posted August 15, 2013 03:56 PM            

1. Twins should be identical in many ways and yet they often show a few differences from each other (and actually I even read of a conjoined twin that would get into arguments with each other as they shared the same body!). For example, it's not unknown for one identical twin to be gay and the other to be straight. In addition, environment & upbringing as well as just pure chance play a part as well. (And I don't see astrology as "destiny" anymore than I see "genetics" but they show a lot.)

2. I don't see astrology as physical (gravity, etc) but metaphysical, that is it's not so much the position of the bodies as the collective imaginings our species attributes to them which get reflected back at us through the Collective Unconscious Jung described (that is, the force comes more from our species than the heavenly bodies), and there's no instruments as of yet that can detect psychic energy. Just because it isn't scientific doesn't mean it's not true.

3. I tested it myself, choosing random placements and then doing my real chart. The random were off the mark, the specific were not. I also did good trying it on other people, and impressed a couple of skeptics with it (one explained it away somehow and still considers it a parlor trick while another at least took a closer look at it).

That said, I also tested it in other ways...I did find that prediction was very problematic, that is prone to fail "save in retrospect" (one of my favorites was Mountain Astrology predicted in August 2001 that next month would be one of the most boring! 'Course in retrospect astrologers can show why it was a hot month.) But then a guy said try the more respected social sciences, so I did...same results, experts wrong time and again (one showed that a chimpanzee randomly picking answers had a higher success rate than the top economic and political analysts on what was going to happen next in their field of expertise) save in retrospect, and expanding that I found even the hard sciences were often wrong when it came to prediction, sometimes dramatically so (especially if a member wrote an attention grabbing book). So after that I didn't hold the failure of astrology against itself as if anything the error is in those who try to use it. Naturally, they can use their discipline to make perfect sense of the past AFTER the fact, just like astrologers can.

Oh, btw, I knew a professional editor who told me many of the respected scientific journals were gibberish. Wondering if it was just her she took to diagramming the sentences and getting others with her to do the same and they realized a lot of it made no sense and ultimately even the scientists praising the articles were just imagining what they wanted into them (either that or just faking their understanding by pretending the naked emperor had clothes so to speak). In any case the editors pretty much stopped editing after that and it didn't hurt the credibility of the gibberish at all, they got praised just the same.

That's why I'm not too harsh on the failings of astrology as every discipline has them no matter how respected.

4. While there may have been some cold reading involved (we did go see an astrologer at a psychic fair where cold readers are legion), an astrologer helped me and a partner learn how to get along whereas a professional counselor failed horribly (the only thing that counselor did was get us to join in mocking him and his platitudes). It's true the relationship ended years later, but the astrologer told us given our placements that was almost sure to happen (and in retrospect I realize she had been right, we should've kept it a fling), so...Astrology 1, Psychology 0.

posted August 15, 2013 04:32 PM            

You can go your whole life never believing in astrology and you are just as capable of being happy and healthy as someone who does. I have no desire to sway whatever decision you make regarding the topic, I just get riled up when I see these arguments. These are some of the oldest arguments used by people who want to convince others that astrology is fake and each one is a true testament to how little time a person has taken to form a real opinion. Hopefully on your journey you will take some time researching rather than take the word of witch hunters who deem the unknown "unreal".

1. Subjective Validation and the Forer Effect:

"You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life."

This refers to the general reading given to the group of students and it is 100% correct in its findings. It's true that humans relate with general terms and are prone to relate more deeply when they want to believe it's true. The problem is, instead of saying this was an astrological reading, Forer could have said it was a study in eye color, religious background, or cranial shape. The test doesn't prove astrology is bunk, because professional and individual astrological research by a skilled astrologer is anything but general. If we are applying this to the daily newspaper horoscope, then sure. Those are intended to generalize populations of thousands.

The anti-astrology crowd loves to get all lathered up over this one and all it does is prove they themselves are victims of subjective validation. nodding their head like sheep, just because a scientist with no skill or education regarding astrology, cites this test.

