zodiac signs is this true????

[TheCafeTerrace]

Yay! Something to get my teeth into. I hope you realise what you've just unleashed in me MaidenMinx...

Truth is never absolute. Facts are frequently changing. Science is delving into new ground and making discoveries. Not one scientist yet that dismisses astrology has ever been willing to actually look into it from an experiential angle. Experiment all you want, some things have to be experienced.

Absolute vs relative truth is a huge philosophical argument, and you're statement "truth is never absolute" is steeped in irony if you think about it. This being said, merely stating "truth isn't absolute, facts are changing, etc" is not any kind of justification for saying that arbitrary planetary positions at the moment of your birth somehow affects your personality any more than you can say the winning lottery numbers on the day of our birth determine what kind of person you become.

Some of this I will agree with. There are a LOT of charlatans out there preying on peoples beliefs. Then there is whole other group of people who believe what they believe and do what they do from experiencing something that cannot be explained. Some people call it being open minded, I don't like that phrase because a lot of so called open minded people are extremely narrow minded too, I call it learning from experience. .

Don't mistake my rejection of bulshit as close-mindedness - if you can show me one single astrologer in the history of the world that can prove under reasonable experimental conditions that the movements of planets on the day one's birth have any bearing on the day-to-day existence of human beings, I will change my mind. I will throw all the money and effort I have at researching this incredible phenomenon, most of all I would try to understand how this works, because it would be the most revolutionary and important discovery in the history of mankind.

You seem to have opened your mind too much MaidenMinx, it's caused your brain to fall out.

At the same time I have to pick on one bit there, you pick on people for having to consult some "charlatan" to be confident to make decisions, yet here you are on a forum asking advice from a bunch of people you don't know and have no idea what their 'expertise' are. Personally I see no difference. People seek comfort where they will.

People come here looking for a different human perspective, and that's what they get. People who seek advice from astrologers (or any other self-deluded charlatan for that matter) want to know in what ways the planets will affect them, but what they get is some arbitrary analysis of their situation derived from made-up theories involving tea-leaves/star signs/meridian lines/smoke patterns etc. Whether or not they get comfort from it is neither here nor there really, it's still bollocks.

Though I do not agree with the practice of making money for the insight often offered. That isn't right and only the most conceited try and do that.

We have one point where we agree then.

Intellectual cowardice? Really? Personally I think intellectual cowardice is turning your nose up at something you have no experience with. Jesus man, 200 years ago Doctors didn't wash their hands because they didn't believe in germs. Placing all your bets on one horse is intellectual cowardice, and to tell someone else their way of thinking is "bullshittery" is nothing more than arrogance.

I have no experience with the church of scientology, the flying spaghetti monster, the celestial teapot. I turn my nose up at them because they cannot prove that there is any worth to the theory. But experience is different to understanding - my understanding of astrology is far greater than yours. I know exactly how it 'works', all the charts and arbitrary attributes given to celestial signs are just smoke and mirrors. Whereas you have been sucked into believing it's some kind wizardry, objective people can see it for what it is - Barnam statements, confirmation bias, cold reading, the rainbow ruse, etc (I'm sure there are more, I just want you to google these for starters.)

Oh, and as for doctors, germ theory was proved true through scientific experimentation and observation. Astrology has not.

[MaidenMinx]

Congratulations cafe terrace, you are the first to present your argument in a way that firstly has me stumped on how to retaliate, and also leaves me with no desire to retaliate.
Maybe I will even end up putting astrology in the entertainment department, like Indi suggests.

Having said that, may I at least speak of the good it has done for me. I had my chart done when I was young, I've been surrounded by astrology books all my life. I always related to what I read about me and what I read about others. I was also taught that astrology isn't there to tell you how you are and what you are like as an excuse, it's to point out your flaws so you can work on them, and your strengths to give you the tools to work on your flaws. For me, this has been very useful. It has helped me identify my flaws and enjoy my strengths.

At the same time, maybe my brain did fall out somewhere along the way. You're rational and enjoyable to read argument has hit me at a time where I am reassessing a lot of my ways of thinking... maybe that's some sort of coincidence...?
Damn it! You have actually managed to get me questioning this which actually sets me off questioning a whole lot of other stuff too...

I'm sure this isn't the argument you were hoping for, but I am also sure that this post may leave Indi quite shocked.
Indi, I am still quite happy to do that chart for you if you would like. This would be a very interesting time to do it.

