Exposing some weak spots for arguments with astrology believers

[MonDie]

In light of the 2012 thing going on, I thought this might catch some interest.

When I was a kid, I was interested in astrology. In the time I spent learning it, I learned that there are some commonly accepted ideas that are actually quite silly. If you ever need to disuade someone from accepting astrological claims, you can use these sillynesses to your advantage.

 

---

#1 Zodiac Duality
Astrologers almost universally use the ecliptic as the reference plane for their chosen zodiac (i.e. they use ecliptic longitude). However, many of them disagree about whether sidereal zodiac or the tropical zodiac should be used. The sidereal zodiac is roughly aligned with the constellations along the ecliptic, the tropical zodiac is aligned with the equinoxes. Due to precession of the equinoxes, the zodiacs are not aligned with one another.
Many astrologers think both zodiacs have some merit, but nonetheless do not reconcile the contradictions. The contradiction is blatant when tropical astrologers talk about the age of Aquarius. This age transition is marked by the spring equinox (which marks the beginning of Aries in the tropical zodiac) precession into the constellation Aquarius. In other words, from a tropical zodiac perspective, the age of Aquarius begins when the constellation Aquarius begins moving into the tropical sign Aries. Here is the contradiction. When tropical astrologers talk about the ages, they often apply the supposed traits of the tropical signs to the sidereal signs (the constellations). For example, suppose a tropical astrologer associates tropical Aquarius with nonconformity and inventiveness, and suppose they assign tropical Aquarius with the rulers Saturn and Uranus. It is likely that they will apply these same traits and rulerships when they are talking about the age of Aquarius even though the age of Aquarius has nothing to do with the tropical sign Aquarius.
This makes the picture uneccessarily muddy. Assuming they accept the modern planet rulerships* (most of them do), does that mean each sign actually has 2 to 4 rulers? Does that mean, if a person's sun sign is Pisces tropically and Aquarius sidereally, they can be described with the traits of Pisces or Aquarius. Does it mean their sun sign is ruled by Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune? Many astrologers will deny these conclusions even though they are willing to conflate the two zodiacs when they talk about the age of Aquarius.

* "Modern planets" most often refers to Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

* In astrology, it is thought that each zodiacal sign is ruled by a planet or planets. Before the modern planets were discovered, each zodiacal sign had only one ruler. More recently, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were each assigned rulership over one of the signs. Now, astrologers who accept these modern rulerships think some signs have two rulers.

---

#2 Celestial Bodies That Lack Empirical Evidence
Some astrologers use celestial bodies that don't actually exist. One example is Waldemath's moon. Supposedly, this a dust cloud orbiting Earth. When astrologers are talking about "Lilith," they might be talking about this moon, but "Lilith" may refer to one of three things.
Another imaginary celestial body they may employ is Nibiru. Supposedly, it is a brown dwarf that Earth is going to collide with.

---

#3 "Science can't test it," but "it works for me."
These are two statements astrology believers often use to defend their beliefs, but they are contradictory.

Scientists needs something to measure, so they attempt to quantify observations. Nearly anything a human can observe is measurable. Astrology is mostly comprised of communicable claims about what should be observed. The fact that the observations can be communicated means they can be quantified to some degree. For example, double-blind self-reports could be used to measure the occurence of events as percieved through the subjective lens of the observer. Even if a claim has subjective elements (e.g. emotions) that the observer must become aware of through personal experience, we should still expect chance-defying data for any communicable, partially objective claim.
This is why the idea "Science can't test it" is incompatible with "It works for me." The latter implies empirical observations made by the believer. If astrology really is an untestable belief, it shouldn't "work" for anyone. The only exception would be if the claim involves some force specifically preventing professional scientists from verifying the claims, but that would be a huge violation of Occam's razor.

---

#4 Retrograde Ignorance
This isn't a silly idea that is clinged to. Rather, it's an important idea that is too often lacked.
Astrlogy believers often hype up planetary retrogrades. For example, "people should expect inconveniences during mercury retrogrades," "...romantic upsets during Venus retrogrades," "...trouble at work during Mars retrogrades," etc.
However, perhaps about half of astrology fanatics don't know why planetary retrogrades happen. They don't realize that a planet's retrograde cycle is actually synchronized with the sun's movements (from a geocentric perspective).

Not only are they practicing divination, they have little understanding of the modern heliocentric model.

---

To any astrology believers reading this:

I am not against the testing of astrological claims, I am against the acceptance of astrological claims without rigorous testing.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Externet]

To any astrology believers reading this:

I am not against the testing of astrological claims, I am against the acceptance of astrological claims without rigorous testing.

Highly doubt anyone here is an astrology believer.

 

And; astrology is not a science.

[MonDie]

I know it's not a science. If such a correlational were to be found, we would have no idea how to interpret it. Nonetheless, claims of correlation are still testable claims. In an ideal world, we would have the time to test each and every claim, no matter how ridiculous.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[immortal]

I think we have failed to understand the complex inter-relationship between the time cycles of the empirical universe and the time cycles of the things in the microcosm and the macrocosm. According to the ancients, the earth, the sun and the moon etc are mystical entities that used to circumambulate Mt Meru which was considered to be the axial centre of all the worlds.(That might explain why they considered even the Sun and the Moon as Planets) Mt Meru is considered to be the abode of gods and from their point of view the earth of the microcosm and the macrocosm may indeed be flat where as the earth of the empirical universe which is round might only exist in our minds and does not physically exists out there in the external world.

Surya Siddhanta which is an ancient astronomical text whose date of origin and author is unknown explicitly states that the deities are invisible to human sight and according to tradition this ancient knowledge was revealed to Maya(an Asura) by the Sun-god. The text contains trigonometric functions which were unknown to the Greeks.

The planets in the empirical universe does not influence us in any way and nor do any deities control their motion, they are just observable signs based on the sidereal year to predict the probable futures and the real influences are actually caused by the gods in the microcosm and the macrocosm who structure our Mind and body and control everything of our lives.

In the Gayatri prayer from the Vedas, the seven rays are described as the emanations of the Sun, identified with the creator of life, "Because the being who shines with seven rays, assuming the forms of time and illumines all... naturally shines with seven rays is called light or the effulgent power; the light of the Generator or Sun - the light is the sun, the sun is the light, they are identical.

 

A more thorough description of this cosmogony of the microcosm and the macrocosm can be found in Tibetan Symbols and Motifs by Robert Beer.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XlqeS3WjSWIC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=the+symbolism+of+mt+meru&source=bl&ots=iIVxfPWYwI&sig=2K7huHzdiya-fTlLquqJg8iAACg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fvDbUJDUL8H_rAe45ICYDw&ved=0CHIQ6AEwCA

 

A translation of Surya Siddhanta

http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/suryaEnglish.pdf

 

The first thing they teach is to learn about Antharmukh(the ability to see things in the microcosm and the macrocosm without the aid of sense organs) and Bahirmukh(observing the empirical universe via sense organs). The one who understands this might be able to correctly establish the relationship between the motion of the planets in the observable empirical universe with the symbolic nature of the things existing in the microcosm and the macrocosm and deduce its consequences to our world, such a good commentary on this text is very much lacking for our present age and time.

 

 

[ydoaPs]

Highly doubt anyone here is an astrology believer.

 

And; astrology is not a science.

Actually, in the Dover trial, Behe informed us that Astrology is indeed science.

[MonDie]

I think we have failed to understand the complex inter-relationship between the time cycles of the empirical universe and the time cycles of the things in the microcosm and the macrocosm. According to the ancients, the earth, the sun and the moon etc are mystical entities that used to circumambulate Mt Meru which was considered to be the axial centre of all the worlds.(That might explain why they considered even the Sun and the Moon as Planets) Mt Meru is considered to be the abode of gods and from their point of view the earth of the microcosm and the macrocosm may indeed be flat where as the earth of the empirical universe which is round might only exist in our minds and does not physically exists out there in the external world.

 

There is no known mechanism for about 99.9% of the supposed correlations between astronomical movements and the stuff going on in human societies. There is this rats study, but the hypothesis stood upon facts substantiated by biology. In addition, there are the tides and the seasons, but those are already explained by modern physics. As far as verified correlations go, that's about it. The rest of the supposed correlations haven't been tested rigorously, or have been found to be non-existent.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die