LibriumArcana.Games

Inspired by this thread (specifically, Stofsk's admonition...). Discuss and criticise astrology and aspects of its rationality/lack thereof.

Specifically, I'm interested in why people believe a confluence of stars light-years away can influence personality on earth.

Frankly, I consider it bull until we have objective and scientific evidence to the contrary.

I think it's nonsense myself, but good for a laugh on occasion.

What's interesting to note is that the basis of astrology, the constellations, don't match what they're supposed to in modern astrology. If you scan the skies, Capricorn is not where it should be according to modern astrology.

Translation? They took an old belief structure based on observable phenomenon and hyped it up, sensationalized it, and force-fed it to the public.

Hotfoot wrote:I think it's nonsense myself, but good for a laugh on occasion.

Nothing wrong with a good laugh or harmless fun.

I only get annoyed if people start asserting such concepts as fact or the need to take them "seriously".

*cautiously steps in* If the moon has power over the tide... why can't it also be slightly true that the stars have a draw on certain people?

Lindar wrote:*cautiously steps in* If the moon has power over the tide... why can't it also be slightly true that the stars have a draw on certain people?

Becasue stars are much much much farther away. The moon is right on our ass, in a cosmic sense. And tides are a repeatable phenomena, where astrology is not.

Astrology is a bunch of bullshit, in my opinion. It has no more scientific basis than creationism/ID. But I agree with Walper that it's only annoying when people start to take it seriously.
- Ra

Ra wrote:Astrology is a bunch of bullshit, in my opinion. It has no more scientific basis than creationism/ID. But I agree with Walper that it's only annoying when people start to take it seriously.
- Ra

Believe it or not, I agree. These are my true thoughts on the matter.

There is no scientific basis for Astrology, much as almost any religious doctrine. Those who take it seriously have the same reaction as with any religion.

Philosophy, faith, science, and religion can be intertwined but are not necessarily connected.

I feel sorry for those who do take it too seriously, from a practical aspect MORE than a logical one, because their heads are in the clouds instead of here on earth. While not everyone is logical or scientific, practicality will determine whether someone will survive or not when either their crutch is taken away from them (when they are mootching off others like paraiahs), or their books are taken away from them (when they immerse themselves into pseudo intellectualism, choosing to hold knowledge as a weapon instead of living life).

I will say that there is a need for hope for the human psyche to continue in times of peril. For some, astrology provides hope. But it is a waffling hope that does more harm than good as one day the stars are "dead on" due to coincidence, and the next day they are completely off. The lack of consistancy is truely detrimental to hope on any kind of long term basis.

The sun pulls us closer every day, who's to say that stars don't counteract with that? aren't they just smaller further away suns?

All stars affect everything, except they are so far away their influence can be just rounded up to Nil.

Lindar wrote:The sun pulls us closer every day, who's to say that stars don't counteract with that? aren't they just smaller further away suns?

Let me put it this way. Other stars gravitational effect on us is like me standing in Wisconson with a blowdryer, trying to ruffle your hair while you're in Brazil. That's the kind of effect they have.

blah.*shrugs* am just saying, it's not like anything's always right. It's just supposed to be fun. I mean science isn't perfect nothing really is. I mean they might be slowly getting closer to that...but they haven't reached it yet.

Lindar wrote:blah.*shrugs* am just saying, it's not like anything's always right.

Care to test that, Lindar? Grab a object, hold it at chest level outwards, and then drop it. It'll hit the ground every time. Hence, the concept of "gravity" is always right.

It's just supposed to be fun. I mean science isn't perfect nothing really is.

A computer is perfect.

I mean they might be slowly getting closer to that...but they haven't reached it yet.

Science definitely allows us to easily dismiss silly notions that star patterns somehow can predict or dictate a person's life though.

Astrology has as much relation to any persons life as religion. As much as the person decides to.

If a person decides to belive in astrology, it subtly affects him, so yes, in a sense, its real for him/her. It is not real in a way that it is part of the universe.

Lindar wrote:blah.*shrugs* am just saying, it's not like anything's always right. It's just supposed to be fun. I mean science isn't perfect nothing really is. I mean they might be slowly getting closer to that...but they haven't reached it yet.

Darlin, as this thread is in Science and Arcadia, posed with the notion of science and how it relates to astrology, one must concede to scientific thought. Philosophy and theology is something completely different. You can have a belief. Also, intution, instinct, and observation is something else completely different. You can observe something.

I meet people all over all the time, from various states, to now, internationally. It is not uncommon for philosophical discussions or just general observations come out. The Aussie staying at our house last night actually brought up her sign, which is Virgo ~smirks~, and, when I was unsure of my sun sign since I am not aware of what time I was born, she proceeded to evaluate and assigned me "Taurus" for sun sign. People do that all the time. It is general conversation. It is interesting. And even if it is believed or not philosophically, it is talked about.

