Validity of Astrology *split from INFJs and western astrology*

Quinlan said:
...science doesn't pretend to have all the answers (unlike religion/spirituality) it is prudent, reasonable, sensible... believing you have all the answers is tremendous arrogance.
Click to expand...

I like this. Hard to decide between Satya's quote and this as a sig.
 
No Quinlan & Duty, Science itself does not pretent to hold all the answers as it is a non-entity. But some of its staunchest human supporters do seem to at times speak with a kind of total faith in its flawlessness. They imply indirectly that all scientific enquiry is free from bias in the design of experiments, and that it never has to rewrite itself over the course of time. Often scientists may be qouted as saying "The fact or truth of the matter IS..." when it would be more correct to say "At this point of time, to the current best of our knowledge" as a prefix to the above sentence. Science would be more likely to be prudent reasonable and sensible at all times, if money and income never came into the picture, but it does. There is also the problem of might being considered right. Just because a large group of scientists the world over can replicate each others findings in experiments, does not implicitly prove for all time that competing and less popular theories are totally wrong either. "There are several ways you can skin a cat" (whether its called Schrodinger or otherwise), as they say.

We are speaking in generalisations here too much, like "Astrology IS false" or "Science is Truth" virtually. By the same token, religion and mysticism is not all the same. How can you generalise that ALL spiritual authorities claim to have ALL of the answers ALL of the time? I mean its not like there is uniform consensus across the world in this area either!
 
Last edited:
Mux said:
No Science itself does not pretent to hold all the answers as it is a non-entity. But some of its staunchest human supporters do seem to at times speak with a kind of total faith in its flawlessness. They imply indirectly that all scientific enquiry is free from bias in the design of experiments, and that it never has to rewrite itself over the course of time. Often scientists may be qouted as saying "The fact or truth of the matter IS..." when it would be more correct to say "At this point of time, to the current best of our knowledge" as a prefix to the above sentence. Science would be more likely to be prudent reasonable and sensible at all times, if money and income never came into the picture, but it does. There is also the problem of might being considered right. Just because a large group of science the world over can replicate each others findings in experiments, does not implicitly prove for all time that competing and less popular theories are totally wrong either. There are several ways you can skin a cat, as they say.

We are speaking in generalisations here too much, like "Astrology IS false" or "Science is Truth" virtually. By the same token, religion and mysticism is not all the same. How can you generalise that ALL spiritual authorities claim to have ALL of the answers ALL of the time? I mean its not like there is uniform consensus across the world in this area either!
Click to expand...

This is why this kind of conversation is best done in propositional format, and not by subject. Saying "astrology is not true," is actually a meaningless statement, as astrology is not a measurable body nor concrete concept. It's a loose category of beliefs that differ from person to person...they just all tend to call themselves "astrologers."

The proper way to do this, in propositional format, is to take a belief of astrology and draw conclusions/respond to that belief. One such belief/proposition could be: "If you were born between time X and Y, then you'll be a Z kind of person" (call this proposition A). A is false, or at best the belief in it is unjustified. As evidence I offer that, logically from A it follows that if 500 people are born between X and Y times, they'll all become Z kind of person. 1 counterexample, a person that turns out to be ~Z (not Z), yet is born between X and Y times, would prove this belief to be false.

To demonstrate that this belief is true, you would take an amount of people (an amount acceptable by statistical theory, which I'm not hugely familiar with, although I'm familiar with Bayesianism, but its purpose is to study this kind of thing), and then test to see if they're all Z kinds of people. If they are, then you have a strongly inductive claim that this astrological belief is correct. It's still possible for it to be false (unless your test sample was every single person that has ever been born between X and Y times), but it would be an inductively strong claim, and therefore one would be justified believing in A.

This is why formalized logic was invented...it's much easier to deal with a propositional format of language in making arguments, and precisely for the reasons noted.
 
Last edited:
So you would not consider the other 499 people to be a meaningful statistic despite the one exception?

