Validity of Astrology *split from INFJs and western astrology*

[Quinlan]

Interesting Zen, although I'm wary of taking a description and finding ways that it applies to myself, like what happened with MBTI I would read an INFJ profile and would try and understand it in a way so that it would fit me. While I do relate to some stuff in that description I also relate to some of Duty's aquarius description.

Random thought: Say that the 12 signs are spread evenly over the range of human personality and these personalities are born evenly across the year, then out of all the people born under one sign around 8% will completely relate to that description perfectly. There's a good starting point for a support base right there. :thumb:

 

[Black Swan]

Random thought: Say that the 12 signs are spread evenly over the range of human personality and these personalities are born evenly across the year, then out of all the people born under one sign around 8% will completely relate to that description perfectly. There's a good starting point for a support base right there. :thumb:

Actually, it's not that simple... Aside from the "houses" aspect, each person has 2 other major signs that can be equally "influential" besides the sun sign (moon and ascendant). Then you'd have to ensure that each person had their correct day of birth down to the time. That information could be difficult to gather when considering 8% of the population.

(Sorry, not trying to be disagreeable).

 

[IndigoSensor]

(K, although I'll admit, it can be seriously accurate, in my subjective view.)

My friend does a lot of Tarrot, yes, unrelated, but she seems more confused than just about anyone. I give her advice and she pauses to think how it can be interwoven into her tarrot readings. Can't help but think perhaps we do that to a degree with astrology.

Just a thought... :noidea:

I read tarot cards as well. Sounds to me like she has let it take control of her too much. Tarot is just like taking a picture of the possible future, it isn't meant to control your every move, just give you guidence and clarity.

Tarot does call on some pretty strong energy, and can easily draw negative energy to it. If that is the case, it can effect you in a very bad way.

Actually, it's not that simple... Aside from the "houses" aspect, each person has 2 other major signs that can be equally "influential" besides the sun sign (moon and ascendant). Then you'd have to ensure that each person had their correct day of birth down to the time. That information could be difficult to gather when considering 8% of the population.

(Sorry, not trying to be disagreeable).

Actually, even every seperate degree within a sign and or house has another meaning to it (I am no ware near good enough to read into that much detail). Astrology has so so so much too it. Orb (the deviation within an aspect limit) also has an effect on the strength and meaning of the aspect. So really, if you apply all this meaning, it isn't as generalized as the sun signs are.

 

[Black Swan]

Actually, even every seperate degree within a sign and or house has another meaning to it (I am no ware near good enough to read into that much detail). Astrology has so so so much too it. Orb (the deviation within an aspect limit) also has an effect on the strength and meaning of the aspect. So really, if you apply all this meaning, it isn't as generalized as the sun signs are.

True, but I was trying to keep it as simplistic as possible, for obvious reasons.

 

[Quinlan]

Actually, it's not that simple... Aside from the "houses" aspect, each person has 2 other major signs that can be equally "influential" besides the sun sign (moon and ascendant). Then you'd have to ensure that each person had their correct day of birth down to the time. That information could be difficult to gather when considering 8% of the population.

(Sorry, not trying to be disagreeable).

So we've gone from 8 to around 30% (as you now have a choice of three sun signs that you could relate to and explain your sign that way) so say you're born in Pisces but are more like one of the other "influential" signs, then an astrologer can explain away the things that you don't relate to in pisces. The more of these complexities you add, like the things Indy has mentioned the more "escape routes" you have to explain away things that don't fit. So this brings us up to the 30% of Americans that believe in astology according to wikipedia.

I'll say it again, humans are very good at seeing/finding/imagining patterns where no such order exists.

 

[ZenCat]

I'll say it again, humans are very good at seeing/finding/imagining patterns where no such order exists.

Or... denying them

 

[Quinlan]

I don't think so, everyone loves a pattern.

 

[Duty]

First (possibly the most important part):

I love how all the INFJs here like to question my motivations (almost to the point of ad Hominem), yet my motivations are misunderstood greatly (possibly even by myself until I thought about it). My last post was a (bad) attempt to appeal more to the INFJ mindset, which I admit I'm having a hard time doing. I'm dealing with trying to converse with many of you, and I don't know all your intrinsic values to appeal to. I tried to appeal to ethics, I tried to appeal to "unjust negative consequences." What I meant by that is if someone acts from a belief they have researched to be true, and does so with good intentions, yet negative consequences result, then this person can not be blamed for what happened, and his actions were just. If a person acts from a belief they have never researched, even though they are aware it is subject to suspicion, and that belief is false; even if they act from this belief with good intentions, then they are very subject to blame for not researching their belief, and their actions are wholly unjust.

