Quote:
Originally Posted by overlord
Well to be fair on you I guess you are talking about the stuff in the newspapers.
Well, astrologers DO actually look at evidence. And I am talking about professional astrologers. Every alignment has very different alleged properties, which would not be the case if evidence was not being collected.
Professional astrologers know when stock market crashes are going to happen and the current economic downturn was no surprise. There is another might crash coming by the end of this year and you can bump the thread then if you still think astrology is rubbish, by then. See i am like the guy in Back to the Future with that book and he can predict in advance all the sporting events. Biff is his name. Except I don't need time travel.
The simplest proof for astrology is that we planets are huge floating spheres rather close to us. They are the nearest big things to us to suggest that they have no impact is laughable.
There are also lots of different types of astrologies. For example, there is weather astrology. These people, including myself study very long term weather cycles over thousands of years. Albumasar said there was a thousand year cycle of empires and if you look at empires lasting 800-1000 years you see there is something to it. The stars can help us plot these cycles. The planet changes over a millenia with regards to various alignment cycles are like a 'cosmic clock' for legitimate even if they are not causal. Thus astrology does not even have to be causal for it to be accurate. IT might just be a very accurate clock which relates to earth temperature cycles. WE know there is a 1000 years cycle of changes from weather reconstructions. The cycles are there, and astrology is used to predict them thanks to an accurate cosmic clockwork.
What about the moon. Does the moon and sun cause tides, or is that 'rubbish'. Does the moon affect our moods. Science always says that it does. That isn't rubbish either. Now I think that the planets affect changes on the sun. The proof is that the sun is always changing and I don't see anything else around which could be doing it. You are also forgetting that all the greatest scientists have always been astrologers, from Carl Jung to Kepler. It is an intrinsic part of astronomy and always will be, and to suggest otherwise is an insult. I hope I don't get banned for this but anyone who criticizes the whole of astrology based on what they read in newspapers is 
So basically it's highly narrow minded to say astrology is 'trash'. Only someone who hates it strongly enough not to bother investigating it would say such a thing, as everyone who has ever investigated it in depth has found the opposite. I could go on and on and on. I will always defend astrology. If you would like evidence of an experiment regarding electrical changes with regards to alignments I would refer you here. This was in the journal of electrical engineering in the 1950s. I'll go now.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson1.html |
Trying to justify astrology by abusing science in using it to somehow "prove" that the mere alignment of any astronomical object will affect/effect a change in human behaviour is not only a classic case of pseudoscience and a distinct lack understanding of anything to do with science (or the nature of reality), but is also a classic case of what I wrote in my last post. The human mind's gullibility and propensity for being able to fool itself. It has nothing to do with hate, or emotions, or some "us vs them" mentality. Just a reasonably thorough look at the facts as they present themselves and an understanding of the physics involved will tell you that astrology is a waste of time. Quoting history and saying that "hey, astronomers and astrologers were one and the same at one time" doesn't cut the mustard either. Witch doctors were the family doctors at one stage, but once our understanding and knowledge of medicine, human nature and diseases increased over time, we left all that nonsense of "vapours and demons" behind. Only the illiterate and uneducated would fall for that garbage, or the weak minded and easily led.
Your whole argument has the ring of someone who really doesn't understand science at all, even if you pretend to do so. It has no legs to stand on and even less actual evidence to support its claims.