[helene_t]

mikeh, on Nov 28 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

They [the zodiac signs] do not, I understand, lie in the same relative places in the sky as they did when first identified... and of course the patterns we see are no longer exactly the patterns than our ancestors saw, because the stars all move relative not just to the earth, but also to each other.

Their movement relative to each other is negligible.

It is true that due to precision of the Earth's rotation axis, the zodiac signs have moved some thirty days relative to their location 3000 years ago which are still used by astrologers. But this is besides the point IMHO since the zodiac calendar is just a division of the year into twelve equally long months, for practical purposes. One might have called those months M1,M2...M12 but someone apparently got the idea of naming them after star formations which are close to the Sun's position during the respective months. In fact the ecliptica crosses thirteen star formations (the twelwe zodiac signs plus Cygna), although this is arbitrary since one could obviously have chosen to divide the sky using other star formations. They vary in span from some ten days to some 50 days.

So if someone says he/she is born in the virgo sign, it just means "late summer" (or "late winter" on the southern hemisphere). It wasn't really related to stars in the first place (apart for a naming convention), so it's no big deal that it's even less related to the stars making up the virgo sign today. (Besides, at the Northern latitude I suppose one could be born under e.g. Ursa Major rather than those tropical signs. But again, it doens't matter, it's just a naming convention and always was).

[NickRW]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 28 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

For the curious.....this site provides you with a decent natal chart for your edification and enjoyment.....free of charge!

http://alabe.com/freechart/


mine was more accurate than I care to admit...

Mine had about as much to do with me as the results of the political compass thing - not a lot.

Nick

[matmat]

I would just say one of the following:

1. I don't remember when my birthday is.
2. what's my sign? "Road Work Ahead"
3. I'm a cerberus.

[Lobowolf]

Regarding "provability," I think a mass study using any of the major personality profiles correlated against specific zodiac signs, or "water/fire/earth/air" signs and revealing no significant variation would be easy enough. There might not be "proof," but there's got to be a lot of "supportability."

[Al_U_Card]

Seems to me that a lot of heads of state (and/or their spouses) have been fans...which may just prove the converse.

[barmar]

mikeh, on Nov 28 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

For those who think that describing astrology as nonsense is somehow different from describing religion as nonsense... consider the origins of astrology... a belief in our lives being influenced by the stars stems from now-obsolete religious beliefs. IOW, it is a form of religion.

And so was Greek mythology, but no one believes in it seriously now. To modern society it's just fairy tales, good source material for popular entertainment, like the Hercules and Xena TV shows.

So while there was a time when the Court Astrologer was as important a political figure as the Secretary of Treasury is now, that time has long passed. Astrology is no longer a mainstream religion, and the people who believe in it are on their own. Astrologers don't get tax-exempt status like churches do.

[gwnn]

Just don't say anything. If they ask your opinion directly, you have to tell them of course that you think it's unscientific and generally false.

[mikeh]

barmar, on Nov 29 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

So while there was a time when the Court Astrologer was as important a political figure as the Secretary of Treasury is now, that time has long passed.  Astrology is no longer a mainstream religion, and the people who believe in it are on their own.  Astrologers don't get tax-exempt status like churches do.

Ronald Reagan reportedly used an astrologer, as did Hitler.. so it's not perhaps as outdated as it should be

[NickRW]

barmar, on Nov 29 2008, 08:39 AM, said:

So while there was a time when the Court Astrologer was as important a political figure as the Secretary of Treasury is now, that time has long passed.

I don't know. I think sometimes, given the ups and downs of modern economies, that perhaps the post of Secretary of the Treasury should binned along with Court Astrologer.

[onoway]

One of our early Prime Ministers. William Lyon McKenzie King was a highly successful politician ( PM from 1921-1930 & 1935-1948). U of Toronto and Harvard grad, he was responsible for some evolutionary policies (old age pensions, appointing the first woman senator) as well as a some disgraceful ones(internment and confiscation of property of Japanese Canadians in WW2). Wikipedia says:

Privately, he was highly eccentric with his preference for communing with spirits, including those of Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, his dead mother, and several of his Irish Terrier dogs, all named Pat. He also claimed to commune with the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American president and close friend.[32] He sought personal reassurance from the spirit world, rather than seeking political advice. Indeed, after his death, one of his mediums said that she had not realized that he was a politician. King asked whether his party would win the 1935 election, one of the few times politics came up during his seances. His occult interests were not widely known during his years in office, and only became publicized later, and have seen in his occult activities a penchant for forging unities from antitheses, thus having latent political import. In 1953 Time Magazine stated that he owned – and used – both a Ouija board and a crystal ball. In the 1970s biographers used the extensive diaries he kept during most of his life to delve deeper into his occult activities. One person he held seances with was Canadian Artist Homer Watson.

[Codo]

I won't care much if my Prime minister will ask an astrologer and follow his advice.

We all know that you can read "anything" into an horoscope. So what will the astrologer do when he has to decide what the state should do in the future?

He will use his knowledge and his feelings to get the Prime Minster into the direction he wants him to take. Or he will know what the PRime Minister wants and deliver the horoscope which makes him happy.