[Illusional]

why don't you look to the stars for answers..??


raverboy

[haxan]

A person with no knowledge would have an 8.3% chance of successfully selecting someone's zodiac sign (w/out going into the different phases), minus whatever the standard deviation is based on the number of choices. No matter how much time they spent around someone, no matter how much they observed them, 8.3%. There's no question in my mind that someone with astrological knowledge, given the opportunity to observe someone for a period of time, would easily triple that or better without fail. Not 8.3%. No question. I've seen it done.

Barnum statements, cold readings, rainbow ruse etc., it's not too hard to make broad statements that cover most general scenarios or personality traits. There's a difference between earth, air, fire and water signs. If I tell someone from observation that they're an outgoing person, someone who enjoys parties, being around other people, being the center of attention, yet still have moments of preferred solitude, that's not a ruse. Is anyone an outgoing, social butterfly 24/7? No. Is that what they are drawn to, and would describe them most of time? Yes. The same with someone being shy and introverted. Do they have moments when they are the center of attention and the life of the party? Of course. Ultimately is their comfort zone within themselves or their inner circle? Yes.

Life experience can affect that to some degree. Someone who is shy by nature and grows up in a very social household, or has a career that puts them in social situations will have to adapt to be successful. But someone who knows and observes can easily pick up on the subtleties of their interaction, understanding that even though they appear to be outgoing, their comfort zone is inward.

Scientifically, you can say with 100% certainty that celestial positioning has absolutely no impact on human life or personality? If you can't prove that something doesn't exist or occur, only say it's unlikely, there's as much validity in saying that it does, and is likely. If you have someone who can consistently identify random strangers with their zodiac sign at a rate that defies statistical anomaly, what does that mean scientifically? It's not an anomaly.

[haxan]

Ok, Cafe, I've anointed you as the steely, unemotional scientific expert here. Indi's a genius, but she's got this raw, passionately emotional, earthy side about her that she doesn't know about (less likely) or tries to contain (more likely). Indi doesn't believe, can't believe, but wants to. Sorry, Indi

If/when we're done with the zodiac, what's the deal with UFO's, from a scientific standpoint? All Nasa and Area 51?

[smackie9]

Astrology is nothing but hokey pokey. It's about 3000 years old and since then with the slow shift if the earths alinement the signs all have moved, and to actually make it work properly they suggest a 13th sign to be added. The New Dates:

Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18 - May 13
Taurus: May 13 - June 21
Gemini: June 21 - July 20
Cancer: July 20 - Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10 - Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16 - Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30 - Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23 - Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 - Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17 - Jan. 20

Apparently this isn't new news. They have discovered this back in 130 BC, but played along with without the changes since then.

It's all poopy-caca.

[smackie9]

Ok, Cafe, I've anointed you as the steely, unemotional scientific expert here. Indi's a genius, but she's got this raw, passionately emotional, earthy side about her that she doesn't know about (less likely) or tries to contain (more likely). Indi doesn't believe, can't believe, but wants to. Sorry, Indi

If/when we're done with the zodiac, what's the deal with UFO's, from a scientific standpoint? All Nasa and Area 51?

[smackie9]

[IndiReloaded]

A person with no knowledge would have an 8.3% chance of successfully selecting someone's zodiac sign (w/out going into the different phases), minus whatever the standard deviation is based on the number of choices. No matter how much time they spent around someone, no matter how much they observed them, 8.3%.

Isn't it ~7.7% now?

Anyway, I'll challenge your video store girl example. Just based on probability. I won't even go into the fact it was nowhere near a controlled experiment and therefore simply a great example of what is called 'post hoc fallacy'.

Anyway, I'll see your 8% and raise you 2.8%, which is the probability of guessing 60 of 100 coin tosses correctly. If your workmate had done this, would you conclude she sees the future? I hope not. You would simply conclude she was lucky.

Point is, you'd have to *repeat the experiment* to draw any real conclusions from your friend. Think of it another way: if I did this as a series of experiment and invited large numbers of people to guess coin flips, I'd expect--EXPECT--that about every 35 experiments would give me someone who could guess about 60 out of 100 flips.

Now if you could bring your friend back and have her guess *many times, with many groups of people* under controlled conditions, etc. such that you then had an astronomically small probability of this happening by chance, then--THEN--we'd be talking. fwiw, the chance that someone correctly guesses 60 of 100 coin tosses, 10 times (i.e. 600 of 1000 tosses) is about 1 in 7 billion. That's when I'd be looking for other explanations.

Get it? Noone to my knowledge has been able to do an experiment like this for astrology and demonstrate any validity for these sun sign traits. I'd be delighted to look at the study if you know of one.

Okay Cafe - carry on. I was enjoying your rant and its nice to have someone to pass the skeptic torch onto.

[MaidenMinx]

Okay Cafe - carry on. I was enjoying your rant and its nice to have someone to pass the skeptic torch onto.

Uh, Indi, this place is full of skeptics.

And after further consideration I have decided this is relation to astrology. For me, at times it has been a useful tool, but after being exposed to it all my life the fact that I can't explain it has gotten me to a point of realising that there may or may not be merit to it, for me it's been beneficial but not a tool I have pulled out in a long time. I imagine now it will stay in my personal tool box, the way the antique butter churn sits on my shelf. (yes I have an antique butter churn)

At the same time, I do not believe science has all the answers. I'm not going to go into the other things I believe in but every now and then science crosses the path of something many people have known for a long time without being able to prove. For example, String theory ( as I understand it in it's most layman terms) thrilled me when I first had it explained to me, because it was the first step in proving something I have known for a long time - since childhood. And because I know I am going to be asked what that is, I will open myself up to the risk of receiving further scorn by saying, the theory I have grown up with is that the entire universe is made of the same stuff (energy, chi, whatever you want to call it) and that different objects are vibrating at different frequency so as to be solid, or liquid, living as we define it or inanimate. Yes, I am suggesting us humans are made of the same stuff the computer or whatever you are reading this on, and the only differentiation is a matter of cosmic vibration.

So now that I have confirmed to the most of you that I am completely certifiably insane, I will leave with a ha ha, ho ho, he he.

[MaidenMinx]

Astrology is nothing but hokey pokey. It's about 3000 years old and since then with the slow shift if the earths alinement the signs all have moved, and to actually make it work properly they suggest a 13th sign to be added. The New Dates:

Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18 - May 13
Taurus: May 13 - June 21
Gemini: June 21 - July 20
Cancer: July 20 - Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10 - Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16 - Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30 - Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23 - Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 - Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17 - Jan. 20

Apparently this isn't new news. They have discovered this back in 130 BC, but played along with without the changes since then.

It's all poopy-caca.

I'd keep the same sun sign. :p

[haxan]

I LOVE this guy ! Great hair, great tan, great teeth. Knows his ancient astronauts. What's not to love?

[haxan]

Isn't it ~7.7% now?

Anyway, I'll challenge your video store girl example. Just based on probability. I won't even go into the fact it was nowhere near a controlled experiment and therefore simply a great example of what is called 'post hoc fallacy'.

Anyway, I'll see your 8% and raise you 2.8%, which is the probability of guessing 60 of 100 coin tosses correctly. If your workmate had done this, would you conclude she sees the future? I hope not. You would simply conclude she was lucky.

Point is, you'd have to *repeat the experiment* to draw any real conclusions from your friend. Think of it another way: if I did this as a series of experiment and invited large numbers of people to guess coin flips, I'd expect--EXPECT--that about every 35 experiments would give me someone who could guess about 60 out of 100 flips.

Now if you could bring your friend back and have her guess *many times, with many groups of people* under controlled conditions, etc. such that you then had an astronomically small probability of this happening by chance, then--THEN--we'd be talking. fwiw, the chance that someone correctly guesses 60 of 100 coin tosses, 10 times (i.e. 600 of 1000 tosses) is about 1 in 7 billion. That's when I'd be looking for other explanations.

Get it? Noone to my knowledge has been able to do an experiment like this for astrology and demonstrate any validity for these sun sign traits. I'd be delighted to look at the study if you know of one.

Okay Cafe - carry on. I was enjoying your rant and its nice to have someone to pass the skeptic torch onto.

Buzzkill

Oh alright, Indi, this is just for fun. It's not like it's a totally legit topic like ancient astronauts or anything

If her accuracy was just random chance, it was ~by far~ the most impressive display of random luck I've seen in my life. I was stunned when I pulled those DOB's. I'm not really that big into astrology, just know enough about my sign (as most people do) and the people I've had intimate relationships with. I thought it was funny the other night at work, I heard the tail end of what one of the guys was saying, and I thought he mentioned something about his birthday. I asked him if it was his birthday and he said 'hell no, I'm an Aquarius'. Didn't say the month or anything, like most people would. Kind of funny and fitting with this thread

[haxan]

It's all poopy-caca.

Are you a Taurus, smackie?

[MaidenMinx]

Are you a Taurus, smackie?

haha! If she isn't I'd guess one of the other Earth signs, probably Capricorn.