What to think of Astrology? I think Maddox puts it best
here
WARNING: some people may find what he says to be offensive (particularly
those who have a soft spot for astrology)
Also, do you realise
you've probably been lied to regarding
which sign you are?
Skeptic
Etiquette
In the face of my very scientifically brilliant co-bloggers,
this post might seem ridonkulously dumb, but this problem has been weighing
heavy on my mind, and I'm trying to work it out.
My neighbors and I once shared a community garden in Los Feliz. It was a
small space in the back of our building that had once been filled with
trash, broken furniture, and decades of rotting cigarette filters.
We decided to pool our resources and plant a garden. We salvaged some
drawers from a broken bureau and grabbed some wine boxes from the local
liquor store to repurpose as makeshift planters. Over time, we refinished a
picnic table, purchased a barbecue grill, and ran electricity out to the
patio and hung Christmas lights along the ivy on the back wall so we could
actually see each other after sunset.
Normally, my friends are the product of a shared common ground in ideals,
beliefs, and hair care products. Neighbor-friends are solely the product of
shared geography, and they are therefore more likely to shock the shit out
of me with firmly held ideas and beliefs that I find bizarre, and sometimes
physically harmful.
For example, there was the time I woke to find a dirty hippie standing in
the hall outside my apartment door with a cooler full of raw bison liver,
promising to cure my neighbor’s Lyme Disease, naturally. Enraged, I glared
at the crunchy bastard as he took her last $70 as she melted against the
wall in exhaustion, having given up her antibiotics due to a weird distrust
of “western medicine.” Eventually, she tried exorcism (to which my only
reply was, “Uh, don’t you have to be Catholic for that?” because seriously,
what else can you say?), but that didn’t work any better than the mystical
healing meat.
She’s okay, now. Back on the antibiotics, and thriving. But if I see the
hippie and his cooler of magic meat ever again, I’m going to punch him in
the throat and drown him in disinfectant. Jerk. But aside from the rare-meat
life-threatening stuff, most of my magic/god/meat-cure social problems are
etiquette-based.
What exactly is the polite response when someone at a dinner party asks,
“What’s your sign? I bet you’re a Taurus!”
The last time this question came up was at birthday celebration with my
neighbors, at the bottom of the third bottle of wine at a tapas bar.
After listening thoughtfully to my dinner companions each explain how they
were like their signs, it was my turn to answer.
I said, “You do realize that Jupiter and some random stars have no effect at
all on you, right? I mean, why is it that you’re protected from the magical
personality rays of the constellations when you’re buried a few inches deep
in flesh and fat, but the second you come screaming out of your mom, the
magical personality rays pierce through the brick, mortar, insulation, tile,
and electrical wiring of to the third floor maternity ward of the hospital
in which you have emerged to touch you with the magical essence of “Taurus,”
you stubborn little baby bull!”
I am a bummer at parties.
No one was any more skeptical of astrology, and I ended up looking like the
big jerk I actually am. So I’m trying to develop a personal etiquette code
for situations such as this.
I consulted Jillian Venters of Gothic Charm School to help me with a
skeptic’s etiquette plan, and presented her with my current options:
Question: What’s your sign? I bet you’re a Taurus!
Response Options:
AWKWARD AND POLITE: “Aries, I guess. I don’t believe in astrology, so, um,
how ‘bout those Mets?”
SNARKY AND SATISFYING: “What’s your religion? I bet you’re an Episcopalian!”
ITCHING FOR AN UGLY END TO DINNER: “You know that astrology is horseshit,
right? What are you, a moron?”
OMG U R SO WEIRD: (I make up my own “sign,” stringing together random
celestial objects) “I’m a Boötesian, with Pleiades rising. I am so totally
fucked this week because Haumea is in retrograde. Stupid Kuiper Belt. I wish
they had never discovered it.”
“Personally, I'd got with a combination of 1, 2, and 4, because I'm wacky
that way,” says Jilli. “I have friends who believe LOTS of things I don't,
and ... I guess I try to honor other people's crazy and quirks the way I'd
like them to honor mine. So I'd probably say, ‘I don't believe in
astrology’, and if they pushed the subject I'd counter with, ‘Look, I really
don't believe in it, and nothing you say is going to change my mind. Let's
not talk about it.’”
