Scientists' say astrology is waste of time

This topic was created in the Astrology forum by Sea Siren on Friday, July 18, 2008 and has 35 replies.
My boyfriend sent me this article because he basically thinks astrology is a load of shite. Tongue
Apparently these scientists in Britain used census data to examine the signs of married couples and say they found no link between astrological sign and who people chose for marriage partners. The only thing they did discover is a high correlation between people of the SAME sign getting married.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444681/Astrology-wont-help-true-love-claim-scientists.html
This second link breaks down how they did the study and the findings:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_32/ai_n24962254
Thoughts?
details
Hey, Keva,
Yeah, they actually say in the article that astrologers would advise that you need the whole chart to read compatibility (which is true), but they were focusing on general sun sign compatibility because it's what the large majority of people read about.
They do say that there were some combinations more than others, but they said it wasn't a large enough percentage to "prove" sun sign as a factor in whom people choose as a marriage partner. I want to see those numbers, and know which signs! ARGH!
I hope there is more in-depth research done on this in the future. It's fascinating!
details
"i think there should be, if there hasn't been before, some in depth studies conducted."
Me too. I'm surprised there haven't been more studies on the topic. But, then, they may be afraid to do this because they won't like what they find. Tongue
"btw i haven't read the links yet. will do later. i usually stay away from anything reported in the daily mail."
I think it was an AP story because it ran in several other papers the same day. After he sent me the link, I went looking to see if there was anything more in-depth about how the study was conducted. All I found was the second link above, and it does seem to me the researchers dismissed some pertinent data.
details
"they dig deeper into astrology so they can incorporate each standpoint and be more precise with their findings."
That's exactly what I tried to explain to my boyfriend (we've been having an email debate about this all morning lol). He said I was just making excuses because I WANT to believe it. =0
So then I fired back that he didn't know anything about astrology, and if he kept it up he was going to see Batman by himself tonight. Tongue
details
"My boyfriend sent me this article because he basically thinks astrology is a load of buttere."
What's his star sign? Tongue
details
Scorpio. And he fits the descrips to a tee, which I always point out. lol
details
i still have to read the article - but why does everything have to be quantified through science to be real or have meaning? Why does science automatically (assume) to be the supreme standard, anyway? Love can't exactly be quantified, but it's real.. Thoughts and feelings arn't exactly a science either, but they're real too. I don't think certain disciplines mix well at all, kind of like asking an astologer to prove the earth is round.
details
Let's face it, there's no evidence astrology is real. So if you believe in it it's because you want to/choose to.
It could be there is something to it but none of us know for sure.
details
You are referring to monogamous compatability but astrology is psychology and behavior at its core.
details
There are people that think evolution is bullzz.
details
To me predictive astrology is not so important its the zodiac signs the sun signs and behavior patterns that count. Predictive astrology is mostly subjective (like religions which are pathological delusions) but the signs are just what they are its evident and its mostly very concrete and immediately empirically discernable, yeah that's wuz up. Unfortunately our species is only in a Mercury stage of evolution (Mercury ruled frontal cortex > compare with Australopithicus/Australopithicines or even a Chimp or a Gorilla) and we are not as Homo Sapiens going to evolve beyond this point which is well > its sad but we have a far greater degreee of super advanced and intelligent consciousness than uhhhh you name it any other mamallian species we evolved beyond them although other galaxies can be far more advanced than what we anatomically possess.
details
So astrology like human evolution is not a waste of time, religions are a waste of time > this concept of "God" is a pathology, astrology is not a pathology unless it deviates into pathological subjective intellectual states, your mom, your friend, your dad, your sister, your brother, your cowoker, you name it > its just what it is, there is tangibility that anyone can recognize.
details
Well the "united unconscious" might as well be real too but you and I belong to modern civilization > there are no people that can conceive of this concept of "united unconscious".
details
Yes he was onto something just in the manner Charles Darwin was onto something > Astrology is the very core root of psychology. For example "God" didn't create people 2,000 years ago its an absurdity and yes its unfortunate that people worship things that don't exist its delusional, unfortunately we as a species Homo Sapiens have intellectually evolved only so far (dualistic Mercury) its sad > millions of people will die in this concept of "God". Do you think dinosaurs were created 2,000 years ago? You are a fool, the educational systems are fools, my sign is a fool but also an extraordinary genius (human terms > there are trillions of intelligent life forms). In our civilization we go to church and worship to something that doesn't exist but our museums have osteological artifacts that go back millions of years > its dualistic and stupic and uhhhh well its good and bad > see what I mean dualism that's it evolution didn't go any further more octave like 4, 8, 16 frontal lobe/cortezx cone heads HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
details
Technically speaking the signs haven't evolved beyond what is just dual cerbrohemispherial homosapiens that's including octaves such as Uranus, Neptune and Pluto > in which the biological modus operadi is just the same > obviously, the astro psychological subconscious of Water Scorpio/Pisces or the uhhmm the plugged in superconsciousness of Air/Aquarius is mostly limited which is why we can only designate these as "octaves" > "higher octaves" but that's it, Libra is a "higher octave of Aries" wanna go beyond that no > there are no people like this cos its not anatomically and hence isn't a natural phenomenon within your empirical experience. The Superconsciousness of Air is just about as controversial as the um the ah intangible subconsciousness of Water but ordinarily these furtive and inspirational intuitions (intuitive abilities/intuitive and revolutionary intelligences) are not a part of civilization > either too far out intangible or too intangibly subliminal. In Air > the respective ideology is "out there" and "over the top" and in Water its about the chthonic subliminal Feminine polarity > the subconscious such as in dreams for example. Dreams can be tangible well ofkorsk they are tangible in the sense that this is your natural psychological subconscious states but then this "natural" subconscious effect is not our "natural" conscious modus operadi as we course through our rational oriented civilizations.
details
"It could be there is something to it but none of us know for sure."
well i pretty much know my own birthchart inside out and back again; and i must say it fits me to a T; so i would say i do know for sure (for me) ..all the evidence i'll ever need iz myself.. *We are all walking evidences, imo. + Astrology would have to be alot more than mere fun to keep me interested, there would have to be substance & truths at least for myself, or i wouldn't see any value and would get bored pretty quick.. *and i agree, there are too many coincidences. Maybe the (only) real way scientists can prove to me the Earth is round is to actually take me to outerspace and (see) for myself with my own true-blue eyes.. i believe there's still a flat-earth society out there, not that i subscribe to or anything, but you get my drift..! Winking
>>..astrology is psychology and behavior at its core
exactly JS, many have actually gotten just as much valuable help or more out of astrology then the more mainstream behavioral disciplines + it's drug free.
>>...but yet, who says astrology is only a "stigmatised" name for a different phenomenon we still dont know about.."
Interesting thought to chew on, Evan..
details
Dear Doctor Voas,
I was going through the reports in various online media (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_32/ai_n24962254) and I was quite surprised to see they all have mentioned Virgo-Capricorn and Libra-Leo in those reports. If you look at the statistics from teenage romance or preteen lovers, you can get these Virgo-Capricorn and Libra-Leo right. But the more older humans get, they break away from their original nature and tend to look for partners who feed their insecurities and not their natural astrological partners. As a result, you would be finding more of Aries-Virgo partners instead of Aries-Libra which is an astrological combination. And Libra-Pisces partners instead of Libra-Aries. You would find more gemini men married to Cancer, Virgo or Scorpio than any other zodiac group. You would find every male of most zodiacs been in a long term relationship with a female from their immediately next zodiac group. You would find Aquarius married to Cancer. And there also you can find a pattern based on age and zodiac of ex boyfriends/partners if you can agree with me that past patterns create irreversable changes in the stored information part of every individual which eventually reflects in the processed data.
Also if you look at close friends for each zodiac, then you would get everything as per linda goodman have mentioned in her books. Not lovers. Because societies idea of a lover is someone who gives u those extra heartbeats and not someone with whom you share a comfortable communication. As a result, everytime a human being meets their astrologically perfect partner, they fail to identify the presense of those so called feelings within them and they tend to look around for people who makes them feel. For superstitious people who still think there is something called love and it originates frome heart and you can feel it, this is how it works. But I think the more complex the communication gets between two individuals, the more blood is needed to be pumped by your heart inorder to meet the energy requirements for the brain to do those complex calculations. And as a result, you tend to have those extra heartbeats and so called feelings.
I hope you would take an effort to read this mail and try to re-evaluate your studies atleast in a minor way to satisfy your curiosity. If you have any doubts regarding my thoughts or mental health, please feel free to mail me back.
-i mailed him this
details
It annoys me when "science" goes out of it's way to "prove" something isn't accurate, without considering all of the important aspects of the topic. That's not proper science. I say, do it properly or don't do it at all! Friggin half-assed nitwits.
details
They did a study once in a high school where they asked the students to give them their birthdays so they can do a reading for them. When they got their reading everyone was surprised how accurate it was, how it got them "to a T". But guess what? They all got the exact same reading. Do this, pick a random date, than do a chart/reading for that date. See if it fits you. - The problem off course is that you can influence yourself with your beliefs. That is if you want to believe it you will see what you want and discard the rest.
I mean if you wrote a book with the title "Undeniable Proof Astrology is Real" and the evidence you provide is that you did a chart reading and it "described you to a t" (it would be a short book) do you think anyone would consider that book credible?

