Guest genesis Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Does any read their horoscope? I always seem to belived what the stars say. Now, that I am not into Chrisitianity anymore, I have gone back to reading my horoscopes. My favorite online astrologer is Susan Miller. there's reference to Anyone? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 No, to be quite honest with you I don't understand astrology one bit. Only 12 constellations in a pathway that includes 21. Ophiuchus, the thirteenth sign, being effectively erased from astrology. I get that people want mystical insight and maybe guidance. But you gave up one form of b.s. for another. With that, welcome to the site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Back in the day, one of my psych professors gave us all a handout with a (generally positive) horoscope on it, directed us not to share with anyone else, then gave a Likert-scale quiz to determine how closely everyone thought it described them. As you have probably guessed, everyone had the same horoscope and most everyone rated it accurately descriptive of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Personally, the eight ball works much better for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Does any read their horoscope? I always seem to belived what the stars say. Now, that I am not into Chrisitianity anymore, I have gone back to reading my horoscopes. My favorite online astrologer is Susan Miller. there's reference to Anyone? Thanks. Astrology is interesting to read, but is generally pretty stupid. On specifics, they're always wrong. Generalizations, however, they tend to be about 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 No horoscopes for me. I get better results with my fortune cookies. (Ha Fwee! I bet you thought I'd go the other way on this one, huh?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleDee Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 When I was a christian I considered reading a horoscope as divination/witchcraft and a "sin". Now, I find reading my horoscope as entertaining. However, I have absolutely no "faith" in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 No horoscopes for me. I get better results with my fortune cookies. (Ha Fwee! I bet you thought I'd go the other way on this one, huh?) Actually, Lilith, I've had some (rather strange) luck with fortune cookies too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genesis Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 i thought for some reason i was going to get judged for reading my horoscope. but i know this is an ex-christian site so why would i? just thought i'd ask the question. when i was into christianity i too considered it a sin... now i don't anymore. it's entertaining to me as well as pretty accurate in how the planets influence the zodiac. for the responses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Heaven for Kevin Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 genesis, there is nothing wrong with taking an interest in astrology. I personally don't know much about it, although I always read the horoscorpe in 'The Onion'. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 No horoscopes for me. I get better results with my fortune cookies. (Ha Fwee! I bet you thought I'd go the other way on this one, huh?) Actually, Lilith, I've had some (rather strange) luck with fortune cookies too. Yea, me too. But they are so vaguely written as to work in nearly any situation, dontchaknow. Oh...and I haven't forgotten about the money thing. What did you say, 6 grande? I have been mulling it over. The trick is to find time to do a decent ritual when hubby isn't around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxyroze Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I like to read them for fun but I’ve never believed in them. I don’t understand how stars and planets can tell me my future just because I’m a Cancer. But the strange thing is, I’m very much like what the astrologist describe Cancer’s to be. So, I don’t know. But I’ve always been weary of the girly/fashion magazine horoscopes because I know it’s some girl making it all up just to get a paycheck. Well, I assume that anyway. But it is fun either way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadouKen24 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The stuff in the newspaper is just plain silly. Even professional astrologers agree on that. I've never had a real horoscope cast, with the full calculations with to-the-minute birthdate, etc., so I can't comment on that. Back in the day, one of my psych professors gave us all a handout with a (generally positive) horoscope on it, directed us not to share with anyone else, then gave a Likert-scale quiz to determine how closely everyone thought it described them. As you have probably guessed, everyone had the same horoscope and most everyone rated it accurately descriptive of themselves. Was it actually a horoscope, or was it some crappy thing a psych prof wrote up? And if it was a horoscope, was it a birth chart cast by a professional astrologer or something out of a newspaper that's supposed to apply to everyone within a range of a month? Unless it was a real chart done by a professional... I would be very hesitant to come to any conclusions about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Was it actually a horoscope, or was it some crappy thing a psych prof wrote up? And if it was a horoscope, was it a birth chart cast by a professional astrologer or something out of a newspaper that's supposed to apply to everyone within a range of a month? I don't remember. Unless it was a real chart done by a professional... I would be very hesitant to come to any conclusions about that. No offense intended, but I am not inclined to care either way. At least until some non-post hoc methodology becomes available to determine that a "professional" astrologer is anything other than someone who gets paid to write mystical-sounding crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadouKen24 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I don't remember. It makes a difference. If it wasn't an actual horoscope done by an actual astrologer, then the whole exercise was complete bunkum as far as disproving astrology as a whole. Of course, it should be noted that without a control, it's nothing more than a cheap psychological trick to sway your opinion. No offense intended, but I am not inclined to care either way. At least until some non-post hoc methodology becomes available to determine that a "professional" astrologer is anything other than someone who gets paid to write mystical-sounding crap. Eh... astrology is very systematic compared to other systems of divination. It wouldn't be hard at all to tell someone who was using the actual system from someone who was just making stuff up. The purely mathematical side to the chart is exactly the same no matter who runs the numbers, if they're using the same system. In any case, there's a very easy way to test whether this astrologer is tapping into something or not. Find an astrologer willing to do 51 birth charts given no data other than exact birthdates. 