“Of course, knowing me, I'd probably go on to talk about it, and try and get
them to explain to me WHY they believe. Because, y'know, people are freaky
and interesting, even if I privately think some of their beliefs are
whackaloon.” Jillian’s point here is a good one. People really ARE freaky
and interesting, and I’d hate to pass up an opportunity to do my own
personal sociological study on freakiness. Perhaps I can apply for some sort
of research grant.
Both the Lady of the Manners and I ended up agreeing that option #4 was the
best, not for any particular etiquette reason, but because it’s weirdly zany
and charming. Sometimes it’s best to answer Crazy Talk with more Crazy Talk.
The key is to sound sincere. There’s a thin line between cleverly ironic and
smarmy assholishness.
But it isn’t just astrology where I find myself on the edge of turning an
otherwise pleasant conversation into prison riot. A friend I genuinely care
about once spent $700 on astral-projection classes.
It’s not just astrology conversations where I feel awkward and left out.
One of my neighbors joined me for a drink one night and launched into an
excited explanation of astral-projection. She had spent close to a grand on
classes and had her first out-of-body experience. I have no poker face.
None. It’s not that she didn’t have the money for such things, she makes
plenty of dough and could just have easily spent it on new shoes without
hurting her savings account. But she wanted to talk about this revelation,
and my response was, “Sweetie, you had a hallucination. You paid a
ridiculous sum of money to have a hallucination. You can get a bag of
‘shrooms for a tenth of what you just spent, and had enough cash left over
to buy new shoes, too!”
This devolved into an argument on the “science” of astral-projection, and
she swore that she has read many studies on how it is a fact, A FACT, that
one’s mind can ski on out of one’s body and, I dunno, look up ladies’ skirts
on the escalator at the mall.
The end result was that I promised to eat the full contents of my cat’s
litter box if any of these “studies” could be repeated in an independent
laboratory. Gah. I hope that never happens. I’m really lazy about cleaning
the litter box.
Once again, I turned to Jilli for an appropriate response to, “I just spent
a grand on an astral projection class and had my first out-of-body
experience!”
“Yeah, I guess congratulations would be in order,” says Jilli. “And then
probably an attempt to change the subject, because if you don't, the person
will probably gush enthusiastically at you all about the astral projection
class, and then you're stuck with nodding a lot and biting your tongue.”
Jilli’s advice is different if the friend in question is actually going into
debt on such things:
“Sit down with them privately and say ‘Look, I understand you're seeking
something, but I am worried about you being duped out of money and
self-esteem that you shouldn't lose’. Try to explain why you're concerned,
and maybe give them suggestions of other ways they can seek out answers
without dropping huge amounts of cash? Most public libraries have a pretty
good metaphysical/occult/New Age/spooky-pants section, and I would
*strongly* encourage someone to investigate all of that before spending huge
amounts of money for someone to hand enlightenment to them.”
Disclaimer: I’m not talking about when someone you love has just spent their
retirement savings on a handful of magic beans. That sort of thing isn’t
about etiquette, it’s about intervention. People who drain their bank
accounts trying to attain access to magic have a problem akin to gambling,
and I’m not equating random frivolous trips to a palm reader with taking out
a second mortgage to gain “clarity” at the Scientology center on Sunset.
My neighbor Michelle is one of my most favorite people. She brings me soup
when I am sick, feeds my cat when I am out of town, and is otherwise a
wonderful friend.
She’s also ridiculously superstitious and quickly falls prey to any scam
that promises to cleanse her body of toxins or clarify her soul. I steer her
away from things like Kinoki Foot Pads and The Secret, and she cuts my hair
for free.
Michelle is convinced a ghost is turning the lights on and off in her
kitchen. Michelle sees ghosts and troubled spirits in every electrical
problem and broken radio.
I once told her that the sun will eventually go all red giant and scorch all
evidence of humanity off the planet, and what will the ghosts do then? Haunt
the ashes? Won’t that be really lame for the ghosts?
She laughs at me, and I laugh at her, and then we start making supper out in
the community garden, tossing fresh asparagus in lemon juice and garlic.
“But dude! An OLD LADY DIED in that apartment!” she exclaims.
“DUDE! Something like SEVENTY BILLION PEOPLE died since the dawn of
humanity. An OLD LADY DIED EVERYWHERE!” I holler.
Then we laugh again. I’m never going to convince her that her ghost is
crappy wiring, and she’s never going to convince me that the dead return to
life just to fuck with the ambient lighting schemes of aging hipsters like
us.
