The mainstream version of astrology is (apparently) tropical astrology. But there's another school of thought, and that's sidereal astrology.

What I'd like to know is which of these versions of astrology is the one that tells the most accurate stuff about a person? For example, one is a Leo in tropical but Cancer in sidereal. Are they gonna have the basic personality of a Leo or Cancer?

Oh, and I realize there are people that think astrology is phony (that must be why all the astrology threads are under Pseudoscience). If you are one of those people, please don't post something along the lines of "Astrology is totally fake". That's not what this thread is for. (Please read the update below!)

If ya wanna look at my birthchart (for some reason), here's my birth info:
August 5th, 1988 ; 2:20PM PDT ; Klamath Falls, OR USA 42N15 121W47

Thanks in advance for yer posts! Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all!

Âðelwulf

UPDATE:

If you are against astrology, the place for you is another of my threads entitled Let's Debate Astrology Here!.

I have started that new thread because most people have not posted on this thread about the intended topic. Please go there to debate the truth of astrology.

Thank you for your cooperation. Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all!

Âðelwulf

Sorry dude, but Astrology is fake. If one branch of it were 'real' and predicted more accurate results, there would be no debate on the issue, it would be obvious.

There is ONE scientific method, and that produces real results every time. If you are going to fill you head woth something, why not make it something valuable?

"Oh, and I realize there are people that think astrology is phony. If you are one of those people, please don't post something along the lines of 'Astrology is totally fake'. That's not what this thread is for."

Well it makes the whole topic completely irrelevant.

Athelwulf, are you going to respond to my point, or just stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'la la la not listening!' because you can't cope with a different point of view?

One thing about astrology that I never understood is why it only included visible astrological bodies. The non-visible ones, like asteroids, are much closer and have more gravitational effect than do stars or galaxies that are millions/billions of light years away. Yet their positions are not considered.

I'd say that this alone points to the anthropogenic nature of "astrology" and therefore a good indication that it is fake. Indeed, the lack of any real astrological reading that wasn't simply general placation of human desire to believe and have magical thought.

Well it makes the whole topic completely irrelevant.

What does?

Athelwulf, are you going to respond to my point, or just stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'la la la not listening!' because you can't cope with a different point of view?

Who said I can't cope with a different point of view? I just didn't want a lot of "Astrology is fake" clutter in this thread cuz I'm trying to learn something. I also didn't want to have to spend time typing out a defense for astrology. I'd much rather talk about the specific subject of the thread. I'll respond to your point, though, if you so wish.

If you are going to fill you head woth something, why not make it something valuable?

Alas, astrology is valuable. The planets make an "imprint" on your personality when you are born. You can learn what imprint those planets have made on you. You can learn your tendencies. You can understand yourself better.

Overall, astrology is a tool to better your life.

For example, if you are a Scorpio, you most likely won't forget pain dealt to you by some unkind person, and you may wait years for the chance to pay your revenge to whoever hurt you. Well, once you understand this, you can work on letting go of those desires for revenge.

I'm guessing that you don't have much knowledge of astrology. It's more than those articles you read in the newspaper. It's much more than that!

I suggest you go to the library and find a good book about astrology. A GOOD book. One that tells you about more than just the sign the sun was in when you were born. Here are two books I recommend:

Astrology for Beginners by William W. Hewitt
The Only Astrology Book You'll Ever Need by Joanna Martine Woolfolk

The Dewey Decimal number for the first book is "133.5 Hewitt". Any other astrology book should be grouped around that number too.

Just look into astrology with an OPEN mind. After you have a working knowledge, I DARE you to tell me there is NO truth WHATSOEVER to astrology. Don't judge something if you don't know much about it at all.

Now, SkinWalker,

One thing about astrology that I never understood is why it only included visible astrological bodies. The non-visible ones, like asteroids, are much closer and have more gravitational effect than do stars or galaxies that are millions/billions of light years away. Yet their positions are not considered.

I suggest you take my advice to phlogistician as well. Only the sun, moon, and the planets out to Saturn are visible and have been known since antient times (which, by the way, is where astrology had its beginnings). Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto aren't visible if you don't have a telescope.

Also, big asteroids (Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, and others) have been studied. They do have an influence on the personality as well. However, their influence is not as profound as the influence of the planets. Also, the astrologer needs to draw the line somewhere. If he or she has to analyze dozens of heavenly bodies, he or she is sure to either waste time or get a headache. So astrologers use their judgement to decide how minor the influence is, and whether or not it's so minor that it's negligible.

Also, the stars that make up these constellations aren't millions of lightyears away. To the best of my knowledge of astronomy, they are within the Milky Way. Astrology also ignores the galaxies. But I see the point you are trying to make.

