - but I bet - like Brian - if people were asked, a good number could cite an unexplained event or reading from someone. I can - and I think most of the rest of it is rubbish.

Well of course it served some purpose, that doesn't mean it can't be rubbish.

By the way, I can't believe no one has posted this yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59boLMnrbU

(@ soundofmusic, so much for starting a conversation with astrology )

[YesNo]

There's no impasse, if it worked, it could be demonstrated scientifically in simple experiments.

...

By the way, I can't believe no one has posted this yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59boLMnrbU

I have no belief either in astrology or in its impossibility.

Saying that, like the girl in the youtube video, I'm a Sagittarius, or so they tell me.

[MystyrMystyry]

They can also be a bit dangerous

Were you aware that backin the Eighties the then president Ronald Reagan (dubbed Raygun for his Star Wars ambition) read the daily zodiac and acted on its advice? When the CIA discovered this they put the heavy on the mysticist (like a sebaceous cyst but if you lance them you get arrested) saying 'Regardless what the stars foretell today, whatever you do try to ensure that his sign tells him to avoid any conflict with foreign countries.

See, he really wanted to be the president who dropped the big bombs on the commies

True story, badly told

[MystyrMystyry]

Okay, I'll explain how this works When I meet a person I like, I start out by asking their sign; it seems a harmless question to them, and anyone from the 70s will relate. Of course, at this point, it opens up the way to ask what side of the month they were born...usually, at some point, they tell me their birthdate and then:
I look their names up in public records, court records, property records...before having coffee with them...


By the way, I am a Scorpio and totally awesome and it is true...very sexy

That, of course, is the exception that proves the rule!

[Paulclem]

Oh aren't we bad we Westeners? All this talk about that common sense thing and this rationality!

No, seriously, 'ultra rational'? I wish it were! Our society is an esoteric jungle, a mumbo-jumbo of bronze age mythology and pseudo-scientific nonsense.



There's no impasse, if it worked, it could be demonstrated scientifically in simple experiments. One just needs enough data to get statistically significant results. This has been done, and of course, it didn't produce any results in favor of astrology.




Well of course it served some purpose, that doesn't mean it can't be rubbish.

By the way, I can't believe no one has posted this yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59boLMnrbU

(@ soundofmusic, so much for starting a conversation with astrology )

I didn't say rationality is bad. It's good. Especially as there are many cynical rational people out there who know that what they are doing is charlatanism, and too many guillible people who fund them - and you're right about the esoteric mumbo jumbo.

As for your rational demonstration of scientific results - it doesn't seem to work like that. My own anecdotal experience, as well as throwing up lots of examples of mumbo-jumbo, has also thrown up the mysterious unexplained. Rare - yes. Repeatable - definately not.

For example - someone I know very well was approached - out of the blue in a busy Indian street - was told a few things which demonstrated some kind of knowledge of her life, and then given some predictions. She wasn't paying, and is naturally sceptical of anyone purporting to know such things - especially as in India there are commercial horoscope makers who harass tourists on busy streets. Yet everything she was told was relevant. Do I know this person well enough to accept this? Absolutely. Did she see this person who gave her this information again? No, and had not known them or seen them before.

All I'm saying is that if there is no room in our minds for extra possibilities - mysteries, then there is a likelihood that we might miss out on something. Of course scepticism is healthy. We all know people who will believe lots of daft things, but having an open mind does not mean that you will drink in every crackpot idea.

Does the above fit the scientific model? Nope. How could it - but that does not invalidate the experience of having predictions given.

Edit: The Big Bang Theory is funny.

I've just had another thought. The science worldview is dominant now for very good reasons - it is the commonly accepted measure. But it is not the only worldview, and just as people in an earlier age couldn't imagine a non-religious worldview becoming dominant, we can't perhaps imagine this worldview being challenged or marginalised. I'm not suggesting that pseudo-science or astrology will surmount it - I can't imagine what might become the underpinning worldviews of the future as I have no crystal ball. Perhaps it could be an eco-Gaia construct. Who knows. The only thing that's certain is that things - including attitudes and underpinning worldviews - will change.

[Paulclem]

Okay, I'll explain how this works When I meet a person I like, I start out by asking their sign; it seems a harmless question to them, and anyone from the 70s will relate. Of course, at this point, it opens up the way to ask what side of the month they were born...usually, at some point, they tell me their birthdate and then:
I look their names up in public records, court records, property records...before having coffee with them...


By the way, I am a Scorpio and totally awesome and it is true...very sexy

I knew there was some use to it. Brilliant

[Dodo25]

I see, I'm glad we seem to agree on many points. But,

For example - someone I know very well was approached - out of the blue in a busy Indian street - was told a few things which demonstrated some kind of knowledge of her life, and then given some predictions. She wasn't paying, and is naturally sceptical of anyone purporting to know such things - especially as in India there are commercial horoscope makers who harass tourists on busy streets. Yet everything she was told was relevant. Do I know this person well enough to accept this? Absolutely. Did she see this person who gave her this information again? No, and had not known them or seen them before.

Let's make a thought experiment:
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that 1 in 500 Indians likes, for whatever reason, to have fun messing with tourists by telling them things he/she 'knows' about their lives. Now, if each of these jokesters during their lifetime hit up 5 tourists, this means that as many tourists are approached as the population of India divided by 100. And that's 10 million.

So we have 10 million predictions. This means, that 1 million predictions will correct for things as unlikely as 1 in 10 odds. That could for instance be guessing one's star sign right (odds: 1 in 12). By the same reasoning, there will be 1000 predictions with likelihood of 1 in 10'000 of being right. This is like coin flipping 14 times and always getting heads -- pretty impressive, right?

And there will, by mere statistics, be likely one correct prediction with a 1 in 10 million likelihood of being true. That's like flipping coins 22 times and ALWAYS getting heads. This would probably translate to correctly guessing one's birthday (not even figuring into the possibility that the Indian could already have spied and found that out) and phone number / some 6 digit number.

As you see, there's a good reason why its problematic to infer whether a method works by mere anecdotal evidence. Even if you happen to be impressed by 20 consecutive head tosses with a non-fake coin, beware that this will happen to about 4 people by chance anyway (given our assumptions, which are rather conservative actually), and you could well be one of these four.

If all our jokesters would only guess birthdays, more than 20'000 tourists would have their birthdays guessed correctly. The other 9 million 880 thousand tourists where it was wrong wouldn't think much about it and forget the instance, while of the 20'000 where it happened by accident, many will probably be greatly impressed and believe something supernatural might be going on. In fact, the 40'000 people where the date was just 1 day off might well think that there's something magical too. And the 600'000 people where the guesser hit the right month/starsign might well think the same thing -- after all, wasn't it uncannily close to the actual date?

People's notions of probability are often wrong, our sense of statistics evolved for a world where our ancestors lived in groups with maybe 30 individuals. When the amount of individuals involved goes up in the millions, our gut-feeling fools us.

All I'm saying is that if there is no room in our minds for extra possibilities - mysteries, then there is a likelihood that we might miss out on something. Of course scepticism is healthy. We all know people who will believe lots of daft things, but having an open mind does not mean that you will drink in every crackpot idea.

By all means, be open minded. Yet that doesn't mean one should blindly accept things without (valid) evidence!

I've just had another thought. The science worldview is dominant now for very good reasons - it is the commonly accepted measure. But it is not the only worldview, and just as people in an earlier age couldn't imagine a non-religious worldview becoming dominant, we can't perhaps imagine this worldview being challenged or marginalised. I'm not suggesting that pseudo-science or astrology will surmount it - I can't imagine what might become the underpinning worldviews of the future as I have no crystal ball. Perhaps it could be an eco-Gaia construct. Who knows. The only thing that's certain is that things - including attitudes and underpinning worldviews - will change.

This thought makes no sense to me. Science is dominant because of its track record. Science produces results. We've been to the moon, we've found particles smaller than nuclei by smashing protons together in an underground 26-kilometer ring at nearly the speed of light. Can astrology, or Gaia, do that?

The whole reason behind science's suggest is that it's evidence based, and ready to discard wrong hypotheses in favor of new ones. Why on earth would we go back to non evidence based methods? Examples would be belief in authority (whatever my teacher/parents/pastor/Mr. President says is certainly right), revelation (whatever the next prophet says is certainly right, even if it's another Hitler) or simple economics, where propositions are true when people pay money to read about them (i.e. homeopathy, astrology etc)...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CRtMt721qA...vsreligion.png

'Faith' can stand for any non evidence based method. Clearly, there's no way around science. By the way, even Gaia theorists think that they're relying on science. Even creationists (with some tragic exceptions) think (or at least pretend) to have evidence for their claims.

[Paulclem]

Let's make a thought experiment:
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that 1 in 500 Indians likes, for whatever reason, to have fun messing with tourists by telling them things he/she 'knows' about their lives. Now, if each of these jokesters during their lifetime hit up 5 tourists, this means that as many tourists are approached as the population of India divided by 100. And that's 10 million.

So we have 10 million predictions. This means, that 1 million predictions will correct for things as unlikely as 1 in 10 odds. That could for instance be guessing one's star sign right (odds: 1 in 12). By the same reasoning, there will be 1000 predictions with likelihood of 1 in 10'000 of being right. This is like coin flipping 14 times and always getting heads -- pretty impressive, right?

And there will, by mere statistics, be likely one correct prediction with a 1 in 10 million likelihood of being true. That's like flipping coins 22 times and ALWAYS getting heads. This would probably translate to correctly guessing one's birthday (not even figuring into the possibility that the Indian could already have spied and found that out) and phone number / some 6 digit number.

As you see, there's a good reason why its problematic to infer whether a method works by mere anecdotal evidence. Even if you happen to be impressed by 20 consecutive head tosses with a non-fake coin, beware that this will happen to about 4 people by chance anyway (given our assumptions, which are rather conservative actually), and you could well be one of these four.

If all our jokesters would only guess birthdays, more than 20'000 tourists would have their birthdays guessed correctly. The other 9 million 880 thousand tourists where it was wrong wouldn't think much about it and forget the instance, while of the 20'000 where it happened by accident, many will probably be greatly impressed and believe something supernatural might be going on. In fact, the 40'000 people where the date was just 1 day off might well think that there's something magical too. And the 600'000 people where the guesser hit the right month/starsign might well think the same thing -- after all, wasn't it uncannily close to the actual date?

.

I find your thought experiment a little presumptious in that seems to infer that the exampe I gave contained merely prosaic information. It didn't, but was very relevant and specific. I do find that scientists are very good at suggesting explanations and theories based upon a rationale view without actually considering evidence. In this case none. I think this is a fault but probably arises due to the prevailing acceptance of the current worldview.

[Paulclem]

By all means, be open minded. Yet that doesn't mean one should blindly accept things without (valid) evidence!

.

I thought I'd made that clear. To be honest common sense is all you need to test most things out. Where an experience is subjective - then that's a different matter. For example where something is passed on verbally. Is it true/ relevant/ helpful/ insightful / wise is the test.

[Paulclem]

This thought makes no sense to me. Science is dominant because of its track record. Science produces results. We've been to the moon, we've found particles smaller than nuclei by smashing protons together in an underground 26-kilometer ring at nearly the speed of light. Can astrology, or Gaia, do that?

The whole reason behind science's suggest is that it's evidence based, and ready to discard wrong hypotheses in favor of new ones. Why on earth would we go back to non evidence based methods? Examples would be belief in authority (whatever my teacher/parents/pastor/Mr. President says is certainly right), revelation (whatever the next prophet says is certainly right, even if it's another Hitler) or simple economics, where propositions are true when people pay money to read about them (i.e. homeopathy, astrology etc)...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CRtMt721qA...vsreligion.png

'Faith' can stand for any non evidence based method. Clearly, there's no way around science. By the way, even Gaia theorists think that they're relying on science. Even creationists (with some tragic exceptions) think (or at least pretend) to have evidence for their claims.

You misunderstand me. I never mentioned going back, and I certainly wasn't referring to astrology. I mentioned Gaia as an example of how science and ecology migt be combind to generate a new worldview. This hasn't happened of course. Science is dominant due to it's track record. Yes. 200 years ago Christianity was dominant in the west because of it's track record and who then would have predicted the secular society we live in now? The narrow minded adherence to that worldview provided obstacles to scientific development. I'm just speculating. Say, for example, there were developments in awareness of the mind. A combination of mind practices which were applied to science could be very powerful. Initially, though, there might be opposition due to a lack of empiricle evidence. Just a thought experiment.

I think we would agree on most things. I feel we are debating details - interesting though they are.

[MarkBastable]

. Say, for example, there were developments in awareness of the mind.

That would still be science, wouldn't it?