These differences in beliefs don’t matter to me, really. Not in the grand
scheme of a friendship with someone who comforts me when I’m going bananas,
and genuinely cares for me.
Michelle is my only wacky-belief friend who has ever asked why I don’t
believe in god, astral-projection, ghosts, or kinoki foot pads, and it is
one of the many reasons why I love her.
Sometimes I think Michelle needs to believe in the supernatural, because she
doesn’t really know how much there actually IS of the natural world to be
dazzled by. No faith is required, just your own two eyes to see and hands to
feel.
I told her that the universe is wonderful enough on its own. Space, stars,
planets, black holes, galaxies, suns. The fact that out of all the elemental
soup, people like us have evolved to walk and talk and create art, music,
white wine, patent leather stacked mary jane shoes, Cocoa Puffs cereal,
truck nutz, chocolate chip cookies, surf boards, and the Neiman Marcus
cosmetics department is AMAZING. All by itself. Saying, “god did it” is
heartbreaking. It pisses on the sheer wonderousness of it all, you know? I
don’t need more.
The universe doesn’t need to be imbued with the mystical to make it “more”
special. It’s like salting a pot of soup in someone else’s kitchen without
permission. It’s awfully presumptuous, and, well, more than a little rude.
It's all very well to attempt to be scientifically correct in ones'
statements, but how is the man on the street going to interpret the words
below...? Someacademics are so out of
touch, you'd swear they live on Mars!
Scientists dump cold water on astrology
Leo the Lion and his 11 other signs of the zodiac don't
define your personality, a new study shows.
Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News
Tuesday, 25 April 2006
One of the largest studies of the possible link between human traits and
astrology has found little, if any, connection between the traditional Sun
signs of the zodiac and people's characteristics.
The study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is no scientific
basis for star signs, like Aries and Taurus, signs that are based on the
place of the Sun in relation to someone's date of birth.
But the researchers leave open the question as to whether other, more
detailed and personal forms of astrology hold any validity.
"When considering the current scientific standing with respect to Sun signs,
it becomes clear that there is little or no truth in [them]," says Dr Peter
Hartmann, who led the study in the May issue of the journal Personality and
Individual Differences.
"This does not necessarily mean that all astrology
is without truth, but only that the independent effect of Sun signs is most
likely to be irrelevant," says Hartmann, a researcher in the Department of
Psychology at Denmark's University of Aarhus.
"As for the weekly horoscope based on mere Sun signs, then according to the
current scientific standing, there is probably more truth in the comic
strips."
Hartmann and his colleagues used computer analysis and statistical methods
to study possible astrological connections between over 15,000 individuals.
Their test subjects came from two sources.
The first was the Vietnam Experience Study, which gathered information about
intelligence, personality and date of birth for male military veterans.
The second was the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which included
intelligence and date of birth information for males and females aged
between 15 and 24 years.
If connections existed over a rate of 5%, they were considered valid and not
the result of random links.
No link in Vietnam
The scientists could find no relationship between the time and date of a
person's birth and their personality traits, which the Vietnam study
categorised using terms such as psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism and
social desirability.
The researchers, however, did determine that individuals from the Vietnam
test who were born between the months of July and December were slightly
more intelligent, by less than one IQ point, than those who were born
between January to June.
That finding was reversed for the 1979 youth study. In that case, people who
were born January to June had the minute intellectual edge.
And in the real world?
Hartmann says that although the information about intelligence passed the
non-random restriction, he views the connection as irrelevant.
"Assuming that you could buy a pill that would increase your IQ with one
point, but it would cost you $10,000, would you do it? Probably not, but if
you could buy a pill that would increase your IQ by 15 points that would be
something else, simply because you get more value for your money," he says.
"The essence here is that there is a difference in determining whether a
result is significant, hence whether it is a true effect, or just random
occurrence, and then whether this significant effect is relevant and of any
interest."
The Australian connection
Geoffrey Dean, a former astrologist based in Australia who researches the
possible scientific validity of astrology, tracked over 2000 people who were
born within minutes of each other.
The study, which spanned several decades, covered over 100 different
characteristics, like marital status, IQ, anxiety and temperament was
published in 2003 in the Journal of Consciousness Studies.
