Yeah some of these questions were so biased it hurt. And there was this "do you believe in astrology?" question that was just plain ridiculous. I don t see how that could affect my political affiliation, believing in astrology is just an indication of being uneducated.
Now, I don't believe in astrology but I do know some very well educated people who do. While I think I know where you're coming from, to me this statement is as dismissive as saying that someone is "crazy". I astrology extremely unlikely to be true? Of course. But does it provide a comforting framework from which to view the universe? Absolutely. Personally, while I find many people's beliefs to be absurd, ridiculous or downright silly, I can't go around presuming that education will persuade them to believe otherwise or presume that because I don't believe in these things that I'm better, more intelligent or more educated than they are.believing in astrology is just an indication of being uneducated
But the more I think about it, I have trouble flat out denying that our constantly changing position in the solar system/galaxy and the gravitational effects of the moon and other planets must have some sort of an effect on the chemical balances that make up our consciousness. Surely we wouldn't even be here without those gravitational forces.
Alright, let's talk about this. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is f = Gm1m2/r^2 Where f = force of gravitation between two masses G = universal gravitational constant, 6.67e-11 Nm/kg^2 m1 = mass of first object m2 = mass of 2nd object r = distance between the centroids of the two objects Let's roll it for a dude on earth, m1 being 6e24 kg, m2 being 60 kg, r = minimum radius of the earth = 6353000 m. = 589.8N Let's roll it for a dude at the maximum radius of the earth = 6384000 m. = 586.2N So in going from Death Valley to Mt Everest you've increased the force from gravity by 12.6N. That's three pounds - we used to remember "newtons" by remembering that a "quarter pounder" is a "newton burger." Clearly, there's a force at work here. ...but how much are we experiencing from even, say, the moon? m1 = 60kg m2 = 7.35e22 kg r(min) = 363104000 m = .0021N. a fifth of a gram. Okay, how much is it at the maximum? = .00197N. also a fifth of a gram. The difference is .00013 n, about 13 milligrams. By way of comparison, every time you breathe you're breathing in 600 milligrams. And that's just the moon. To be clear - I'm not saying that we know absolutely everything there is to know about the influence of our environment on our behavior. there might be some environmental factor that loosely correlates to zodiacal signs. It sure as fuck isn't what the astrologers say, though. Same is true of Acupuncture - stabbing certain spots with needles does, occasionally, have a measurable effect. That effect is demonstrably not due to meridians, however.
I'm just speculating here based on my limited knowledge of the subject, but I think that astrology has less to do with any specific force acting on people than it has to do with viewing the universe as having an inherent order to it. I'm close with a number of Hindus (highly educated ones; all manners of advanced degree) who take astrology very seriously. From what I gather, they use astrology as God's way of telling us what God is doing in the universe. Some may say that it is due to this or that specific gravitational or electrochemical force, but I think that's a superficial reading of it. My interpretation is that God has ordained that the world be so, and God also made the heavens. The heavens therefore are correlates to all that is God's plan. This is a simplistic and perhaps incorrect reading of the text, but it's the best I got. Anyway the point is that we can throw out the fact that G is disappearingly small over great distances, because it's not really the point. Apologies if I'm telling you stuff of which you're already aware, but I think this point is lost on many people, especially young people who haven't yet figured out that there's more to life than the measurable.
Ahhh, but grasshoper: that's not the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is: Your allegation is more along the lines of My response has little to do with your allegation, and your allegation has little to do with my response. They are part of the same discussion, but they are not the same discussion. It's foolish to think we know everything about the universe. It's equally foolish to think that those who came before us knew nothing. However, there are a lot of ancient beliefs that were misguided and uninformed and, if the leading lights who reached those conclusions thousands of years ago could see modern science, they likely would have reached different conclusions. That's the point of science, as far as I'm concerned: expand knowledge. So when onlythelonly says maybe astrology = gravity the scientific move is to demonstrate that astrology does not equal gravity, and that we've known this for 300 years. That's a far cry from saying astrology = NOTHING however. I put a lot more credence into Chinese astrology because it makes sense to me that people born during the same geopolitical environment in the same place who grow up together are likely to have similar wants, fears, and worldviews. That's a tricky one to test, though. Throw it into God's court and it isn't particularly testable. Which is appropriate: faith and science are at 90 degrees from each other. One shouldn't have a scientific discussion that hinges on faith, and one shouldn't have a discussion of faith that hinges on science. The discussion above was a discussion of 'faith' that hinges on science. The only logical outcome is to push faith into a different corner or erode someone's trust in science. I have nothing against faith. I'm pretty strongly of the opinion, however, that it shouldn't be used to solve problems that can be treated empirically.I have trouble flat out denying that our constantly changing position in the solar system/galaxy and the gravitational effects of the moon and other planets must have some sort of an effect on the chemical balances that make up our consciousness.
I think that astrology has less to do with any specific force acting on people than it has to do with viewing the universe as having an inherent order to it.
I don't mean to say it's as specific as people blaming their morning traffic jam on mars metrograde. I know will people see what they want to see. I appreciate you running through that for me as I so rarely get to actually crunch numbers. (Err read other people's crunches) Seriously. Fuck yea. On a side note, wouldn't you think the lunar influence would be based on the moon's positioning as it appears faced with earth and sun rather than a person's elevation on the planet. The tides seem obvious but maybe that's misleading with the vastly different volume of water. I wonder how astronauts would be affected by long term lunar landings. I look forward to finding out more about ourselves and our influences as we hurtle through space.
FTFY Allow me to clarify further. There's ample evidence that all sorts of animal and human behavior is affected by the amount of night illumination provided by a full or new moon. Corals spawn according to the amount of moonlight - if you keep a reef tank and want your corals to propagate, you need a moon light that waxes and wanes. - HOWEVER - None of that is accounted for even a tiny little bit by astrology of any kind. It's just not in the model. And that's the important aspect: you can believe that droughts are caused by an angry god or you can believe that droughts are caused by perturbation of the jet stream. If you study perturbations of the jet stream, you're likely to learn a little bit about predicting and mitigating drought. On the other hand, if you study angry gods you're never going to get to the "jet stream" portion of the program. And that's the issue with astrology, with ayurveda, with acupuncture, with homeopathy, with iridology. There is an affect you can see, but you can conclusively prove through trial and error that your model for predicting it is wrong. So your choices are either to throw out your model or to fight skirmishes in the corners so that you can preserve the overarching philosophy that attracted you to the practice in the first place. To quote David Ogilvy: Data is just numbers on a table. It's what you make of it. My point is that when you use that data and say "89% of this illustrates that I have no idea what's going on" you're a lot closer to learning something than when you say "11% of this agrees with my pre-existing hypothesis therefore the orbit of Mars predicts traffic jams."I don't mean to say it's as specific as people blaming their morning traffic jam on Mars in retrograde.
I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.
Word, dude. I look forward to studying turbulence in depth. It seems the crux of everything. Though I'm not sure I could grasp the math Feynman style. I don't believe a nary of astrology but you bring up very sound points as far as how we collect and interperate date. It's all our brains do all day and we are limited.by our past experience. What do you want to see? What are you "actually" seeing. I try to keep it in mind each moment but it sometimes plagues me to think how limited my perspective really is.
Ah ok, I read it a bit differently. From my experience, I see a lot of people scoff at "unscientific" beliefs or points of view, while not entirely understanding the science of many things themselves. Rather, the authority of Science in our time eclipses that of say, magic or ghosts and so some people are too quick to dismiss something, simply because it doesn't fall in the box of What Is Right.
Maybe it's my personal immaturity, but I find individuals with strong religious views that do not think about religion in the context of science as more commendable than diehard atheist scientists. There is a trend for atheists to take up atheism, or worse, science, as a belief system (which it shouldn't be). Just the idea of mixing any kind of faith with science is a corruption of science's core values, because it requires an acceptance of truth that you can't have if "believe" something. I think the same goes with people that use science as a tool to help them "not believe" something, which is hardly any different from "believing" something. In this circumstance, perhaps self-enforced ignorance is better.
I think this definitely true of some people and is often ignored in general. I get that people want to feel that they're in the right, but I just want us to collectively be more proactive in confirming or finding fault in what is popularly construed as "correct", "real" and"true".
It's profiling. "X believes in astrology? Must be a republican!" or something. Perfect example of how stupid this is.