ark200 Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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?
Strange Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) 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 February 21, 2015 by Strange
John Cuthber Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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. We tested it the real world, and it failed. There is only one universe and it's not one where astrology works.
MigL Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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.
Mr. Astrophysicist Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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.
John Cuthber Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) . 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 February 22, 2015 by John Cuthber 1
swansont Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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 1
ajb Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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.
J.C.MacSwell Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 With apologies to Wolfang Pauli, it is NOT EVEN... ..."not even wrong"
Mr. Astrophysicist Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 ! 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.
Hades007 Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) 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 February 22, 2015 by Hades007
ark200 Posted February 22, 2015 Author Posted February 22, 2015 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.
John Cuthber Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 once geocentric model was the real world. No it wasn't. Our choice of models does not affect reality.
whiskers Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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.
Delta1212 Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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.
whiskers Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) 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 February 22, 2015 by whiskers
John Cuthber Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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?
whiskers Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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.
swansont Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 ! 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]
John Cuthber Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 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.
MigL Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 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.
whiskers Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 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.
IM Egdall Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) 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 February 23, 2015 by IM Egdall 1
whiskers Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 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
John Cuthber Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 I'm still waiting for evidence that it works.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now