Do you realise astrology is complete twaddle?

Question

Astrology has as much credibility as creationism. Discuss.

Lynkstar it has NO BASIS IN SCIENCE WHATSOEVER which is why i compared it to creationism.. dumbo

Beloved that's what this site is all about, asking questions.... i genuinely want to know the answer, OK?!

endpov i resent that! i am no atheist!!

there is just no way you can call psychology a pseudo science IN DEFENCE of astrology... some people here might like to see my other question regarding our feelings about idiots...

Answer 1

Those who paid attention in school may remember the scientific method.

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

Astrology use science but is not science. Consistency is crucial for science while in astrology there is none. In all tests astrology fails. Possibly the most detailed test of astrology using this type of method, was performed by Shawn Carlson. His paper, “A Double-blind Test of Astrology”, was published in the prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal Nature, in 1985. The interesting thing is that the San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research recommended the 28 professional astrologers who took part, and (with Carlson), designed the tests. They also predicted, in advance, what they would consider to be a successful test.

Two tests were performed:

Test #1: Astrological charts were prepared for 83 subjects, based on natal data (date, time and place of birth), provided by the subjects. Each subject was given three charts: one chart based on their own natal data, and two charts derived from natal data of other people. Each subject was asked to identify the chart that most correctly described them. In only 28 of the 83 cases, the subject chose their own chart. This is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that the subjects would select their own chart more that 50% of the time.

Test #2: 116 subjects completed California Personality Index surveys and provided natal data (date, time and place of birth). One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data. In only 40 of the 116 cases, the astrologers chose the correct CPI. As with test #1, this is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.

Conclusion by Carlson:

"We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the "minimum" effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance.

"I have not yet received a serious scientific challenge to the paper. The newsletter of the American Federation of Astrologers Network published a response in January (1986). I was very disappointed to see that it largely consists of personal attacks. Its few substantive criticisms are attributable to ignorance of the experiment, of the CPI, and of basic scientific methodology."

So the astrologers failed their own test. Does this mean they gave up astrology as being useless? Of course not: they are totally closed minded to the possibility that astrology doesn’t work.

Add on: When one person evaluates another for a job, jury selection, criminal guilt, membership in an association, or any of several other areas of life, based upon the color of the person's skin, the person's religion, or the color of the person's eyes, there is a storm of protest. "Bigotry! Racism!" are the cries.

And yet, when one human being evaluates the worth of another based upon an accident of birth--the date of birth, it is accepted. It is called astrology.

Astrology shows a bias aganst itself in issues of compitability. This person is ok but this other one is not due to your birth date or the other's. Family background, age differences, education, and other factors have little effect but time and location of birth do. Astrology is bigotry.

Another add on: To Lula and others. It is proper to attack the argument not the arguers. Calling others idiots and personal insults is not right.
We all have the same access to the same information. If you think astrology is like a religion, belief is what is important but can you believe in two religions at once? However if you claim it to be fact, back it up. If has truth, there should be no fears in producing the data. Just link us to independant links for us to view. It is up to the claimer to prove not for others to disprove.

Answer 2

Believing in any theory or astrology is neither here nor there because if something is, it is and not dependent on belief....it just is. We know (or accept) that living organisms have a certain energy as does the universe and this change as the universe changes. I can see how a theory that the positioning of the universe and the energies therein can effect a persons innate characteristic and therefore an astrological reading based on the exact year, day and time can't be easily dismissed as twaddle in regard to predetermined personality traits; but, that is not the case because our upbringing affects us in many ways. Due to that, I feel the horoscopes for instance can't be accurate as they cover a range of time and days and do not consider year, social differences and upbringing but can be indicative of tendencies. Scenario: siblings (different star signs) treated equally but brought up in an abusive family, they mature and leave home, one becomes an abuser and the other a healer or a voice for the abused. What sets them apart although they have faced similar challenges and hardships?

