The evidence for the truth or effectiveness of astrology is nonexistent; on the other hand, the evidence for the falsehood of astrology is mountainous. Every time the subject is studied, more evidence against astrology is gathered - yet True Believers refuse to give it up. They are too firmly wedded to their beliefs.
ABC of Australia reports:
Hartmann and his colleagues used computer analysis and statistical methods to study possible astrological connections between over 15,000 individuals. Their test subjects came from two sources.
The first was the Vietnam Experience Study, which gathered information about intelligence, personality and date of birth for male military veterans. The second was the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which included intelligence and date of birth information for males and females aged between 15 and 24 years.
If connections existed over a rate of 5%, they were considered valid and not the result of random links. The scientists could find no relationship between the time and date of a person’s birth and their personality traits, which the Vietnam study categorised using terms such as psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism and social desirability.
According to Hartmann:
“When considering the current scientific standing with respect to Sun signs, it becomes clear that there is little or no truth in [them]. ... This does not necessarily mean that all astrology is without truth, but only that the independent effect of Sun signs is most likely to be irrelevant. ... As for the weekly horoscope based on mere Sun signs, then according to the current scientific standing, there is probably more truth in the comic strips.”
Hartmann is understandably cautious, but he is more cautious than he really needs to be. Astrology is so without support and foundation that there is no strong reason not to treat it as complete bunk, unworthy of any serious belief by any rational adult. Astrology comes to us from a time when humans also read the future through chicken entrails and sacrificed other human beings to angry gods. Astrology is a part of humanity’s ancient past and should be dumped as superstition.
Read More:
Your polls options are often not mutually exclusive, and they should be.
They could at least be multiple choice, or perhaps two seperate polls. As it is, they’re lacking in accuracy as people may have to choose at random between two similar options.
What’s not “mutually exclusive” about the poll here?
For an excellent essay on the topic of astrology being bunk, see:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-12romance_in_stars.shtml
“The evidence for the truth or effectiveness of astrology is nonexistent;”
My dad died on 20080727. His horoscope predicted in 1995 that he will die on 20080712. He died of liver problems. He lived only 15 days more than predicted. Similarly my mother died due to natural causes on the year (1998) she was predicted to die. How can I get past these “evidences” that atleast Hindu astrology works? I am an atheist, how do I explain away these solid (to me) predictions made many years before they happened?
How is it “evidence” that astrology works when a predication are wrong?
Since even a broken clock is right twice a day, how is a single correct prediction “evidence” that astrology is right?
How is it “evidence” that astrology works when a predication are wrong?
I guess it depends on how you measure wrongness. Weather and earthquake prediction has got a worse record for predicting the future do we stop trying to predict the weather or earthquakes?
Suppose someone predicts that 13 years from now someone will die and he misses his prediction by just a few days isn’t it much more accurate than predicting that a cyclone will hit your city 13 years from now? Actually it is much better I think because cyclones occur annually but death doesn’t happen annually.
how is a single correct prediction “evidence” that astrology is right?
Is it scientific to discard observations (death of two persons were predicted with reasonable accuracy) that do not fit into our pet theories (namely that future cannot be predicted) instead of trying to explain them and trying to find out how the prediction system may be improved and be made more reliable? But for that I would have to study astrology myself which I don’t have the time to do at present. Anyway I think it is axiomatic that if future can be predicted it can’t be changed. If it can be changed then it can’t be predicted. Since it seems that future can be predicted, astrology is a pretty useless task because whats the good of knowing the future if it can’t be changed? It will take the fun out of life.
Thanks but I will appreciate further arguments on this.
1) Do you think future can be predicted?
2) Do you think we have free will? What is free will? Suppose you decide to do something to change the future, what happens physically? your neurons worked in such and such a way to arrive at the decision, they in turn worked in such and such ways because of the interaction between the molecules that make them up. The interaction between the molecules that make them up in turn work according to precise natural laws or so I think, at least I don’t think they act according to supernatural laws. where is the room for fuzziness? where is the room for decision? Every decision one makes materializes according to precise interactions between atoms and molecules where does the free will part come from if it exists at all? And if there is no such thing as free will isn’t the future deterministic and unchangeable (therefore predictable, though predicting the future accurately is a long long way from knowing that it is predictable)?
Since there is a legitimate foundation for such predictions, we can examine why they are inaccurate and improve them. They also come with a clear caveat that they aren’t precise.
Not if they have a hundred other predictions that don’t come anywhere close to being true.
That can’t be replicated or found consistently? Yes.
That’s exactly the question, and you lack a data set sufficient to justify such a conclusion.
I see nothing to justify such a conclusion.
Depends on what you mean by “free will,” and besides that isn’t relevant to the topic. You’ll have to ask that in the forum.
“Not if they have a hundred other predictions that don’t come anywhere close to being true.”
What hundred other predictions that don’t come anywhere close to being true? If you are referring to the above study:
““When considering the current scientific standing with respect to Sun signs, it becomes clear that there is little or no truth in [them]. … This does not necessarily mean that all astrology is without truth, but only that the independent effect of Sun signs is most likely to be irrelevant. …”
These were probably made with western horoscope which is notoriously inaccurate, which is fortunate for you because what is wrong most of the time doesn’t inspire much belief and can be dumped easily.
While I am stuck with Hindu astrology which appears to be right most of the time and not just with vague character stuff which can be interpreted any which way we want but with concrete dates for events which come true, which is unfortunate for me because what is right most of the time inspires irrational belief which I don’t want but which I am not able to shake.
I’m not referring to any particular predictions. I am referring to the fact that you are relying entirely upon two examples, a sample size that is way too small to justify the conclusions you are trying to defend.
Do you understand the concept and importance of “sample size”?
Really? Most of the time?
Then you must be able to produce statistical evidence of this based on sufficient sample sizes and which has been peer reviewed.
“Really? Most of the time?”
*All* of the time so far with me but as you say the sample size is too small and I will check further.
“Then you must be able to produce statistical evidence of this based on sufficient sample sizes and which has been peer reviewed.”
Ok, I will keep this in mind and conduct statistical studies to check my beliefs but not at present. At present I am way too busy with software to dig into this. Do you keep comments open forever? If you keep it open for a few more years I will report my findings here. Bye. Thank you very much for your time and help.
A sample of two barely even qualifies as genuine sample size.
Then you’re too busy to take the unsupported conclusion seriously.
Every time I read one of these posts I predict someone will write something really stupid.
Always happens.
Every time I read one of these posts that is specific to a christian topic, or not, I know that some moron will “god bless” someone.
Always happens.
Every time I come on here and read one of these posts I know I’m going to be a smart a**.
Always happens.
Can all this be coincidence? Hmmmm?
Zayla – So far you’re 2 for 3! I’m not holding my breath that you won’t get 3 for 3 though! Very funny!