Live data from Hacker News

Does Astrology Work?

clearerthinking.org

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#161

I find these studies a waste of time. If you disbelieve in astrology and believe in science, then this is or course what it will show you. If you believe in astrology, you probably also believe in some unfalsifiable statements about it and have reasons to not trust studies like this. It's like trying to convince flat earthers using General Relativity. If you believe the earth is round, you don't need GR, and if you d…

You would only make this error if you think the purpose of scientific research is to change irrational minds. That hypothesis is wrong.

Your finding isn't really grounded in anything reasonable.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but sort of what I was getting at is that individual astrologers and alchemists accomplished impressive, and usefully true, feats despite the faultiness of their tools. And their tools were eventually refined into our tools, which are much more reliable though of course still not perfect. So who knows what we can get out of those easily disparaged modern sciences, or where they may eventually lead us. If those ea…

I would guess that shame has been a significant motivator in the evolution of astrology and alchemy into astronomy, chemistry and physics.

Some of their personal writings are in the historical record so you don't have to guess really.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#163

I find these studies a waste of time. If you disbelieve in astrology and believe in science, then this is or course what it will show you. If you believe in astrology, you probably also believe in some unfalsifiable statements about it and have reasons to not trust studies like this. It's like trying to convince flat earthers using General Relativity. If you believe the earth is round, you don't need GR, and if you d…

You would only make this error if you think the purpose of scientific research is to change irrational minds. That hypothesis is wrong. Your finding isn't really grounded in anything reasonable.

The purpose of scientific research is to establish novel facts. I'm saying this hinges on belief, both for scientists and for astrology believers, and thus cannot really establish any novel facts.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#164
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously astrology does no better than random guessing Not necessarily. It is entirely plausible that babies born during the Summer months share something in common, and babies born during Winter months share something else. Since astrological signs are 100% correlated with the seasons, one could "guess" with a higher probability than random chance these traits. The causality would obviously not be from stars to b…

> It is entirely plausible that babies born during the Summer months share something in common, and babies born during Winter months share something else. This would not account for reversal of the seasons in opposite hemispheres... ... or do the northern and southern hemispheres practice a different "western" astrology (!).

Or ever more local differences like when school age cut off is. I would expect some small differences be found due to these impacts, but they would not be universally applicable without generalization.

If schools roll over to the next grade at the start of October, babies born in October will perform better due to being the oldest in their class, but this would not be universal. What I would expect to be universal, is given a school system that does grade division in this way, students right after the division would do better than the ones born right before, as the first group is the oldest in their class and the second group is the youngest.

The extent this pairs with astrology would probably depend purely on population densities between different cultures. If things were fully uniform it would average out, but given they aren't, some residual bias existing wouldn't surprise me.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#165

So, yeah, but an interesting chunk of results: is the inter-rater agreement ACTUALLY random? (Not sure if this is formatted correctly, feel free to comment if you'd do these stats differently) from scipy.stats import binomtest # stats: {experience_level: (rate, num_in_group)} stats = { "lvl1": (20.5, 156), "lvl2": (22.2, 66), "lvl3": (23.3, 50), "lvl4": (21.2, 39), "lvl5": (20.8, 12), "lvl6": (28.3, 5), } for lvl, (r…

Errata: this is probably not right, the pairwise trials aren't independent.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#166

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.

Physics and Chemistry have no problems with defining and testing hypotheses

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which fields do you have in mind, other than... doctors, apparently?

Physicists, Civil Engineers, mathematicians…

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#168

It must because their signs are all wrong because they didn't account for the precession of the earth's axis... /s https://www.livescience.com/4667-astrological-sign.html

This is a misunderstanding of astrology. Astrological signs are not the same as constellations, even though they are named the same as or similar than twelve of the thirteen constellations which cross the ecliptic.

Astrological signs are measurement of ecliptic longitude, each one thirty degrees, starting with Aries. There are two intersection points between ecliptic and equator, so one of them will be called zero; specifically, it is the spring equinox in the north hemisphere. You will then usually specify the degrees past the sign, e.g. "0 Aries" is 0 degrees, and "3 Cancer" is 93 degrees.

"Tropic of Cancer" and "Tropic of Capricorn" are not having to do with constellations; they have to do with the astrological signs of those names. When the ecliptic longitude of the Sun is at 0 Cancer then the Sun is over the Tropic of Cancer.

