Astronomy vs Astrology
Thursday July 31, 2003
Are you trying to find out more about the difference between astronomy and astrology? Astrology and astronomy grew up together throughout a large portion of human history. The two cannot in fact be distinguished until only the past few hundred years, and because so many people mistakenly think that astrology is some kind of science, it often happens that the two are even today still confused with one another.
Astrology is not a science. Astrology is not based upon collected data and carefully controlled, objective observations. Astrology is not based up falsifiable predictions which are tested and re-tested by independent observers and researchers. Astrology has not discovered any celestial objects - indeed, it is not clear that astrology has discovered or revealed anything at all about our universe.
More:
Comments
if it’s not real then y do they say it?
To comment #1, probably due to the sake of curiousity. Astrology is a system of beliefs just like a religion is, so to say “if it’s not real then y do they say it?” or study it for that matter would be the same reason why to question religion. And that is a no win situation because as soon as the word faith is mentioned all hope for the use of our brain and even applying logic is thrown out the window.
“Astrology is not based upon collected data and carefully controlled, objective observations”
To say it is not based off of collected data is really arrogant. The first systematic documentation of the stars, our planetary system and their movement were from early astrologers. By observation for hundreds years civilizations such as the Mayans were able to predict eclipses that enabled them to to successfully practice their rituals very accurately according to their calendar that they had built around their study of the stars and it’s relation to their heritage and way of life.
It’s true, though, because the basic principle of astrology is that planets and stars influence our lives, but no data has been collected to demonstrate that belief.
From personal experience alone I KNOW that there is truth in astrology.
This may sound far-fetched, but I swear it’s true. Over the past 5 years, every single girl (5 total) I’ve dated in college has been born within a week of each other. All early October birthdays from 1985. And some of these have been very significant relationships in my life, yet I have never sought to date anyone born in early October and before I started to put the pieces together I never thought twice about astrology.
However, by the last couple girls it was obvious to me and I’d ask them, “Let me guess, you were born in early October?” and I was right on. They all acted similarly, looked similar, and had been through similar trials and hardships in life.
Oh, and my best guy friend over the last 10 years of my life was born Oct 11, not quite early Oct but still 1985. Obviously something about people born around that time meshes well with me and we are sort of drawn toward each other.
Maybe there’s no ‘collected data’ here, but you could never convince me now that there’s no truth in astrology. That doesn’t mean I live my life according to my daily horoscope or something stupid like that, but I am absolutely positive that there is a correlation between who a person is and when they were born.
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Have you considered the possibility that was because because you meet people who are mostly the same age? When you get out of school you will prolly meet girls born in different months.
Also, correlation != causation.
If these girls are all your ex girlfriends maybe you should look into dating someone born in a different month.
Luke, that’s just the problem. “From personal experience alone.” That’s all you have. No objective research or double-blind experiments or peer-reviewed published research. Just a set of events that you’ve hand-picked from thousands or millions and declared “significant” based on arbitrary criteria. The only thing your arument proves is that you have a poor filter for selection bias.
Well Luke, if you asked 1000 other people if they experienced the same birth dates on 5 girl friends, they would have different experiences. This is called statistical probability. There is nothing magical about it. If astrology were real, then everyone else would have the same sort of thing happen in their girl friends.
Oh, and let me guess. You’re religious?
Astronomy has showed us a lot of things. Astronomers look beyond earth to search for scientific discoveries. Astrologers really don’t look past the stars. They tell you about what would happen and what to be careful of things, the alinement’s of the planets depend on that. Thanks for your view points though!!
IM hungry
First to argue with a self proclaimed atheist would be in itself ironic considering that “true” atheists cannot believe anything that they themselves haven’t proven. To take the word of others requires belief, therefore Atheism is its own paradox!
As an Atheist, of which I am not, if one has stood upon the majestic height of the Eiffel Tower then it must exist. If one has not climbed the stairs of Eiffel Tower then it doesn’t exist. To be obtuse of the infinite, I say again infinite possibilities that lie beyond a person’s understanding of what and how things work would be tragic.
Astrology can be proven to be a more believable religion based on the FACTS that there are celestial bodies and that energy exists. I mean if someone is surrounded by negative energy then the likelihood of that same person being negative is greater if that is all they know. Other people’s opinions are what tell you who you are. If you decide to rebel against an opinion then environment is still a factor in your equation.
Ultimately I would rather take into consideration the many ideas and theories that came from various origins than to close myself off and just say “I AM GOD…Nothing exists beyond my realm!”
Astrology is a sacred belief and includes mathematical equations. Science comes from math. Put 2 and 2 together… that is if you have been able to prove that math teachers actually exist.
Feel free to support this claim.
Prove it.
I’m not aware of anyone who has disputed their existence; it’s their alleged influence that is disputed.
Feel free to support this claim.
Various origins? What is that supposed to mean.
Are you under some mistaken belief that you are describing atheists here?
Feel free to provide some of those equations.
Well, let’s see… you appear to be completely ignorant of atheism yet don’t have a problem making unsupported assertions about atheism. Add to that the fact that you make lots of unsupported assertions about astrology… and I conclude that you probably don’t have any idea what you’re talking about when it comes to astrology, either.
But you’re welcome to show I’m wrong by actually supporting your assertions. If you can.
This looney toon is confusing skepticism/atheism with solipsism.
@King of the Zodiac says:
“atheists cannot believe anything that they themselves haven’t proven. To take the word of others requires belief, therefore Atheism is its own paradox!
As an Atheist, of which I am not, if one has stood upon the majestic height of the Eiffel Tower then it must exist. If one has not climbed the stairs of Eiffel Tower then it doesn’t exist.”
The writer makes the common error of equating “belief” with “trust”. A rational person will accept (with varying degrees of reservation) the findings and claims of another person only to the degree that they trust this other person.
If a stranger says to me that something exists, I base a large part of my willingness to accept that statement on a) how much I trust him, and b) how well his statement (and supporting evidence) fit into my existing model of the universe.
Let us suppose a claim made by a researcher who works at an institution known for high-quality research, who has published his claim in a journal with a reputation for vigorouse peer review and the publication of quality research. Even if I have never heard of this researcher before, and even if I know very little about his subject, his claim is going to garner high trust in me because there is a chain of trust back to a source I have experience with (the journal). I do not “believe in” the claim in the sense that religious persons use the word, although I do not think it would be incorrect to state that based on my trust, I believe his statement is likely correct.
It amazes me how often god-apolgists make claims along the lines of “if you won’t believe in god, then you cannot logically believe in anything” as if to say atheism is a paradox and atheist should think that the world only extends to the limits of their vision. The ironic reality is that they are essentially correct with the words they chose, if not the intended meaning. A rational person does not “believe in” anything, although he most likely does believe some things to be true. Believing something to be true is not at all the same as believing in that thing. Being as it is different from knowing something to be true, the former leaves room for revision as new information appears.
Whenever this claim is made, it exposes a woeful lack of understanding of how humans reason.
he should look up the definition of “logical fallacy” before he posts here again
It’s amazing that we all have different views on astrology, some say its false others its true. Astrologist s study the stars and believe that the stars have an impact on ones life; if thats false then the 3 wise men in the Bible would have been mislead.