2. My girlfriend is dumb because she wants things like kids and understanding more about her partner. Fortunately I'm so uninteresting, I'd prefer to mess with her than learn something about myself:

I'm not sure this proves anything other that the person who wrote it is a bit of a sociopath. How does, "astrology doesn't work, because I gave repeated bad information to someone (who is probably not a professional if she is dating such a closed minded person) and she cherry picked traits which she already knew about me" prove that astrology doesn't work? If this statement has validity then physics is a bunch of BS because my 8 year old niece is determined to grow up a Powerpuff Girl. You can't say, "I tested a theory with bad information and armchair experts and concluded the theory bad". Well you can say it, but you can't expect to be taken any more seriously then the people you feel are intellectually inferior to you.

3. Scientific Problems:

a. Astrology fails to succeed when tested against reality. For example, if the distribution of heavenly bodies at birth has any implication into the life-course of the child, then twins should be virtually identical in their future, interests, talents, and personalities. Of course, this is not the case.

This statement is totally false. The link at the bottom discusses studies which have been done and which prove there is validity to astrology, even if our comprehension of that validity is limited. I like this study too which isn't in the link below: Puhpees!

There are two answers to this:

First, time differences effect the entire structure of a person's chart. a difference of a few minutes can determine the difference between a person who is aggressively extroverted and social and a person who is aggressively nostalgic and sentimental. Twins may not have copied personalities, but there many similarities do exists and that can be attributed to having similar planetary energies.

Second, (and the theory I tend to subscribe to) was given in this article

"Astrology describes the basic, fundamental energetic patterns that inform our approach to life. But astrology says absolutely nothing about our degree of awareness, how conscious we are, or in other words, our level of psycho spiritual development. Astrology tells us what we have packed in our bags for our evolutionary journey, but not how much progress we have made along the way.

That’s why people born at the same time – like twins – can often be so very different. It also helps to explain why some people seem to be tossed around by fate, while others have a greater degree of control. So the key to living out the best expression of our energies is to bring as much awareness and compassion to them as possible."

b. Because of the precession of the earth's axis, star positions relative to our planet have changed since astrological calendars were invented centuries ago. Thus, the "signs" are no longer valid. The error grows greater every year.

Modern astrology is not based on constellations, but the position of the sun as it appears from earth. The zodiac is essentially based on seasons, not star formations. Keep in mind that the constellations were created based on where and when they appeared in the sky. We could erase all the lines and make a whole new set of constellations and astrology would still be based on the seasons those constellations appear in. This is for some reason an old argument which keeps popping up. It's easily resolved though.

c. The gravity of stars and planets is the only force that could effect earth, and for the vast majority of heavenly bodies, this effect is negligible.

Anyone who makes this statement and believes they are a scientific person is completely lost on the concept of science. As stated above, there are plenty of undiscovered things in our universe. including energies and mechanisms which fundamentally influence living creatures. In the grand scheme of things, humans are fresh out the swamp. Anyone who feels we are somewhere near comprehending the vast complexity of our universe is a caveman.

Sorry to sound so critical, but every day we discover that we have been looking at basic principals all wrong. Just a few weeks ago I read an article about how dolphins call each other by name and can remember things from long ago....duh. So anyone who says that gravity is the "only force" which could effect earth has too limited an understanding of science to be given the time of day.

What if, for example, the force was not external. Lizards have a scale at the top of their head which detects the position of the sun, and birds can visually sense the earth's magnetic field . Perhaps we are influenced by the positions of the heavenly bodies, because we are wired to sense where they are internally?

I hope this was helpful. If you are into astrology then please don't be discouraged. There will always be critics, but what most of those critics neglect to understand is, their views are based on ephemeral structures. Look at the world 100 years ago; in 100 more, the world will be a completely different place. Astrology works for me because I have done the research and the research supported the theory. Whatever the physical implications, I can wait for those to be discovered. =)

posted August 15, 2013 08:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by somethingexcellent:
^So how much do you believe in it, PixieJane? Also did you see my responses, I mentioned u!!!

