Astrology is not a scientific discipline, therefore it is not subject to any proofs. It is also a subjective philosophy, relying on the person to interpret its meaning.
Is it true? Who knows, this universe is a strange place. Connections are abound where we think there is none.
Is it totally bogus? We can't say it is, since the ancients used astrology for everything. Think Egypt, Stonehenge and the birth of Jesus.
2007-07-09 14:39:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by FooFighter 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Actually, any proof is against astrology. A few years ago, a scientific magazine collected all the predictions from astrologers for the new year and reviewed them with a probability rating. If someone had predicted that someone famous would die, and was correct, then that prediction would have gotten lots of point. If the were wrong, they lost a few. On the other hand, being wrong about something that was likely to happen lost lots of point, and so on. Conclusion: astrology did sometimes WORSE than random. The real problem is that you cannot prove a negative, as it involves proving it in all cases, all the time. It is astrology that has to prove itself. But astrologers always weasel they way out. If the stuff they predicted did not happen, it is because we were warned and we did something that made it not happen. Just like the guy playing accordion in downtown New York, to scare away mammoths. "But there are no mammoths in New York!", you'd say. "See? It WORKS."
2016-04-01 06:09:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I don't believe in it.
No, it doesn't come true any more often than random chance. If you read the horoscopes for any sign, you can see things that might come true (especially if you read them the day after they were posted), but no one reads any horoscopes but their own so they don't realize they all say a lot of the same stuff, just on different days.
No, there is no scientific proof (in fact, the zodiac sign that you were "born" under is the constellation the sun was in 2,000 years ago, and the precession of the equinoxes has moved the constellations one over - I was born in June, supposedly under Gemini, but the sun was in Cancer when I was born). So it isn't even accurate from the very start.
There is no way that stars billions of miles away can influence humans on Earth - we are not that special, the stars were not put there for us (what hubris!), they don't affect our lives (unless a close one becomes a supernova, but that's different).
2007-07-09 14:53:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
no
no
no
When we do scientific testing of astrology, we find that either the 'predictions' are not precise enough to be tested (e.g., "you will have a surprise today") or that the number of predictions that do come true is the same as if you had mixed them at random (if you predict a large enough number of things, some of them will come true).
The difference between science and the occult is that in science, we expect a large number of predictions to be true, while in the occult, everyone will concentrate on the 5 that turned out right and forget the 95 that were wrong.
2007-07-09 15:16:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by Raymond 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
This has actually been investigated and there was no connection found between the carefully cast horoscopes of some hundreds of well known people and their careers and personalities. Even those who go in for it know that the 12 signs stuff in newspapers and magazines is pathetic nonsense.
The only difference between astrology and predicting things by inspecting the insides of sacrificed animals is that no animals get killed.
2007-07-09 21:51:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Astrology ...no.
There has been some research pointing to the season of birth, (early experiences), having some effect on personality, but that has only an accidental connection to the appearance of the night sky.
As to predicting the future ..... it's pure BS!
2007-07-09 14:52:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Irv S 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
No, I definitely do not believe in astrology.
But, then, us Taurans are a skeptical group. haha
2007-07-09 16:21:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by MasterMmmm 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, no, and no. There is no evidence that it works, and since it is so easily testable, we can dismiss it.
2007-07-09 14:29:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by eri 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
No.
No.
None.
2007-07-11 03:57:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by John F 4
·
0⤊
2⤋