<Comment deleted by user>
gemini
my bday is on 27 may
my bday is on 27 may
I am a Aquaris
i have the Capricon
@Mantram_PateL said in #12:
> ‘‘Astrology is one big fat load of steaming BS.’’
>
> — Katzenschinken lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/tell-me-your-birthday-and-i-will-calculate-your-star-sign#8
What is it about astrology that makes you feel like this, and why do you want to share this?
> ‘‘Astrology is one big fat load of steaming BS.’’
>
> — Katzenschinken lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/tell-me-your-birthday-and-i-will-calculate-your-star-sign#8
What is it about astrology that makes you feel like this, and why do you want to share this?
taurus
in other words when im sad i hide in my room and eat chips
in other words when im sad i hide in my room and eat chips
@Human77 said in #25:
> What is it about astrology that makes you feel like this, and why do you want to share this?
Just like you I can only speculate on the intentions and feelings of others.
But for me personally, I feel this way about astrology because it's performed (among others) by a bunch of scammers trying to rip off people in precarious emotional states. Here's a good example of what I mean:
Nancy Reagan, wife of then president of the United States Ronald Reagan, hired an astrologer named Joan Quigley after the first attempt on her husband's life.
Like the Reagans or not, you have to feel for Nancy: Someone had just tried to take her husband's life and had almost succeeded (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan). Obviously she was horrified and lived in constant fear from then on. I cannot imagine the emotional strain this must have caused. In her own words:
"Very few people can understand what it's like to have your husband shot at and almost die, and then have him exposed all the time to enormous crowds, tens of thousands of people, any one of whom might be a lunatic with a gun.... I was doing everything I could think of to protect my husband and keep him alive." – Nancy Reagan (My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan)
This quote really affects me. It underscores Nancy's humanity. Who among us would have felt any different in her shoes?
Along comes this charlatan Quigley and impresses upon the first lady that "[...] she [Quigley] could have done so [preventing the assassination attempt outright] had she been looking at the time." This in my opinion can only be described as "one big fat load of steaming BS" as per Katzenschinken.
Quigley had no qualms about taking Nancy Reagan's money and betraying her hopeless trust based upon that lie. Indeed the astrologer revelled in the exclusive insights she was getting into the President's life (and in the influence she was exercising), smugly remarking (in her book) about her role:
"Not since the days of the Roman emperors, and never in the history of the United States presidency, has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
Based on that quote I believe it's fair to assume that Quigley was quite full of herself. She didn't offhandedly say this in an interview, she wrote it in her book.
Nevertheless she was actually correct, for a time "[...] every major move and decision the Reagans made [...] was cleared in advance with [Quigley] who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise."
Given that there's nothing in science to suggest that astrology actually works it's quite unsettling to hear that for a time the affairs of one of the most powerful nations in the world were heavily influenced by the supposed alignment of the planets (conveyed by a mountebank like Quigley).
Of the entire incident, Nancy Reagan said in her memoirs: "Nobody was hurt by it—except, possibly, me."
I hope that's true. Either way, Nancy Reagan has my sympathy. She deserved therapy (for PTSD possibly), not the quackery she got.
Not only is there absolutely no evidence in favour of astrology (no astrologer has ever been able to demonstrate better than pure chance predictive abilities under controlled conditions), there isn't even any plausible mechanism to explain it: the gravitational pull of the obstetrician is much greater than that of some distant planet.
Astrology is a pseudoscience that hasn't changed one single bit from time immemorial, still using 12 zodiac signs (arbitrarily ignoring a whole 13th constellation, namely Ophiuchus), failing to adjust for the precession of the earth's axis (meaning that all star signs have actually been shifted over by one on average since the definition of their respective dates in antiquity), fooling people (possibly including its own practitioners) with the heavy use of Barnum statements (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect), exploiting our innately human confirmation bias.
Astrology is not some harmless fun. It's (potentially dangerous) superstition. It exploits our emotional vulnerability, lulls us in, tells us what we want to hear (for most people that's about it, just a way to hear what we want to hear).
However it also preys on those in grief, on those in fear, those in turmoil of any kind and can cause them significant anguish. Nancy Reagan is only one prominent example.
It degrades actual science by pretending to be a science when it's clearly not (in any sense of the word), it promotes magical thinking and goes hand in hand with other bogus like psychic abilities (people pretending to be able to talk to the deceased for much the same reasons, some, like Sylvia Browne, even going as far as telling parents of kidnapped children that their kid is dead only for it to be found very much alive years later; imagine the emotional anguish inflicted by this lie).
So in short:
"‘Astrology is one big fat load of steaming BS." – Katzenschinken
> What is it about astrology that makes you feel like this, and why do you want to share this?
Just like you I can only speculate on the intentions and feelings of others.
But for me personally, I feel this way about astrology because it's performed (among others) by a bunch of scammers trying to rip off people in precarious emotional states. Here's a good example of what I mean:
Nancy Reagan, wife of then president of the United States Ronald Reagan, hired an astrologer named Joan Quigley after the first attempt on her husband's life.
Like the Reagans or not, you have to feel for Nancy: Someone had just tried to take her husband's life and had almost succeeded (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan). Obviously she was horrified and lived in constant fear from then on. I cannot imagine the emotional strain this must have caused. In her own words:
"Very few people can understand what it's like to have your husband shot at and almost die, and then have him exposed all the time to enormous crowds, tens of thousands of people, any one of whom might be a lunatic with a gun.... I was doing everything I could think of to protect my husband and keep him alive." – Nancy Reagan (My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan)
This quote really affects me. It underscores Nancy's humanity. Who among us would have felt any different in her shoes?
Along comes this charlatan Quigley and impresses upon the first lady that "[...] she [Quigley] could have done so [preventing the assassination attempt outright] had she been looking at the time." This in my opinion can only be described as "one big fat load of steaming BS" as per Katzenschinken.
Quigley had no qualms about taking Nancy Reagan's money and betraying her hopeless trust based upon that lie. Indeed the astrologer revelled in the exclusive insights she was getting into the President's life (and in the influence she was exercising), smugly remarking (in her book) about her role:
"Not since the days of the Roman emperors, and never in the history of the United States presidency, has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
Based on that quote I believe it's fair to assume that Quigley was quite full of herself. She didn't offhandedly say this in an interview, she wrote it in her book.
Nevertheless she was actually correct, for a time "[...] every major move and decision the Reagans made [...] was cleared in advance with [Quigley] who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise."
Given that there's nothing in science to suggest that astrology actually works it's quite unsettling to hear that for a time the affairs of one of the most powerful nations in the world were heavily influenced by the supposed alignment of the planets (conveyed by a mountebank like Quigley).
Of the entire incident, Nancy Reagan said in her memoirs: "Nobody was hurt by it—except, possibly, me."
I hope that's true. Either way, Nancy Reagan has my sympathy. She deserved therapy (for PTSD possibly), not the quackery she got.
Not only is there absolutely no evidence in favour of astrology (no astrologer has ever been able to demonstrate better than pure chance predictive abilities under controlled conditions), there isn't even any plausible mechanism to explain it: the gravitational pull of the obstetrician is much greater than that of some distant planet.
Astrology is a pseudoscience that hasn't changed one single bit from time immemorial, still using 12 zodiac signs (arbitrarily ignoring a whole 13th constellation, namely Ophiuchus), failing to adjust for the precession of the earth's axis (meaning that all star signs have actually been shifted over by one on average since the definition of their respective dates in antiquity), fooling people (possibly including its own practitioners) with the heavy use of Barnum statements (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect), exploiting our innately human confirmation bias.
Astrology is not some harmless fun. It's (potentially dangerous) superstition. It exploits our emotional vulnerability, lulls us in, tells us what we want to hear (for most people that's about it, just a way to hear what we want to hear).
However it also preys on those in grief, on those in fear, those in turmoil of any kind and can cause them significant anguish. Nancy Reagan is only one prominent example.