details
*Could've been college students. Nevertheless.
details
It would work for anyone below 21-22 yrs old Ikol. You only begin to recognize your own specific character when you cross that age. Till then you are all confused about yourselves.
details
At least I got a reply and an explanation back from the dear doctor which made me deduct yet another possibility.
You cannot prove the moon and mars part unless you prove the sun part Evan. And there has been so many astrologers who have been trying to prove it for years without any positive results.
details
"Why does science automatically (assume) to be the supreme standard, anyway? Love can't exactly be quantified, but it's real.. Thoughts and feelings arn't exactly a science either, but they're real too."
HAHA! Mystic, that was one of my points...EXACTLY! Mankind is very arrogant about thinking we have all the answers. Remember when we were oh, so convinced that the world was flat?
"Sometimes we see similiarities amongst the sun signs of others, but are we seeing a similarity or seeing what we want to see?"
That's what my boyfriend said. He said all the attributes given to each sign are all traits every one has, but people who believe astrology know which traits are assigned to what sign, so we'll be more likely to notice, say, a Gemini being talkative more than we would a Pisces being talkative. Even if both people were that way, we would ascribe that trait to the Gem, and forget about the pisces. I have to admit, he did make a good point. I still didn't concede, though, because maybe the Pisces has Gemini rising or a strong gem influence. Tongue
details
People who believed the Earth was flat did so based on faith, since there was no evidence for it.
Guess what tool people who believe in astrology use. Winking
details
"People who believed the Earth was flat did so based on faith, since there was no evidence for it."
They were proven wrong. But, one study does not equal a conclusion. Especially one in which only the compatibility of sun signs was examined. They're going to have to do better than that.
details
Oh I agree with that.
But there is no study that proves astrology is real either, hence my first post in this thread.
details
Basically it's similar to the "God" debate. People who claim God exists are the ones asked to provide evidence for the claim.
One can say the burden of proof about astrology lays on those who claim it to be true ?
details
You have to study PEOPLE in order to prove or disprove astrology. And not via survey, because people lie on those (although it would be a start). There needs to be a sample of people from each sign studied. You could just strap a camera on them for a period of time and monitor to see how like or dislike their chart they are.
They would probably turn it into a reality show....but I'll admit, I'd watch. smile
details
((One can say the burden of proof about astrology lays on those who claim it to be true ?))
Suppose if i try to show you something regarding human character. Whats the guarantee that you would be able to see it the way I see it? What if you are not so expert in reading human gestures and emotions? Thats why astrology cannot be proved to most people. Simply bcoz they are fcking stupid.
details
"Thats why astrology cannot be proved to most people. Simply bcoz they are fcking stupid."
LOL! We would need a body of psychiatrists and astrologers to come to a consensus. Which, groups can rarely agree on anything, so we would just have to see what the majority decision was. They could do it like the Supreme Court, and whomever objected to the majority decision could state why. It would be interesting reading, either way.
details
"SS...that is so rude of you.."
I didn't say that, Libran did. lol
"REGULAR PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN GET ALONG, I CAN'T EVEN SEE PSYCHIATRISTS & ASTROLOGIST that would be like going to battle in space"
THAT's why it would make an awesome reality show... smile

details
There was no study done that proved astrology exists that I know of.
If I ask you to provide evidence, you couldn't do it. Saying that people are too stupid to understand, or are not "expert" at reading human nature (could be you're not either) misses the mark completely. Birthcharts give descriptions that describe pretty much everyone at one time or another. Too vague.
details
hmm, that's weird. i know that jung was a leo, don't know anything else about his chart. anyway, i am somewhat of a psychologist, but i credit most of my understanding of others (apart from what is innate) to a combination of psychology and astrology. i find it interesting that jung did something along the same lines. wonder what his other placements are.
details
imo, there doesn't have to be any kind of feud between psychology/psychiatry and astrology. they both aim to do similar things. i think using them together has helped me immensely.
details
"imo, there doesn't have to be any kind of feud between psychology/psychiatry and astrology. they both aim to do similar things. i think using them together has helped me immensely."
I agree, Wheels. I think they should get together and compare notes. It might provide some answers to the validity of astrology and they'll stop calling it pseudoscience. I hate that word. Tongue
details

Leave Your Feedback

We'd love to hear your thoughts! If you're not logged in, you can still share your feedback below. Your input helps us improve the experience for everyone. To post your own content or join the conversation, please log in or create an account.

Home Astrology Comments Forums Search

©1997-2025 dxpnet.com. All Rights Reserved.
Advertising Contact Terms of Use Privacy Policy