Are our reactions unscientific?

[josh (Luke)]

Hey all.
I know this is a touchy subject for many here... and that is the very reason im bringing it up. Im very curious about the very strong reaction most astronomers have whenever astrology is mentioned. Dont get me wrong i know next to nothing about the belief system apart from what star sign i am so dont attack. My point is that surely there has been or is currently some form of study{scientific} into the effects the movments of the heavens may have on us, it seems a little strange to think that this wonderous universe we live in has no effect on us what so ever. I have no idea what those affects may be but i do think its a little small minded to ignore the possibility. Its a big thought and such a question does not leave the human mind with the secure boundaries it seems to crave, such uncertainties tend to make us a little hostile.
I say again this post is not about astrology, i dont really care for that take on it, so dont get stuck into em.
I would just really like to hear some intelligent thoughts on the matter and i can think of no better place to discuss it than here.
Or have i crossed some invisible line, should we as astronomers not ask such questions?
p.s sorry if this is in the wrong section, wasnt sure where to plonk it..maybe general chat? please move it if this is no good
Thanks all..{runs away to hide}

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Mmmmmm, Josh.

Well, Kepler was convinced that the movement of the heavens had a direct bearing on our individual lives, so much so that it drove him to work with Tycho and ultimately come up with his "laws" of celestial motion (hidden for many years, one might add, in amongst a lot of astrological hocus pocus and wishful thinking). Science is always a bit of a con job: it really only finds better ways of describing in a predictable fashion things that we can never fully understand. Newton didn't say anything that we didn't know intuitively anyway when he first described the laws of gravity. Action at a distance still remains one of the universe's greatest mysteries. We feel happier being able to measure it more accurately is all (rather than ascribing it to Leibniz's "vortices" or God's angels.)

Yours,

The essentially unknowable Brian.

[xelasnave]

Good morning Josh,
You probably are now in the never never but I certainly understand your drift.
When someone heard I was into astronomy they gave some useful books on "astrology" quiet old, but they were absolutely faithful plottings of planets etc such that anyone looking at this book if you changed the title to astronomy you would not have know it was not intened for same. All that it left me was the preoccupation with some is extrodinary .
Past the possibility that we may experience a tidal effect on our blood supply by the Moon causing more or less blood to be available to our brains and thereby influence our behaviour is as far as I could take it...and that is more to give "their" side a go . Some see a relationship between the full Moon and "activity" (ask a policeman) but can any thing of signifficance be drawn from that I doubt it..may be there is more light so more opportunity of mischief .
I suspect that the "force" behind astrology is in the box we call "self forfilling prophesy"...
I live in a similar district to you and I bet you enjoy a wide variety of beliefs from those in your community and suspect the astronomer would be "the odd man out" being well outnumbered by those who absolutely believe the world works under the influence of the stars. So I suspect you may also be looking for ammunition for an against case... but its an argument best avoided as a no win contest.
I was absolutely rocked one day when telling a lady of my interest when she said "oh hubby is into that" he came it no " I am interested in astronomy and astrollogy"... usually I like talking astronomy but on that occassion I changed the subject very smartly .... maybe he is the guy to talk to it would be entertaining to hear his reconcilliation of the two.
Personally I recon it is us that influence the motion of the stars and planets such is our greatness
alex

[Argonavis (William)]

Josh

Over 2000 years of opposition from the Christian and Moslem religions has not stopped astrology, so the dissapproval of astronomers will have a similar effect. People seem to want to believe.

My wife works in an aged care facility and sees people die every week. There are no bright lights or angels or happy smiling relatives..it's just an organic process which is often unpleasant. People still write books about "life after life" because other people buy them and there is lots of money in it and people just want to believe.

Michael Schemer is a well known skeptic who impersonates psychics and astrologers and tarot card readers. When he reveals to his audience that he is just conning them their reaction is not "...aren't I silly to believe this nonsense, I am so easily fooled..." but anger that someone has attempted to take away thier cherised beliefs.

Science operates on the requirement for evidence to support an hypothesis before it becomes a theory, when is is then accepted as a scientific consensus on how the world works. Gravity, as defined by Sir Isaace Newton, is a set of mathematical equations. There is lots of evidence to support it and can be used to predict future events. Even though it involves action at a distance, is makes predictions that can be tested. And it passes every test. Einsteins equations from his special theory of relativity is still being tested by physicists, and they pass every test. Accordingly, it is generally believed that Einsteins theories accurately describe the Universe as we see it.

Astrology has no such support from any evidence whatsoever. I guess astronomers get sick of people carrying on with this nonsense, and maybe jealous that astrologers earn so much money from being dishonest. A lot of serious minded researchers have tested astrology. Much of this research has been undertaken by psychologists and the like, who are interested in measuring personality. Of the hundreds of studies undertaken, there is no evidence at all that astrology "works" in the sense of predictability - predicting future events or someone's personality. It is a research dead end. There is no hypothesis of how astrology would work, so nothing much to test anyway. The effect that the "gravity" of the Sun amd Moon, much less the far distant planets, has on the human body is totally non-existent. There are no other mechanisms that would account for the effect of the placement of the planets to the events on Earth. There was one French researcher (now deceased) who claimed to have found an influence from when some of the planets were rising at the time of birth on personality and occupation. His work could not be reproduced by other researchers, so he is now discredited. Nevertheless, I notice that the astrology lobby still uses him as a pinup boy to bolster their non-existent credibility.

Sorry to go on a bit but I often come across people who seem to accept astrology and lots of other nonsense beliefs without any foundation, so I need to have my arguments all lined up. There just seems to be so many medieval beliefs out there, that it seems to be part of the human emotional template to want to believe. Science, on the other hand, wants evidence.

[Dennis]

In the 1970’s, a French psychologist, Michael Gauquelin (sp?) published a large statistical analysis of astrology, where he identified people at the top of their trade, e.g. sports persons, military leaders, actors, artists, etc and looked for "meaningful" correlations between their dominant personality traits and the characteristics of the personality model(s) offered by astrology.

It would appear that the so called objective data from his investigation were able to both support, and dispel, some of the key elements of astrology, as some say he “disproved” astrology whilst others say his work “proved” it? Where to from here?

Cheers

Dennis

[xelasnave]

So has everyone read their "horror scope" today
mind you when you think about it astronomy would have been "funded" by many leaders seeking to understand the intentions of the Gods (not only in acient times I fear)
alex

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Good morning Josh,
Some see a relationship between the full Moon and "activity" (ask a policeman) but can any thing of signifficance be drawn from that I doubt it..may be there is more light so more opportunity of mischief .
I suspect that the "force" behind astrology is in the box we call "self forfilling prophesy"... alex

Alex

The Full Moon effect is very selective...when things get busy it must be due to a Full Moon, even if there isnt one. People want explanations. My wife works in nursing and seems to have the same belief - if it is a full moon then activity will be higher. Sometimes when I know the Moon is Full I will ask if she has had a busy night...no? really?

Of course there is more illumination at night when the Moon is Full (substantially more than either before or after) so activity will increase for that reason. This was probably more true in historical times when artificíal lighting was not widespread like it is today.

A quick search on google on the many urban myths and legends sites will lead you to research that indictes that there is no increased activity around Full Moon in hospitals or increased criminal activity, at least more than the normal random variation would allow.

This makes sense to me, as there is no reason or hypothesis to account for increased activity. The Full Moon has no effect on you or me other than providing more light at night and giving us something to look at through our telescopes. I am always awed by the number of craters with ray systems that become obvious during Full Moon.

Of course, people argue the "tidal effect" - if the oceans have tides then the Moon must effect us. This shows zero understanding of tides. Even on the TV news I hear "it's a Full Moon so the tides will be bigger", lots of ignorance out there, where do I start the education process? My fish tank does not have tides, and neither do I. The gravitational potential between one side of my fishtank, and between one side of me and the other, is inconsequental. It is only when we scale up to the size of the Earth that we get a significant difference between gravity on one side to the other that creates a tidal effect. It not only raises the oceans but the crust of the Earth as well. Nature is awesome, you don't need to invent weird stuff up. And higher tides occur when the Sun and Moon line up, at New Moon.

cheers

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Dennis

In the 1970’s, a French psychologist, Michael Gauquelin (sp?) published a large statistical analysis of astrology, where he identified people at the top of their trade, e.g. sports persons, military leaders, actors, artists, etc and looked for "meaningful" correlations between their dominant personality traits and the characteristics of the personality model(s) offered by astrology.