That having been said, conceeding the Science thread aspect, there is no logical explanation or conclusion that can be derived to indicate that astrology is "true". By its very nature, it is not a truth to be proven, but a belief on one level or in one form or another.

In relative terms that I know all gamer chics can understand: Science is like a rules lawyer, or Red Mage from 8 bit theatre. It is true, it is accurate, it can be done. If that is all there is to it, it is empty, cold, and void of breath. It is also able to be manipulated. Physics is a science and theoretical physics prove and disprove the stupidist of shit. Psychology is a science, and it has many theories and ways things should be done, based ALL on scientific research and documentation. Classic argument is the nature vs nurture, which, although most psychologists concede to a hybrid in one fashion or another that both nature and nurture influence human growth and development, based on which scientific study you read and which approach you take is what answer you will discover. Hell, my field of study, Anthropology, has conflicting encampments on even something as simple as primitive man. (Lord help me, I am digging into Physical Anthropology, uggg) All of the encampments are based on physical evidence, and scientific classifications, as well as the various types of dating and current knowledge of forensic science and genetics. But, science has a set of rules that can be proven or disproven, as opposed to being the equivelent of a leaf on a wind to blow in any direction.

Philosophy and theology is the heart, as much as science is the mind. It does not always add up, but it always rings true if it is grounded and works with the mind. Your observations seem to fit more into either general fun and interesting conversation, or, if you truelly believe in the stars reflecting some sort of universal pattern, philosophy. But as far as science goes, you're gonna lose this thread ;)

Lindar wrote:*cautiously steps in* If the moon has power over the tide... why can't it also be slightly true that the stars have a draw on certain people?

How would gravity -- a phenomenon between two masses -- affect personality? After all, the stars draw on your computer as much as they draw on you; will your computer have a personality? Or will your desk?

Surlethe wrote:

Lindar wrote:*cautiously steps in* If the moon has power over the tide... why can't it also be slightly true that the stars have a draw on certain people?

How would gravity -- a phenomenon between two masses -- affect personality? After all, the stars draw on your computer as much as they draw on you; will your computer have a personality? Or will your desk?

Some people believe that the universe is shown through the way nature communicates. The nature being as well the stars and how they are formed. Whether it is believed or not by you personally, it is an old, old belief held by many in one form or another, whether by the stars, or other forms of paganistic reflection. For those people, theologically speaking, it is not an object that pulls but an unknown force directing and pulling the object. A god if you will. The universe. The force. What have you. It is not the same kind of analogy for astrology to be compared to a desk or chair pulling at you, but more accurate of an analogy would be the invisible man or god pushing the chair that gives you a shiner on your shin :P

Surlethe wrote:

Lindar wrote:*cautiously steps in* If the moon has power over the tide... why can't it also be slightly true that the stars have a draw on certain people?

How would gravity -- a phenomenon between two masses -- affect personality? After all, the stars draw on your computer as much as they draw on you; will your computer have a personality? Or will your desk?

*coughs and tries not to laugh* I hate to break it to you my computer does have a personality....

*pauses* And Bratty you're right. I'm not a scientist, nor do i wish to be. That said i'll behave myself and let this alone to the "big kids" *scurries off*

Of course computers have personality, any person who cannot somehow say his computer has its own quirks that make up its personality isn't attunted enough.

For example, my computer delights in teasing me with perfect operation, while struggling to keep me sane, it allways forces me to work just a little bit more then others to keep it working.

If you think I'm somehow unaware of the logical explanations for the above, please see a doctor, preferably one in the field of psychiatry

Lindar wrote:

Surlethe wrote:

Lindar wrote:*cautiously steps in* If the moon has power over the tide... why can't it also be slightly true that the stars have a draw on certain people?

How would gravity -- a phenomenon between two masses -- affect personality? After all, the stars draw on your computer as much as they draw on you; will your computer have a personality? Or will your desk?

*coughs and tries not to laugh* I hate to break it to you my computer does have a personality....

You know what I meant!

Bratty wrote:

Surlethe wrote:

Lindar wrote:*cautiously steps in* If the moon has power over the tide... why can't it also be slightly true that the stars have a draw on certain people?

How would gravity -- a phenomenon between two masses -- affect personality? After all, the stars draw on your computer as much as they draw on you; will your computer have a personality? Or will your desk?

Some people believe that the universe is shown through the way nature communicates. The nature being as well the stars and how they are formed. Whether it is believed or not by you personally, it is an old, old belief held by many in one form or another, whether by the stars, or other forms of paganistic reflection. For those people, theologically speaking, it is not an object that pulls but an unknown force directing and pulling the object. A god if you will. The universe. The force. What have you. It is not the same kind of analogy for astrology to be compared to a desk or chair pulling at you, but more accurate of an analogy would be the invisible man or god pushing the chair that gives you a shiner on your shin :P

You completely sidestepped my point: gravity -- the sole cause of tides -- has no particular influence on personality, because then everything with mass would have a personality, which is patently ridiculous.