Answer 3

That's funny. Twaddle. Ha!!! Yes astrology sometimes appears to be complete twaddle. But it could be just to fool close minded twaddles. But that doesn't mean that it is complete twaddle. I think LULA might be complete TWADDLE. Hey, that would be a great name - Lula Twaddle. Chuckle.

Anyway, ironically, I agree in one respect. Astrology appears to be complete twaddle. I'm a skeptic. But it sure is entertaining. And sometimes, your reaction can be, "Wow, that astrology is so true!!!" You never know. Maybe someday, we'll figure out if it is true or not. But not with twaddles around who are obsessesed with factual information who know nothing or appreciate nothing about the great unknown. There!!! Stuff that in your twaddle pipe and smoke it.

But I also agree with Beloved: Just because you don't believe in it, then likewise, just as you expect to not be forced to believe in something you don't believe in, you shouldn't go around trying to convince others who believe in it that they are wrong. Be gone evangelical agnostic twaddle!!!!!!

Power on Beloved.

And that's another thing. If your an agnostic that means your anti, against or without gnosos, or knowledge. Your NOT SURE of the existence of certain things. But it also means that your not an atheist or completely against god or the unknown or whatever it is you don't believe in. So therefore that means that, likewise, you're not completely against astrology. I rest my case.

And that's another thing Astrology does have a basis in science and that science is Astronomy. However, because it is not provable or disprovable, Astrology is considered a Pseudo-Science. Again, the Great Unknown, something that you should have a healthy respect for, Lula Twaddle. So there. Dumbo, you may continue to discuss.

Answer 4

Do you realize that astrology done properly is actually ahead of it's time and works off principles that scientists are just beginning to discover through study of quantum physics? Astrology isn't the crud you get in the morning paper, which doesn't even try to claim any basis in reality, read: For entertainment purposes only. Since this is the only source I've ever heard any arguement against I suggest you and all those other pseudo-critics out there get a grip on reality and do some real research. As for the double blind test mentioned earlier I have no doubt that there are fake astrologers out there just as there are fake psychics and fake scientists, yes, you read correctly fake scientists. I'm sure the test was either designed to be inherently unfair or the scientists involved chose the ones they wanted to get the results they did. Besides with true science the results have to be replicable even when disproving. You have given only one singular test case are there any others or did you just pick the one that best suited your opinion? Oh don't say those were two different test cases either because the tests were not the same.

Answer 5

Well not totally. I can always tell when somebody is a Leo or Libra, or even a Taurus. Being born in alignment with the stars and being able to tell what kind of person they're going to be cannot possibly be backed up by science, and I'm sure that finding constellations in the sky is finding connections you want to find.

However, it happens. Can we scientifically explain it? No. But do you think it's a coincidence that people's personality matches up with their horoscope frequently? I don't think that either.

But I do think the day-to-day crap is complete 'twaddle', as you put it. You're horoscope can only truly be judged by the day you were born, the moon you were born in, the time you were born and something about the sun as well. None of these websites are going to judge all that information when telling you that you should dress more casually on the 4th, 13th, and 27th.

Answer 6

To each their own...
Surely your basis of twaddle has some facts?
Actually it is a science.

Science = any systematically organized body of knowledge about a specific subject
Astrology = the study of the positions of the Moon, Sun, and other planets in the belief that their motions affect human beings
Theology = the study of religion, especially the Christian faith and God’s relation to the world

In terms of definitions they seem to work correctly. You can say “the science of idiots” and well, if you study them systematically… it is in fact a true comment.

If you don’t agree with the thoughts coming from the practices come up with a more valid argument to discuss.

Twaddle = nonsensical or pretentious speech or writing
(There is a very specific method in calculating your birth chart)
The wording is based off of each astrologer.

You can ask why in any situation even “factual sciences” there is no real reason for a lot of things… but based on extensive research and trends one can come up with a seemingly accurate answer. In the case of astrology the account of a specific personality. Of course in a vague since you are probably “this and that” so of course you wouldn’t believe that because well that’s who you are.

