Live data from Hacker News

Does Astrology Work?

clearerthinking.org

181–188 of 188 posts

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#181
When I was a teen interested in amateur astronomy I actually considered learning astrology in order to learn how to calculate the positions of the planets. My thought was that material written for astronomers assumed a level of math and physics sophistication that I did not yet have, whereas material written for astrologers would be written for people who didn't an astronomer-level understanding of math and physics and thus take a more "blindly follow this algorithm" approach.

This was in the mid '70s and I was not able to find anything in my county library that actually told how astrologers find planetary positions, so nothing ever came of it.

I had a similar idea 20 years later when I took a break from programming to go to law school. Some thing in a couple of my tax law classes were unclear to me and I really wanted to see how they were actually applied. I went to the university bookstore and found the section with textbooks for the university's business school and bought the textbook for their taxes for accountants class. After reading the examples and explanations there I then found the corresponding material in my law texts much more approachable.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#182

The comments here are extremely unhelpful. We get it, you think astrology is stupid and anyone that thinks it works is an idiot worth ostracizing. Now can we get on with comments actually diving deeper into the actual study in the OP?

I'm impressed, as other commenters have noted, by the specific way that astrology fails, rather than just by the fact of it's failure. The inter-astrologer agreement being low strongly indicates that there's not even a systematic basis for how conclusions are reached. I would have expected more bland agreement -- this person does X, which is something that Leos do, so they are a Leo. And they're just fooled by confir…

Relates to that, I've always been interested in the comparison of astrology to the various different personality tests.

I always find myself coming across a new (to me) personality test with a heavy dose of skepticism. More often than not I get to the results and am surprised with how well the results seem to describe me in great detail. I never know whether to shake my skepticism or if I just got taken by a way more clever slight of hand than astrology offers.

Astrology feels like a show from the early 00s that I can't remember the name of. It was setup as a live audience show with the host claiming to talk to dead people. The problem was he was so insanely generic that it was just basic statistics combined with basic skills at reading people's responses. He's often point to half the room of a few hundred people and say "I'm feeling someone...the letter S? ..."

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#183

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; s…

I'm not sure how the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn got in this discussion, they are latitudes of the earth. I know nothing about astrology, but according to the article I posted your sign is the constellation the sun was "in" when you were born. I'm not clear how one would determine astronomically what sign the sun is in, given that the stars aren't visible when the sun is and it cross half the sky. Maybe it's the constellation just before sun up or just after sun down? Anyway, the earth's axis certainly precesses, so if you just take some ancient astrological information and apply it to modern dating, you're going to get the wrong sign.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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; s…

I'm not sure how the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn got in this discussion, they are latitudes of the earth. I know nothing about astrology, but according to the article I posted your sign is the constellation the sun was "in" when you were born. I'm not clear how one would determine astronomically what sign the sun is in, given that the stars aren't visible when the sun is and it cross half the sky. Maybe it's the cons…

> I'm not sure how the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn got in this discussion, they are latitudes of the earth.

They are latitudes of the Earth (although the obliquity of the ecliptic can change over time, so they are not always the same latitudes of the Earth). Specifically, they are the latitudes of the Earth that the Sun will be directly above if the ecliptic longitude of the Sun is 0 Cancer and 0 Capricorn (when the Sun is at 0 Aries and 0 Libra, it is directly above the equator).

> your sign is the constellation the sun was "in" when you were born

It is not. "Your sign" usually means your Sun sign (at the time you were born; this can be any time of day or night), and it is not the same as a constellation, even if it has the same name as that sign. If your Sun sign is Aries, that means that the ecliptic longitude of the Sun at the time you were born was greater than or equal to zero degrees and less than thirty degrees, counting from the spring equinox as zero. That is what it means. It does not have to do with the constellation named Aries, although people who are not familiar with astrology often confuse it with that.

Astrological signs are a measurement of ecliptic longitude. One sign = 30 degrees, therefore 12 signs = 360 degrees.

You can also determine the sign of the Moon and planets, which would be their ecliptic longitude, like you would with the Sun. For example, if Moon is in the sign Libra then the ecliptic longitude of the Moon is greater than or equal to 180 degrees and less than 210 degrees. Libra is the opposite direction from Aries, so if Sun is Aries during a full moon, then the Moon will be Libra, since the opposite directions are 180 degrees apart. This is not having to do with the constellations named Aries and Libra, which is different.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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; s…

I'm not sure how the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn got in this discussion, they are latitudes of the earth. I know nothing about astrology, but according to the article I posted your sign is the constellation the sun was "in" when you were born. I'm not clear how one would determine astronomically what sign the sun is in, given that the stars aren't visible when the sun is and it cross half the sky. Maybe it's the cons…

I will also comment about the article.

> If you were born between March 21 and April 19, your astrological sign is said to be Aries. But this was only true for a while, back when the system was set up in 600 BC.

Actually, it is still approximately true, although the equinox does not occur exactly on March 21 every year. The beginning of the astrological sign Aries is at the time when the equinox does occur, which is not always the same time of day.

> From March 11 to April 18, the Sun is actually in the constellation of Pisces!

This is irrelevant. The Sun may be in that constellation, but the constellation of Pisces is not the same as the astrological sign named Pisces. Astrological signs are a measurement of ecliptic longitude.

> The science behind astrology may have its roots in astronomy but don't confuse these two disciplines.

This is correct, but it does not mean that astrologers use an incorrect position of the Sun.

> The ecliptic, or the path of the sun as it's perceived from the revolving Earth, passes through the constellations that formed the Zodiac: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces. Astrologers skip a 13th constellation that also resides on the ecliptic: Ophiuchus.

Again, astrological signs are not the same as constellations. (Also, there are no constellations named "Scorpio" and "Capricorn"; their names are "Scorpius" and "Capricornus".) Astrologers do not "skip" Ophiuchus; but there is not an astrological sign by that name.

There are good mathematical reasons to have twelve astrological signs and not thirteen. They named them after twelve of the thirteen constellations which cross the ecliptic (there are also constellations which do not cross the ecliptic), but astrological signs are not and never were the same things as constellations; they are a unit of measurement of ecliptic longitude.

> Ancient astrologers grouped the 12 signs according to the classical elements.

Yes, and modern astrologers still do. Additionally, there are also the three modes (cardinal, fixed, mutable). Together, these are like a residue number system, but with elements/modes instead of numbers.

> The first day of spring in the Northern Hemisphere was once marked by the zero point of the Zodiac.

It still is, if you are using the equinox of date (which is common; it isn't wrong, although it is not the only way to do it). The first astrological sign is named "Aries", therefore the zero point is called "0 Aries" (like how the first day of the year is called "January 1", because the first month is called "January").

> The constellation Aries encompassed the first 30 degrees of the ecliptic; from 30 to 60 degrees was Taurus; from 60 to 90 degrees was Gemini; and so on for all 12 constellations of the Zodiac.

This was never true; they were never all encompassing exactly thirty degrees of the ecliptic. Astrological signs did and still do.

They also link to Astrodienst. At the time I am writing this, the Sun's ecliptic longitude is 20 Leo 50'21". This is the same as 140 degrees, and fifty arcminutes and twenty-one arcseconds.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#186
post #138

"Does astrology work?" depends a bit on what you mean by "work". In terms of predicting the future, no. But probably most people do it to feel better about their lives. It may work from that point of view. You could compare it to finding a religion or seeing a shrink.

There's a further means by which random selection methods can be useful (and the fact that the computing device you're reading this on all but certainly has a robust random-sequence generating capability speaks to this): random decisionmaking can avoid biases of rational or deterministic methods. There's a great essay discussing this posted a decade ago in Aeon , "How to choose? If you can’t choose wisely, choose ran…

Astrology is a method of divination that does not involve random selection. If you want to choose randomly, there are other methods of divination, that do involve random selection (e.g. cartomancy).

Sometimes it does not matter that much if the method of divination involves random selection or not. And, sometimes it does not matter much if a pseudo random number generation is actually deterministic anyways. Sometimes these features are beneficial but sometimes not.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#187
post #49

There's a famous study that found that hockey players are statistically more likely to be born in certain months, due to them being the biggest in their year-groups, which created a self-fulfilling cycles of attention from coaches. Reinterpreted, if you're an Aquarius, you're 50% more likely than an Aries to get into the NHL[1]. So, I guess I do sometimes believe in astrology, it's just very rarely better than random…

Anything can potentially affect anything. So, sometimes correlations of different things, will occur due to that.

Re: Does Astrology Work?

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a further means by which random selection methods can be useful (and the fact that the computing device you're reading this on all but certainly has a robust random-sequence generating capability speaks to this): random decisionmaking can avoid biases of rational or deterministic methods. There's a great essay discussing this posted a decade ago in Aeon , "How to choose? If you can’t choose wisely, choose ran…

Astrology is a method of divination that does not involve random selection. If you want to choose randomly, there are other methods of divination, that do involve random selection (e.g. cartomancy). Sometimes it does not matter that much if the method of divination involves random selection or not. And, sometimes it does not matter much if a pseudo random number generation is actually deterministic anyways. Sometimes…

Not directly, true, but arguably indirectly.

That is, any given astrological methodology has a fixed set of inputs (e.g., birth signs, ascribed qualities). Arbitrariness (I'm leaning away from "randomness") is introduced both by the subjects seeking an astronomical prediction, and by the application of signs, charts, and divinations by a given practitioner. If the results of TFA are to be believed, the results of this are randomness.

Contrast with, say, the I Ching in which straws are used to create hexagrams which are then consulted from the I Ching itself, or Tarot in which cards are drawn (at random) and interpreted.

I'm reminded of Suzanne Vega's song "Predictions", which is a compilation of divination methods:

  Let's tell the future
  Let's see how it's been done
  By numbers, by mirrors, by water
  By dots made at random on paper
  By salt, by dice
  By meal, by mice
  By dough of cakes
  By sacrificial fire
  By fountains, by fishes
  Writings in ashes
  Birds, herbs
  Smoke from the altar

  (etc.)
https://genius.com/Suzanne-vega-predictions-lyrics>

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=L7TklT11fA8>

As to how astrology came to be associated with predictions, my suspicion (somewhat informed by reading though I can't find specific sources presently) is that astrology emerged from early astronomy which was principally associated with timekeeping and navigation, and could make predictions about regularly occurring events, such as the coming of floods on the Nile, or monsoon rains elsewhere, critical for early agricultural empires. A combination of factors probably made it useful for both astronomers/astrologers and rulers/priests to presume that other sorts of predictions could also be made: of military conquest, personal actions, and the like. The motives might have been comfort in making decisions, as a propaganda tool, or other tools of control. Belief in this may have been sincere (see the "Clever Hans" case), or hypocritical (practitioners / users were aware of the bogus nature but saw the pragmatic political use). Eventually the idea that the heavens influenced personal affairs on Earth came to be commonplace. Researching this response, I'm learning Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos is apparently the basis for much modern astrological divination practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabiblos>

Post reply on HN