I think a good analogy of how peoples thinking differs in this thread, would be to say some of us prefer 'Whole Numbers' and some of us prefer 'Decimals', in terms of 'proof'. I guess statistical trends mean more to me personally than yes or no statements, despite my terrible math skills. By 'Decimals' in the above analogy I was referring to people who like an 'analogue' combination of discrete "facts" as well as personal anecdotal experiences, as proportional components of their final personal opinion on a subject such as Astrology, versus those who prefer to find a formula that works for all cases. But thats the trouble really with that kind of logic, is it doesnt work so well for 'single instruction multiple data', when you are trying to prove or disprove semantically bound concepts instead of precise measurements. Does anyone grok what I am getting at? Its just an interesting observation about the thread as a whole. (for me)
 
Last edited:
Mux said:
So you would not consider the other 499 people to be a meaningful statistic despite the one exception?
Click to expand...

Depends on the proposition.

If it's:

"All people born between X and Y time will be Z people." Then yes, the 1 exception proves the belief to be false. However, if this belief were true, I would have extremely high confidence in it. The second law of thermodynamics, or any scientific law, fits in this category...it's true 100% of the time. It's why we can have such high confidence in science.


If it's:

"Most people born between X and Y time will be Z people." Then if 499 out of 500 people fulfilled this, then the belief is accurate. However, the belief doesn't have nearly as much predictive value or usefulness, because "most" only means over 50%. If 51% of astrological predictions were true, my confidence in it wouldn't be that high.


The same goes for:

"Some people born between X and Y time will be Z people." This only says that there is at least 1 person that fulfills the criteria. It doesn't say much.


Lastly, a proposition can be given a numerical value:

"95% of people born between X and Y time will be Z people." This is a strong belief, and true if 499 out 500 people fulfill the criteria. I would then have a high confidence in astrological predictions if this were the case.
 
What?




Anywho, I was wondering, astrology seems to be based on constellations right? how do these constellations become meaningful when the actual stars that make them up are often very distant and unrelated to each other? Are the just time markers for something else? If so then what are they marking?
 
Aww, you guys... Don't get mad over it. It's not worth getting frustrated or angry, just agree to disagree. This isn't a debate that can really be won, it's such a complex and layered subject involving far more than just astrology. So it's probably time to walk away with a smile and remember that all that really matters is what you feel and think is true (for both sides)

:smile:
 
What's frustrating is throughout this whole discussion, I've received no reason why astrology is valid, no reason to believe in any of its propositions. All I've received is "you have to respect my right to believe in it." Which, although I think people that believe some of this stuff are committing ethical wrongs, I still respect your right to believe it.

I just want to challenge you to examine your beliefs and find a good reason to hold them. See if they stand up to the scrutiny of reason. A lot of the worlds' problem is that people take their beliefs for granted, and end up behaving in very bad ways based on those beliefs. The world, although not perfect, would be much better if people actually took a look and tried to find reason for what they believe in.

I criticize astrology because I can see its conclusions truly having an effect on the way its practitioners view other people, view the world, and what decisions they make in the world. When those conclusions, which are having a profound effect (if only on a handful of people) are based off faulty reasoning and unsound logic, it seems to be consequential and has the potential to be unjustly negative.


So just consider a reexamination of why you believe in astrology. "It works for me" really doesn't work, as it defies objectivity. "It feels right" doesn't work when determining the truthfulness of a belief either, as any belief can "feel right," and some beliefs have to be judged as false. They can't all be true (because then we'd have ones that were true, while the opposite is also true, and that wouldn't make any sense at all), so it's our job to find which ones are and aren't true, or if it's even possible to determine if a particular belief is possible to know.
 
Duty said:
What's frustrating is throughout this whole discussion, I've received no reason why astrology is valid, no reason to believe in any of its propositions. All I've received is "you have to respect my right to believe in it." Which, although I think people that believe some of this stuff are committing ethical wrongs, I still respect your right to believe it.

I just want to challenge you to examine your beliefs and find a good reason to hold them. See if they stand up to the scrutiny of reason. A lot of the worlds' problem is that people take their beliefs for granted, and end up behaving in very bad ways based on those beliefs. The world, although not perfect, would be much better if people actually took a look and tried to find reason for what they believe in.

I criticize astrology because I can see its conclusions truly having an effect on the way its practitioners view other people, view the world, and what decisions they make in the world. When those conclusions, which are having a profound effect (if only on a handful of people) are based off faulty reasoning and unsound logic, it seems to be consequential and has the potential to be unjustly negative.


