Futures Trading, Custom Programming, and Commentary

13 Responses

1. Tyro Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am

   If that’s the best out there, Astrology isn’t just a pile of crap, but one that’s deeply ignorant of even the basic aspects of Astrology. Yikes!

   Just a quick check at http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/Planets/planet-const.cgi?year=2008 showed how wretched “Cafe Astrology” really is (as if the name wasn’t already hinting).

   CA says Venus is in Aquarius. Reality says: Scorpio
   CA says Mars is in Gemini. Reality says: Taurus
   CA says Jupiter is in Capricorn (? Can’t make it out). Reality says: Sagittarius.
   CA says Saturn is in Virgo. Reality says: Leo.
   CA says Uranus is in Pisces. Reality says: Aquarius.
   CA says Neptune is in Aquarius. Reality says: Capricorn.
   CA says Pluto is in Capricorn (same as Jupiter, can’t make it out). Reality says: Sagittarius.

   You’d think that they’d luck out with a few of them, just by chance! This site even has the gall to list asteroids. What’s the bet that the asteroids will be a little better but still show that in the 20-50 years since their discoveries, astrologers have lost over half of them?

   They even screwed up the location of the sun! They show it in Aquarius from the 1st - 20th, but it’s actually in Capricornus from Jan 21-Feb 16 when it moves to Aquarius and remains there until 13 March. That’s the whole foundation of Astrology and the can’t even get it right. Bah.

   This shouldn’t come as a big shock since Astrologers have never cared about such trivial matters. They use a model of the solar system which dates back to Ptolemy and is, unsurprisingly, not an accurate representation of where the planets really are.

2. Richard Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 11:35 am

   They agree completely about where the planets are, silly! It’s just that astronomers and astrologers have diverged over time in their use of the same names. For quite a while now, they have been about 1 sign apart. So, CA and an astronomy site should always differ by the name of every position by about 1 sign. It’s unfortunate that the zodiac signs were named after constellations, and we know now that they don’t match the actual locations of those constellations… but that really has nothing to do with astrology. If the zodiac signs were named “bob” and “suzy” it would be all the same to them.

3. Tyro Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am

   How can you say that the sign names have nothing to do with Astrology? The supposed characteristics that the signs convey is based entirely on the names and the mythic characters associated with them. When astronomers discovered a minor planet in the Oort Cloud and had nicknamed it Xena, astrologers leapt up to give it characteristics of, you guessed it, Xeena the Warrior Princess. Same with Neptune and Uranus which weren’t known to the people who first made all the “rules”. And lets not forget the asteroids which were only discovered in the last century.

   And while most Astrologers still use the ancient charts, there are Sideral Astrologers that try to use the actual location of the planets. Are they wrong?

4. Tyro Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am

   From what I can tell, it’s a lot more than the names which are different. For instance, there are 13 constellations in the zodiac but only 12 in the astrology pantheon, and constellations vary widely in size but each astrological “sign” is roughly the same size. Anyway…

   Question: is this drift significant? Why or why not? How can you tell?

   If modern astrologers are accurate, doesn’t this mean the ancient ones were wrong or vice versa?

5. Richard Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

   I agree that it’s stupid the way astrologers apply characteristics of roman gods to planets, especially planets that were discovered far later. That part definitely makes no sense to me. I don’t know anything about sideral astrology, so I can’t comment on that. The drift makes no difference to astrologers because the zodiac names are just names.. I have yet to see an zodiac-based astrology book give importance to the attributes of the namesake constellation in space. They gave a name to a portion of the sky, and that’s that. So, the attributes they apply to ’scorpio’ should not drift with our understanding of the location and size of the astronomical constellation, as far as I can tell.

6. Tyro Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

   So what do you think these charts are tracking, if you know that all of the fundamentals of Astrology are “stupid”?

   I have yet to see an zodiac-based astrology book give importance to the attributes of the namesake constellation in space.

   You can’t be serious. That’s all astrology is! Venus is the god of love, so Venus the planet is, guess, love. After V-Day, how can you miss that one? And Mars is the god of war, so of course it guides our aggression! It’s just based on the mythology.
   http://www.astrologyzine.com/what-is-venus-in-astrology.shtml
   http://www.astrologyzine.com/mars1.shtml

   The astrological signs are just the same. Taurus is the bull and so they’re stubborn. Aquarius is a water bearer and so they’re flexible and flow. Scorpio is a scorpion so has a hard exterior but is soft inside. Everything is based on the constellation mythology.

   Do a google search for “Astrology” and read the top 5 to 10 links. Here’s a great quote from number 4, http://www.astrologyzone.com/community/news.html :

   “We still don’t know if the scientific community will deem Sedna a genuine planet or an icy body. While NASA works on that question, we need to be patient. In astrology, planets are the major players of a horoscope. Icy bodies and asteroids have far less influence in a chart.”

   “In this spirit, let’s now look at the myth of Sedna to start you thinking about what role this planet (if it is later confirmed to be a planet) might govern. If a name can give us clues to meaning, a myth can provide even more clues.”

   So whether or not this body has influence has nothing apparently to do with the body itself, but rather on what label we attach to it. Not just whether it passes some arbitrary threshold into a minor planet, but which arbitrary name is given to it by the Astronomical Society.

   But okay, maybe I’m biased. What do you think it’s based on? How do you know? What do you think of Astrologers that make use of the mythological symbolism?

7. Richard Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

   Yes, I am serious. The zodiac used in western astrology is based on an even division around the planet, starting with the vernal equinox. It is not based on stars in the sky, and I have never seen an astrology book say that the constellations have anything to do with the meaning of the zodiac signs. I haven’t looked into it, but I imagine that the constellations were given names at a time when they lined up with the zodiac (or vice-versa, doesn’t matter), and then the constellations drifted away over time.

   Regardless, and most importantly, you aren’t telling astrologers something they don’t know. It’s not like their jaws would drop if you told them that the constellations don’t line up with the zodiac sign of the same name anymore. Surely, if their beliefs about how astrology worked depended on this correspondence, they would have made adjustments (perhaps this is what the sideral folks you mentioned do) . Instead, they don’t care. I’ll repeat again, and state in advance that yes I’m serious, that I don’t think any astrology books I’ve glanced through since I’ve taken up the interest have even mentioned the constellations.

   Instead of pretending I know everything and that everyone different than I am is stupid, what I do is I take an interest, with an open mind. These people obviously think they are onto something. They perceive some benefit in it. So, I’m learning more about how their system works. It’s fun! I’m certainly not going to assume it’s totally baseless just because it’s imperfect (such as how they project myths onto things willy-nilly based on their names).

8. Tyro Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

   I see, so asking questions like “how does this work” and “how do you know what you know” is suddenly pretending like I know more than everyone else, thinking that everyone different is stupid, and being closed minded. Nice way to deflect questions, dig out the wounded martyr routine.

   You say that you have faith that astrologers would make adjustments. Under what circumstances? What could ever happen, even in theory, to indicate that anything in astrology needs adjustment? What isn’t based on reason or evidence never needs to be modified by something as trivial as real-world observations. The only reason that I’ve ever seen where an astrologer makes adjustments is if they change the mythology of their predictions (like Xeena and Sedna, or incorporating Neptune and Pluto). Did they ever look at the real world to determine correlations or check “predictions”? Show me one, just one.

   What I’m doing is extending them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there may be some actual physical event they’re detecting. So let’s ask questions to see if it’s all just wishful thinking or if there’s really something to it.

   (”Doctor, why do you think that this will help me?” “It’s based on the purest Ptolemic principles and we know he’s not wrong, now shut up while drain some more blood or your pneumonia will never improve.”)

   So another question: if the astrologers know their charts don’t match reality and there’s no basis for ever making adjustments, who needs accuracy except the gullible people who buy astrological charts? What difference could it make if you’re off by a day, a month or a year and how would anyone know?

   But if this basic level of scrutiny makes you defensive, I’ll let it rest.

9. Richard Says:
   February 15th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

   It’s not defensiveness… it’s our old friend frustration. Yet again, you are completely ignoring the one point I am sure of and have repeated in every response: the zodiac charts used by western astrologers ARE NOT BASED ON THE CONSTELLATIONS. It is not a flaw, in their view, that the constellations have drifted away. It is not a case of charts matching reality or not. You might as well accuse my pizza slices of not matching the constellations… I don’t need them to, for it to be a pizza.

   Try to imagine, just for a second, that astrologers do not care one whit where those stars are… only the location of the planets relative to the earth. Try because THAT is the view that matches reality. Just ask an astrologer… that’s generally what they’ll tell you, in my experience. Whether they are right to think that way, or not, I have no idea. I am just investigating the subject, and sitting in a room full of astrologers and tarot readers, I have yet to hear them even mention the constellations. They just don’t seem that relevant. Sorry…

   If you really wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt, a more productive avenue would be to simply try it. Hang out with some practitioners, and interpret some charts. See for yourself whether there is anything to it, or not. It could be that they get the right answers, even though their reasoning is completely whacky. I mean, even if someone claims rabbits are the source of the earth’s gravity, you can still experience gravity.

10. Tyro Says:
    February 15th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    You say I’m ignoring the fact that astrologers do not think that anything they do match constellations. I’m not ignoring it, I showed you’re wrong. The origin of astrology was exactly the old myths and our current personality signs are still directly borrowed from them. The constellation mythology is integral to Astrology now and always has been. The planetary “influences” are borrowed from these myths and I showed that as well. This isn’t ignoring you, I just don’t accept your assertions and I’ve backed up my position. I wish you’d do the same.

    If you say that Astrology still works regardless of the constellations, then you’ll have to do more than just give me your word. I backed up my position with direct quotes from astrologers, why can’t you show astrology works, regardless of the constellations?

    As for benefit of the doubt, what would hanging out with practitioners possibly achieve? Given there’s absolutely no physical plausibility, the origins are obvious superstition, and worst of all, every attempt to demonstrate any utility or predictive value has failed miserably, what could “hanging out” with them achieve other than to have my mind addled by outcome bias and wishful thinking? Show me some reason to think that, against all odds, the superstitions of ancient philosophers miraculously happens to coincide with reality. So far, you haven’t even bothered to try.

    I don’t care if someone claims that rabbits are the source of gravity, if it leads to useful predictions which are confirmed by observation then I’ll listen and follow. That’s called having an open mind. Hearing someone say that rabbits are the source of gravity and saying “hmm, well maybe he’s right” without bothering to look at predictions or evidence is gullible idiocy.

11. Tyro Says:
    February 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Why not make it concrete and simple: what do you think that astrology can do? Can it tell anything about our personalities, and what can it tell? Can it tell anything about our future, and what? With what precision?

    I won’t even ask any of the obvious questions about how it could possibly work. Open-minded enough?

12. Richard Says:
    February 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    I am not saying astrology works, or that I know why it might. I am trying it out, to see what it feels like to experience it. I have never said otherwise. I don’t need to prove anything beforehand in order to experience it. When I assert what astrologers think, the “proof” I can offer is that I am learning astrology from actual astrologers, and that is what they tell me. You can take it or leave it.

    You have completely missed the point of the rabbit example. It’s not to say “hmm, maybe rabbits are the source of all gravity.” It’s to say “these people experience gravity, and even if their explanation is incorrect, their experience is real.”

    With all your talk about “physical plausibility” and “obvious superstition” and “addled minds”, you might want to look up the phrase “benefit of the doubt.” I don’t think it means what you think it means :-)

    The point of hanging out with astrologers is to stop talking _about_ them and start talking _to_ them. What better way to find out what it is all about? I am not afraid that merely interacting with people will somehow addle my mind, but maybe you are more easily addled than I am. Either way, once again I am completely drained by our “chat” and you are free to have the last word if you like. This gullible idiot is done!

13. Tyro Says:
    February 15th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    I know what it means to “experience gravity”. Whether it’s caused by invisible rabbits or gravity fairies, at least there’s a clear, demonstrable, predictable effect.

    You don’t seem to have any clue what “experiencing astrology” might mean or what effect there might be. Why don’t you find that out before extolling its virtues?

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.