It degrades actual science by pretending to be a science when it's clearly not (in any sense of the word), it promotes magical thinking and goes hand in hand with other bogus like psychic abilities (people pretending to be able to talk to the deceased for much the same reasons, some, like Sylvia Browne, even going as far as telling parents of kidnapped children that their kid is dead only for it to be found very much alive years later; imagine the emotional anguish inflicted by this lie).
So in short:
"‘Astrology is one big fat load of steaming BS." – Katzenschinken
@Thalassokrator said in #27:
> Just like you I can only speculate on the intentions and feelings of others.
>
> But for me personally, I feel this way about astrology because it's performed (among others) by a bunch of scammers trying to rip off people in precarious emotional states. Here's a good example of what I mean:
>
> Nancy Reagan, wife of then president of the United States Ronald Reagan, hired an astrologer named Joan Quigley after the first attempt on her husband's life.
> Like the Reagans or not, you have to feel for Nancy: Someone had just tried to take her husband's life and had almost succeeded (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan). Obviously she was horrified and lived in constant fear from then on. I cannot imagine the emotional strain this must have caused. In her own words:
>
> "Very few people can understand what it's like to have your husband shot at and almost die, and then have him exposed all the time to enormous crowds, tens of thousands of people, any one of whom might be a lunatic with a gun.... I was doing everything I could think of to protect my husband and keep him alive." – Nancy Reagan (My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan)
>
> This quote really affects me. It underscores Nancy's humanity. Who among us would have felt any different in her shoes?
>
> Along comes this charlatan Quigley and impresses upon the first lady that "[...] she [Quigley] could have done so [preventing the assassination attempt outright] had she been looking at the time." This in my opinion can only be described as "one big fat load of steaming BS" as per Katzenschinken.
>
> Quigley had no qualms about taking Nancy Reagan's money and betraying her hopeless trust based upon that lie. Indeed the astrologer revelled in the exclusive insights she was getting into the President's life (and in the influence she was exercising), smugly remarking (in her book) about her role:
>
> "Not since the days of the Roman emperors, and never in the history of the United States presidency, has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
>
> Based on that quote I believe it's fair to assume that Quigley was quite full of herself. She didn't offhandedly say this in an interview, she wrote it in her book.
>
> Nevertheless she was actually correct, for a time "[...] every major move and decision the Reagans made [...] was cleared in advance with [Quigley] who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise."
>
> Given that there's nothing in science to suggest that astrology actually works it's quite unsettling to hear that for a time the affairs of one of the most powerful nations in the world were heavily influenced by the supposed alignment of the planets (conveyed by a mountebank like Quigley).
>
> Of the entire incident, Nancy Reagan said in her memoirs: "Nobody was hurt by it—except, possibly, me."
> I hope that's true. Either way, Nancy Reagan has my sympathy.
>
> Not only is there absolutely no evidence in favour of astrology (no astrologer has ever been able to demonstrate better than pure chance predictive abilities under controlled conditions), there isn't even any plausible mechanism to explain it: the gravitational pull of the obstetrician is much greater than that of some distant planet.
>
> Astrology is a pseudoscience that hasn't changed one single bit from time immemorial, still using 12 zodiac signs (arbitrarily ignoring a whole 13th constellation, namely Ophiuchus), failing to adjust for the precession of the earth's axis (meaning that all star signs have actually been shifted over by one on average since the definition of their respective dates in antiquity), fooling people (possibly including its own practitioners) with the heavy use of Barnum statements (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect), exploiting our innately human confirmation bias.
>
> Astrology is not some harmless fun. It's (potentially dangerous) superstition. It exploits our emotional vulnerability, lulls us in, tells us what we want to hear (for most people that's about it, just a way to hear what we want to hear).
>
> However it also preys on those in grief, on those in fear, those in turmoil of any kind and can cause them significant anguish. Nancy Reagan is only one prominent example.
> It degrades actual science by pretending to be a science when it's clearly not (in any sense of the word), it promotes magical thinking and goes hand in hand with other bogus like psychic abilities (people pretending to be able to talk to the deceased for much the same reasons, some, like Sylvia Browne, even going as far as telling parents of kidnapped children that they kid is dead only for it to be found very much alive years later, imagine the emotional anguish inflicted by this lie).
>
> So in short:
> "‘Astrology is one big fat load of steaming BS." – Katzenschinken
Well I certainly don't care about the "astrology" you are studying. Maybe you should take a rest from it for a while.
Peace.
> Just like you I can only speculate on the intentions and feelings of others.
>
> But for me personally, I feel this way about astrology because it's performed (among others) by a bunch of scammers trying to rip off people in precarious emotional states. Here's a good example of what I mean:
>
> Nancy Reagan, wife of then president of the United States Ronald Reagan, hired an astrologer named Joan Quigley after the first attempt on her husband's life.
> Like the Reagans or not, you have to feel for Nancy: Someone had just tried to take her husband's life and had almost succeeded (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan). Obviously she was horrified and lived in constant fear from then on. I cannot imagine the emotional strain this must have caused. In her own words:
>
> "Very few people can understand what it's like to have your husband shot at and almost die, and then have him exposed all the time to enormous crowds, tens of thousands of people, any one of whom might be a lunatic with a gun.... I was doing everything I could think of to protect my husband and keep him alive." – Nancy Reagan (My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan)
>
> This quote really affects me. It underscores Nancy's humanity. Who among us would have felt any different in her shoes?
>
> Along comes this charlatan Quigley and impresses upon the first lady that "[...] she [Quigley] could have done so [preventing the assassination attempt outright] had she been looking at the time." This in my opinion can only be described as "one big fat load of steaming BS" as per Katzenschinken.
>
> Quigley had no qualms about taking Nancy Reagan's money and betraying her hopeless trust based upon that lie. Indeed the astrologer revelled in the exclusive insights she was getting into the President's life (and in the influence she was exercising), smugly remarking (in her book) about her role:
>
> "Not since the days of the Roman emperors, and never in the history of the United States presidency, has an astrologer played such a significant role in the nation's affairs of State."
>
> Based on that quote I believe it's fair to assume that Quigley was quite full of herself. She didn't offhandedly say this in an interview, she wrote it in her book.
>
> Nevertheless she was actually correct, for a time "[...] every major move and decision the Reagans made [...] was cleared in advance with [Quigley] who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise."
>
> Given that there's nothing in science to suggest that astrology actually works it's quite unsettling to hear that for a time the affairs of one of the most powerful nations in the world were heavily influenced by the supposed alignment of the planets (conveyed by a mountebank like Quigley).
>
> Of the entire incident, Nancy Reagan said in her memoirs: "Nobody was hurt by it—except, possibly, me."
> I hope that's true. Either way, Nancy Reagan has my sympathy.
>
> Not only is there absolutely no evidence in favour of astrology (no astrologer has ever been able to demonstrate better than pure chance predictive abilities under controlled conditions), there isn't even any plausible mechanism to explain it: the gravitational pull of the obstetrician is much greater than that of some distant planet.
>
> Astrology is a pseudoscience that hasn't changed one single bit from time immemorial, still using 12 zodiac signs (arbitrarily ignoring a whole 13th constellation, namely Ophiuchus), failing to adjust for the precession of the earth's axis (meaning that all star signs have actually been shifted over by one on average since the definition of their respective dates in antiquity), fooling people (possibly including its own practitioners) with the heavy use of Barnum statements (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect), exploiting our innately human confirmation bias.
>
> Astrology is not some harmless fun. It's (potentially dangerous) superstition. It exploits our emotional vulnerability, lulls us in, tells us what we want to hear (for most people that's about it, just a way to hear what we want to hear).
>
> However it also preys on those in grief, on those in fear, those in turmoil of any kind and can cause them significant anguish. Nancy Reagan is only one prominent example.
> It degrades actual science by pretending to be a science when it's clearly not (in any sense of the word), it promotes magical thinking and goes hand in hand with other bogus like psychic abilities (people pretending to be able to talk to the deceased for much the same reasons, some, like Sylvia Browne, even going as far as telling parents of kidnapped children that they kid is dead only for it to be found very much alive years later, imagine the emotional anguish inflicted by this lie).
>
> So in short:
> "‘Astrology is one big fat load of steaming BS." – Katzenschinken
Well I certainly don't care about the "astrology" you are studying. Maybe you should take a rest from it for a while.
Peace.
@Human77 said in #28:
> Well I certainly don't care about the "astrology" you are studying. Maybe you should take a rest from it for a while.
> Peace.
My post was about western astrology in modern times.
I'm quite confused by your reply. I don't study astrology. There's not a lot of value it can teach. Sure, Astrology was all the rage in the 80s. The 380s that is. BCE. You'll allow a bit of hyperbole, won't you? :-)
Astrology has spawned the actual science of astronomy, I'll give you that. The observational part of the astrology in ancient times was quite good actually. Just the conclusions were made up bogus, designed to make kings want to continue financing you, not the precise observations and measurements of the night sky.
Many of the first scientists were avid astrologers and alchemists. Examples include Tycho Brahe, Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler.
The observational work of Brahe in particular was phenomenally good for its time. His measurements of the positions of the planets (done for astrological purposes) were so incredibly precise that they allowed Kepler to use his mathematical abilities to figure out not only that Copernicus had been partially right (the earth and the planets indeed revolved around the sun), but also in what way he had been wrong (the orbits of the planets were not perfect circles as Copernicus had postulated and therefore didn't need epicycles: they were actually ellipses, slightly elongated circles).
From Brahe's observations of the night sky Kepler was able to formulate his three laws of planetary motion (and Newton was later able to derive them from his mechanics), doing actual science. Kepler's beautiful laws have stood the test of time and are able to make testable predictions that have helped us put humans on the moon.
And for that I am grateful to (ancient) astrology.
But just like alchemy was replaced with the actual quantitative science of chemistry, astrology was replaced with astronomy. Today, you'll be hard pressed to find any supposed "astrologer" who actually observes the night sky (apart from recreational star gazing). People who observe the sky (quantitatively) with telescopes are (overwhelmingly) professional astronomers.
Modern "astrologers" by contrast practice a stagnant and rigid system of beliefs, refer to star charts and tables that others have compiled for them. They are not in the business of discovering or observing anymore. There are no observational astrologers (like Tycho Brahe) anymore.
Somehow the advances of chemistry (and later nuclear physics) have stunted the willingness of people to devote themselves to alchemy in the pointless search of an elusive quintessence or in vain attempts to transmute lead to gold.
It's hard to convince someone today that alchemy is a worthwhile enterprise, when it's so evident that gold is simply short a few extra protons in its nucleus and can therefore never become an isotope of lead (or vice versa) via chemical reactions (because they don't involve or change the atom's nucleus).
But the equally phenomenal advances of astronomy have not stopped the appeal of the promises of astrology. Perhaps that's because we really like to hear what we want to hear. Perhaps it's because the "predictions" are somehow even more elusive than those of alchemy. In alchemy, you can at least be disappointed that your lead still hasn't turned to gold. Bummer! In astrology by contrast you can interpret and bend reality in any way necessary to still feel like the "predictions" (Barnum statements) were kinda right. You cannot deny the lead in your hand still not having a shiny golden glow, it either has or it hasn't. But you can easily ignore all of the vague incorrect "predictions" of astrology by only focussing on the vague coincidentally correct "predictions".
Any physical arguments making the supposed workings behind astrology implausible (like the argument involving the gravitational pull that the obstetrician puts on the baby at birth) can be promptly ignored or hand waved away. After all, believers in astrology have "seen it work in their lives". They are not interested in HOW it works. It's enough that it does "work" for them.
And thus astrology is still very much around (in its crippled, stagnant, non-observational form) whereas alchemy has long fallen out of favour (you don't see alchemy columns in your newspaper, do you?).
I'll take a rest now, thank you for your kind suggestion! Have a great day! :-)
> Well I certainly don't care about the "astrology" you are studying. Maybe you should take a rest from it for a while.
> Peace.
My post was about western astrology in modern times.
I'm quite confused by your reply. I don't study astrology. There's not a lot of value it can teach. Sure, Astrology was all the rage in the 80s. The 380s that is. BCE. You'll allow a bit of hyperbole, won't you? :-)
Astrology has spawned the actual science of astronomy, I'll give you that. The observational part of the astrology in ancient times was quite good actually. Just the conclusions were made up bogus, designed to make kings want to continue financing you, not the precise observations and measurements of the night sky.
Many of the first scientists were avid astrologers and alchemists. Examples include Tycho Brahe, Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler.
The observational work of Brahe in particular was phenomenally good for its time. His measurements of the positions of the planets (done for astrological purposes) were so incredibly precise that they allowed Kepler to use his mathematical abilities to figure out not only that Copernicus had been partially right (the earth and the planets indeed revolved around the sun), but also in what way he had been wrong (the orbits of the planets were not perfect circles as Copernicus had postulated and therefore didn't need epicycles: they were actually ellipses, slightly elongated circles).
From Brahe's observations of the night sky Kepler was able to formulate his three laws of planetary motion (and Newton was later able to derive them from his mechanics), doing actual science. Kepler's beautiful laws have stood the test of time and are able to make testable predictions that have helped us put humans on the moon.
And for that I am grateful to (ancient) astrology.
But just like alchemy was replaced with the actual quantitative science of chemistry, astrology was replaced with astronomy. Today, you'll be hard pressed to find any supposed "astrologer" who actually observes the night sky (apart from recreational star gazing). People who observe the sky (quantitatively) with telescopes are (overwhelmingly) professional astronomers.
Modern "astrologers" by contrast practice a stagnant and rigid system of beliefs, refer to star charts and tables that others have compiled for them. They are not in the business of discovering or observing anymore. There are no observational astrologers (like Tycho Brahe) anymore.
Somehow the advances of chemistry (and later nuclear physics) have stunted the willingness of people to devote themselves to alchemy in the pointless search of an elusive quintessence or in vain attempts to transmute lead to gold.
It's hard to convince someone today that alchemy is a worthwhile enterprise, when it's so evident that gold is simply short a few extra protons in its nucleus and can therefore never become an isotope of lead (or vice versa) via chemical reactions (because they don't involve or change the atom's nucleus).
But the equally phenomenal advances of astronomy have not stopped the appeal of the promises of astrology. Perhaps that's because we really like to hear what we want to hear. Perhaps it's because the "predictions" are somehow even more elusive than those of alchemy. In alchemy, you can at least be disappointed that your lead still hasn't turned to gold. Bummer! In astrology by contrast you can interpret and bend reality in any way necessary to still feel like the "predictions" (Barnum statements) were kinda right. You cannot deny the lead in your hand still not having a shiny golden glow, it either has or it hasn't. But you can easily ignore all of the vague incorrect "predictions" of astrology by only focussing on the vague coincidentally correct "predictions".
Any physical arguments making the supposed workings behind astrology implausible (like the argument involving the gravitational pull that the obstetrician puts on the baby at birth) can be promptly ignored or hand waved away. After all, believers in astrology have "seen it work in their lives". They are not interested in HOW it works. It's enough that it does "work" for them.
And thus astrology is still very much around (in its crippled, stagnant, non-observational form) whereas alchemy has long fallen out of favour (you don't see alchemy columns in your newspaper, do you?).
I'll take a rest now, thank you for your kind suggestion! Have a great day! :-)
To me Astrology is quite simple,
either you understand it or you don't. If you don't, at least keep quiet about it.
The ramblings I just saw here has nothing to do with the Astrology I know,
to clarify what I mean.
bye.
either you understand it or you don't. If you don't, at least keep quiet about it.
The ramblings I just saw here has nothing to do with the Astrology I know,
to clarify what I mean.
bye.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.