I have learned a lesson through this, and that lesson is to stick to the truth. A good friend, although meaning well, tried to convince me to attempt a different sort of appeal; one that is more "persuasive." I've since reexamined my normal method (which is just to present factual arguments and logic) with this method and I find my normal one to be the superior. Why? Because although I so highly value truth, convincing a person of a truth with anything other then logical methods makes me partially responsible for the false and/or bad premises this person will have to adopt in order to believe in this truth. Pascal's Wager is a perfect example: it's a good attempt at persuasion, but prudence is a bad premise for the belief in God. If people are to accept a belief, they should do so for the right reasons. Those reasons are that: 1. Their justification for having this belief is sound and 2. This belief is true (or at least highly likely to be true). I do realize that truth and justification are very debated terms in philosophy, but most beliefs can be determined to be justified or true in at least a common sense manner. Pascal's Wager is still a great example of this, as it is so common-sensical to say that prudence is a bad reason to believe in God that even the bible itself warns against this, saying you must believe and love God with all your heart, or else you are false in your belief. Pascal's Wager fails the first criteria: it is improper justification to hold the existence of God to be true.

My methods throughout this thread have been suspicious, and although mixed with many good arguments, they weren't made with the usual purity I pride myself on. So, I apologize for trying to appeal to you all in a different way that made you question my motives. My actual motivation is below:

Truth itself is an intrinsic value, not an extrinsic one derived from consequences. We have a responsibility to truth, we have a responsibility to make reasonable searches into truth. Even if one holds a false belief and it has little effect/danger, I still have to say it's critical to examine that belief. Although the limits of our human mind, time, and having other worthy endeavors restricts us to never finding all the truths to be found in a lifetime, and the limits of human perception and ability to reason still make it possible to be wrong, truth is still an intrinsic value that should be sought after.

I have to ask what intrinsic values you all hold, because truth, duty (in the Kantian sense of the word), metta (Buddhist word for loving-kindness, in Greek it is known as agape (pronounced uh-gop-ay)...it's the concept of love of people because they're people...to respecting the rights, freedoms, preferences, etc of other people...Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative describes very well a proper way of exercising metta and treating people ethically), and such concepts are ones that I hold to be intrinsic. In fact I could argue that all extrinsic values come back to one or more of these concepts, as they are the building blocks of "the good life" (meaning, living a moral life, not necessarily a rich one).


Second:

"As of 2002, the Sun appears in the constellation Capricornus from January 19 to February 15."

So I was born under Capricorn.


Third:

Those who believe truth to be subjective are in great error. If truth is subjective, then the proposition that "truth is subjective" is itself subjective. No, logically there MUST be an objective truth to be found at least somewhere. The only thing subjective is peoples' ability to adopt truth. Just because people adopt differing beliefs doesn't mean that truth itself is subjective, it just means that at least one person is in error. It's completely illogical to suggest that person 1 holds a belief called "A," while person 2 holds a belief of "not A," and they're both right because truth is "subjective" or "the truth value of a proposition is dependent on the subject believing the proposition." No, either person 1 or person 2 is wrong in this case. It just logically can't be that the world is both A and not A at the same time.


Fourth (very important also, as it restarts the debate to a more pleasant and productive point):

In light of what I had to say in my first point in this thread (that it is not enough for me to convince people of a truth, but only to convince people to believe something with the proper reasons) I must say that astrology's most basic premises, from the knowledge I possess, fail the first criteria (the criteria for properly holding a belief being that the belief is justified and it is true). The premises of astrology, from my knowledge, lack proper justification as they are not rooted in some truth about reality, nor are they rooted in logical necessity.

However, I realize my knowledge of the world to be limited, and possible to err. I may lack a knowledge that practitioners of astrology have. I realize that I may be in error and the premises of astrology may actually be justified. However, I currently do not have information to properly contend they are justified, and instead only have information to contend that they are indeed not justified. I now rely on (and ask) those that call themselves practitioners of astrology to present information that shows how the premises of astrology actually are justified; namely the premise that "The time of the year of one's birth has an effect, profound enough to be relevant, on their personality and preferences."

 

[ZenCat]

That was a very well thought-out post, Duty. And made much more sense to me than many of your earlier posts in this thread.

I love how all the INFJs here like to question my motivations (almost to the point of ad Hominem)

I apologize if I came off as ad Homenem. I really wasn't arguing against you as a person, just arguing against the principle of mocking or challenging anyone's right to believe something to be true, or making them feel bad or wrong for believing it, especially something like astrology which I feel - at least among those of us present - is not being used for any ill purpose at all and doing no harm.

