How do you think that the stars can affect us?

>Is it based on a belief that we are influenced by some force like gravity or electro-magnetism, or the emission of particles like photons, protons or neutrinos? I've asked a substantially similar question in the past but didn't get any answers which helped.<

I'm going to take you at your word that you're serious about this, and aren't just pimping for a skeptic to rack up points. The question, when asked sincerely is fair. However the worldview that developed astrology is not the worldview we were all raised with today, so a materialistic answer (i.e. there is a such a force in nature) is not so easy to grasp given what we know about gravity etc. And just because the previous worldview is older, that does not make it wrong. To date no such force is known, but as astrology skeptic Carl Sagan said, ""That we can now think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.”

So the first point is that it is not necessary to prove a mechanism in order for astrology to be valid. But that begs the real question: is astrology valid? I'll get to that in a minute.

If astrology works, it does so probably more on coincidence (in the literal sense "occurring at the same time") than by mechanism. The old worldview, which held sway for over 1500 years compared to the current 300 or so of the current one, was that everything in some way was connected to everything else. This is defensible philosophically and I'm not going there. But think about this, if that is true, even only in some sense true, the motions of the planets are connected to events on earth, and since the motions of the planets are predictable with great accuracy, if we can correlate their motions and geometric interactions then we can predict events on earth. And a legitimate response is: "If, if if, ... if pigs had wings they'd be eagles." So what it comes down to is this: If the correlation between events in the cosmos and events on earth exists, astrology works. If there is no such correlation, astrology does not work.

Can we establish the correlation without establishing a mechanism? People who fawn over statistics say we can, but those people aren't usually astrologers. Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of astrologers who are working, when they can (this stuff takes money and astrologers don't have any), on establishing such a statistical correlation. But there is a huge problem actually more than one. Astrology, once you get past the horoscope columns in newspapers, is really complex. It is also, as a community, disorganized and there are a lot of very popular and influential astrologers who aren't all that good. One of the basics of the scientific method and laws of statistics is that the results should be able to be repeated. But every chart is unique as are all individuals, so replication isn't always possible because there are no two events or people sufficiently similar to test. Twins? Twins are a) not all identical and b) not all born one right after the other. Identical twins can be born hours apart as well as minutes. Ask any ob/gyn. Time twins? Some claim to have studied the birth charts of many time twins but strangely don't provide the data and what has been gleaned is that time twins to a researcher unfamiliar with astrology can be born hours apart and satisfy the statistician, but not the astrologer.

Michel Gauquelin, published in 1955 a study dubbed, "The Mars Effect," which seems to validate some of astrology's tenets (but hardly all). He found that in numbers exceeding chance planets with the appropriate characteristics are found near the astrological angles in the charts of highly successful people. Mars for example is found near the angles in the charts of top military leaders and athletes. Mars of course is the planet associated with those activities, and since this was his first study, the name "The Mars Effect" is loosely applied to all of his work. Similar studies showed the same thing with scientists (Saturn) and others. According to the laws of statistics, we would have to say that the planets had an influence on the choice of profession. Of course the scientific community does not consist of angels and Gauquelin and others, if they found his studies valid (see Starbaby article below), were viciously attacked, and this has been going on for over 50 years. To date the studies stand despite the often malicious and downright dishonest treatment they received.

However, it is fair to say that Gauquelin did not prove astrology. He could not find similar results with the second string. General George Patton, arguably the greatest field general of WWII has an angular Mars. Generals who accomplished much less do not. I can't explain that. Also Gauquelin found no difference when he arranged the data to include the signs of the tropical zodiac that held Mars or the other planets. The planet on an angle seemed to be enough. The sign didn't matter. Patton's Mars is in Virgo, hardly a warlike sign.

Astrology as a body of knowledge has its share of problems. It has more than its share of wackos and dilettantes. It is never going to get anywhere as a discipline, if it does not overcome the disorganization problems that are largely of its own making. The first step is to separate ourselves from Nadej on the corner who sees all and knows all. Then, I think, we need to drop the horoscope columns. They're just a straw man argument for skeptics. Nadej is easy. The horoscope columns are considered by many astrologers as a valid gateway to more serious study despite their being useless. We need serious people to look at the subject seriously. That, too takes money.

The typical skeptic starts with the position "It can't be true, so it isn't true." They are rarely intellectually honest enough to shake the position. They don't even bother to learn anything about the subject, and when the ignorance is pointed out, they feel no shame. This is arrogance, not intellectual discourse. But people are people and that's the way we were made.

I've listed a few articles below. You can even download the latest study that validates the Gauquelin work and has reduced the skeptics to sputtering insanities like Gauquelin's subjects lied to him about their children's birth times so his work would pan out. .That's desperation. Don't be desperate. Think for yourself.

If magical thinking is involved, then it needs to be questioned. I take the attitude "If it's not science, it's superstition" with no in between options. Not a single solved mystery in the history of the world has been attributed to magic. There is science behind it all. Does astrology claims do better than tarot cards or palm readers? Try to find where astrology makes factual claims. Any that can pass tests will make Nobel winners of those that discover them. The scientific method does work and those that need excuses for why their claims fail are deceiving themselves.

No positive proponent of astrology (which one?) or science is interested in proving how astrology works anymore. Even though it's supposed to be great and powerful, no physical reason is sought. There are many that have said they have put many years of research into astrology. What kind data gets used and how is it collected? Where does the funding come from? Where are the results of this time and effort? Has any consistency been achieved? Anything yet that will stand up to independent testing? Are the results for astrology always positive or are there areas where it's simply wrong?

When it come to science, the cart does not go in front of the horse. First prove then you find out how. If there is a primary saying among skeptics it is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Zodiac is the scholarly study from the influence that distant cosmic objects, commonly stars and planets, celebrities and planets usually,superstars and planets usually, have on human existence. The position of the sun, superstars, moon and planets during people's birth (not their particular conception) is said to appearance their personality, affect all their romantic relationships and foresee their economic fortunes, among other divinations.

What most everyone knows about astrology is their own "sign, " which refers to one of the 12 constellations with the zodiac. This is a form of sun-sign astrology, which is the zodiac upon which newspaper horoscopes are generally based. {It is the most basic form probably, It may be the simplest form probably, because nothing more than the particular date of someone's birthday is needed to generate a sun-sign horoscope. Many astrologers will say that this form of astrology can be so simplistic that it produces limited results.

The reason you didn't get the answers you were hoping for is because there is no scientific proof or evidence that astrology actually "works" or is real. This is because you have to use the scientific method to prove it. People who have set up tests using the scientific method have found that everyone is quite different. Even according to actual astrology that uses birth charts and not just sun sign. There have even been tests done on groups of random people going to popular astrologers. The fact is astrologers were as good at predicting one's future, or guessing how a person would look/act as a random person off the street who was only given an image of the person, or a list of interests. Use google to find the many different studies.

After the studies were done, some astrologers claimed that our calendar does not match the ancient's calendars, so they were off a bit. So an Aries could have really been a Virgo, or otherwise. Which you can also read about online. This is the most recent claim of why astrology doesn't work for everyone.

sounds like you aren't a skeptic. it sounds more like you're hopeful that it has some hold, and you are looking for someone, or something to convince you. that's not being open-minded or tolerant of other's viewpoints. it's just reaching. if you are doubting something, and you need someone who you respect or think is intelligent to explain it to you, so that you will believe in it or look at it differently...you are very naive and will often be mislead in your life. do the research yourself, for starters, don't let others spoon feed you information. after all, you have no way to test any of it, or actually figure out if the information is authentic/credible.

T

here is not any scientific evidence that astrology could have any hold over someone, or control their tendencies/personality/or physical characteristics. anyone who says so is just reading stuff off the internet, that has no hold in the scientific community. pseudo-science does not count. If you truly are a skeptic, look no further, and realize there is no real evidence/science behind this. If not I'm sorry to burst your bubble, if you don't believe me don't just read up on the info actually go out and get educated.

If you were to enroll in a program that focuses on astrology you will learn right away that a lot of people don't even believe in it, it's just a way to make money for most. For others it's embedded in their culture/belief system...mostly people who believe the reincarnation aspect of astrology. Most of Western culture/peoples do not even realize that astrology is directly linked to reincarnation/religion/spirituality. That is because it is a popular hobby in western society. Like reading a fortune cookie, most people don't believe in it...it's sort of fun and interesting. A big what if situation that you can get superstitious about. Believe whatever you will, but realize if you want to do research on this subject it's going to be VERY difficult to sift out the b.s.

There's no answer to this because nobody knows why it works but it does. Maybe one day it will be able to be explained, (when science catches up maybe).

I'm referring to astrology here, not the "horoscopes" that the magasines etc have taken over.

If the only reference you have to astrology is from this site then you need to widen your horizons and look elsewhere because astrology is not about when we're going to get married and how many children we'll have and why a certain sign doesn't get on with another; etc, etc, etc.

You cannot predict anything with astrology either; if you could there'd be a few more millionaires about but you can predict trends worldwide. If you look at some of the old astrology sites that date back a few years you'll see that all this worldwide rioting etc was written about before it came about.

I can imagine several ways in which distant stars could affect us, none of them related to personality or future events, unless, say a star within 30 light years goes supernova, then we're all crispy.

Not that it would be able to predict the future by much, or change your personality to anything but dead.

Just to add, astrology does not work, at any given moment there are probably thousands of people writing vague guesses down, which in coming months will have some connection to an event that actually happens. This does not mean they are anything but frauds or deluded. I can do it. here are a couple.

A powerful ruler will die - always a good one

Your influence at work will grow, but it needs to be fanned by your energies to make the most of this opportunity. - suprise

Your leg will fall off. - maybe not that one.

The study of the movements and essential contraindications positions of celestial figures interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world.

>If it's not science, it's superstition" with no in between option.<

Hmmm Art is superstition. Music is superstition. Athletics are superstition and modern psychotherapy is superstition. Architecture is superstition. That's some closet you live in. Just curious who made you the final arbiter of all truth and where exactly is the scientific evidence that science is the final arbiter?

>First prove then you find out how.<

Yeah you do that. Of course no one else ever did that, but you go right ahead and prove science is the final arbiter of all truth. I await the evidence.

You are in NO way open minded and clearly DO NOT respect the views of others. Uneducated weird little man