Scientific proof for astrology

Scientific testing of astrology has found no evidence to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. In one study, participating astrologers attempting to match natal charts with profiles generated by a psychological inventory produced results not significantly at variance with random chance

To possibly think that the position of a planet means something in your life will change or that the day you were born makes you have certain characteristic is just ludicrous.

Pavlov's dog expected food when the bell rang. The bell is not physically or otherwise connected to the food at all

The bell was connected to the dog through the air as sound waves.

Let's look at this from the historical perspective. Astrology was never meant to be true. Look at the evidence. Let's take the sign Cancer. You can look up the characteristics of someone born under this sign. The fact is that Cancer is the crab, and the crab is the sea-beetle. The sign itself is sourced in Egyptian texts as the Kherep and hence our word crab or crib. The kherep is a winged beetle or scarab. See that word scarab and our word crab? Western astrology is not meant to be taken as true because it is based upon an original sysmbolism, which has been lost and reinterpreted over and over again.

Let's take Gemini, the twins. This was obviously Castor and Pollux. But the Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians, they are Shu and Tefnut the twins in the Ennead. In the astrology of Egypt the signs were applied to epochs, thus a king's astrological birth heralded a new age. It was not democratised as it is today.

I appreciate the point that the symbolism has been subject to reinterpretation, but don't see how that is proof of anything.

Cancer, Gemini, etc. are just used as convenient reference points to encompass a type of expression, energy, etc.

Even today, there are multiple interpretations available, not dissimilarly to the discrepancy between scientific papers and their coverage in mass media. The overblown or misinterpreted results can mislead people, and the content can be spun differently over tine, but I there is a core truth in there, it exists independently of the language or human distortion.

Good evening all,

I have found a framework of thought that can allow astrology, considered a pseudo-science, to potentially be true. Here is the outline of the video:

1. The solar system works cyclically, allowing for the reliable prediction of future events for example that the sun will rise tomorrow. Many aspects of the human condition also work cyclically, such a the life and death of generations of people, growth, learning, etc.

2. For two things to be connected, there is no need for a direct connection. For example, Pavlov's dog expected food when the bell rang. The bell is not physically or otherwise connected to the food at all, yet the bell's ring worked perfectly as a predictor of food being made available. In scientific terms, this particular correlation is explained by a common cause (the experimenter).

3. People are reluctant to acknowledge themselves as specks of dust living on a rock in the sky, and this detachment from our environment is the sort of attitude that leads to climate change denying - yet we are inextricably linked to our internal and external environment.

Watch the rest here:

Yes, but was it connected to the food? The dog linked it to food.

Regarding the article linked, a poorly done experiment not yielding results is not definitive proof of something not being the case. People linked countless "proper" papers on the link between fat and heart disease freely until it was shown the gaps in knowledge were huge and that inflammation from sugar is far worse than fat. I am a scientist, I am fully aware of the fleeting feebleness of the vast majority of scientific studies, and the giant space they leave for biased interpretation and the matching of agendas, if there are any to be met (for example studies on certain drugs and their side effects or lack thereof).

2. For two things to be connected, there is no need for a direct connection. For example, Pavlov's dog expected food when the bell rang. The bell is not physically or otherwise connected to the food at all, yet the bell's ring worked perfectly as a predictor of food being made available.

It's my personal opinion that astrology falls into the same category as the existence of God - completely out of the ambit of what can be scientifically tested.

Yes, through a pattern. The bell rang, the dog got food. The bell rang, the dog got food. The bell rang, the dog got food. And so on. It's called conditioning.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Astrology is easily demonstrated to be nonsense.

You appear not to be questioning the existence of a 'pavlovian response' because it is supported by experimental evidence.

how do you decide which science you want to believe? or do you just cherry pick the ones that confirm your previously held beliefs?

You say you're a scientist, but all the same, I'm not sure that you actually understand how science works. For a claim to be taken seriously, many well-done experiments yielding good results, preferably over the course of many decades, must be unable to disprove it. You're quite right that a poorly done experiment not yielding results is not a definitive disproof of astrology, but neither is it any good reason to believe in it. The reason astrology has persisted in the modern scientific age is because it's difficult to disprove, but this is only because it makes almost no falsifiable claims. Even if it did work, it would be extremely difficult to show that it was working, because the claims it makes are so mystifyingly subjective.

It's my personal opinion that astrology falls into the same category as the existence of God - completely out of the ambit of what can be scientifically tested.