It would appear that the so called objective data from his investigation were able to both support, and dispel, some of the key elements of astrology, as some say he “disproved” astrology whilst others say his work “proved” it? Where to from here?

Cheers

Dennis

Dennis

His work was never able to be reproduced, and he is discredited.

[Volans]

G'day All,

I concur with Argonavis' comments regarding people needing to believe. But I'd like to answer Josh's question from a slightly different perspective.

Originally Posted by josh

Hey all.
I know this is a touchy subject for many here... and that is the very reason im bringing it up. Im very curious about the very strong reaction most astronomers have whenever astrology is mentioned.

I'll admit Josh, that you want to know from a scientific angle why astronomers get annoyed with astrology and as mentioned, I go along with what has already been posted but I also get annoyed because of the inability some people have in differentiating between the two words and therefore between the two subjects.

Some of you may recall the green meteor that shot over the Brisbane region not too long ago. There were reports aplenty in the paper and one reporter had a quote from a memeber of the Astronomical Association of Queensland (AAQ). However, this person was reported as belonging to the Queensland Astrological Society.

In last week's Courier Mail, there was an article on the planetarium and my boss was quoted as well (minor stuff about what to look for when buying a telescope etc.) The reporter went on to say that this "astrological advice" was invaluable.

To make matters worse, this woman had just sat in on one of our school shows where we talk 100% astronomy for 45 minutes solid. We show images of galaxies, nebulae, sunspots, we discuss the formation of the Sun and planets. Yet, after 45 minutes of being bombarded with astronomy, she cannot comprehend the difference.

It also bespeaks something about the editors for allowing such rot to pass into print.

I'm also of the opinion that if these people were told of their gross ignorance in such a basic matter, they would give a shrug and a go off with a "who cares?" attitude. But this does not stop me from urging my boss to contact that cretinous reporter and tell her to go back to cadet journalism school.

So I get annoyed because people can't tell the difference because the words are similar and they can't be bothered to learn the difference, thus showing off their ignorance and stupidity.

Peter.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

Dennis

His work was never able to be reproduced, and he is discredited.

Except by those who seemingly still support his work........

I have not made a study of this, so I cannot pass comment either way.

Cheers

Dennis

[astro_nutt]

I agree with you Volans, I have seen errors in print confusing the two. It amazes me that this has also been "proof-read"...and it's a wonder why people get confused!!..HA!
I do get asked about astrology from time to time, I reply that people have a choice what they want to believe. If they believe that the movement of the Sum, Moon and planets affect their daily lives and they're happy about that?..fine!!..
But astronomy is a science, a hobby, an adventure and the proof is real..it's there or waiting to be discovered.
Big diffrence!

[Starkler (Geoff)]

I read something somewhere to the effect that a major reference source of the positions and orbits of celestial bodies etc used by astrologers is in fact innacurate and factually incorrect, making any extrapolated claims wrong in any case being based on false data.

Does anyone know anything about this ?

[astro_nutt]

Just looking at a copy of Astronomy 2006 Australia on page 21 shows the planet positions in relation to certain Constellations...Hmmm!

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by Starkler

I read something somewhere to the effect that a major reference source of the positions and orbits of celestial bodies etc used by astrologers is in fact innacurate and factually incorrect, making any extrapolated claims wrong in any case being based on false data.

Does anyone know anything about this ?

I have heard of this, and was told Astrology doesn't take into account
Precession.

regards,CS

Rob

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by Starkler

I read something somewhere to the effect that a major reference source of the positions and orbits of celestial bodies etc used by astrologers is in fact innacurate and factually incorrect, making any extrapolated claims wrong in any case being based on false data.

Does anyone know anything about this ?

It appears there are several, different systems used in astrology.

The actual, celestial zodiac is a band, extending ± 8 degrees above/below the ecliptic, which more or less bounds the planes of the orbits of the 7 planets known to older civilizations’. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are “modern” planets and therefore do not figure in astronomy or astrology prior to their discovery. There are constellations that are physically large in extent e.g. Virgo, and smaller ones, e.g. Aries. One system uses these so maybe Virgo is 40 deg in extent, whereas Aries may be 15 degrees (guessing for illustrative purposes).

Another system simply divides the imaginary celestial sphere into 12 equal segments, of 30 degrees each, and labels these segments as the constellations. Thus, these are an abstraction and not the real McCoy as it were.

And of course as astronomers, we all know that over a (very) long period of time, the patterns of the constellations change, due to the proper motion of stars.

The zodiac “starts” with Aries as I understand it, because several thousand years ago, the Vernal Equinox or First Point of Aries was actually in the physical constellation Aries. Due to the precession of the equinoxes, this is no longer the case. I seem to recall that in my childhood, I was living in the “Age of Aquarius”, so I assume the First Point of Aries is now either in the physical constellation of Aquarius, or in the abstracted 30 deg segment of the celestial sphere labeled as Aquarius by astrologers?

The mathematical calculations used by astrologers provide them with the framework for their interpretations. However, we have the real zodiac and the abstract zodiac and depending on which one is used, a certain planet can “appear” to be in different signs of the zodiac, yet describe some behavioral model of an individual. I have never seen an explanation of how this can be, but then I’ve never been interested enough to pursue it any further.

Ironically, as a young boy, I was mistakenly given a copy of a book called “Teach Yourself Astrology” (I wanted Astronomy), but I put it to good use by reading the chapter on celestial mechanics and learning about the celestial sphere, ecliptic, precession of the equinoxes, etc., which the book described quite well, in common with astronomy text books.

So yes, there are different systems; some natural, some man made and as we know, they are subject to the vagaries of change, discoveries of new planets, etc.

Cheers

Dennis

[mickoking]

I don't give Astrology any creedence but I don't have any problems if people believe or have faith in it. If people, scientific materialists if you like get annoyed by Astrology thats fine too but individuals are entitled to believe in what they do.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Dennis

Except by those who seemingly still support his work........

I have not made a study of this, so I cannot pass comment either way.

Cheers

Dennis

As i said earlier, he is the pinup boy of the astrology wackos - who probably didn't understand that his work (if correct) invalidated much of astrology.

He claimed he found a statistically significant link between occupation and what planets were rising over the horizon at the time (as best as I can recall without going back to the original work). He found no other links with astrological signs and houses, trines or aspects.

His work was picked up by the astrology wackos as the it was the first real study (after many hundreds of failed ones) to demonstate some link between the heavens and human activity.

No-one could reproduce his work and it is now believed to be statistically flawed. Note that the effect he found was merely a tendancy or slightly higher probably, not a 1:1 relationship that would constitute a physical law.

and like much science, it was twisted by popular culture into something it wasn't.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by mickoking

I don't give Astrology any creedence but I don't have any problems if people believe or have faith in it. .

I recall my younger days socialising in pubs/nightclubs I would occasionally meet young ladies who not long after finding out my name, would then ask what my star sign is, as if it gives them some tool to quickly categorise me.

Occasionally the response would be "egh a capricorn". I would have to say that this is the most small minded and fallacious of all reasons to discriminate against another person. Not that it bothered me any, as I knew as soon as I was asked what my star sign was, that she was not my type anyway

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Dennis

It appears there are several, different systems used in astrology.
Dennis

Quite correct Dennis - in fact it makes astrology a moving target. You can go into the bookstore and find Chinese astrology and Indian astrology and lots of other variations. It seems similar to religion, lots of different intrepretation of sacred texts.

The original Greek astrology came from a book written by Ptomley - yes the same one who wrote "The Almagest".

[Volans]

This might be sailing a touch close to the wind for some, but I do believe that you can very broadly categorize human personalities into 12 generalised types. You can label these types in whatever way you see fit, 1, A, Leo, Red, Eucalyptus grandis, Zinc, whatever you want.

But can anyone determine the future or even a generalised outline of the fate of any of these types based on planetary positions? I think not.

People want to believe and if the plausible things are said with enough confidence and if the person percieves you to be an authority on the subject then you can get away with the most outrageous comments.

I've done this myself (but have always let on in the end that it was a jest).

Recently we had a very good replica of Neil Armstrong in full moonwalk suit made and installed in the planetarium. It is so real that I have come up with a little joke that I play on people and they believe it initially..until I smile and they realise it's a joke.

I tell them that Neil Armstrong has recently passed away and that because America saw him as a national hero, they had him stuffed and dressed in his moonwalk suit and we have him on loan from NASA for 6 months.

OK..back to topic...basically believe what you want and tell people about it but don't ram it down their throats. Keep an open mind as well.

Peter.