Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

I did not want to see those traits, because I used to find it completely idiotic, but I was forced to reconsider. So no, definitely not wanting to see those traits.

In fact I'd much rather proclaim I believe it, especially because of the opposition it gets - or, what it says about the people who rabidly feel the need to deny it the most.
 
I don't believe astrology. However, I can well believe that the time of year you're born, and (seasonal?) occurrences around significant milestones in your development as a child, might have some bearing on the development of your personality.
 
Brigantium said:
I don't believe astrology. However, I can well believe that the time of year you're born, and (seasonal?) occurrences around significant milestones in your development as a child, might have some bearing on the development of your personality.
Click to expand...

I have read and heard this justification and I don't have trouble believing that at all. The effect we (and everything) have on the tiniest of children is really huge, much bigger than we usually realize and it's not pushing it to say that it does indeed matter whether the baby is born in the middle of the winter or in the early fall.
 
OK, putting on the "rationalist hat". I don't have anything against people believing in mystical things, but let's have a look at the concept of astrology.

I understand it is about the position of celestial bodies at your time of birth having some kind of influence on (or being useful in prediction of) one's personality.

But ... but .. but:
  1. The star constellations that are referred to ... they're supposed to resemble lions, water-men, rams and scorpions? They aren't.
  2. The individual stars in a given constellation aren't particularly close to each other, and may easily be closer to stars in other constellations. In other words the different stars in e.g. Leo have nothing in common.
  3. The personality traits associated with the zodiac signs are linked to whatever traits people in the antique era associated with those animals/things. I can't help but think this is also pretty arbitrary. So we have arbitrary traits associated with arbitrary animals/figures derived from arbitrary constellations of stars.
The idea that any of this should actually influence on the actual personalities of actual people is so extraordinary it would require extraordinary evidence. That is, one would need to carry out studies including:

  • A means to quantify how well individuals match the various personality traits
  • A statistic material large enough to actually show correlation between those traits and date of birth
  • Last, but not least: a lack of other, more credible explanations for such a correlation.
Good luck!
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
OK, putting on the "rationalist hat". I don't have anything against people believing in mystical things, but let's have a look at the concept of astrology.

I understand it is about the position of celestial bodies at your time of birth having some kind of influence on (or being useful in prediction of) one's personality.

But ... but .. but:
  1. The star constellations that are referred to ... they're supposed to resemble lions, water-men, rams and scorpions? They aren't.
  2. The individual stars in a given constellation aren't particularly close to each other, and may easily be closer to stars in other constellations. In other words the different stars in e.g. Leo have nothing in common.
  3. The personality traits associated with the zodiac signs are linked to whatever traits people in the antique era associated with those animals/things. I can't help but think this is also pretty arbitrary. So we have arbitrary traits associated with arbitrary animals/figures derived from arbitrary constellations of stars.
The idea that any of this should actually influence on the actual personalities of actual people is so extraordinary it would require extraordinary evidence. That is, one would need to carry out studies including:

  • A means to quantify how well individuals match the various personality traits
  • A statistic material large enough to actually show correlation between those traits and date of birth
  • Last, but not least: a lack of other, more credible explanations for such a correlation.
Good luck!
Click to expand...


Hm... I read the post and wanted to think on it. Thank you for the work you put into it.

Okay, let me get something off my chest - and sorry beforehand.
When I said I'd like to "proclaim I believe it, especially because of the opposition it gets - or, what it says about the people who rabidly feel the need to deny it the most." this is kinda what I had in mind.

Because the strongest opposition I ever came across was either

1. bigoted Christians who take the Bible literally and are scared of even thinking about what they perceive as forbidden by the Scripture
2. people who pride themselves for being scientific and think that everything that exists must and can be empirically proven and if it can't be, well, though luck. And when these people come across something that would oppose that (even in the sphere of ideas), there would be this aggressive, intense hatred and urge to attack it.

Both of which are my pet peeves.
I'm not saying you are group 2. But I think you know why I mentioned that.

Anyway, I actually agree. Astrology is not of divine knowledge. Therefore, where Aquinas talks about the twofold truth "one to which the inquiry of the reason can reach, the other which surpasses the whole ability of the human reason", this is not the latter. Therefore it must be the one to which the inquiry of the reason can reach.

So I agree with the logic and the evidence you propose.

I even agree with this:

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
That is, one would need to carry out studies including:

  • A means to quantify how well individuals match the various personality traits
  • A statistic material large enough to actually show correlation between those traits and date of birth
  • Last, but not least: a lack of other, more credible explanations for such a correlation.
Click to expand...

However, I think that the people who would be willing to invest into the thought or the doubt regarding the astrological determination of human character won't be the people who would be willing to do this type of work. So it will never be carried out.

And I didn't insist on it - I presented it as a mystery, that is - something I mocked and disbelieved, yet through time I personally discovered as if something might be to it - though I'm being careful about it, because it's really quite probable that I'm wrong. But I can't help but feel that sometimes it almost hauntingly fits. I can't prove it this or that way and I doubt someone else will.
And it's absolutely unimportant. But it is an intriguing thing.
 
To be honest, I think all mystery surrounding the topic is caused by the fact it is an idea that is impossible to prove or disprove, while at the same time it has been held as important by various people throughout history. But at the same time, at face value it is about what I laid out in my previous posts, inferring about personality traits or predicting the future based on positions of astronomic objects.

I must admit that for some topics, I tend to fall in the aggressive scientist category. But that's when we're talking about outright harmful pseudoscience. Like people suggesting sodium hypochlorite as a cure for everything from clamydia to cancer.

Astrology would only truly make me irate if, say, our prime minister would use it to make political decisions or my physician suggesting a particular treatment based on my zodiac sign. When that's not the case, it's just one of those things that baffle me. For reasons already stated.

I don't think I can pursue this line of inquiry any further tonight as I think it could easily become too silly have another aerobatic flight planned tomorrow. and need a good night's sleep.
 
So many words to say, politely, that it's all fucking rubbish.
Good luck with your aerobatic flight planned tomorrow. :ok:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top