Reply
Fri 18 Apr, 2003 07:28 pm
Do you belive your horoscope?
Having heard about this intersting experiment I had to try it for myself.
I made up my own horoscope (sunsign traits, not of the daily variety). which I proceded to
distribute to my classmates, all of whom (16 of 16, with equal reprsentation of both
sexes. And with the best sign distribution possible) were dully astounded at its "fitting
profile". Little did they know that I had taken selections from the horoscopes of all of
the sunsigns and delivered them all an identical horoscope.
It was easy to identify the details that would be unilateraly accepted.
After the success of my first experiment, I repeated it. This time I attempted to identify
what made horoscopes so believable.
I noticed that most of what was in the horoscope was flattering. Rarely will you find
negative traits. If a negative trait is mentioned it is sugarcoated so as to seem good.
I am reminded of a story my father. A king called for his soothsayer. "Your magesty, all
your family will soon die." The king was enraged, and as was the custom, the messenger was
excecuted. A second opinion was called for, and another soothsayer sought. "King, rejoyce!
I have wonderfull tidings. Your magesty, you will live a long prosperous life. In fact,
you will outlive all of your relatives!"
I still remember how the anecdote impressed upon me the inherent value of carefully chosen
words.
Horoscopes are full of such double-speak. With flattery they gain creedence. Anything else
has been argument-proofed over the years (EG: you are an organized sign, you will see this
in your life in the things around you or in the way you are mentally organized. This is of
course quite difficult to disproove, how can one compare the organisation of his thoughts
with the organisation of another's).
While I am aware of the infuence that various celestial bodies exert over us, I find
several incongruities in the overall affair. Case in point, I am a Gemini, the
astrological sybol for which are the twins. Doesn't it seem coincidental that the most
mentioned characteristic of the Gemini is the "split personality". What about the Libra?
Is it not a coincidence that Libras are supposed to have certain issues when presented
with a choice. Is this said of them only due to the symbolism of the scale?
The touch of man is present in innumerable "traits" supposedly inherent to each sign. The
leo is bold, the Gemini two-faced, I could go on forever.
So, the diatribe being over, the question I pose is: Were the symbols (lion, twins, etc)
designed after the recognizable traits. Or did the traits evolve from man's imagination.
The important point about horoscope is that it is not subdued to logic.
Possibly because humans aren't either.
Logic reflects partial aspects of human existence. Mystical messages of astrology are often able to reveal the hidden truths which are not noticed in everyday consciousness.
I consider it, "dabbling".
satts,
Care to expound? What truths?
Craven..
Psychological truths. Now, let me answer your question through quotes from a professional psychologist:
"As I am a psychologist, I am particularly interested in the particular light the horoscope sheds on certain complications in the character. In cases of difficult psychological diagnosis, I usually get a horoscope in order to have a futher point of view from an entirely different angle. I must say that I have very often found that the astrological data ellucidated certain points which I otherwise would have been unable to understand.
"Astrology is assured of recognition from psychology without further restrictions because Astrology represents the summation of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity."
- C.G.Jung
For the most part I find horoscopes useless. I don't often read them. However, one year (1969) I bought a book dedicated to my sign for a whole year. It accurately predicted that I would move to a different location (I went from Kansas City to Corpus Christi) as a result of a personal tragedy (my brother was murdered). It said I would change vocations (i went from chemical plant operator to carpenter). The events happened in the same weeks predicted. Of course it was coincidence, but, to the gullible it would seem it was right on.
That phycological elements are used in astrology does nothing to validate astrology. That's like saying that Human A is right just because he said a few things that are right.
Roger often posts a very relevant quote about a stopped clock being right 2 times a day. That doesn't mean the clock works.
I get your point, many pscological notions are contained in astrology, but astrology is far more than a collection of ideas. It purported to be a science in which those ideas coexisted with conclusions that are false.
I'm not contesting that astrological traits are human, just that the conslusions in astrology are false.
edgarblythe..
One often takes "coincidence" as if it were nothing. However, one does not know what "coincidence" actually means.
Tossing a coin, and getting Head is said to be a random event, however is it asserted to be sure? Isn't it more close to the fact that one only cannot explain why Head resulted at the trial of tossing?
If one is willing to make the effort it is possible to explain. Well, at least if they have enough supercomputers.
Quantum effects prevent you from explaining it.
nah, lack of processing power in the current technological state and lack of means to collect all the data prevent man, what prevents me is ignorance, lack of money, and lack of resources.
Quantum effects are fundamental in physics independent of technology.
(Mathematicians may be indifferent about them.)
nothng is independant of ignorance, my mention of technology is poorly clariied but what I mean is that data on those levels need processing power we are not currently capable of, said lack is ignorance.
Anyhow, the term "coincidence" can signify a lack of knowledge about the backgrounds of events, irrespective of whether the lack is intrinsic or not.
I agree, strict adherence to science means coincidence is a meaningless word. From a practical point of view it means an event whose factors are so vast in number that it creates the illusion of an aleatory event.
But lack of randomness does not preclude edgar being right in that the astrology did not have any substantial relation to the events.
Quote:
But lack of randomness does not preclude edgar being right in that the astrology did not have any substantial relation to the events.
It is a speculation to think that the astrology did not have any substantial relation to the events. Who can prove it was not a mere speculation?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc + burden of proof make for that argument to be a tad bit unfair.
Although I do not ask a proof but it was e.. who first made the remark, "Of course it was coincidence."
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace