Astrology - buncum or future science ?

[nissangeek]

Thought this might be interesting for you !

As someone who believes and follows science with interest, many ppl believe my 'belief' in astrology is strange. When I say belief I mean I think there MAY be something in the birth sign characteristics (not daily horoscopes). I base my belief (with wholehearted knowledge I could be wrong and it could be imagination) purely on observation (empirical (subjective) evidence?) as there is no scientific or logical mechanism which could explian how it works.

Before you all start saying it's rubbish and I'm mad, bear in mind that science has often refuted things which were later found to be true. Many who call themselves scientist also often seem unaware or forget that 'science can never prove the non-existence of something'. There is still lots and lots of phenomena which science cannot explain, and many things we don't yet know we don't know !

So does anyone else think there might be something in it ? Want to come out of the closet ? Not frightened of being called ?!

[Jem]

It's rubbish and you're mad

[nissangeek]

I'm unlikely to get 1 person here who believes aren't I ?

[sideways14a]

Just because science cannot explain it, doesn't mean its worth believing. Just because Science cannot prove it also doesn't mean its real in nature.
But you have reasonable doubt / or reasonable evidence to say there is.

For instance, science cannot say 100% sure that there is life on other planets out there somewhere.. But.... considering the vastness of space and the trillions of other places aliens (and MP's) could be hiding its not something you should just class as being fiction.
But Astrology has no observations worth a jot, and no real reasonable assumption can be made about its legitimacy, same with religion

[nissangeek]

I have read on some websites that when people tried to gather statistical evidence, it didn't prove anything. The trouble is, how do you quantify personality ?

My own observations of ppl I know and their start signs usually rings true - but am I just looking for things which fit the description ? I mean often ppl don't really know themselves that well !

[voodoo_melon]

Astrology is a load of bollocks.

There is still lots and lots of phenomena which science cannot explain

Wrong. There are lots of things that people cannot explain, there's a difference.

My own observations of ppl I know and their start signs usually rings true - but am I just looking for things which fit the description ? I mean often ppl don't really know themselves that well !

As for star signs - they're relative to your position in space. Physics isn't.

[nissangeek]

Wrong. There are lots of things that people cannot explain, there's a difference.

What's the difference ? Science is man's way of explaining things !

[Storm]

Which part of your character did not exist until Pluto was discovered and named as the ninth planet?

Now that Pluto is no longer deemed a "true" planet have we all lost part of our characters?

In the true nature of science it's all nonsense until someone proves me wrong

[Jezz_S13]

Poppycock.

[sideways14a]

Science has proof, many things in science are proven to be fact,many such theory's ect are subsequently re evaluated and changed but its a process of evaluation and correction that singles science out as being different from supernatural or bogus hock-um.

Give me reasonable grounds to the existence of something in astrology and i will listen, but there are none. Same with a lot of stuff and especially religion as i have already poked fun at

There is quite a difference between the Einstein's theory of relativity and the prattling of Derek Acorah for instance

[nissangeek]

I agree that without evidence we shouldn't believe in things which are important - but astrology doesn't harm anyone or let ppl down etc. (or at least it needn't). The important difference between it and religion is it's harmless and might be true. If true it would be useful.

[sideways14a]

Hmm i dont agree that its totally harmless, i have seen (met) people that let it rule there lives almost. Its no fun that.
But then these are the same people that would be impressed by Scientology

[nissangeek]

The book I have combines western monthly signs with Eastern Chinese yearly signs. The combinaton makes more sense than looking just at 1 only as most people do. I also know my lunar and rising signs. I am an atheist btw.

[Storm]

I'm totally agnostic but accept that I could be wrong and would actually love someone to prove me wrong.

How on earth can you be atheist but believe some other form of unproven clap trap?

[Aitch]

How is it "future science"?

[nissangeek]

How on earth can you be atheist but believe some other form of unproven clap trap?

Empirical (albeit subjective) evidence. Also, religion is clearly manmade (it differs all over the world), devicive? seeks to control ppl etc and make money. I can see clear differences. Astrology is probably older than most ? religions are. also religions end, astrology never has.

BUT the main difference is that religions fly in the face of science - astrology doesn't interfere with science.

[nissangeek]

How is it "future science"?

If in the future it was found to have testable and predictable mechanism(s) by which it works, it would become science. All hypothetical of course.

[Aitch]

astrology doesn't interfere with science.

Which answers my question, and yours. It isn't future science.

[nissangeek]

Adolf Hitler was a Taurus OX
Saddam Hussein was a Taurus OX
Maggie Thatcher is a Libra OX

Conclusion - Oxen are dangerous ?

[nissangeek]

Which answers my question, and yours. It isn't future science.

OK I meant (and said) it's either buncum OR future science - this is a factual statement. It's one OR the other ?