Surlethe wrote:

Bratty wrote:

Surlethe wrote: How would gravity -- a phenomenon between two masses -- affect personality? After all, the stars draw on your computer as much as they draw on you; will your computer have a personality? Or will your desk?

Some people believe that the universe is shown through the way nature communicates. The nature being as well the stars and how they are formed. Whether it is believed or not by you personally, it is an old, old belief held by many in one form or another, whether by the stars, or other forms of paganistic reflection. For those people, theologically speaking, it is not an object that pulls but an unknown force directing and pulling the object. A god if you will. The universe. The force. What have you. It is not the same kind of analogy for astrology to be compared to a desk or chair pulling at you, but more accurate of an analogy would be the invisible man or god pushing the chair that gives you a shiner on your shin :P

You completely sidestepped my point: gravity -- the sole cause of tides -- has no particular influence on personality, because then everything with mass would have a personality, which is patently ridiculous.

~smirks~ I didnt side step your point. I clarified why some people would believe in Astrology. It isnt a matter of an object making tangible actions. It is unseen force controlling those objects, and that is why I also pointed out to Lindar her arguments were more philosophical or theological then scientific.

But in address of your point, which is redundant and common sense : Objects have no scientific basis of moving or influencing of their own accord.

A shame that isnt what people believe in astrology believe, but if you want to debate just to debate, as I don't think anyone here would disagree this (at least, I would hope not). I doubt anyone would question an object influencing someone. it would be the equivelent of the clock on the wall talking to you. That is what would be deemed as clinical insanity and delusion.

That is not what astrology is about.

Lindar wrote: *pauses* And Bratty you're right. I'm not a scientist, nor do i wish to be. That said i'll behave myself and let this alone to the "big kids" *scurries off*

Darlin, it isnt for everyone :)

If it was, we would be Vulcan ;)

Bratty wrote:

Surlethe wrote:You completely sidestepped my point: gravity -- the sole cause of tides -- has no particular influence on personality, because then everything with mass would have a personality, which is patently ridiculous.

~smirks~ I didnt side step your point. I clarified why some people would believe in Astrology.

Don't be a moron: I wasn't talking about why some people would believe in astrology; I was addressing Lindar's claim regarding the moon. If you want to defend it, then defend it; otherwise, don't act like you're addressing my point when you aren't.

Surlethe wrote:

Bratty wrote:

Surlethe wrote:You completely sidestepped my point: gravity -- the sole cause of tides -- has no particular influence on personality, because then everything with mass would have a personality, which is patently ridiculous.

~smirks~ I didnt side step your point. I clarified why some people would believe in Astrology.

Don't be a moron: I wasn't talking about why some people would believe in astrology; I was addressing Lindar's claim regarding the moon. If you want to defend it, then defend it; otherwise, don't act like you're addressing my point when you aren't.

And don't sling insults. I would like to think you were able to support your intellectual views without turning things personal. I am sorry you are not comprehending the hows and whys I said what I did, and consider it out of context, so let me clarify:

The moon, a tangible object, in and of itself has no power. Not even someone who worships the moon would say so.

It is the force or god/goddess personified through the moon or stars or deer or tree or whatever the case may be. Easiest case in point, although there are many throughout history, is the Native American religions. The totems were real and personified in tangible objects which were not able to comprehend what kind of power they personified. The tree was thanked for wisdom. Does this mean they thought the tree in and of itself, the physical item, was wise? No, the spirit of the tree was what was referenced.

When speaking of power behind something tangible like stars or moon, what is being referenced is trying to define the purpose, pull, or meaning behind the forces such as "combustion", "gravity", etc. Sure, Lindar is aware of gravity. Anyone who takes a science class in elementary school is. But the point made was the force behind that element or action. The pull of the moon on the tide is gravity. Duh. But what creates the gravity to pull the tides for ebb and flow?

This is not a question I am saying should be answered in this thread. It is not designed for this thread. Point of fact, I pointed out it was not meant to be for this thread.

Literal interpretation of something already addressed for what it is, and confirmed for what it is, is redundant. Figurative interpretation was addressed as not really being appropriate in this thread. In which you responded in literal confrontative manner. Talk about beating a dead horse ;)

~grins~ go on. Debate it with me some more. I got nothing else to do at work but to talk in circles:p. ("I want my slaw" "You have your slaw sir" "I want my slaw" "You have your slaw sir") I am in essence, agreeing with you, (which is why I find it so amusing) but also addressing the other side of things so that Lindar could understand why her points were lost in the scientific realms of things here, without dismissing her thoughts as "moronic".