It is as much twaddle as anything else in this world.

I think a better comparison is horoscopes and creationism. in that comment, id completely agree.

Answer 7

You must be a lot better than other people to be so good at making fun of their beliefs.
Perhaps you should run the world, or maybe you are too busy being a rude bigot.

I assume you have spent many years studying astrology before you made this sweeping judgement and that you have constructed using facts and logic a flawless proof as to why every facet of astrology is "twaddle".

I personally do not rate astrology as accurate, but this is a personal opinion and I would never dare to insult the beliefs of other people without having looked at them in great detail.

Perhaps you revel in your own ignorance, indeed most opinionated people do. Perhaps you think that just because you ASSUME something is stupid makes it so. It is this sort of thinking that started off things like the Spanish Inquisition and the KKK - is that the sort of person you want to be?

AND I REALISE YOU WON'T PAY ATTENTION TO ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN BECAUSE YOU ONLY WANT PEOPLE TO AGREE WITH YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUS IGNORANCE RATHER THAN TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS THIS TOPIC.

Answer 8

I think people should make sure they understand what they're talking about before they make fun of something and call it "twaddle".
Astrology is a lot more complex than just whether or not you're a Cancer or a Leo. Obviously those horoscopes in the back of Cosmo are a load of crap. Reading your daily sun sign horoscope is like reading the US Weekly. It's only a fragment of the story.
Your sun sign is just a small aspect of your whole chart which you might be surprised to find paints a surprisingly accurate picture of your personality.

Answer 9

Well, Creationism is adherence to a literal interpretation of the creation myth in Genesis. The problem with it is that while it is part of a fundamentalist belief structure, it has run headlong into rationality and refuses to accept rational facts that support Evolution.

Astrology is a belief structure too. And there are strains of Astrology that do run counter to rationality, but not in so much of a head-first manner. Generally speaking, however, Astrology doesn't commit the serious error of discarding rationality.

In any case, there are Christians who do not discard facts supporting Evolution, and there are even more Astrologers willing to accept the role that genetics and terrestial influences play in determining human behavior.

My tollerance for other worldviews is easy to manage because I figure that so long as the spiritual framework doesn't resort to extreme irrationality, then there's no problem with it: it's as valid as any other worldview I can create to glue my reality into a unified set of concepts that help me manage to give my life greater context. If, on the other hand, it is neccessary for me to discard rational, fact-based evidence to support my worldview, then I see that as a kind of folly that makes my view irrelevant.

I find, however, that folks who tend to be as dismissive about spirituality as your question seems to imply that you are, well... they tend to be rather limited in terms of emotional and spiritual growth, and they tend to lack the empathy you need to really accept others' and their own limitations; it's another kind of arrogance every bit as much as Creationism is.

Think about it. You don't know how it all fits together, and there's a need to reach out beyond yourself to become an empathetic, altruistic fully evolved person, and sometimes just to manage your own grief without letting it drag you into absolute cynacism.

Answer 10

Left in the incapable hands of bigot sceptics and power hungry astrologers, yes then astrology is complete shite, and anything but credible.

Left in capable hands, however, it's more accurate than you can imagine psychology ever to be (psychology being only a pseudo-science itself and getting more credit than astrology) and more scientific... but then again, since most of the sources out there online and elsewhere are from bigot sceptics and power and money hungry astrologers, they won't be of much help either.


(note to the asker; astrology IS a science, or at least something that comes close to it, kind of like psychology and on some terms any other science could fall subject to changes just as much as astrology and psychology - nothing is for certain)

(another note to the asker; psychology is named a pseudo-science because it IS one, not in defense of astrology. In fact, it has been named a pseudo-science because its foundations are not scientific facts, just opinions, which differ from one psychological school of learning to another)

Answer 11

Astrology in not twaddle at all. actually if you were to go to www.astro.com and get your complete hororscope, you would be shocked to see how accurate it is in describing you and your past. Although you shouldn't dwell on it too much, Astrology is actually very accurate.