I've no doubt there are charlatans out there, preying on the naive, providing (ridiculously expensive) astrological "solutions" to life's troubles; I've certainly seen enough of those types in the "new age" community. But I don't see any of them here, and that type doesn't describe the average student of astrology. But yes, that would be using astrology in a bad way.

Pretty funny that I got your sign wrong though; that was careless on my part. My future son-in-law is a practical ESTJ Capricorn, though as soon as he realized how his outspoken derision on most things mystical hurt my daughter (and by extension, me) he embraced an "Agree to Disagree" stance and now treats her interests with fond indulgence.

I don't feel there is necessarily a danger in subjective truth, we see it in action on this forum every day (and in our lives).

"I'm a loser" ---> "No you're not, you're depressed."
"I'm not smart." ----> "Yes you are, you're very intelligent."
"Everyone is a racist" ----> "No, I'm not a racist."
"Obama is the antichrist." ----> "Obama is our hope for righting past wrongs."

It isn't always the shower monster :becky:

At any rate, I think I've said all I need to, perhaps more, and would just like to shake hands all around and move on

 

[Duty]

Pretty funny that I got your sign wrong though; that was careless on my part.

Well, according to astrology's dates, Aquarius is from January 19th to February 20th. However, the sun appears in the constellation Capricorn on January 22nd in reality. The difference is due to the Precession of the Equinox, as astrology's signs were made when the sun actually did appear in the constellation Aquarius from Jan 19 to Feb 20. However, the Earth wobbles over 1000s of years, and so now the sun appears in different spots on different dates.

I don't feel there is necessarily a danger in subjective truth, we see it in action on this forum every day (and in our lives).

"I'm a loser" ---> "No you're not, you're depressed."
"I'm not smart." ----> "Yes you are, you're very intelligent."
"Everyone is a racist" ----> "No, I'm not a racist."
"Obama is the antichrist." ----> "Obama is our hope for righting past wrongs."

It isn't always the shower monster :becky:

See, the claims astrology makes are not subjective though. Subjective statements are ones of preference, and not ones that describe the world. Objective statements are ones that describe the world, and not ones of preference. "I like astrology" is subjective. "Astrology makes accurate predictions about peoples' personalities" is objective.

This is why I said that astrology is at best placed in a similar field as art, and probably more fitting is to categorize it as an activity one could do for fun but is not to be taken seriously. It is certainly not a science. Of course, I admit that I got a bit hasty and crusader and was in error to assume that all practitioners of astrology view it as a science that attempts to describe reality. However, knowing that the activities of the White House under the Reagan administration were planned according to a San Franciscan astrologer's predictions makes me squeamish here, as that seems to suggest the former president took astrology to be serious, and not just as some fun activity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology#Research

Some of the wiki references given here have quite a bit to say on astrology. Overall, it seems the scientific/historic research to determine the validity of astrology has been almost completely in the negative (although admittedly I'd suspect most scientific and historic researchers to have a bias against astrology...their methods used to determine their conclusions should be of great relevance and suspect).

I've glanced over some of the links provided and they all seem to agree that astrological predictions are no more accurate then what would happen with random chance. I find the quote, in the actual wiki article, "Skeptics of astrology also suggest that the perceived accuracy of astrological interpretations and descriptions of one's personality can be accounted for by the fact that people tend to exaggerate positive 'hits' and overlook whatever does not fit, especially when vague language is used" to be interesting.

At any rate, I think I've said all I need to, perhaps more, and would just like to shake hands all around and move on

Well, no one is forcing anyone to respond, but I've requested to start this in a new, and more pure way of going about it.

[SIZE=Default]I realize my knowledge of the world to be limited, and possible to err. I may lack a knowledge that practitioners of astrology have. I realize that I may be in error and the premises of astrology may actually be justified. However, I currently do not have information to properly contend they are justified, and instead only have information to contend that they are indeed not justified. I now rely on (and ask) those that call themselves practitioners of astrology to present information that shows how the premises of astrology actually are justified[/size]

So, I ask for any information the practitioners of astrology may have to support their claims. I rely on those people to present information I may lack, as all the information I have in my limited point of view suggests astrology's beliefs are unjustified.

 

[HolySmoke]

It just logically can't be that the world is both A and not A at the same time.