So just consider a reexamination of why you believe in astrology. "It works for me" really doesn't work, as it defies objectivity. "It feels right" doesn't work when determining the truthfulness of a belief either, as any belief can "feel right," and some beliefs have to be judged as false. They can't all be true (because then we'd have ones that were true, while the opposite is also true, and that wouldn't make any sense at all), so it's our job to find which ones are and aren't true, or if it's even possible to determine if a particular belief is possible to know.
Click to expand...

Duty I agree with you that all beliefs are and should be held accountable to critical self-examination.

Now, if you'll allow me, I think this exact paragraph could equally apply to your need to criticize those who (for lack of a better word) "believe" in astrology.

By your own words you write that you feel the need to "criticize" astrology based on its "effects" on its practitioners. This sounds a lot like prostelytizing on your part. I don't see much difference in your admitted crusade to right the wrongs of astrology practioners/believers from past attempts to Christianize heathens, put native Americans in churches, or in general "illuminate" with the "light of reason" those who practice or believe inferior things.

Now, I think you are well intentioned and I dont think you mean any harm. But in reaching your conclusions you sound like you are making the assumption that what you believe is in someway superior to what others believe.

In particular, I strongly (but very respectfully) disagree with your statement that people who believe differently than you are committing an "ethical wrong." That is a pretty loaded statement and again I know you don't mean any harm but you should be careful with the characterizations. You seem marketedly at ease in calling other people wrong and declaring you are right. I am always unsettled by arguments of that sort.

Again, I have mixed feelings about astrology, and I don't know much about it. But I wouldn't feel comfortable explaining my beliefs on this thread, because you've already stated your conclusions, very strongly, that astrology is bunk. What effort would I or anyone ever take to explain something to you which you have already declared as "ethically wrong"?

In sum, I respect your belief that science and reason is the end-all-be-all of truth. But, I differ very strongly with the belief that that opinion is "right" and anything that differs is "wrong." Science, too, can stray towards fundamentalism; and while I'm all for differences of opinions, this world would be a much better place without the proseltyizing and "need to convert the heathens!" attitudes that is sadly a demon of Western culture and its 500 years of colonialism/White Man Burden endeavors.

I have relatives who worship fire (pretty badass in my opinion) and relatives who worship a statue of someone dying on a cross. i think differently than they, but hey -- we all have to reach our own conclusions about life. it's ok for people to think diffrently, especially in matters of spirituality and the values we use to make choices or plan our lives. We are all responsible for that.

Science used to say that blacks and women were inferior, and there used to be a lot of people who practiced "reason" saying some pretty silly things. This is all historical record. And has been conceded elsewhere there's a lot about life that science just can't explain. As you admit, science "knows its limits". So why the need to stray from them?

I hate having to sound like some stodgy ass all the time on these threads, I really have a keen sense of humor but it rarely comes out on these boards....SIGH!!

Anyway I'll see you around Duty, I ain't gonna say much more here...plus a nice glass of wine is calling my name.

In the words of Lisa Simpson: "Let's just agree that the commercialization of christmas has been at best a mixed blessing"
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread. KoS, great post.

So, here is some pretty esoteric stuff for my sleepy eyes, but relevant and related information by C.S. Lofting :
...astrologically-based descriptions of one's persona...based on the dichotomies of fire/water and air/earth... ellicit mixing responses that have previously been set off by more dichotomy-based 'common sense' descriptions of persona (e.g. MBTI or tests... or just a degree [lol] of self-reflection). This resonance can then favour the individual declaring that there is something of value in astrology, not realizing that it is the dichotomous roots of both systems that is resonating and creating 'meaning'; they treat the metaphor (Astrology) as if 'fact'.
Click to expand...

This article gets in to how the brain processes information through binary sequences, draws assumptions and dichotomies based upon previous experiences. I believe someone else at some point mentioned how MBTI and astrology have similarities in that both are providing what could be generalizations (and erroneous ones if we are not testing correctly or want to see what we want to see) and infused this information in our lives. Can people be so easily pegged? It took me years to understand that for one, I draw my energy from being at home reading books; however, if I don't get out there, periodically, I go a bit stir crazed. The I Ching is another oracle which could be cast down as unscientific, yet uncanny in my personal experience. Ok, I'm going to dodge out of here on that note by saying further inspection on all sides is probably necessary. I'm falling asleep at the keyboard. Hope this made an ounce of sense to someone out there. :m093: Good night.
 
Last edited:
Duty, although I see your view point, I don't think you're giving the people here enough credit and it's meandering towards disrespectful. I doubt you know any of us well enough to know what kind of decisions we make in our everyday lives and pass judgment because of something like this. No one here ever said: "I base my entire life on astrology...period", actually it was the opposite.

For many of us, our intuition and feelings are just as important as logic, and many of us take all of it into consideration before making a decision. I'm sorry if you don't feel that way or have the same priorities, but that's your issue to resolve. I did explain my own personal

opinion of astrology, and if you had an issue with it, you did not respond. But I'll echo what I said before, just because you can't apply it to everyone, doesn't mean it doesn't work accurately for many of us (I'll use the previous smoking example for reference). And some on the forum have different views from myself, I don't believe astrology is suppose to work for everyone.

Also, I'd like to point out, that astrology is not this religion that has dogma attached to it and we mindlessly go along like many religions of
the world. I don't even talk about it to a lot of people I know because it's not a choice that is respected. So, it's not like it's a popular choice (and what we are talking about vs. what has been printed in newspapers and magazines are totally different). No one here is trying to prove anything to you, these are experiences based on our intuition and spirituality, something logic can't explain and science can't measure. The tools you are asking us to use to explain ourselves with are not advanced enough.

Also you stated: "I criticize astrology because I can see its conclusions truly having an effect on the way its practitioners view other people, view the world, and what decisions they make in the world."

That can be said pretty much about anything. I've seen people REASON themselves into making bad decisions.

You also stated:

"When those conclusions, which are having a profound effect (if only on a handful of people) are based off faulty reasoning and unsound logic, it seems to be consequential and has the potential to be unjustly negative."

Really?? Everything has the potential to be unjustly negative, including decisions based upon logic and reason, it happens everyday.

I really think it's admirable that you want to hold people accountable for what they believe, but there's a respectful way to do it, and passing judgment is not a recommended one. If you get people frustrated, your mission is lost at that point because they will stop listening. I doubt this post will change anything, but I do hope it will bring more respect for each others differences.

Have a very good night. :smile:
 
Thank you BlackSwan. You pretty much said exactly wanted to say, but was unable to (if you haven't noticed, I am terrible at debating). Again, thanks :hug:
 
Duty said:
What's frustrating is throughout this whole discussion, I've received no reason why (your belief) is valid, no reason to believe in any of its propositions. All I've received is "you have to respect my right to believe in it." Which, although I think people that believe some of this stuff are committing ethical wrongs, I still respect your right to believe it.

I just want to challenge you to examine your beliefs and find a good reason to hold them. See if they stand up to the scrutiny of reason. A lot of the worlds' problem is that people take their beliefs for granted, and end up behaving in very bad ways based on those beliefs. The world, although not perfect, would be much better if people actually took a look and tried to find reason for what they believe in.

I criticize (your belief) because I can see its conclusions truly having an effect on the way its practitioners view other people, view the world, and what decisions they make in the world. When those conclusions, which are having a profound effect (if only on a handful of people) are based off faulty reasoning and unsound logic, it seems to be consequential and has the potential to be unjustly negative.

So just consider a reexamination of why you believe in (your belief). "It works for me" really doesn't work, as it defies objectivity. "It feels right" doesn't work when determining the truthfulness of a belief either, as any belief can "feel right," and some beliefs have to be judged as false. They can't all be true (because then we'd have ones that were true, while the opposite is also true, and that wouldn't make any sense at all), so it's our job to find which ones are and aren't true, or if it's even possible to determine if a particular belief is possible to know.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis and edits to illustrate a point are mine).

You could take this post, Duty, and insert it anonymously into any one of the religious debates I've seen (and probably many I've ignored) on this forum.

It's a challenge to a belief. *shrug* When do most people succeed in presenting a reasonable argument for their belief system that suits everyone, or even members who hold the same core belief? Regardless of what it is? (example: Christians. Do all Christians hold the same beliefs? Or are there variations? Creationism? Evolution?)

You say you are frustrated, almost as though you view Astrology and those who have an interest in it or practice it as some kind of threat you are duty-bound to reveal. What's the threat? You allow yourself to be prejudged as an INTP, and declare your interest in MBTI by posting that information. But you have an aversion to being prejudged as an Aquarius?

