Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does Astrology Work?

clearerthinking.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 188 posts

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#121

Post by Dylan16807 »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #95

I'll admit, I have a fascination with Greco Roman antiquities and Hellenic /Roman astrology is one of them. To be able to enjoy the literature and culture of the era and the archetypes expressed, understanding how this all works helps a great deal. As such, I know a fair amount of astrology from a Greco Roman perspective and by extension all the way up to medieval astrology. Yeah plz I find it fascinating. With that…

> A good astrologer won't say with precision that X is going to happen

> Does it work? It's a bit like the weather, I can say this range of things under this archetype will happen on X date at X time. That's pretty much it.

If it was like the weather, then it would predict the odds of specific things.

Sitting on an archetype is like saying "it's summer" when you want to know if it's going to rain.

> Anywho, I expect a good roasting and some down d00ts for my interest in t is subject.

This line in particular deserves downvotes.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#122

Post by beardyw »

SteveNuts wrote: post #80
beardyw wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exactly a HN topic is it?

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures.…

Thanks for that. I will suggest that we modify it to:

"anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity even though most of us think it's bunk."

That will avoid a lot of problems!

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#123

Post by pritambarhate »

AnonC wrote: post #37

I’d be interested in the views of professional as well as hobby astrologers who are on HN.

I studied astrology independently for 3-4 years and concluded that while it can lead to astonishingly accurate predictions at times, the current literature is far from reliable or accurate. It needs to be studied scientifically to gain credibility. Currently, conclusions are often drawn from small sample sizes (sometimes just 1-2 charts), and it’s presented more as an art than a science.

I was drawn to astrology because, in India, it’s deeply embedded in the culture. Personal predictions and predictions about my family members that came true piqued my interest. For example, an astrologer told my father when I was in 10th grade that I would never complete my graduation, which was revealed to me only after I dropped out of college. Despite being a top student with scholarships, this prediction came true, sparking my curiosity.

There are many similar stories, particularly related to Agastya Nadi Jyotish. For instance, in my Agastya Nadi prediction, 10-12 sentences described my wife. Individually, each sentence was generic, like "she will be a middle child" or "she will not be tall," but the probability of all being correct is quite low. Except for one detail (she was predicted to have a master’s degree, but she only has a bachelor’s), all were accurate. Such experiences can lead one to believe in astrology.

However, I’ve also noticed that people who believe in astrology tend to remember the accurate predictions and forget or dismiss the inaccurate ones. For example, many people for whom I’ve done chart readings (as a hobbyist, for free) often recall the predictions that came true when they meet me after many years.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#124

Post by andrewla »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #105
andrewla wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Astrology works Citation needed. Even agreement between the astrologers was low, which is a strong argument that it doesn't work even if you believe in it. That is, the patterns "predicted" by astrology simply do not exist; individuals cannot reliably reinforce their behavior based on expected behavior because there is no agreement on what the expected behavior is. > most doctors don't perform much better than thes…

People who are really into astrology absolutely make an effort to conform to their sign, choose who to have significant relationships because of it and decide to do things based on how well it conforms to their belief about their astrological nature. That will become patently obvious to you if you spend a decent amount of time around people who are really into astrology. That's different from astrologers failing to m…

> to conform to their sign

That's key here though -- even experts disagree on what conformance to a sign means. So someone who makes life decisions like "I'm not going to go on a second date with this person; as an Aquarius there's no way I can ever love someone born in the second house of Cancer" or some shit is creating a rationalization -- presented with the same facts another astrologer might reach completely different conclusions.

So they're not really "conforming" to anything at all -- they're just "making decisions" like the rest of us.

EDIT: to further clarify, the claim that "astrology works on people who believe in it" is really saying "people who believe in astrology and conform their actions to it are predictable in their reactions using astrology". The inter-expert agreement is low enough that even true believers in astrology are not predictable using astrology because two experts would predict different behavior.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#125

Post by DamnInteresting »

In the mid-to-late 1800s, many prominent astronomers were pretty sure there was another planet inside the orbit of Mercury, because Mercury's orbit has a peculiar irregularity. They called this yet-to-be-properly-seen planet 'Vulcan', and it became a fixture in astrologers' horoscopes.

In the early 20th century, Einstein came along with his Theory of General Relativity, and with these equations he demonstrated that the sun's gravity was bending spacetime in a way that perfectly accounted for Mercury's wobble. Vulcan was therefore found to be a myth, nonexistent.[1]

Nevertheless, many astrologers still feature Vulcan in their horoscopes even today, over a century later.[2] The inclusion of an entirely fictional heavenly body seems to undermine any other conclusions drawn from planetary positions.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)

2: https://cosmicdeity.com/vulcan-astrology/

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#126

Post by usgroup »

It doesn't say where the 152 astrologers were sourced, does it? Or how they were qualified? Should astrology be a field with very many impostors, these results would not be unusual.

Generally speaking I suspect it will be difficult to falsify astrology, but more importantly the onus is on the astrologer to prove their ability rather than for others to disprove it.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#127

Post by Ylpertnodi »

hermannj314 wrote: post #112

I flip a coin during periods of indecisiveness and have built a silly lore around a God named Gamblor (yes, from the Simpsons) that punishes people that ask him to choose their fate through a coin toss and then don't follow through on his decree. As long as I am reasonable in what decisions I give to the altar of Gamblor, I find belief in him a net good for my life even though I realize no study would prove he has ac…

George Carlin: thou shalt keep thy god to thyself.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#128

Post by TuringTest »

criddell wrote: post #79
boesboes wrote: post #59

Nothing new or surprising was learned, the skeptics say 'see!' the 'believers' will disregard. And it's fine. Most people don't believe tarot cards are really some magical thing, it's just an interactive and creative way to get some random inspirational qoutes or text. It's either fitting and viewed a true, or not fitting and simply disregarded. I know it's all bs, but that doesn't mean it cannot be entertaining.

> Most people don't believe tarot cards are really some magical thing I think a lot of people have trouble with the idea that despite astrology not being accurate or grounded in science, it can still be useful for some of the people some of the time.

> despite astrology not being accurate or grounded in science, it can still be useful for some of the people some of the time.

That's what an art form does.

The problem with astrology is that it's framed as a science giving answers to questions, not as an artistic performance giving insight into life patterns. It as painful as seeing people watch wrestling believing it is a real competitive sport.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#129

Post by sibeliuss »

i80and wrote: post #53

Obviously astrology does no better than random guessing, that's no surprise. But the fact that astrology had such low levels of agreement is a little interesting to me -- I guess I assumed there was some kind of underlying system to astrology, but I guess not! > Much to my surprise, astrologers had very low agreement with each other on the chart for each person. If astrologers picked charts at random, they would agre…

Traditional astrology has an extremely sophisticated system underneath. Modern astrology, not so much.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#130

Post by meroes »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #81
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #38

If astrology people understood science they wouldn’t be astrologists Glad we have something to point to finally as a reference

The problem is all the "scientific" fields that are nearly as high on the bullshit quotient as astrology that we stubbornly continue to defend.

Can we pinpoint a specific decade this happened or is it a slow process? Because if we count CS as a science, I’m seeing it become just like the worst of the sciences in this regard. AI has really gotten me pessimistic. There’s so much borrowing from other subjects since there are now models for every subject and every grade level, which ultimately will become products for large corporations. Like maybe we should hire at least one full time linguist, mathematician, chemist, logician, etc to sit high in the chain behind each of the respective models. I’m seeing a lot of faux rigor because it’s moving lightning speed.
Post reply on HN