50 of them are for 50 specific volunteers. The last one is done using the birth date of the man running the program, and is given to a random selection of 50 volunteers. If the 50 given the specific charts tend to agree more that it fits them than the 50 given the same chart, (given a high enough statistical significance) then one has shown that the astrologer actually does pull it off. There's your methodology. Rigorous, scientific, and controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demona- Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I tend to avoid the horoscopes in magazines and newspapers, as it's a load of bunk. None of what they ever say comes true. On the other hand, I've had detailed personal natal charts done for myself and others that were dead-on. I've also done charts for others. I like the mathematical system of the bona-fide astrology and numerology, and it gives me something to tinker with. It's fun, but I keep it in perspective and try not to take it too seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 yep, my natal chart descriptions are dead on.. even through years of growth and changing views, they still seem to apply I get daily horoscopes for my birth Date, rather than just month, sent to my cell every morning. Even if it's BS, sometimes they seem to match what's going on.. confirmation bias I guess... and sometimes they're just good advice in general. Just entertainment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I don't believe in them, but they are fun to read. Mine never come true, but then I'm not a very typical Leo anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I don't remember. It makes a difference. If it wasn't an actual horoscope done by an actual astrologer, then the whole exercise was complete bunkum as far as disproving astrology as a whole. Of course, it should be noted that without a control, it's nothing more than a cheap psychological trick to sway your opinion. No offense intended, but I am not inclined to care either way. At least until some non-post hoc methodology becomes available to determine that a "professional" astrologer is anything other than someone who gets paid to write mystical-sounding crap. Eh... astrology is very systematic compared to other systems of divination. It wouldn't be hard at all to tell someone who was using the actual system from someone who was just making stuff up. The purely mathematical side to the chart is exactly the same no matter who runs the numbers, if they're using the same system. In any case, there's a very easy way to test whether this astrologer is tapping into something or not. Find an astrologer willing to do 51 birth charts given no data other than exact birthdates. 50 of them are for 50 specific volunteers. The last one is done using the birth date of the man running the program, and is given to a random selection of 50 volunteers. If the 50 given the specific charts tend to agree more that it fits them than the 50 given the same chart, (given a high enough statistical significance) then one has shown that the astrologer actually does pull it off. There's your methodology. Rigorous, scientific, and controlled. I've heard this said more than once, and maybe I can scrounge up a source of some sort, but I've heard that the astrological charts are not accurate because of the planet shifting on its axis over the millenia or something of the sort. Have you heard anything like this and if so, how do you reconcile it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Eh... astrology is very systematic compared to other systems of divination. It wouldn't be hard at all to tell someone who was using the actual system from someone who was just making stuff up. The purely mathematical side to the chart is exactly the same no matter who runs the numbers, if they're using the same system. A systematic methodology is only part of the equation. How do you determine if the system describes what it claims to? In any case, there's a very easy way to test whether this astrologer is tapping into something or not. Find an astrologer willing to do 51 birth charts given no data other than exact birthdates. 50 of them are for 50 specific volunteers. The last one is done using the birth date of the man running the program, and is given to a random selection of 50 volunteers. If the 50 given the specific charts tend to agree more that it fits them than the 50 given the same chart, (given a high enough statistical significance) then one has shown that the astrologer actually does pull it off. There's your methodology. Rigorous, scientific, and controlled. Maybe. I still think a paradigm shift in physics requires a bit more than how 50 people rate two horoscopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadouKen24 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I've heard this said more than once, and maybe I can scrounge up a source of some sort, but I've heard that the astrological charts are not accurate because of the planet shifting on its axis over the millenia or something of the sort. Have you heard anything like this and if so, how do you reconcile it? Look... I don't even know that it works. I just get annoyed when people arbitrarily claim that it's complete bunkum without actually doing the work of testing it, or try to disprove it using cheap tricks that don't deserve the name "science." A systematic methodology is only part of the equation. How do you determine if the system describes what it claims to? I don't, but I don't need to know whether the system works to know whether the person I'm dealing with knows how to work within the system, if you catch the distinction. Maybe. I still think a paradigm shift in physics requires a bit more than how 50 people rate two horoscopes. Okay... that's downright sloppy thinking. There are more than just two options here. You seem to be assuming that either astrology doesn't work at all, or the planets directly influence human action in the way astrologists claim. That's not the case. Prior to any scientific investigation, it is just as likely that astrology does work as a system of describing human personality or human events, but a correspondence with planetary events is pure coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilith Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I've heard this said more than once, and maybe I can scrounge up a source of some sort, but I've heard that the astrological charts are not accurate because of the planet shifting on its axis over the millenia or something of the sort. Have you heard anything like this and if so, how do you reconcile it? Look... I don't even know that it works. I just get annoyed when people arbitrarily claim that it's complete bunkum without actually doing the work of testing it, or try to disprove it using cheap tricks that don't deserve the name "science." Ok...Ok....I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. I was just asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 There are more than just two options here. You seem to be assuming that either astrology doesn't work at all, or the planets directly influence human action in the way astrologists claim. That's not the case. Prior to any scientific investigation, it is just as likely that astrology does work as a system of describing human personality or human events, but a correspondence with planetary events is pure coincidence. Clearly, then, I have no idea which astrology you are speaking of. Until just now, I understood that all astrologies involved the influence of celestial bodies in some manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticjoe Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I've heard this said more than once, and maybe I can scrounge up a source of some sort, but I've heard that the astrological charts are not accurate because of the planet shifting on its axis over the millenia or something of the sort. Have you heard anything like this and if so, how do you reconcile it? The earth is precessing on its axis causing the sun signs to shift about 1 month over the past 2,000 years. If you google "sun sign" and "precession" you find this article (and others) on the subject. http://www.griffithobs.org/SkyOphiuchus.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticjoe Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 In any case, there's a very easy way to test whether this astrologer is tapping into something or not. Find an astrologer willing to do 51 birth charts given no data other than exact birthdates. 50 of them are for 50 specific volunteers. The last one is done using the birth date of the man running the program, and is given to a random selection of 50 volunteers. If the 50 given the specific charts tend to agree more that it fits them than the 50 given the same chart, (given a high enough statistical significance) then one has shown that the astrologer actually does pull it off. There's your methodology. Rigorous, scientific, and controlled. I got this chart from this site: http://www.astrology-and-science.com/ In their article: "The case for and against astrology" It's not exactly your study, but similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts