well if the 50 horoscopes where as vague as mine through pm then im not surprised that they that had a certain degree of accuracy. though i wiill heed your advice since you no longer want to participate in this "exercise" if you will and stop posting to this thread.

__________________
They call 'em fingers, but i've never seen em fing..... oh there they go!! otto

gzhpcu,

I have thought about you during the day and wanted to amend my comments. Clearly you had an experience that had some personal meaning for you. Something of an epiphany. The message I sense you are trying to get across is in your heart not in the science that this board discusses. Also you are couching this message in the terms of a pseudo-science that hides the truth of what you have discovered about yourself. I think that this has led to the frustration that is evident in your posts and some responses to them.

Not speaking for everyone else, but from my experience of this board, by rejecting astrology, we are not rejecting you or discounting your experience. We are inviting you to learn more about yourself in the light of reason and science that has served us well. Not every one wishes to learn this way it is not a requirement for a full happy life that contributes to the world. However, you came to this board to find something and the responses to your posts here are what we have to offer. Please see if some of what these posters have written here makes any sense to you and consider what has been said.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Thanks astronot...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Astronot,

Maybe just an additional word of explanation. I do actually have a technical background. I have a degree in electrical engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH). Certainly not as much as many posters on this forum, of course.

I have read many books in my spare time on cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. My impression has been that at every point in man's development, they thought their science had all the answers, whereas, this was shown not to be the case. In a thread I had initiated concerning reality and matter, I expressed this view. I feel that something of the mysterious still remains in life and we do not have an equation for every single phenomena at this point in time.

Astrology is for me an example. Since it lies outside the realm of science, the practiioners do not adhere to the scientific approach. I just know a couple of psychologist friends of mine, who say they use it as an additional tool in their work. This is an area where my approach is not to try and investigate the underlying mechanisms to see if it is possible from a scientific sense that it could work but rather try out the method and see what happens.

Maybe, because to quote Einstein: The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

It was "mystery", not "mystical".

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

That certainly isn't my impression. If that were true, then none of these scientists would have felt the need to perform any research. If they hadn't engaged in any research, we would never have advanced to the point we are now and there wouldn't be any future advancements.

Don't bring that up. I'm still upset you posted a PM I sent you out of context and without asking.

There, I said it. It's been bothering me since it happened. Now I can forget about it.

BTW, I like you, it's just that you did that one thing.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Right you are Gullible,

I found the entire quote:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

True, but only very few made any advances and then usually in the face of opposition...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Only very few? Then what is the rest of all the "research" about? And where did all of our knowledge -- that not coming from the "very few" -- come from then?

Here's a short list of scientists active mostly during and since the 18th century. I've probably omitted some noteworthies. My apologies. This list was assembled somewhat quickly. I left off most scientists prior to 1700 since a large number of these folks were still wrestling themselves free of the confines of superstition, and would often alternate between the two.