This one line seems to have intrinsic value on answering a fundamental question that could contain seeds of a greater truth that is being lost here. What if the world can contain both the truth of A and not A? Aren't we already seeing this in science? Matter and antimatter? Aren't we already seeing this in psychology with the consciousness, unconsciousness. I am sure if we thought about it, the list would go on and on. Perhaps able minds from various diciplines could contribute...

In terms of debate in general, the confusion of tongues from Babylon will go on and on as long as people have opinions. People arguing the same point, different perspectives, different vantage points...The question of why we do that, to me, is as important as seeking out the truth in itself. I think people need structure and understanding in their lives. Validity. Astrology is a form of validity to some and if it validates what they want to hear, than all the better. If it doesn't, like you said, they can forget or reject it. People have very complicated abilites to process information. Astrology helps simplify this process.

Yes, disturbing bit on Reagan White House...

 

[Duty]

This one line seems to have intrinsic value on answering a fundamental question that could contain seeds of a greater truth that is being lost here. What if the world can contain both the truth of A and not A? Aren't we already seeing this in science? Matter and antimatter? Aren't we already seeing this in psychology with the consciousness, unconsciousness.

You're not understanding what A and not A really mean. "Matter" is just a word, it isn't a proposition. The same is with "Antimatter." Saying "this object is made completely of matter, but is at the same time not made of any matter at all," is saying "A and not A." Saying "this object is made of matter and of antimatter" is not an impossible statement (as an antimatter storage unit would theoretically be composed of a housing and magnetic generators, which are made of matter, which produce a magnetic field to suspend the antimatter away from the matter).

The same is with conscious and subconscious...they're not direct opposites, nor are they exclusive to each other. An action can be psychologically motivated by both conscious and subconscious functions, but it can't be motivated by a conscious motivation and at the same time not be motivated by any conscious motivation...that doesn't make sense.

So you're talking a whole different thing then logical contradiction. Matter and antimatter are not logical contradictions, they're just contrasting concepts. I maintain that there is no proposition that can have logical contradiction...such as "It is true that both A and not A are true"...and itself be a true statement. This is just impossible.

In terms of debate in general, the confusion of tongues from Babylon will go on and on as long as people have opinions. People arguing the same point, different perspectives, different vantage points...The question of why we do that, to me, is as important as seeking out the truth in itself. I think people need structure and understanding in their lives. Validity. Astrology is a form of validity to some and if it validates what they want to hear, than all the better. If it doesn't, like you said, they can forget or reject it. People have very complicated abilites to process information. Astrology helps simplify this process.

Science and philosophy have produced some remarkable progress to achieving a workable consensus. The only thing is that people have to understand and accept the basic principles involved. Just as a matter of opinion, and I don't mean to offend, but science and "faith" are often at odds because of this. Faith sees science as a threat toward its basic tenets, and science sees faith as old mysticism that retards progress toward rational consensus.

For example, one of the biggest confusers is vagueness, and once both parties realize things like this it becomes much easier to reach a consensus that is valid. Saying "astrology is false" really doesn't make any sense, as "astrology" is a vague term. Different astrologers hold different beliefs and so with that in mind, one can not argue the validity of astrology with a preconception of its beliefs in mind with a person that claims to be an astrologer yet doesn't hold many of those beliefs. The solution to this is to argue against a specific proposition that the second person holds, which may be something like "The time of year you are born has a significant impact and determines much of your personality" (this proposition seems to be a basic tenet that no person holding astrology as true could deny).

This is why science and philosophy are so great. I, through study and understanding of philosophy, have come to learn how to think with reason and correctness. Now, I can't say I'm perfect about it, but I can review and understand my mistakes when those mistakes are pointed out (it's why science generally requires peer review), and participate in a field that is making great progress toward consensus and understanding of the universe in which we live.

 

[alcyone]

Second:

"As of 2002, the Sun appears in the constellation Capricornus from January 19 to February 15."

So I was born under Capricorn.

So you were born in 2002? WOW! You are a very skilled, eloquent, and verbose seven year old!

Alright, bad attempt at humor considering the tenor that has developed in this discussion.....

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled debates



p.s...The only absolute truth I am 100% positively sure of is that at some day in the future...We will all die.

Okay, so that came out kinda of morbid, but I am hoping to find something we can all agree on. (well most of us anyway cause I know I am not the only smart alec here and *someone* will make another snarky comment LOL)

 

[Duty]

p.s...The only absolute truth I am 100% positively sure of is that at some day in the future...We will all die.

1+1=2?

 

[arbygil]

Hee. I once had a math professor prove to me that 1+1 did not equal 2. It was a huge proof and I didn't understand it. But he did it.

 

[alcyone]

1+1=2?

SEE! Snarky comments already!