Okay, so you don't like when there are people who look into the future and try to influence our leaders in this ways?

Fair point, but in this case we should forbid all these "experts" and lobbyists who influence our political leaders today. After all, they do exactly the same: Influence the leaders in their way, to reach their own goals or simply agreeing with the leaders because they will lose their job if they don't.

Where is the difference?

Or do you habe any clues in history that the words of astrologers, witches or whatever had lead to more wars, harm, lost money etc then the words of our actual "experts"? It had needed a lot of witchcraft to burn these hundreds of billions of $ the bankers lost. And it needed a really hard look into the stars to find a reason to invade Iran.

[helene_t]

Roland, this is silly. Experts are experts or at least supposed to be. Astrologers are crooks.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Nov 30 2008, 11:43 PM, said:

Roland, this is silly. Experts are experts or at least supposed to be. Astrologers are crooks.

Do you think that the experts are able to see into the future?

Do you think that the governement has experts as advisors who are willing to serve the state and make their remarks to the best benefit of the state?

If you have those experts, I do agree.

However, we have experts in Germany who work different. And I doubt that this is just a german problem.

I can give you thousands of examples where the experts erred or gave advice due to their own wishes and not due to what is good for the state.

One problem is, that the governement is not able to get the best and most independent advisors. You can get the best or independent, but not both.

If they are good, they have great jobs in the industry and even if they work for the governement, they will do nothing what can hurt their industry.

A second problem is that you are simply not able to look into the future. In our global world, it is simply impossible to see what a single change will do.

So I think the idea is not so silly as it sounds. The advisor and lobbist system we have is not a good one, it is (nearly) as bad as witchcraft or astrology.

[blackshoe]

"What is good for the state." Interesting phrase, that.

I suggest that "what is good for the state" and "what is good for the individuals who live in the state" are not necessarily the same thing.

[barmar]

mikeh, on Nov 29 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 29 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

So while there was a time when the Court Astrologer was as important a political figure as the Secretary of Treasury is now, that time has long passed.  Astrology is no longer a mainstream religion, and the people who believe in it are on their own.  Astrologers don't get tax-exempt status like churches do.

Ronald Reagan reportedly used an astrologer, as did Hitler.. so it's not perhaps as outdated as it should be

I thought it was Nancy Reagan who had the astrologer. But either way, were they on the government payroll? Were they a member of the cabinet?

IIRC, Reagan's astrologer was the frequent butt of jokes. It wasn't a respected position, like the Court Astrologers of yore.

I don't understand why you're arguing this point. Is astrology afforded 1st Amendment protection, like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even Scientology? Have you noticed that newspapers put the horoscopes on the same page as the comic strips? They've been required for years to disclaim that these are purely for entertainment purposes, not "news".

[mike777]

barmar, on Nov 30 2008, 11:46 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 29 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 29 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

So while there was a time when the Court Astrologer was as important a political figure as the Secretary of Treasury is now, that time has long passed.  Astrology is no longer a mainstream religion, and the people who believe in it are on their own.  Astrologers don't get tax-exempt status like churches do.

Ronald Reagan reportedly used an astrologer, as did Hitler.. so it's not perhaps as outdated as it should be

I thought it was Nancy Reagan who had the astrologer. But either way, were they on the government payroll? Were they a member of the cabinet?

IIRC, Reagan's astrologer was the frequent butt of jokes. It wasn't a respected position, like the Court Astrologers of yore.

I don't understand why you're arguing this point. Is astrology afforded 1st Amendment protection, like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even Scientology? Have you noticed that newspapers put the horoscopes on the same page as the comic strips? They've been required for years to disclaim that these are purely for entertainment purposes, not "news".

"She championed recreational drug prevention causes by founding the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, which was considered her major initiative as First Lady. Always protective of her husband, more controversy ensued when it was revealed in 1988 that she had consulted an astrologer to assist in planning the president's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt on her husband."

[Gerben42]

Quote

Astrologers are crooks.

I don't think so. They are "alternative psychiatrists". Although proven nonsense, it's a service that anyone can evaluate for themselves. Getting reassured that your life will improve is a real service. Moral support can help you, even if it isn't based on anything.

No one knows the future, although up to a point you can make some predictions. Chaos theory tells you the time scale for different predictions. For weather, it's about 1 week. For the stock market, it's probably much less.

Real crooks are those who offer you a service that make you worse off, for example people offering you a scheme to pick better lottery numbers. Or people who lure you into a contract you never wanted in the first place, and don't let you out of it.

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Dec 1 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

Quote

Astrologers are crooks.

I don't think so. They are "alternative psychiatrists".

OK, it may be unfair to call the ones giving personal advice "crooks". But those who claim to be qualified as presidential advisers are crooks IMHO.

[y66]

My friend Marcelo is into astrology. If he were at a dinner party with bridge players, he would probably listen politely and interestedly, even though he doesn't know anything about bridge,and he would probably be curious about why people play this game.

Did someone really say that astrologers are crooks and that it "may" be unfair to call all astrologers crooks? Not a virgo surely!

[Al_U_Card]

Sciences are factual and rational.

Arts are interpretive and speculative.

Astrology is a mantic art and any who profess it to be a science are merely deluded or confused.