Ampère, André Marie (1775-1836)
Alfven, Hannes Olof Gosta (1908-95)
Avogadro, Armedeo (1776-1856)
Bernouilli, Daniel (1700-82)
Born, Max (1882-1970)
Boyle, Robert (1627-91)
Cavendish, Henry (1731-1810)
Charles, Jacques Alexander César (1746-1823)
Clerk-Maxwell, James (1831-79)
Crick, Francis Harry Compton (1916-2000)
Curie, Marie (1867-1934)
Curie, Pierre (1859-1906)
Darwin, Charles (1809-82)
Davy, Sir Humphry (1778-1829)
Dulong, Pierre Louis (1785-1838)
Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)
Faraday, Michael (1791-1867)
Fermi, Enrico (1901-54)
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749-1832).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1941-2002)
Halley, Edmund (1656-1742).
Harvey, William (1578-1657)
Hawking, Stephen W. (1942- )
Haeckel, Ernest (1834-1919)
Haldane, J. B. S. (1892-1964)
Herschel, Sir William (1738-1822)
Herschel, Sir John Frederick William (1792-1871)
Hertz, Gustav Ludwig (1887-1975)
Hipparchus (160-125 BCE)
Hooke, Robert (1635-1703)
Huxley, Sir Julian (1887-1975)
Huxley, Thomas H. (1825-1895)
Huygens, Christiaan (1629-93)
Kelvin, William Thomson, Lord (1824-1907)
Kline, Morris (1908-92)
Leakey, Louis Semour Bazett (1903-72)
Leslie, Sir John (1766-1832)
Lorenz, Konrod (1903-89)
Lyell, Sir Charles (1797-1875)
Mendel, Gregor Johann (1822-84)
Michelson, Albert Abraham (1852-1931)
Newton, Sir Isaac (1642-1727).
Oppenheimer, J. Robert (1904-67)
Planck, Max (1858-1947)
Petit, Alexis Thérèse (1791-1820)
Priestley, Joseph (1733-1804)
Roentgen (Röntgen), Wilhelm Conrad (1845-1923)
Rosse, William Parsons, Third Earl of ... (1800-67)
Rutherford, Ernest (1871-1937).
Teller, Edward (1908-2003)
Torricelli, Evangelista (1608-47)
Tyndall, John (1820-93)
Venturi, Giovanni Battista (1746-1822)
Volta, Alessandro, Count (1745-1827)
Wallis, John (1616-1703)
Watson, James Dewey (1928- )
Wöhler, Friedrich (1800-82)

Despite his mysticism I must include Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), whom, for his scientific inquiries, the church burned at the stake.

OK, now how many of these made no advances? And how many did this usually in the face of opposition?

What opposition they received from within the scientific community was from individuals who had forgotten the scientific method and had allowed pride, ego, and paranoia to influence their methods. Scientists are human, after all.

A little historical knowledge shows that almost all of the "opposition" came from the entrenched non-science institutions such as the church, and from people who still believed in such superstitions as numerology and astrology.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

You left out Galileo Galilei! [-X

He faced the opposition of the Church, not of other scientists.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Not a very long list. Take Einstein, for example:

Quote from "Einstein, The Life and Times of" by Ronald W. Clark, chapter 6 ("Moves up the Ladder") page 157

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Enough names to refute your claim that "...only very few made any advances and then usually in the face of opposition...".

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Can we end this? And stop the nitpicking on gzhpcu?

__________________
Obedience brings victory
Victory is life
That is the order of things

If anyone wants to end their involvement with the thread, they can just stop posting to it. There's no need for a formal declaration of its conclusion (unless it's the BA's).

This is a science board. gzhpcu has made an extraordinary claim. It shouldn't be surprising (to anyone) that the folks here are going to ask for evidence to support that claim. If gzhpcu (or anyone) decides that they don't want to discuss this topic...well, no one is forcing them to...

I don't see the problem.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Wow! An extraordinary claim. I really sound nuttier than a fruitcake... Let's see: I basically said, in regards to astrology, that I took the time to read a couple of books, and was surprised with the results, which led me to think there might be someting to it. I also said that I was in full agreement with the scientific arguments against astrology. Immediately the guardians of scientific thinking respond with indignation...

Of course, I apparently acted as a heretic, by looking into a methodology considered as hocus pocus, putting myself in the company of such weirdos as Carl Jung. Looks pretty bad, I will admit... And having the gall of even deluding myself into thinking *there might be something to it*... gasp!!!

Immediately I am viewed as astrologer-per-excellence, a woo woo (nobody came out and said it, but the writing is on the wall) challenged to provide the scientific basis, scoffed at for being gullible, lectured in what real scientific thinking is. This is really making a mountain out of a molehill IMHO...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Wow- how'd you manage to hammer in both hands if you were already up on that cross?

Let's pause for a moment.

A lot of people hammering away at once can feel intimidating, like a dogpile, like a mass assault, or like a tag-team. This is what I've seen several times on this board, and generally now I try and stay out of dogpiles unless something comes up that I might know something about. Being dogpiled happens to be one of those things.

The bottom line is that you make your case, keep an even temper despite apparent snipes and jibes, and give the benefit of the doubt to the non-inflected language of the web.

Back to the subject. Astrology makes a lot of claims. Many of these claims are spurious at best, and when subjected to rigorous evaluation are found to be vague enough to avoid making specific predictions.


I've read plenty on both sides, and yes, at first it does look like there might be something to it. The descriptions are sometimes very applicable, almost eerily so. But, as a test, draft up a random birth chart and see if it applies. Do this several times. After a while, you, like me, might see that in general about 2/3 of the statements could apply to about anyone, and that the remainder are couched in terms of either-or: bold or very timid. Active or very passive. In other words, like a John Edwards opening, they are general enough to appear insightful.

In truth, enough study of human nature and the idea that it hasn't changed all that much over the years can lead to general statements about human beings. Yearning for success, talented, bright, cheerful, inventive, and so on. Not that everyone is, but that everyone considers themselves to be. Additionally, there are truths to the dispositions of people likely to consult horoscopes that narrow this profile still further. Uncertain, afraid of change, feeling out of control. Not that everyone is, but that just about everyone feels this way occasionally, and is likely to consult any source for reassurance, believer or no.

If you believe in them, there is no power on earth that will make you not believe in them. But that is their only real power: whether you take them for what they are or not. To me horoscopes, like tarot card readings, serve at best to make us pause and take stock of our lives without having to sit on a couch. There's nothing there but what one puts into it, and as long as one understands that, there's no real harm.

Pat Kelley

Pat,
I am trying to take this all with a grain of salt, and do not really feel as if I were on a cross...

I know that I can not really bring across what I came experienced without going into excessive detail.
Firstly, you are right about the language of astrologers being couched in general terms. The whole area is fuzzy and just opposite to the approach taken in science. However, I find this is the unsatisfying approach taken by professional astrologers who want to hedge their bets. I feel one can be more daring, by applying the methods oneself (of course, the interpretation is based on experiences made by other astrologers and is best corrected on ones own experience.)

I will just make a brief example: my mom is a very caring, a really mother-hen, latin mama. The parameters in her horoscope in this respect are crystal clear: (pardon my hocus pocus lingo...) Her sun is in cancer, her moon (emotions) is in cancer. Cancer is the sign of emotional people, maternal thinking. Both are in the third house (thinking) which implies her thoughts constantly revolve around family, etc. This is strengthened by her planet Mercury (intellect) being in the fourth house (family). Her Jupiter (joy) is in the fourth house. And she is a worrier about family issues too (shown by Saturn - fears - in the fourth house). Quite a number of significant parameters underlying her most significant charateristic and which to me goes beyond the probability of randomness.


I have experienced a number of such clear-cut (to me) horoscopes, which led me to think "there might be something to it"...

Fire away...




edited for another darn typo...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

No firing necessary. Some people do very much match their horoscope descriptions. But, like with other events that we remember that might have bordered on the supernatural, we remember the ones that match, seem more than coincidental, or appear to have some significance.

An example: a person I knew was arguing phenomena with me, and asked me why "it always seems there is someone parking or leaving adjacent to you at the same time as you" when going to or leaving the supermarket. Piqued by this, I observed two or three times at first, and coincidentally, it appeared she was correct. But then I thought about it some more, and made more careful and rigorous observations: first, there are technically five "adjacent" spaces that count. Granted. Second, the event could be coming or going. Third, and most telling, when I rigorously observed the pattern went away. There were occasionally clusters of two or three observations in a row that appeared to bear the pattern out, but they were never consistent and never kept up any kind of regularity over background "noise" or random chance.

That's the key: we remember the ones that appear to follow the rules because we are observers by nature. We try and figure out cause when events occur. The edge astrology has is that it starts with a vague enough reference, like the parking lot definition of five adjacent spaces, and capitalizes on being "right" enough to convince people that the "wrong" predictions are flukes.

Have you tried this astrology on world leaders, or other celebrities for whom it would be easy to find birth-dates? Or perhaps historical figures? Or other people you are familiar with? Your father? Relatives?

If you try it on all of these people and assiduously record the results without bias, or better yet have someone else do it for you, perhaps something will show up, perhaps not.

If the answer is "maybe" the study calls for more data.

Pat,
Yes I did my Dad's, and his was pretty clear IMHO as well.

I recently read the biography of Al Capone and wondered it his horoscope would give any correlation with his violent, asocial behariour.

What I found:
Sun in Capricorn: ambition
Moon in Aries: aggressive emotions
Mercury in Capricorn: ambitious thinking
Mars in Cancer: emotional drive
Sun in 11th house: wants recognition in society
Moon in 2nd: emotional need for money, possessions
Sun opposition Mars: violent, confrontational style, aggressive
Moon square Mars: emotionally violent
Saturn oppostion Pluto: sees power as "bad", feels threatened, best defense is attack
Uranus opposition Pluto: rebellious, cool one moment/violent the next
Uranus conjunct Saturn: Attraction to criminal elements, prone to emotional extremes, defiant of society

This does not seem explicable in terms of a random distribution of parameters to me.

I have lots of other interests and have not taken the time to do any large scale statistics. But I still find the little I have done intrîguing to say the least...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

P.S. Here is his natal horoscope.



I know that only a few astrologically fluent people like R.A.F. and BeSkeptical will be able to read this, but just a few comments to the unenlightened:

Depicted are symbols of the planets distributed around the zodiacal wheel. The lines interconnecting them show particular angles where are either harmonious or disharmonious. Red is disharmonious. You can see the prevalence of thick red lines showing tension and aggression, and which I verbally expounded on above. The red, right triangle configuration is fairly rare and also underscores his violent character...

P.S. His Neptune is in his fourth house, which means he worships his mother. She is on record for having said, "My Al is a good bambino.."

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

But with Bruno in, Galileo's in, too!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Which just shows neither of us is paying much attention to the others postings... ops:

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Correction: one of us isn't paying much attention to the other's postings.

In all cases I'll be happy to speak for myself. [-X

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

My, my, touchy aren't we...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

I'd like to request that Phil do my chart, since I rarely post here (I do read assiduously though) and no-one really knows my personality from this board.

Dec 28, 1966
10:32 pm
Ottawa, Canada

I'll take a look and have my husband look at it as well, perhaps a close friend too.

I will go on record as having the opinion so far that astrology of any kind is total bunk, but I will keep an open mind.

Thank you.

Phil: a better way, perhaps, to do this would be to have somebody who was not the person who knew what the individual was like do the horoscope based on the birthdate. In other words, have somebody give you the date of a famous person without telling you who the person is or was. Or, you give a birthdate of somebody with whom you are familiar to somebody without telling them to whom it belongs. Say, why don't I put my money where my mouth is.

It would be best if a neutral person evaluated the result, but barring that posting to this forum should suffice for judgement. Please promise that you will not look these dates up to relate them to individuals beforehand, and that you will, if you recognize a birthdate, disqualify it from evaluation.

June 2 for all years.
1740, 1852, 1878, 1904,1955, 1971, 1972

Please link to images of charts, as we don't want to spam the forum.

You are free to make any comments about the charts, including any observations you make regarding extreme characterizations.

And everyone else: please no spoilers either. This has to be fair and at best effort impartial. I realise this is neither a controlled environment nor the best medium for testing, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

Edited to add: Also, why don't we name another party to whom I will send the list of names related to birthdates, so we can both be certain I did not change names midstream? Do you have a person you would care to name?