(This assumes you are using the "tropical zodiac" which is based on the equinox of date. If you are using a "sidereal zodiac" with a specific ayanamsha (the word "ayanamsha" is a Sanskrit word denoting the amount of precession of equinoxes) then it is instead relative to a specific angle at a specific date.)

So, their signs are not wrong, although you still cannot predict facts about people's lives and other stuff like most astrologers try to do, by the use of the astrological signs, and using the correct ones is no better than using the wrong ones. There are good arguments that can be made against astrology, but "the signs are all wrong" is not a valid one.

Astrology does get the positions of objects correct as astronomy does, although to understand them you would have to understand the conventions in use, which are different than the conventions commonly used in modern astronomy.

The dates commonly given for Sun signs in newspapers are approximately correct but are not exact. The exact dates (and times of day; not only the date) varies by year, and this is related to the reason why we have leap years.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#169

My wife likes astrology. I just put it as one of those quirks in people. This is especially curious because of just how intelligent she is. She has several degrees, including a PHD. Then, she pointed out something to me: something doesn't necessarily have to be true to have value. She uses astrology not in any predictive manor but as a qualitative evaluation. All of the signs have descriptions and ways to think about…

Your text is not formatted consistently; Aries to Scorpio is preformatted text while Sagittarius to Pisces is formatted differently.

> something doesn't necessarily have to be true to have value.

I think this is correct. Many things have value even if they are not true.

However, I will give another point. Astrology can be called a form of divination (although, unlike cartomancy or dice, it is not one of the forms of divination that involves random selection). Divination can use artificial magical correspondences to represent things like you describe. Sometimes divination can make you to have some ideas about something, like you can do with cards (or computers) with words to make up an idea, etc. Of course, divination cannot be used to predict things scientifically or anything like that, and you should ensure you are aware of this when you attempt divination, so that you do not misuse it.

Specifically, astrology is a form of divination using astronomy (rather than cards or something else), and using some older conventions which are not used much in astronomy (such as naming the 30 degree arcs of ecliptic longitude after constellations which do not quite match them; this is kind of similar than how every 28-31 days in a year is given a month name; there are other conventions as well which are not used in modern astronomy because they are not useful in modern astronomy, but are commonly used in astrology). Astrology also involves astronomy and mathematics in other ways too; the house systems use geometry to map the horizon and midheaven at a specific location on the Earth, to the ecliptic; and modality/triplicities is like a residue number system (but with magic instead of numbers).

> I'm not going to suggest in any shape or form that A) all people born Cancers behave this way or B) planets have anything to do with causing this.

I mostly agree with you. However, anything can influence anything else, directly or indirectly. This does not mean that planets will cause you to behave this way, but if someone notices the movement of the planets and then writes about it, someone will read it, and writing about and reading about it is indirectly something that causes another; so you are indirectly influenced to write about this, and I am indirectly influenced to write this reply. Sometimes such influences may result in the behaviours described (like self-fulfilling prophecy), but many times it won't.

And, people might have multiple motivations and might sometimes do different things at different times, and of course you can do things independently of what was the ecliptic longitude of the Sun or planets at the time you were born.

Astrology is not bad, but it is often misused (although many things are misused). It is not scientific, but it does not have to be scientific in order to be meaningful. (However, science can also be misused, too.)

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#170

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 t…

I think you are right. Sometimes fictitious planets are included in horoscopes, and this is one of the reasons why; some people continue to use it because some people included it in horoscopes in the past. There are others as well, such as the fictitious planets in the Hamburg astrology.

I have also read that apparently some astrologers decided to exclude Pluto from horoscopes because the IAU no longer considers Pluto to be a planet. That isn't a valid reason; Pluto still has coordinates and therefore can still be plotted on a horoscope (fictitious planets (such as Vulcan) also have coordinates although in that case the coordinates are made up rather than being real coordinates). Sun and Moon are not considered planets by IAU but are included on a horoscope too. You might decide to remove Pluto in case you think there are too many planets in the horoscope, but what the IAU says is irrelevant to horoscopes. (The Earth is usually the centre of measurement of a horoscope (although sometimes the Sun is used instead, but this is less common), so it is implicitly included in a horoscope but cannot be one of the objects plotted on it (since the plotting uses angular coordinates, and the object at the centre obviously has no angular coordinates).)

Post reply on HN