Dean came to a similar conclusion as Hartmann and his team, that date of
birth does not affect an individual's personality.
In Medieval times, someone suffering from
symptoms of the black death was encouraged to find
a good barber surgeon who knew what he
was doing when it came
to bloodletting.
If the Moon
was in the Zodiac ruling
a particular part of the body, bloodletting from that part
of the body was to be avoided,
as the attraction of the Moon
could cause excessive bleeding.
Here is an image of a medieval 'Zodiac
Man' showing the parts of the body governed by the
various signs of the Zodiac.
- contributed by Medieval historian Ruth Catherine Semple
There is nothing written in the stars!
Astrology fails scientific mega test
A detailed scientific long-term study by researchers in Britain proves thecentral principle of astrology invalid and baseless. It puts an end
to thefantastic old claim that the constellation
of stars and planets at the timeof birth could
influence or even determine the development of an
individual's character and course of life.
The "Time Twin Study" was started in London in 1958 as a medical researchproject. Registering more than 2,000 babies, born within minutes of
eachother on a day in early March, it had the
objective to compare the timetwins' health
development. The field of investigation was soon extended.The research team monitored the test persons over several decades,recording observations about more than 100 parameters in connection
withhealth, occupation, marital situation,
anxiety level, aggressiveness,sociability, IQ
levels, abilities in music, art, sport, mathematics,language etc. They tried to collect evidences for similarities
between thetime twins. However, no similarities
could be identified.
"The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success butthe results are uniformly negative", stated Dr. Geoffrey Dean,
astrologerturned scientist from Perth, Australia,
in a report about the study,published in the
current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies.Carrying out an analysis of the study, Dr. Dean and his collegue
Prof. IvanKelley, Psychologist at the University
of Saskatchewan, Canada, found thatthere was no
special trait or tendency shared by the time twins. They werejust as different as people born on any other day under any other
planetaryconstellation.
The claim that stars and planets could influence character and life ofhuman beings has long been dismissed by rationalists and scientists
asthere is according to all known scientific
principles no kind of mechanismimaginable by way
of which this influence could possibly work. Here isempirical proof that it does not work at all. The study shows clearly
thatastrological predictions based on the
coordinates of birth do notcorrespond with
reality. They are nothing but exercises in deception.
This should be the end of one of the oldest superstitions. But it is nothard to predict that the show will still go on. There are obviously
toomany people, who like to be deceived and too
many, who make enormous moneyby deceiving them.
DARK ENERGY ASTROLOGY
NEW NEW THEORY TRUMPS NEW THEORY
E-Skeptic #20 May 17, 2004
The story below just broke yesterday in the Sunday Times,
in which British Royal Astronomical Society astronomer Dr. Percy Seymour has
published a book presenting a theory to explain astrology. I have not seen
the book yet, but the problem with proffering a new mechanism to explain the
power of astrology, is that Seymour is assuming there is something that
needs to be explained. There isn't. Astrology does not work, plain and
simple:
It has not made accurate predictions ("there will be an
earthquake in southern California" or "I see dark clouds over the White
House" does not count).
It does not adequately describe people's personality
("you are an outgoing person who enjoys the company of others, yet at
other times you prefer the peace and tranquility of alone time" does not
count).
It is not successful in match matching ("Virgos get
along well with Pisces" does not count).
It is no better than a dart board at picking successful
stocks on the stock market ("buy low, sell high" trumps any astrological
stock system ever invented).
It cannot tell you your future ("I see travel" or "I
see a career change" or "I see danger lurking ahead" does not count).
In short, a theory is superfluous when there is nothing
for the theory to explain. This is why James Randi's million-dollar prize (www.randi.org)
is not interested in hearing about the theories behind astrology or ESP or
telekinesis and the like. As Randi always says, "I just want to know if it
works or not." Once a phenomenon has been proven to be real, then we can
work on the theory to explain how it works. Astrology does not work, so it
doesn't matter whether the earth's magnetic field influences our brains in
the womb or not (Seymour's theory), or whether gravity influences us (the
usual theory), or some future conjecture (why not dark energy, or dark
matter, since together they make up 95% of the universe?).
How about a new branch of astrology? We'll call it Dark
Energy Astrology. Since Dark Energy is an anti-gravity force apparently
causing the cosmos to expand at an accelerating rate, this form of astrology
causes people to do the opposite of what they would normally do, like the
bizarro Seinfeld episode where George, who is fat, balding, jobless, and
living with his parents, suddenly becomes irresistable to beautiful women.