Back in the original thread when Alcyone equated an interest in Astrology and MBTI, I applauded that symmetry. It certainly comes closest to describing my interest in it, i.e.
For Entertainment Purposes. For interest. For that enjoyable Hey! That sounds like me! feeling... just like the study of personality types. As a part of the search for who we are, as part of the search for a way to understand others. Exploration. That's all it is. Another avenue of exploration.
​
Anyone who regularly spends time on this forum must surely take MBTI seriously. I see people making assumptions about other people's types, prejudging people as a result of their known (or assumed) types, making assumptions about how other people are likely to respond to situations and live their lives as a result of their MBTI type (actions you criticized in your 3rd paragraph when they related to astrology) on a daily basis here! Yet those with in interest in both can hold both MBTI and Astrology (and even their religions) in their mind with no conflict. What do you make of that?

What I don't understand is the anxiety inherent in disproving other people's interests or beliefs so passionately. Even to go so far as to declare that people who pursue an interest in things like astrology (not sure what else you're including as "this stuff") are committing "ethical wrongs".

To repeat myself, I enjoy a moderate interest in astrology, and have done so for 32 years. It's never had any bearing on my ethics, ability to interact with others, build relationships, played a major role in my life decisions, etc.

So what's the big deal with those who feel so passionately about discrediting astrology?

Why is it "our job" (as you state in your final paragraph) to find out which ones are and aren't true? I don't know if you've done it already, but will you be moving on from here to prove right or wrong for every other belief/religion/interest held by others that you yourself don't hold, once you've finished with astrology?

I think those who feel free to openly mock others for their beliefs (as several have done here) are more likely to draw judgment onto themselves than causing others to "see the light". Perhaps you should take the time to examine what lies within your own need to judge and discredit the feelings/interests/beliefs of others rather than using that time to mock them.
 
KoS, Black Swan and Zen, I couldn't have said it any better. My frustration clouded my words, but I feel entirely the same way. Duty, we're not personally attacking you - know that. But the way you aim your words in a declaration of truth is uncomfortably painful. "My way or no way" is what it sounds like, to me. And I can't talk fairly with someone who won't consider more than one possibility.
 
Warning: Rilly Big Post

Duty said:
When truth is being so disrespected, I care.
Click to expand...

I think this statement is at the heart of this entire debate.

Therefore, this debate can never be concluded satisfactorily for all involved, because there is not nor will there ever be one universal truth. Period. The debate has been going on since the dawn of time, and will continue until the end of time.


  • Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~ Albert Einstein
  • [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]There is no truth. There is only perception. ~Gustave Flaubert[/FONT]
  • [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Truth breeds hatred. ~Bias of Priene, Maxims[/FONT]
  • [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please - you can never have both. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson[/FONT]
  • [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]It will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth. ~Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy[/FONT]
  • [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]When I tell any truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do. ~William Blake[/FONT]
  • [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Truth only reveals itself when one gives up all preconceived ideas. ~Shoseki[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]From the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Truth

First published Tue Jun 13, 2006

Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth.

It would be impossible to survey all there is to say about truth in any coherent way. Instead, this essay will concentrate on the main themes in the study of truth in the contemporary philosophical literature. It will attempt to survey the key problems and theories of current interest, and show how they relate to one-another. A number of other entries investigate many of these topics in greater depth. Generally, discussion of the principal arguments is left to them. The goal of this essay is only to provide an overview of the current theories.

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions.

Note: A ginormous fortress of text follows here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
Click to expand...
 
I just find discussing things that don't make sense to me enjoyable, I would like them to make sense but have yet to be shown any logical links between time of birth and personality. The difference between mbti is it at least has some (if at times tenuous) links to relevent information about the person. There are likely to be similarities between people who answer a test in a similar way, that step is logical but to find similarities between people born around the same time, I can't see any logical links, I would love someone to point them out to me though (I can't possibly research every seemingly baseless theory out there, so I have to question the believers of the theory as I come across them, why they hold those beliefs, how else am I going to understand it?). I'm also interested in faith and how people can hold onto things so strongly when they seem to have nothing concrete to them. It makes me wonder how important delusions are and how they help us find order in a disorderly world.
Delusion: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence
Click to expand...
I'd say most of us are guilty of this at times, perhaps it's inherent in humans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top