Well, applying that formula to the human mating process we come up with a total that sometimes can equal 3....or 4....and sometimes even 5 or 6! Of course the answer can also be multiplied by previous encounters that resulted in an unexpected increase in the final total. Where by, when 1+1=3 then another 1+1=3 you'd have 4 as the sum total of the 1+1 ing....

Which draws the conclusion, that anything applied by, to or for humans has the possibility of an uncertain outcome.

Okay...so I'm just being goofy...
Geez people...Lighten up a bit and laugh!
WOOT!

 

[Duty]

Hee. I once had a math professor prove to me that 1+1 did not equal 2. It was a huge proof and I didn't understand it. But he did it.

I could provide a proof in formal logic that proves it true...not hard.

 

[Duty]

Well, applying that formula to the human mating process we come up with a total that sometimes can equal 3....or 4....and sometimes even 5 or 6! Of course the answer can also be multiplied by previous encounters that resulted in an unexpected increase in the final total. Where by, when 1+1=3 then another 1+1=3 you'd have 4 as the sum total of the 1+1 ing....

Wouldn't 3 people in the mating process be 1+1+ (new)1=3?

 

[alcyone]

No, cause it's the 1+1 that results in the three coming later.

The instigating 1+1 is over before the final result comes in that it became 3.


Three people in the mating process has it's own different and completely more complex set of variables that most people don't even want to contemplate. Although the 'math' portion of the addition was probably very enjoyable.

 

[KingOfSpades]

See, the claims astrology makes are not subjective though. Subjective statements are ones of preference, and not ones that describe the world. Objective statements are ones that describe the world, and not ones of preference. "I like astrology" is subjective. "Astrology makes accurate predictions about peoples' personalities" is objective.

Duty I appreciate your new post and I hope I didn't come across as ad hominem-ish when I responded earlier. I do see where you're coming from.

I think the first quarrel I have with your arguments is your apparent distinction between "objective" reality and "subjective" reality. To me, this is more of a spectrum and not a logical "or". Indeed, Eastern philosophers really think that Western philosophers' studies on this point are little more than a mind-game that detracts all of us from understanding what's really REAL.

I don't think it's possible to differentiate the observer from the observed. They are conjoined twins, forever united, and oftentimes quibbling with each other.

One of the reasons I like physics so much is because in physics you begin to see the breakdown of logic and the fact that so much of what we call existence lies in a gray area. Newton had some pretty solid laws that seemed reasonable enough; then along came Einstein, and what do you know! Newton's laws don't work at the quantum level, and new theories were needed.

And Einstein's theories themselves dont' work together. You have the general theory of relativity an the special theory of relativity, and they are distinct theories that can't be meshed (as far as I know, I studied this a long long time ago so Im' operating from memory here). Einstein spent most of his life seeking a unified field theory and failed.

From your posts, it seems apparent that you are obviously a very talented logician. Logic, as far as I know, seeks categories. Something is, or it isn't. However, this in my opinion, is only one approach towards looking at life, at reality, at Truth. Consider the Gestalt notion that the whole is different than the sum of its parts. Logic studies the parts, but can't describe the whole.

When it comes to things like astrology, I think the value that comes from studying astrology involves a creative element (which comes from interpreting the data of a star chart for example). But that creative process is, in itself, seeking out truth. I know to a logician the idea that something could be true based on the exercise of something as messy and subjective as creativity is a repulsive thought, because it avoids being classified. But, in my opinion, this thought excercise is as valuable as logic in seeking out what is REAL and what is not real as well. It's just a different pathway that those with strong intuition can use to describe their realities and their existences. It is valuable to them, and cannot really be described. But (as someone with a pretty good intuition) I can tell you that the truest things I know in my life are things I have felt and not things I have reasoned.

One of the real insights from modern physics is the idea of relativity. That is, our point of view really influences the world around us. Time is just another axis of our dimensional reality. It can be slow, or it can be fast. Physics says all of this, but this is not really logical. I truly believe there is a creative element of physics that has yet to be fully explored, and I think one of the reasons Einstein failed to find his grand theory is because he became too boxed in with his previous discoveries.

So, I would challenge you to think about whether or not there are alternative approaches to Truth that may not be logical. Life defies logic at times. There is an attraction to logic (and Mathematics, a cousin of logic) because they seem universal. As you pointed out, 1+1 always has to equal 2. That's just the way it is. And indeed, we would be shoddy engineers if we didn't respect math, and shoddy inventors if we disregarded logic. But reality encompasses much more than the logical. THat is my belief, at least.

Cheers!

KOS