are star signs accurate as they say they are
I don't believe in astrology but I am not against it either.
Thing is in ancient times people used stars as means of relating happenings. Hence, many incidents are now predicted based on their similarity with star positionings.
Thing is in ancient times people used stars as means of relating happenings. Hence, many incidents are now predicted based on their similarity with star positionings.
Aw hell no. It's the shotgun effect. You're bound to be right if you have a large enough target audience.
thumbs down? no.
laugh? no.
thinking? no.
Where the hell is the "slap your forehead"?
laugh? no.
thinking? no.
Where the hell is the "slap your forehead"?
Me, I'm not so sure what to think anymore ...
@IW13864 said in #1:
> are star signs accurate as they say they are
No. No, they are not.
The hallmark of (western) astrology is the exploitation of the Barnum effect. Horoscopes deliberately make vague statements that could apply to a lot of people. These are Barnum statements. The same is true of supposed attributes of the star signs.
It doesn't matter wether or not I read a supposed attribute of the correct star sign to a test participant. They are equally likely to agree and identify with the supposed attribute whether it was pulled from the list of the correct star sign or from the list of a different one. A Libra (without prior knowledge of astrology) is just as likely to identify with attributes conventionally ascribed to a Capricorn as they are with attributes ascribed to a Gemini or a Libra. Because they are all equally made up. And all similarly pleasing to read.
This very simple psychological experiment serves as an excellent and brief introduction to the Barnum effect:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#Early_research
Besides, astrology makes no sense whatsoever from an astronomy/physics standpoint. And has never been demonstrated to reliably work under controlled conditions.
Just like alchemy, it's a relic of a pre-scientific time, a "demon-haunted world". The only saving grace is that astrology and alchemy have historically paved the way for the scientific revolution in the form of astronomy and chemistry. The alchemists and astrologers of antiquity up to those of the 17th century who actually did (pre-scientific) experimental work (accurately measure and catalogue the positions of stars for instance) deserve our eternal gratitude.
The "astrologers" of today not so much. They don't do any experimental work anymore, they just perpetuate a dead, dogmatic teaching unquestioningly without ever finding out something new.
By contrast, scientific enterprises like astronomy and chemistry discover something new every day and often question their own ideas and hypotheses.
Isaac Newton should have been the last alchemist and Johannes Kepler should have been the last astrologer.
I also recommend watching the first eight minutes of this program, "Cosmos", by astronomer Carl Sagan. It's old, but gold:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9mzxGf_dk&t=42s
> are star signs accurate as they say they are
No. No, they are not.
The hallmark of (western) astrology is the exploitation of the Barnum effect. Horoscopes deliberately make vague statements that could apply to a lot of people. These are Barnum statements. The same is true of supposed attributes of the star signs.
It doesn't matter wether or not I read a supposed attribute of the correct star sign to a test participant. They are equally likely to agree and identify with the supposed attribute whether it was pulled from the list of the correct star sign or from the list of a different one. A Libra (without prior knowledge of astrology) is just as likely to identify with attributes conventionally ascribed to a Capricorn as they are with attributes ascribed to a Gemini or a Libra. Because they are all equally made up. And all similarly pleasing to read.
This very simple psychological experiment serves as an excellent and brief introduction to the Barnum effect:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#Early_research
Besides, astrology makes no sense whatsoever from an astronomy/physics standpoint. And has never been demonstrated to reliably work under controlled conditions.
Just like alchemy, it's a relic of a pre-scientific time, a "demon-haunted world". The only saving grace is that astrology and alchemy have historically paved the way for the scientific revolution in the form of astronomy and chemistry. The alchemists and astrologers of antiquity up to those of the 17th century who actually did (pre-scientific) experimental work (accurately measure and catalogue the positions of stars for instance) deserve our eternal gratitude.
The "astrologers" of today not so much. They don't do any experimental work anymore, they just perpetuate a dead, dogmatic teaching unquestioningly without ever finding out something new.
By contrast, scientific enterprises like astronomy and chemistry discover something new every day and often question their own ideas and hypotheses.
Isaac Newton should have been the last alchemist and Johannes Kepler should have been the last astrologer.
I also recommend watching the first eight minutes of this program, "Cosmos", by astronomer Carl Sagan. It's old, but gold:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9mzxGf_dk&t=42s
This video has been blocked in my country ... lol ...
@boilingFrog said in #7:
> This video has been blocked in my country ... lol ...
That's unfortunate, it's a good documentary. You can search other video sharing platforms for "Carl Sagan's Cosmos: Episode 3 – Harmony of the Worlds". Perhaps you'll find it elsewhere. Alternatively you'll find the relevant excerpt from this program by searching for "Carl Sagan astrology" on yt.
> This video has been blocked in my country ... lol ...
That's unfortunate, it's a good documentary. You can search other video sharing platforms for "Carl Sagan's Cosmos: Episode 3 – Harmony of the Worlds". Perhaps you'll find it elsewhere. Alternatively you'll find the relevant excerpt from this program by searching for "Carl Sagan astrology" on yt.
Dude, if the video is blocked in my country then it can't be good, right ?
I mean, I'm just sayin ...
I mean, I'm just sayin ...
@boilingFrog said in #9:
> Dude, if the video is blocked in my country then it can't be good, right ?
>
> I mean, I'm just sayin ...
same banned in y country also.
> Dude, if the video is blocked in my country then it can't be good, right ?
>
> I mean, I'm just sayin ...
same banned in y country also.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.