I hope this makes you all think. Later.

- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all. Âðelwulf

If you link me to where I can get my astrological profiles, I'll tell you which pleases me more.

Love, Peace, Dope.

The planets make an "imprint" on your personality when you are born.

How? Where is this "imprint?" What evidence exists of its presence?

I have the link below. But before you go, I should say that you probably know your sign in Tropical astrology, but not in Sidereal. Ya can give me yer birthday (I don't need the year), and I can tell ya.

Here (http://www.annabelburton.com/index.html) is a link to read about your Sun Sign. There is a menu on the left side which shows "fire," "earth," "air," and "water." Under each of them is three of the twelve signs. Click on yours.

Here (http://astrology.about.com/library/weekly/aa052399.htm) is a link that all people should look at. I can guess that most people are skeptical about astrology because what should be their sign doesn't fit them very well. If that's you, click on the link.

I was born on Sept. 18, 1984, in Riga, Latvia, at either 9 or 10 am. Or 8 am. Mom was hazy on this. This makes me a Virgo, with either Gemini or Libra as my Moon sign. The link for the Sun sign you provided makes me less happy than the one on ivillage (which doesn't make me happy, either).

I'll just assume yer birth time is 9AM. Your moon is in Gemini, and your Ascendant is Libra. Also, your Venus is strong in your chart, because it is in Libra, the sign it rules. Also, it is in the First House, the house of Self. AND it is conjunct with your Ascendant line. I dunno if you could understand that at all. I'll try to clarify and give interpretations later.

Anyway, your Sidereal sign is also Virgo, but the sun is VERY close to Leo, so you may have some characteristics of Leo if Sidereal is more accurate.

This may sound stupid, but sometimes when I'm around people I'm just meeting, I like to guess which star sign they are by the way they act. I'm usually pretty accurate, especially with fellow pisceans, virgos, leos, cancers and scorpios. It's fun scaring people by pretending you're psychic. I've always been the model pisces, down to every characteristic. Alot of people are like this.

Can you guess what sun sign I am?

It's too late to guess, since you told us your birthdate. Leo.

Oh. Oops. Hehe. :D

But did ya know before I said my birthdate?

After reading your webpage, I probably would have guessed leo. You take pride in your art of photography, leo's are said to be proud somewhat. But really, isn't everyone proud of something? I'm proud of my certain skills, such as the art of lingam massage.

I don't recall ever talking to you before, or reading your posts. That's how I usually know, from talking to them, watching their body types, looking at the way they dress, facial expressions, and how they move about.

Damn, you take pride in everything about yourself.
yea, you top the charts in leo behavior.

After reading your webpage, I probably would have guessed leo. You take pride in your art of photography, leo's are said to be proud somewhat.

Wow, ya looked at my site?! Did ya like it?

Damn, you take pride in everything about yourself.
yea, you top the charts in leo behavior.

:o Why, I'm flattered. I'm sure ya also know that flattery is the way to a Leo's heart?

What does?

The fact that there is no evidence for the validity of Astrology makes any discussion on which type is better irrelevant.

What do ya mean there's no evidence?

What evidence is there that the position of visible bodies have any effect on the personalities of people and how can the planets imprint. People aren't necessarily skeptical just because it doesn't fit but because it doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make sense, I was hoping someone would explain to me, in easy science, how it works. But I have noticed, ALL Libra men I have encountered were real a**holes. That's pretty weird, eh?

Alas, astrology is valuable.

No it is not. It cannot make a single _accurate_ prediction.

The planets make an "imprint" on your personality when you are born.

Why at the moment of birth? Why not the moment of conception? What about babies who are born premature, or through Caesarian section? Birth date is arbitrary nonsense, and you know it.

You can learn what imprint those planets have made on you.

Ah, but which planets? Astrological ephemeris have been changed over the years to accomodate discoveries of new planets. The properties of the newly discovered planets were assigned in a purely arbitrary fashion, as were the assignments made to the planets visible to the naked eye. Astrological ephemeris don't accurately record the position of the planets anyway, so there can be no value in astrology.

Overall, astrology is a tool to better your life. Nope, it's spurious bunkum.

I'm guessing that you don't have much knowledge of astrology.
An ex girlfriend of mine was into astrology, and I saw enough of it to know it has no merit. I worked with Astronomers for several years. That subject has merit. It probably won't surprise you to know that none of the astronomers I worked with believed in astrology, as it doesn't bear serious scrutiny.

It's more than those articles you read in the newspaper. It's much more than that!

Nope, the papers catch the essence of it. Spurious bunkum in _any_ form.

I suggest you go to the library and find a good book about astrology. A GOOD book.

Nope, I suggest you go and read a science book, and stop filling your head with nonsense.

I DARE you to tell me there is NO truth WHATSOEVER to astrology.

Already did. But in case you missed, it, there IS NO TRUTH IN ASTROLOGY, it's all spurious bunkum

What do ya mean there's no evidence?

Usually, in the course of figuring out how things work, a provisional explanation is determined from an observation (hypothesis) and is used to make predictions. By testing the predictions and making further observations, the hypothesis is modified to reflect those results. After repeated tests and observations, the divergences between explanation and observation/tests have been illiminated leaving us with a consistent theory.

One would think that Astrologers began noticing similar behaviors between people born in the same months and began testing food and water, climatic changes, etc. and eventually concluded the patterns of the stars and planets were consistent with their observations.

They did no such thing. Instead they began with a theory and since then have been trying to find evidence to support their theory.

In other words, very bad science.

Or, more precisely, pseudoscience.

You said, the planets "imprint" you personality at birth.

I asked "How? Where is this "imprint?" What evidence exists of its presence?"

Don't give us a bunch of links... just tell us in your own words. That shouldn't be difficult if, as you say, you "know" astrology.

phlogistician,

No it is not. It cannot make a single _accurate_ prediction.

Astrology isn't just for predicting. The thread originally pertained to natal astrology.

Why at the moment of birth? Why not the moment of conception? What about babies who are born premature, or through Caesarian section? Birth date is arbitrary nonsense, and you know it.

Chinese astrology (I think) does believe that the moment of conception is more important than that of birth. I haven't looked into it yet, so I don't have an opinion on that yet. As for premature babies, they still have a birthdate. The fact that they are premature changes nothing. Nor does the fact that they are born through Cesarian section.

Ah, but which planets? Astrological ephemeris have been changed over the years to accomodate discoveries of new planets. The properties of the newly discovered planets were assigned in a purely arbitrary fashion, as were the assignments made to the planets visible to the naked eye. Astrological ephemeris don't accurately record the position of the planets anyway, so there can be no value in astrology.

Mainly, the sun, moon (and I realize they aren't "planets" in astronomical terms), and the planets from Mercury to Pluto. The characteristics aren't assigned arbitrarily. Astrologers study these planets to find out their properties. They did that thousands of years ago for the planets out to Saturn too.

As for the ephemerides, they are the positions in tropical astrology. They don't correspond to today's true positions (which are the positions in sidereal astrology).

Nope, I suggest you go and read a science book, and stop filling your head with nonsense.

Ah, but I am very scientific. Obviously, you view astrology as unscientific. Well, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. As I have said before, astrologers study the planets to see what influences they have on a person. Their minds are just as scientific as a scientist's.

. . . there IS NO TRUTH IN ASTROLOGY, it's all spurious bunkum

Are you sure you looked at it with an open mind? Are you sure you know enough of astrology to make a proper judgement. You won't go to the library and look for a good astrology book. And you say I stick my fingers in my ears and shout "La la la, not listening!".

(Q),

. . . They [astrologers] began with a theory and since then have been trying to find evidence to support their theory.

In other words, very bad science.

*Sigh*

Look at the first two entries in dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis&r=67)'s definition of "hypothesis":

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

So what you just described was not a theory, but in fact a hypothesis.

Astrologers began thinking, for example, "Hey, Alex and Carl are both born in August, and both are proud and have a knack for leadership." Later, they began thinking, "Hey, a lot of the people here born in August are elementarily similar to Alex and Carl."

So they studied. They found out that all these people were born when the sun was transiting the constellation Leo.

They looked into other constellations the sun transits every year. They started thinking, "Hey, Janis was born in November, and she's somewhat intense. So are a lot of the other people here born in November. There's definitely a pattern here!"

Eventually they reached a point where they could say, "Whatever constellation the sun was moving through when a person was born affects that person's general personality."

Sounds like this hypothesis was tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis.

Skinwalker,

You said, the planets "imprint" you personality at birth.

I asked "How? Where is this "imprint?" What evidence exists of its presence?"

The imprint is in your personality. Technically, the imprint is your personality. And obviously, your personality would be pretty good evidence of this imprint's presence if you found patterns that fit with your sign.

Attention all posters in this thread:

I have started the thread entitled Let's Debate Astrology Here!, because I've grown tired of defending astrology in this thread when almost no one has posted for the intended topic.

Please move to that new thread to say "Astrology is fake".

I started this thread because I'm self-studying astrology, and I'm trying to learn some things. At this rate, I'm not learning anything, except that there are more people against astrology than I had anticipated.

So again, Please move to Let's Debate Astrology Here! if you are against astrology.

Thank you for your cooperation. Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all!

Âðelwulf

phlogistician,
Astrology isn't just for predicting. The thread originally pertained to natal astrology.

OK, so what is it for? Surely, it is for predicting character traits in people?

As for premature babies, they still have a birthdate. The fact that they are premature changes nothing. Nor does the fact that they are born through Cesarian section.

Yes, premature babies have a birth date, but if an external event causes a baby to be born prematurely, is it tha date the baby was born, or the day it was supposed to be that matters. As babies born through Caesarian section aren't actualy 'born' but removed surgically, what is the event (and mechanism) that triggers the imprinting of the position (or not, as the Ephemeris are wildly innacurate) of the planets on the child?

the planets from Mercury to Pluto. The characteristics aren't assigned arbitrarily. Astrologers study these planets to find out their properties. They did that thousands of years ago for the planets out to Saturn too.

Pluto was discovered in 1930. What method did astrologers use to assign characteristics to it? Had astrologers noticed a need for a new planet to make sense of some behaviours prior to this point?

As for the ephemerides, they are the positions in tropical astrology. They don't correspond to today's true positions (which are the positions in sidereal astrology).

Sounds like you've answered your own question then. As you admit tropical astronomy uses ephemeris which don't actually record the position of the planets, how can it then say a planet in a position, which it isn't in, has a specific effect? Or is it the numbers in the ephemris that are important. Or is it real, but the effect of the planets just happens to be offset by the exact amount of the inaccuracy of the ephemeris?

Ah, but I am very scientific.

Cool, show me a direct application of astrology, or an accurate prediction made by astrology, using scientific method.

Obviously, you view astrology as unscientific. Well, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. As I have said before, astrologers study the planets to see what influences they have on a person. Their minds are just as scientific as a scientist's.

OK, let's see the statistical analysis of the population survey then. If astrology were science based, it would have asked a statistically significant portion of the population a set of blinded and controlled psychometric questions, and attibuted the influences of the planets to the variances in the answers within say, two sigma and demonstrated a relationship. As this hasn't happened, you _aren't_ a scientist.

Are you sure you looked at it with an open mind?

Yes. I looked for evidence. There was none. Case closed.

Astrologers began thinking, for example, "Hey, Alex and Carl are both born in August, and both are proud and have a knack for leadership." Later, they began thinking, "Hey, a lot of the people here born in August are elementarily similar to Alex and Carl."

Show us the collated data then.

Of course, you can't. I however can disprove your supposed link easily. I share a birthday with a colleague, and have a friend who's birthday is just two days different from me. We are _not_ similar characters. In fact, we differ significantly.


Sounds like this hypothesis was tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis.

OK, so show us the method that was used to test the hypothesis, and the data that was tested, so we can recreate the experiment ourselves and verify the results. THIS is how science is done, we just don't take your word for it.

Ah, but I am very scientific.

Yet, you had to look up the word, 'hypothesis' in the dictionary.

Look at the first two entries in dictionary.com's definition of "hypothesis":
So what you just described was not a theory, but in fact a hypothesis.

No, what I described was the scientific method - look that up in your dictionary.

Sounds like this hypothesis was tested just as scientifically as any other hypothesis.

Although your lame description does not follow the scientific method, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to produce the data and results as per your description? Or did you just make it up?

And while you're at it, could you tell us why astrology is not taught along with other sciences and why astrologers usually have no credentials of any kind?

Why do astrologers so-called predictions differ from one another?

If you claim to be scientific, then please explain exactly what properties the planets possess that affect people?

I'll just assume yer birth time is 9AM. Your moon is in Gemini, and your Ascendant is Libra. Also, your Venus is strong in your chart, because it is in Libra, the sign it rules. Also, it is in the First House, the house of Self. AND it is conjunct with your Ascendant line. I dunno if you could understand that at all. I'll try to clarify and give interpretations later.

Well?

Do you have all of that in your mind, or did you get a chart somewhere? :bugeye:

See, everyone keeps saying that virgos are these boring unimaginative clean-freaks. And unless I find a genius who finally admits it is not so in his astrological predictions and analysis, I will not believe these astrological thingies.

:m:

Dear phlogistician, (Q), and whitewolf,

I have responded to your posts in Let's Debate Astrology Here!.

The imprint is in your personality. Technically, the imprint is your personality. And obviously, your personality would be pretty good evidence of this imprint's presence if you found patterns that fit with your sign.

If I infer your definition of imprint to be "a distinctive influence," rather than "a concavity in a surface produced by pressing," what then is the distinguising characteristics that are defined by so-called astrological influences and what is the evidence that these so-called influences actually create the "influences?"

In other words, I think asking the question "Tropical or Sidereal: which is the REAL astrology" akin to saying "Saint Nicholas or Kriss Kringle: which is the REAL Santa Claus?"