---

Just saw it, thanks. I was pressed for time the first time so I only gave the thread a quick skim and tried to sum up my thoughts. I wish I'd caught what you said about my theory, you summed it up better than I did!

How much do I believe? I believe well enough I suppose, but it's only one factor in human affairs, and astrology isn't destiny to me, it's more what people have to work with and what crosses they have to bear. Scorpio doesn't make one good or bad, for example, but rather exposes them to an intense energy and those who manage to swim (often with help of good upbringing and other factors) become eagles while those who "drown in the energy" become the gray lizards. Or there's like how both me and my mom are Leo Risings...and yet despite that we both show signs of it the other details actually make us cringe thinking the other shameful and ourselves worth taking pride in, which is partially due to our other planets and also partially due to life experience (both of those affecting each other).

Astrology doesn't determine success or failure either, but it can give good advice on when to lift the sails to catch the winds and when to lower them to paddle instead so you don't capsize.

posted August 15, 2013 08:58 PM            

However if there was no logic behind it that wouldn't be enough to persuade me. Did you know the moon affect the tides? if a celestial body directly affect the tides which is a physical thing on earth, i would think it highly probable that it can affect other things aswell which usually in the case of astrollogy is us.

posted August 15, 2013 09:12 PM            

Blessings

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 16, 2013 10:54 AM            

Problem is, this kind of debate rarely ends well, coz skeptics most often doesn't understand real astrology at all, and then they are just focused on debunking or making the believers look bad rather than being neutral; and then believers usually are not very interested in discussing astrology's validity, they'd rather deepen their knowledge in its symbolism rather than questioning the system.

But then how can we, right now in this moment, prove astrology's validity scientifically? Astrology's core belief is "as above, so bellow", whether by synchronicity or affectation. But currently, humanity doesn't even have enough technology to prove something that big.
One of the ways to prove it is by doing something like Gauquelin's Mars Effect. IMO, astrology should be testable in that way, coz if it doesn't have consistency, then why do we believe in it anyways?? After all, isn't coz we believers noticed consistency in our readings that we believe?

Problem is, what about the famous Barnun or Forer effect? What if our reading is simply applicable to anyone?
Actually, this is a simply question and the answer is not that complicated. If you have been into astrology for some time already, you'd understand that each sign, planet, house and other elements holds very specific meanings, that it just simply can't be applicable to anyone.
But then why is it that certain readings seems so off? Like that reading about Aries, even if you have many planets in Aries... Or those house positions...
Thing is, if you are into astrology for some time already, then aren't you forgetting about something important? You might have an aspect and a set of aspects, but are you sure you are not forgetting how other elements of the chart can affect each other?? Let me use myself as an example - I'm Aries Sun/Moon/Mercury/Venus, so I should be extroverted and fiery, impulsive and blablabla. Right? But then why would I feel that I can't exactly identify myself with the typical Aries? Coz look at my chart... Sun square Cap Neptune, BML conjunct my Aries stellium, Virgo AC squared by Saturn from the 3rd house conjunct IC, Aries stellium in the 8th house... All of this screams introvertion. :P And then who said that Aries is just about impulsiveness and extroversion?? Honestly, sometimes I think that Aries is kind of misunderstood. Aries is about the self, independence and self identity. And this is what I have always been - focused on self and defining my own identity. I do fit in some typical Aries descriptions like fieriness, just not that much like the typical cold reading descriptions.

Thing is, if you are into astrology for some time already, then it's time to get out of the box of cold readings and descriptions for parts of your chart. Do feel each symbolism, and think of how the elements can affect each other.
Also, think outside your chart too - after all, you are not a static being and so neither your chart. You are affected by your surroundings, your growth, people around you... So take a look at progressed charts, transits and so on!

And then think about it - astrology is a system that is still under development. This is a very complex system that is supposed to depict the very complex human psychology and life. Even among astrologers, they can have preference for different tools or celestial objects - you can still find many disagreements on what we should use to get better readings and such.
And so here lies another big problems as to why astrology is hard to be tested scientifically - how do you test something this complex (all the existing methods and chart styles!), and how do you test something that is not complete/stable and is still changing and improving?? To test a math equation, I need to finish defining the math equation first, right? You have to have what you want to test defined before you can test.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letram:
1. Astrology fails to succeed when tested against reality. For example, if the distribution of heavenly bodies at birth has any implication into the life-course of the child, then twins should be virtually identical in their future, interests, talents, and personalities. Of course, this is not the case.

2. Because of the precession of the earth's axis, star positions relative to our planet have changed since astrological calendars were invented centuries ago. Thus, the "signs" are no longer valid. The error grows greater every year.

3. The gravity of stars and planets is the only force that could effect earth, and for the vast majority of heavenly bodies, this effect is negligible.[/b]

---

As for twins chart, I have never read twin charts, thought this might be interesting: http://www.richardfidler.com/discerning-the-differences-between-twins-with-jyotish/

As for stars being out of their original place, I think that others have answered it - western astrology is based on Seasonal rather.

And as for planets up there affecting us... As I mentioned earlier, it could also be synchronicity. Thought if it can be affectation or not, I think that some more knowledgeable believers talked about quantum findings that can possibly answer this (in other forums), but honestly I'm not too knowledgeable to discuss this. *feels dumb and embarrassed*

Now as to why I believe in astrology... coz aside of my love for the symbolism and the system, I do feel that what I can read from it, by using the right methods, it's really accurate and too specific to be Forer effect. As I mentioned, I didn't identify myself exactly with the Aries descriptions so I was not giving much thought to astrology initially. But after understand things better, it began to make sense.

I won't deny that astrology is not scientifically proved yet, thought I would continue using this fascinating system while it still works for me.

posted August 16, 2013 01:45 PM            

(says an earthy Capricorn whose skepticism melted after discovering that magazine "astrology" is not the best representative of this domain )

posted August 16, 2013 02:46 PM            

My Saturn Return will likely be tough. Well, what can I do about it? Things will come my way and I'll just have to learn how to deal with those events when they happen using the tools in my natal.

posted August 16, 2013 02:57 PM            

I think a common mistake with beginners is that they try to make predictions based on a single aspect or transit. you just can't do that because an aspect and/or transit can be modified. They also skip the Angles which you just can't do either. The whole Natal must be taken into consideration.

posted August 16, 2013 03:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lalalinda:
I believe (I should have been a Pisces)
The trouble is it takes a lot of time and observation to properly learn astrology.

I think a common mistake with beginners is that they try to make predictions based on a single aspect or transit. you just can't do that because an aspect and/or transit can be modified. They also skip the Angles which you just can't do either. The whole Natal must be taken into consideration.

---

posted August 16, 2013 04:13 PM            

As I mentioned in a previous thread, Scorpio women often have a magnificent ethereal beauty and long, slender, elegant faces much of the time like a young Meg Ryan, Katy Perry, Adrienne Bailon, Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway (they look alike), Rachel McAdams, whereas Aquarius women tend to have wider, square-shaped faces, with examples being Christie Brinkley, Farrah Fawcett, Emily Haines, Emma Bunton, Sheryl Crow, Brandy, Jennifer Aniston, Alicia Keys, Mischa Barton, Tiffani Thiessen, Heather Graham, Paris Hilton, Stacey Dash, Sarah Palin, Geena Davis, Mena Suvari, Minnie Driver, Laura Linney, Erin Wasson, Doutzen Kroes. The difference between the females of the two signs was most pronounced in the video for "The Boy Is Mine": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va1Y6uAgNJY.

posted August 16, 2013 11:45 PM            

Astrology works. I don’t know why or how but it does. Maybe we don’t yet have the science to ‘prove’ it but who cares. When I stumbled across astrology I stumbled across a treasure trove of useful knowledge. And yes, I believe that astrology is a real part of nature, a real actual force that is part of how the universe functions.

In most cases, people are very much what their charts would describe, given a detailed natal analysis. At least that’s what I’ve observed throughout my 22 years of studying astrology. If there are weird anomalies that don’t make sense it’s probably the interpretation that’s wrong, not the astrology itself.

Also if astrology is a real force in nature that we’ve managed to decipher through observation (at least in Western astrology) , then it’s almost certain that there are aspects of astrology that have been forgotten, or not yet discovered. The majority of the time I find that the astrology of situations and people makes total sense. But in those cases where things that don’t seem to fit astrologically at the present time, is still entirely possible that the explanation just hasn’t been ‘discovered’ yet. Actually, this rarely ever happens to me. I actually can’t remember any instances of astrology not explaining things in a way that makes sense. I just wanted to point out that there may still be facets of astrology that are unknown. Imagine being born in the Sixteen Hundreds with a Sun/Uranus square that makes you quirky, rebellious, and offbeat… Back then nobody would have been able to explain these characteristics using astrology.

And about statistical studies…. I don’t really think much of them because it’s hard to do statistical studies when it come to astrology. Are we basing it on Sun signs? Moon signs? Venus signs? What about aspects and houses? Natal charts are so complex that each one needs individual attention. I always feel a bit wary of statistical studies involving astrology for this reason.

Although, I think there was an interesting one showing that masculine Sun signs are on average are more extroverted then feminine Sun signs. That’s to be expected. But it still doesn’t change that fact that there will be shy Leos and outgoing Virgos due to the rest of their natal charts ect.

To me, a study that merely shows humans are highly suggestible dosen't prove that astrology is 'nonsense'. Besides once we get into the nitty gritty of the natal chart 'generalized descriptions' just won't cut it anymore.

My chart fits me to a tea, in both ways I like and ways I don't like. I've got Sun (and Venus) in the 1st house, and I have a strong sense of identity. I'm a Capricorn, with Saturn heavily aspected in my chart. If someone gave me a bit of paper saying that I'm actually really wild and crazy, I would laugh at them. I've always been more or less reserved, and careful.

posted August 17, 2013 09:38 AM            

There was a man named Michel Gauquelin who initially set out to prove Astrology as a psuedo science and then after much research became a believer and advocate for Astrology.

Here is a brilliant article with too much information to copy/paste here.
I urge everyone to read this, it is enlightning and informative.
http://astrologynewsservice.com/articles/the-gauquelin-controversy/

here's another it's a National Geographic documentary that deals directly with this subject.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/book-cant-read/

there is also a youtube video entitled
"The book that can't be read"

------------------

posted August 17, 2013 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lalalinda:
Hello AriesLilith! Welcome to LL

---

posted August 18, 2013 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Welcome back! Who were you before?

---

posted August 18, 2013 02:50 PM            

I mean maybe astrology is something when it comes to your personality, but seriously? Star positions deciding your future?

Okay let's say they do. Then I have another question: what the hell? Why do some people choose to follow that "predicted future" when they can simply make different choises.
It's like a religion or something. I'm sorry to be rude but when your beliefs come to religious level then you're just being blind. And by religious level I mean doing everything that your so called "guide" tells you when you can do differently.

posted August 18, 2013 11:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by chargeomentum:
I don't get it how people consider some transits or w/e they called that determine your future as a real thing followed by common sense.

I mean maybe astrology is something when it comes to your personality, but seriously? Star positions deciding your future?

Okay let's say they do. Then I have another question: what the hell? Why do some people choose to follow that "predicted future" when they can simply make different choises.
It's like a religion or something. I'm sorry to be rude but when your beliefs come to religious level then you're just being blind. And by religious level I mean doing everything that your so called "guide" tells you when you can do differently.

BUT DON'T GET ME WRONG, I like astrology because it tells something about my personality, atleast more than half is accurate.

---

I get where you are coming from believe me I do - after all, I said I don't follow transits because que cera cera - but I mean, astrology clearly CAN tell you something about your future, like for instance, who you will marry. Most people marry their own sign or a neighbouring one. And Taurus men marry Cancer women a lot too, for some reason: http://www.aureas.org/rams/castille02us.pdf.