Dark Energy Astrology. My next book. Publishers are standing by....
Sunday Times May 16, 2004 Top scientist gives backing to astrology
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
THE PLANETS may control your future after all. A renowned
astronomer has broken with scientific orthodoxy to claim that astrology
could have some basis in fact.
Long dismissed as little better than fortune telling,
astrology has been attacked as a pseudo-science by the Royal Astronomical
Society.
But one of its members, Dr Percy Seymour, has reopened the
debate with a provocative book claiming movements of the sun, stars and
planets can influence the brains of unborn children in measurable ways.
Seymour is a former principal lecturer in astronomy and
astrophysics at Plymouth University who has been a researcher at the Royal
Observatory in Greenwich. While stressing he has no time for star-sign
horoscopes, he does believe human brain development may be affected by the
Earth?s magnetic field, especially during growth in the womb.
In his book, The Scientific Proof of Astrology, he
suggests that the Earth's magnetic field is affected by interactions with
those of the sun and the moon. Other planets such as Jupiter, Mars and Venus
also play a part because their magnetic fields affect solar magnetism.
Seymour said: "It means the whole solar system is playing
a symphony on the Earth's magnetic field. We are all genetically tuned to
receive a different set of melodies from this symphony."
His claims will infuriate other astronomers. They have
suffered the humiliation of seeing astrology rising in popularity with top
astrologers' earnings surging beyond those of even the most eminent of
researchers.
Until now they have at least had the comfort of being able
to dismiss any suggestion of scientific support for the idea that people?s
lives and personalities are influenced by the planets.
Among the most outspoken figures against astrology are Sir
Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, and Professor Stephen Hawking. Rees has
described astrology as "absurd", adding: "There is no place for astrology in
our scientific view of the world; moreover its predictive claims cannot
stand any critical scrutiny."
Seth Shostak, a leading American astronomer, was also
scathing, describing Seymour's theory as "nonsensical". He pointed out that
even though large planets like Jupiter had magnetic and gravitational fields
far greater than the Earth?s, they were massively diluted by distance.
"Jupiter's magnetic field is about a trillion times weaker
than the Earth's," he said. "You would experience a far stronger field from
your lights and washing machine."
Shostak works for the Seti Institute in California which
is building a powerful radio telescope to seek alien life. "By 2025 we will
have surveyed a million stars and I believe we will have found intelligent
aliens," he added.
Hawking, Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge
University, has said that astrology became impossible as soon as early
scientists found that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, an idea
on which astrology was founded.
However, Seymour's theories won qualified support from an
unexpected source. Richard Dawkins, professor for the public understanding
of science at Oxford University, who once suggested that astrologers be
prosecuted under the trades descriptions act, said that although he had not
read the book Seymour's ideas sounded interesting.
Astrologers were delighted by Seymour's claims. Russell
Grant, the astrologer, said: "At last someone is not just saying: "It's a
load of poppycock". If the moon is connected with the ebb and flow of the
tides, and humans are 70% water, then why can't the moon be affecting us? So
we have good moods or bad moods depending upon the position of the moon?"
Others seem to agree although few will discuss it openly.
Several years ago it emerged that the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development was using astrology to help manage its 5 billion investment
portfolio--programming computers with crucial dates such as lunar eclipses
and planetary conjunctions.
This year's Sunday Times Rich List included an analysis of
the star signs of Britain's 1,000 richest people--finding significant
differences with 110 born under Gemini but only 73 under Pisces.
Among the powerful who have admitted consulting
astrologers to make decisions are Ronald and Nancy Reagan, who allowed the
astrologer Joan Quigley to dictate the presidential agenda, including the
take-off times for Air Force One. Reagan's chief of staff reportedly had a
colour-coded calendar around which he was expected to organise the
President's schedule: green for ?good? days and red for "bad".
Even Margaret Thatcher once told MPs: "I was born under
the sign of Libra, it follows that I am well-balanced."
STAR SIGNS OF THE RICHEST 1000
Gemini 110
Taurus 104
Aries 95
Capricorn 92
Aquarius 91
Virgo 88
Libra 87
Leo 84
Sagittarius 84
Cancer 80
Scorpio 79
Pisces 73
Source: The Sunday Times Rich List 2004