• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hows Astrology work?

skeptiform5

Scholar
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
58
Just before I start can I make it clear that i am adressing the beleivers of astrology
My Grandmother is a very strong believer in astrology, so my Mother knows a bit about it and 'semi-believes' ,but hows it supposed to work? Is it implanted in my brain at birth? Is it something to do with religion?
Can someone please give me something at least close to an explanation?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Magic and unicorn farts.


In serious? One of the versions I've heard states that the gravity of the planets causes the affect.
 
Just before I start can I make it clear that i am adressing the beleivers of astrology
My Grandmother is a very strong believer in astrology, so my Mother knows a bit about it and 'semi-believes' ,but hows it supposed to work? Is it implanted in my brain at birth? Is it something to do with religion?
Can someone please give me something at least close to an explanation?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

The Wikipedia article on astrology covers the basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

Astrologers believe that the movements and positions of celestial bodies either directly influence life on Earth or correspond to events experienced on a human scale.[1] Modern astrologers define astrology as a symbolic language,[2][3][4] an art form, or a form of divination.[5][6] Despite differences in definitions, a common assumption of astrologers is that celestial placements can aid in the interpretation of past and present events, and in the prediction of the future.

eta: what I want to know, is how do !@#$% magnets work?
 
Last edited:
Just before I start can I make it clear that i am adressing the beleivers of astrology
My Grandmother is a very strong believer in astrology, so my Mother knows a bit about it and 'semi-believes' ,but hows it supposed to work? Is it implanted in my brain at birth? Is it something to do with religion?
Can someone please give me something at least close to an explanation?

:confused: :confused: :confused:


It works mainly through confirmation bias.
 
People just love to be told something about themselves, particularly when it's flattering. Astrology, tea leaves, palm reading. Being the center of attention is the thing. One of my scams for meeting women in college was that I could analyze handwriting and tell them their personality. Of course, it was really cold reading. It was amazing...like moths to a flame. :D'

But the OP wanted to know what the believers say about how astrology works. Well, just from my experience with them here on JREF, they tend to avoid this question, claiming they don't know, it just works. But some have claimed the gravity thing, until it is explained that the guy standing next to the baby when it is born exerts a much greater gravitational field than any planet.



Who's Hows and why do I care about his/her astrology work?
No, How's on first. Who's on second.
 
Last edited:
Third base.

To the OP: The question "How does astrology work" is exactly the same as "How do fairies fly". Both are magical and imaginary, and they have the same answer: Magic and unicorn farts.
 
Well, just from my experience with them here on JREF, they tend to avoid this question, claiming they don't know, it just works. But some have claimed the gravity thing, until it is explained that the guy standing next to the baby when it is born exerts a much greater gravitational field than any planet.

Your experience is more positive than mine. In my experience, when you point out the obvious issues with the gravity thing, they drop it until you're out of earshot, and then go back to it.
 
Astrology was the thing I found hardest to prise myself away from. I'd had my personal horoscope done (by an astrologer in London whose name I'd seen in a Horoscope magazine - in about 1960) and a year or so later, he gave me my sons' characters based on their birth charts. I was a good shorthand writer, so took it down, transcribed it and tucked it away in a file, since I had no intention of allowing these to influence their upbringing. Fortunately, I was always sceptical enough to question everything!! The main points of their lives were corroborated by, apparently, the interpretation of their charts. I'm sure he was convinced of the truth of what he was saying. I also have a friend who studied the way to make a chart, 'read' the various angles, conjunctions etc and she certainly seemed to have a knack of reading fairly well the character of an unknown person's chart.

I am completely cured, I hasten to add! Logic, common sense, learning about confirmation bias, cold reading etc etc and, in fact, always being sceptical meant that I never bought into more than the fringes. In fact, this friend I mention has moved further and further away from her belief in astrology the more I point out the logical flaws!

Still and all, the appeal of the possibility of fore-knowledge of events was persistently attractive....:) I tried asking people, 'Well, couldn't there be some sort of waves travelling through space which were stronger or weaker when certain planets were in this or that position? But even as I asked the question, I knew it was illogical and sounded sillier each time I thought it.
 
Last edited:
Astrology works through extrapolation of the holistic connectedness of all things. Since every part of the Universe affects every other part of the Universe, we can assume that celestial objects, far away from our own planet Earth, will affect us, in some way. It is not just gravity, but a whole slew of forces working together, to do this. Most can only be indirectly deduced. Much of it is dependent on the timeline, which is why your own birthday is important to know. The trick is in how to extrapolate the data, and harmonize it with your own body, mind and spirit. One method involves infusing a mixture of lemon zest and tea leaves with the numerological components of your birth name, and conning it in the furnace of disco infernos. This will untwine the yellowgoth snorfgaltchen, from the crux of fluent wizardry. Thus, presenting the astrologer with an untarnished view of our modern mentality; especially that which matches the iambic pentameter of feminist verse. Sometimes, wearing special crystals around your neck helps, because it makes you look cool.

Is that clear enough? Any questions, let me know.
 
Astrology does not work.

This is a list compiled by Grant Edwards on the scientific studies done on astrology:


Studies on Astrology
The following references do not include anything on Gauquelin's "Mars Effect." The "Mars Effect" was a claim by Gauquelin that there was a small but statistically significant correlation between being a top athelete and the house that Mars was in at the time of birth. There has been extensive debate over the validity of the data set and the statistical analysis thereof. An attempt to replicate the "Mars Effect" study was made, and it apparently decayed into a rather nasty shouting match over I-never-figured-out-what. As far as I could tell, the replication effort was inconclusive. The resulting debate over the Mars Effect seemed to alternate between name-calling personality clashes and rather intricate statitistical discussion. I didn't have the stomach for the former or the statistical background for the latter.


* Gauquelin, M.
Zodiac and Personality: An Empirical Study
Skeptical Inquirer, 6:3, 57
1982

Compiled personality profiles from biographies of 2000 sports figures, actors, scientists, and writers. Compared these profiles with personality traits associated with the sign of the sun, moon, and ascendant according to eight astrology texts. No correlation was found using either the sidereal or tropical zodiac.

* Press, N., Michelsen, N.F., Russel, L., Shannon, J., Stark, M.
The New Yourk Suicide Study
Journal of Geocosmic Research, 2, 23-47
1978

Examined records of suicides in NYC from 1969 to 1973. Selected all suicides who were born in NYC and for which birth data was available. This resulted in 311 suicide cases. For each of these, a control subject was randomly chosen who was born in the same borough and year. The suicides and matching controls were divide into three groups according to year of suicide.
A computer program was used to test 100,000 different astrological factors in each of the 622 birth charts for significance between suicide and control groups. None of the factors consistently correlated with the suicide cases.

* Culver, R.
Sun Sign Sunset
Pachert
1979

* Van Deusen, E.
Astrogenetics
Doubleday
1976

* Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 147
1977

The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign and over 60 occupations. The results of all three were negative -- no correlation was found between occupation and sun sign.

* Dean G., Mather, A.
Recent Advances in Natal Astrology p113
The Astrological Association
1977

* Silverman, B., Witmer, M.
Astrological Indicators of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 87, 89
1974

* Per Dalen,
Season of Birth
American Elsevier Publishing
1975

* Pellegrini, R.,
The Astrological Theory of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 85, 21
1973

The above 4 references all found no correlation between sun sign and personality traits as measured by standardized psychological tests, mostly the California Personality Inventory (CPI). However, Pellegrini found a slight correlation between the CPI femininity index and season of birth.

* Illingworth, D., Syme, G.
Birthday and Femininity
Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 153
1977

* Tyson, G.
Astrology or Season of Birth: A 'Split-Sphere' Test
Journal of Psychology, 95, 285
1977

These two studies found no correlation between sun sign and personality traits measured by the CPI, including the femininity index.

* Mayes, B., Klugh, H.
Birthdate Psychology: A Look at Some New Data
Journal of Psychology 99, 27
1978

Compiled natal charts and results of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Leary Interpersonal Check List for 196 subjects. Compared 13 personality traits with sun signs, signs and houses of the moon and 8 planets, and with five planetary aspects. No correlations were found.

* Mayo, J., White, O., Eysenck, H.
An Empirical Study of the Relation between Astrology Factors and Personality
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 105, 229
1979

* Jackson, M.
Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Date of Birth: A Southern Hemisphere Study
Journal of Psychology, 101, 197
1979

These two studies found correlations between astrological factors and the Introversion/Extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

* Veno, A., Pammunt, P.
Astrological Factors and Personality: a Southern Hemisphere Replication
Journal of Psychology, 101, 73
1979

Failed to duplicate the correlation found above.

* Pawlik, K., Buse, L.,
Self-attribution as a Differential Psychological Moderating Variable
Zeitschrift fur Sozilpsychologie, 10, 54
1979

Showed that the correlation above could be explained by the fact that some of the subjects knew what the expected results would be for their astrological signs.

* Eysenck, H.,
Astrology: Science or Superstition?
Encounter, Dec 1979, p85

* Jackson, M., Fiebert, M. S.
Introversion-Extroversion and Astrology
Journal of Psychology, 105, 155
1980

* Saklofske, D., Kelly, I., McKerracher, D.
An Empirical Study of Personality and Astrological Factors
Journal of Psychology, 110, 275
1982

These three studies found no correlation between astrological factors (sun and planetary) and personality, including the introversion/extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

* Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astrology: True or False, p215
Prometheus
1988

A double blind test of astrologer John McCall was organized at the University of Virginia by Charles Tolvert and Philip Ianna. McCall claimed an 80 percent success rate in choosing the correct natal horoscope for a subject from three false ones. Twenty-eight subjects were chosen according to McCalls requirements (naturally born caucasians). McCall had 7 successes out of 28 trials, exactly the number predicted by chance.

* Silverman, Bernie I.,
Contemporary Astronomy by J. Pasachoff, cf p437
W. B. Saunders
1977

* Kop, P., Heuts, B.
Journal of Interdisciplenary Cycle Research 5, 19
1974

The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of Amsterdam, respectively.

* John McGervey
Physicist
Case Western Reserve University

Found that the sun signs of 6,000 politicians and 10,000 scientists were randomly distributed.

* Shawn Carlson
A Double-blind Test of Astrology
Nature, 318, 419
1985

116 adults filled out California Personality Index surveys and provided natal data. One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data. The San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research recommended the 28 astrologers who took part. They approved the procedure in advance and predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials. Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34 per cent of the time. This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3 trails producing a correct choice. Horoscopes were prepared by professional astronomers for 83 subjects. Each subject was given three charts, one of which belonged to the subject. In 28 of 83 trials the subject chose the correct chart. This is the success rate expected for random chance.

* Dean, Geoffrey
(trying to find reference)

Astrological readings were done for a groups of subjects. The content of some of the readings were reversed (changed phrases describing the subject to their opposites). Subjects reported that both the reversed and normal readings applied 95 per cent of the time.

* Gauquelin, M.
L'Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Experimentale
Dauphin Press
1955

Found no correlation between occupation and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon at the time of birth.

* Gauquelin, M.
The Cosmic Clocks, p84
Henry Regnery Co.
1967

Found random distribution of the house containing Saturn for successful individuals, and the house containing Mars for murderers.

* Barth, J., Bennet, J.
Leonardo 7, 235
1974

Found no correlation between occupation, medical problems, height, longevity, and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter at the time of birth.

* Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 85
1977

Pretty much the same study and results as the previous reference. Additionally, no correlation was found between occupation, medical problems, etc. and angular separation (along the ecliptic) of planet pairs at time of birth.

* Dean, G.
Does Astrology Need to be True? Part 1: A Look at the Real Thing
Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 166
1987

Astrologers prepared horoscopes for subjects correct natal data. Reversed charts were then constructed from the correct charts by retaining the sun sign, but reversing all of the planetary aspects. Half of the subjects were given correct charts, the other half were given reversed charts. There was no correlation between the perceived accuracy of the charts and whether the subject was given a correct or reversed chart.

* Dwyer T.
Unpublished word described in Dean, 1987.

Horoscopes were prepared for correct natal data and for a birth date 5 years and 6 months before the correct date, with the correct sun sign retained. Thirty subjects were given the correct and incorrect charts. Half of the subjects picked the correct chart, half chose the incorrect chart.

From James Lippard:
* McGrew, John H., McFall, Richard M.
A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 75-83 1990

Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match 23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4 male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs, and test profiles from the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank and the Cattell 16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no better than chance or than a nonastrologer control subject at matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was independent of astrologers' confidence ratings for their predicted matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's predictions.

* Marbell, Neil Z., Novak, Angela R., Heal, Laird W., Fleming, Land D., Burton, Jeannine Marie
Self Selection of Astrologically Derived Personality Descriptions: An Empirical Test of the Relationship Between Astrology and Psychology
NCGR Journal, Winter 1986-87, 29-44

Twenty-four female subjects were asked to recognize as true or untrue complex personality characteristics describing themselves and to select one of three personality profiles as their own; personality information had been derived by "blinded" astrologers from natal charts representing the moment of birth. Three different experiments varied as to the complexity of the astrologically derived personality characteristics, method of test material administration, and subjects' knowledge of the astrological basis for personality information. Overall results for the three experiments evaluated using cumulative binomial distribution were significantly non-random, with p<.001 for 15 valid trials and p<.01 for all 24 trials including nine found non-eligible for inclusion. These results supported the validity of astrology's capability to generate unique personality descriptors that subjects affirm by selection as representative of their own personalities.

[Comment on this last one: This is in an astrology publication (the journal of the National Council for Geocosmic Research) and the description of the methodology is a bit vague in places, as are the reasons why some of the subjects were disqualified. The article is followed, however, by letters from various people praising the methodology--including the late CSICOP Fellow George Abell and Allan Teger, Boston University professor and former program director for social and developmental psychology for the National Science Foundation. These letters all date from the late seventies. There's also a letter from Paul Kurtz in support of Marbell's application for NSF money for an astrological study, but you can't tell from the letter whether Kurtz saw the details of these particular experiments.]
 
Just before I start can I make it clear that i am adressing the beleivers of astrology
My Grandmother is a very strong believer in astrology, so my Mother knows a bit about it and 'semi-believes' ,but hows it supposed to work? Is it implanted in my brain at birth? Is it something to do with religion?
Can someone please give me something at least close to an explanation?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Basically, the asstrologer has to do three things: 1) determine the exact birth date/time of the asstrologee; 2) determine the exact position of the star(s), planets(s), zodiac sign(s) at that time; and (3) reach deep into his/her rectum and pull out a prediction of what will occur for that asstrologee's life.

For those interested in the study of word origins, the word asstrology means "that pulled from a rectum on a random reach in" and asstrologist means "a person who reaches into their rectum to predict the path of another's life".
 
Back when I believed in astrology, (Yes, I used to be a woo) I came up with the brilliant theory that the celestial bodies subtly influenced the separation of chromosomes during meiosis, preferring some configurations over others. "Therefore", I reasoned, "Astrology works, but it's off by nine months". Of course, if I'd thought a little deeper, I'd have realized that the creation of sperm, and especially ova, happens long before conception. And it has since been pointed out to me that nearby objects exert more gravitational pull (because of their proximity) than the stars. So if you resulted from your mom getting knocked up in the back of a car, your astrological sign is "Buick".
 
Back when I believed in astrology, (Yes, I used to be a woo) I came up with the brilliant theory that the celestial bodies subtly influenced the separation of chromosomes during meiosis, preferring some configurations over others. "Therefore", I reasoned, "Astrology works, but it's off by nine months". Of course, if I'd thought a little deeper, I'd have realized that the creation of sperm, and especially ova, happens long before conception. And it has since been pointed out to me that nearby objects exert more gravitational pull (because of their proximity) than the stars. So if you resulted from your mom getting knocked up in the back of a car, your astrological sign is "Buick".

Given my own predilections I may have sired children under the "refrigerator" sign.
 
"The total pull of all the planets combined is 0.017 (of the Moon's gravitational force), not even 2% of the Moon's pull!"

So one would think the elliptical orbit of the Moon as it goes through apogee and perigee would make far greater effect than any of the planets.

Anyway, astrology is a very old "art". They wouldn't have been able to work out the actual gravitational effect of the planets. So how could they possibly predict the future from these effects?

There's so many logic flaws with the whole thing that I don't understand why it still has followers. May as well believe in a flat Earth..
 
"The total pull of all the planets combined is 0.017 (of the Moon's gravitational force), not even 2% of the Moon's pull!"


I've heard something similar to this several times, but never remembered to find the source afterwards, any chance of a good link where this is presented? It's a good little snippet to include in a discussion.
 
I've heard something similar to this several times, but never remembered to find the source afterwards, any chance of a good link where this is presented? It's a good little snippet to include in a discussion.


You might wish to add that before 1781, Uranus had no effect at all, Neptune only started influencing things after 1846 and little Pluto wasn't on anyone's chart until 1930.
 

Back
Top Bottom