@PeopleLikeUs i didnāt get a chance to thank you for your message a few days ago , ty! : )
@OhioMike, it sounded like a Horrorscope
š¤£š¤£š¤£ @vivlnnw I hear ya. Anyways I'm ok. False Alarm. It was my horoscope from yesterday! Whew!
Tropical Astrology (What Sagan and Tyson criticize here) and Sidereal Astrology (Ayurvedic) have fundamentally different approaches to the symbolism and interpretation of the signs. Tropical Astrology believes that the qualities associated with the signs are linked to the seasons, rather than to the fixed stars, and therefore the precession of the equinoxes and the growing difference between the Tropical Signs and the relative positions of their namesake constellations is of no consequence. Sidereal Astrologers (both Western and Eastern) believe that the qualities of the signs are not related to the seasons, but rather to the specific portions of the ecliptic as measured against the fixed stars.
A lot of people who claim to have looked into astrology to disprove it, seem to always find this ancient way of reading the signs as a reason to debunk its credibility and accuracy. We all know that the credible, accurate part has to do with subjectivity, not a basis of science because how an interpretation can resonate with anyone has nothing to do with science.
@PeopleLikeUs It is because of the subjectivity of astrology that is exactly why it does not resonate with me. Interpretation of signs is subjective and does not prove anything. Astrology is fundamentally no different than fortune telling, get rich quick scams, and palm readers. The interpreter and the believer can both believe in it but it does not make it true and real. The selling point to individuals is another quick assessment that they are unique and they are being told who they are, what might happen, and what makes them unique through signs, messages, palm lines etc. The person believing in it gives it credibility but their belief in it doesnāt make it true to others or the world at large. Just because it resonates with someone does not make it true. If it is harmless and makes someone feel better about themself I see no harm in it. I choose not to believe in astrology because at the end of the day there is no scientific proof of truth and there is nothing beneficial in believing in unproven or debunked ancient ideas beyond idiosyncratic historical stories.
It's a full moon
The essence of astrology was given to me by a receptionist I met many years ago, while waiting for an interview. We fell into conversation and she remarked that people of one sign (I forget which) tended to be blonde, or at least light-haired.
I asked if she thought astrology was true all over the world. "Oh yes," she said. "We're all under the same stars, aren't we?"
"In that case," I continued, "What about people born in Africa? If they are [sign], are they blonde too? I'm not so sure."
She went silent, and looked very thoughtful. After a while she suddenly smiled brightly, and said, "Well, I think I'll keep believing in it anyway. It's nice to have something to believe in, isn't it?"
It's against my religion to believe it, we don't have in our culture āļø but because my religion existed 1400 years ago we used to have it . Karama yes what goes around comes around.
@CuddleDuncan š¤£š¤£š¤£šÆ
Trying to convince a believer that astrology is pure nonsense, is a complete waste of effort. eventually, you will be challenged to "prove it." Of course, you can' prove that astrology is bunk, any more than you can prove any other negative assertion. Proving any such negative is impossible.
I don't believe in the existence of God, although I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist. I also don't believe in the existence of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, fire breathing dragons, Santa Claus, Paul Bunyan, or the Easter Bunny. However, proving that these beings don't exist is theoretically impossible.
Proving the assertion that "All ravens are black" is also theoretically impossible. Proving such an assertion would require me to round up every raven on earth, and demonstrate that each and every one of them is black. Further more, it would also require me to prove That I actually had rounded up every raven on earth, and that I hadn't missed a red one hidden somewhere.
On the other hand, you may assert that some Ravens are pink, If that assertion is true, then to prove it, You merely need to find a single pink raven.
What I am saying is that is is incumbent on those who assert the existence of something to prove that it does exist. Don't ask the rest of us to prove that it doesn't.
@GreatHornedOwl Spoken like a true Libra!
@FunCartel Not at all. Being either liberal or conservative has absolutely nothing to do with it. Actually, spoken like a true believer in logic, and scientific method. Of course, if you're suggesting that conservatives don't believe in logic or science, you might just have a point there.
You might want to reread what @FunCartel said @GreatHornedOwl.
@Zundar Oops! I just reread it. LOL. Thanks.
I wonder if this chaos theory helps with texas holdem pokerš¤
WHICH astrology? Chinese? Egyptian? Vedic? Some other tradition? They canāt all be true.
Regarding burden of proof: itās not on the one denying astrology, the burden of proof is on the one claiming astrology is true. Of course, thatās impossible. Anything that is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The operative word is believe. One can believe literally anything. I can believe that thereās a tiny invisible unicorn living under my back porch but that doesnāt make it true. AND you canāt prove me wrong.
If we had actual evidence, it would no longer be belief. So, whether you believe that there are black swans or not, the fact that they have been documented to exist proves that they exist.
Years ago I was forced to study astrology and the instructor gave an explanation of how he claimed it worked. He said, for example, that Leos are very open, have big personalities. They are born in the summer when the sun is out. At least that is so in the northern hemisphere. I pointed out that in the Southern Hemisphere they would be born in the middle of winter. Letās not even get into the tropics where itās sunny all year long and the difference is that thereās a dry season and a rainy season. He said well, then there would be other reasons for them to have big personalities. You see the problem? Thereās a lack of internal consistency.
When someone has a belief they can make up any old rationale to support it. In science, you donāt get to say whatever you want, you have to support your claims with evidence.
Itās true that something can be real and we have not yet discovered evidence for it. That does not mean we can make up any old story we want and expect others to accept it as true.
Anyone who invokes quantum physics to support claims about astrology or any other paranormal phenomenon has just shown they know less about quantum physics than I do.
Hereās an article on quantum quackery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism