Update (January 17, 2006): I originally wrote that this article was in USA Today. My reporter friend Dan Vergano (whom I mentioned in the entry below) told me that USA Weekend was the name of the publication, which is unaffiliated with USA Today. They are owned by the same company (Gannett) and have similar logos and names, but that’s it. They don’t share anything else, so they have different writers, editors, values, culpability, etc. 
.
I am continually amazed that in a time where we can collect dust from a comet and from other stars, and launch probes to the outermost planets, people still promote the garbage of astrology like it’s real.
USA Today has a fine Science section (one of its writers, Dan Vergano, is both a friend of mine and an excellent journalist), but when they screw up, they do it, well, astronomically. In Sunday’s USA Today Weekend Magazine, they had an article labeled "Science" (and as a Special Report!) about — uccch, it makes me queasy just writing this — astrology. The tagline was
Newly charted territory
With the discovery of a new “planet” in our solar system, some people may wonder: Will this affect my horoscope?
It discusses the object UB313, an iceball out past Pluto. Instead of spending any time at all on the incredible and fascinating properties of this object, the article slavishly toes the pseudoscientific astrology party line, clearing up such potentially confusing issues like, will this new object change your star sign? or, how does the time of discovery affect how it affects us?
The article totally panders to this sort of nonsense, making one ridiculous assertion after another, and finally ends with,
“It gives us the opportunity to deepen our understanding,” says Shelley Ackerman, noted newspaper astrologer and BeliefNet contributor, “at a time when it is imperative that we change course and learn to accept one another.”
"Deepen our understanding", eh? Maybe they should have filed this under "Irony".
If you read the article and need to cleanse your palate, then go to my page debunking astrology.
January 16th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
What were you hoping for? An astrologer who realizes that every reading in the past must have been bogus, because they did not account for this object? (If for no other reason…)
January 16th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
The only thing that can save astrology is for astrologers to use their craft to actually forecast the existence of a heretofore undetected astronomical body. But uhhh… when’s the last time an astrologer did anything but hand out advice that conflicted with other astrologers advice?
January 16th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Keep up yhe good work Phil.
January 16th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I’ve always been amazed at the ability of Astrologers to deny the “powers” of things like comets,asteroids etc. when computing a horoscope.
As Mark just pointed out they can’t even predict the discovery of a New Planet, much less a New Comet or Asteroid.
And how about all those New Solar Systems?:)
January 17th, 2006 at 2:28 am
Blech. Pander, pander, pander…
January 17th, 2006 at 2:53 am
A little thought experiment.
Lets just say for a second that Astrology did work in that it would let you predict future events with some known degree of accuracy. If that was the case why hasn’t some wiz kid with an MBA figured out how to use that fact to make a lot of money on Wall St? I mean if you could tell the future why in the world are you working on a 900 number hotline for comparativly little money.
BTW your google ads on this page are all for astrology sites.
January 17th, 2006 at 4:28 am
I wouldn’t be surprised if in some near future astrologers start to blame the discoverers of that “planet” and ask for money
January 17th, 2006 at 4:52 am
I also read the article. The astrologer used the unofficial name ‘Xena’ to determine the planet’s attributes, a blending of male and female characteristcs, which makes no sense.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Douglas Adams predicted all of this in his book “Mostly Harmless.” They *really* ought to name the 10th planet Rupert in his honor.
J. D.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:59 am
Let me provide a few notions that might broaden your perspective.
Time is not a flat line, but a landscape where like seem to attact like. Events tend group together according to charachter. It is possible to make a map of time. The sky serves as the chronometer.
Speaking of “the influence of jupiter” is merely a figure of speech.
There is no influence as such. Just that the temporal “terrain” will promote certain kinds of events, certain flavours of novelty.
Have you ever repeated an experiment where all relevant variables stayed the same, yet the outcome was different? Are there really grounds for assuming that time itself is not a varible, not a flat plane where any point is equivalent to any other?
January 17th, 2006 at 6:26 am
As the recent Intelligent Design case shows, constant vigilance is the price of intellectual liberty. There’s a tremendous amount of non-science out there, from homeopathy to anti-wrinkle creams. And ‘out there’ is in the public domain on Earth, not (alas) in the Kuiper belt.
January 17th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Is astrology seriously discussed on the Science pages in that paper? Hilarious!
January 17th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Astrologer:
Writing good nonsense is difficult, I know, but yours needs work. I mean, several of those words can actually be used together! I’ll demonstrate with a lyric from the band Phish: “The septic maiden’s gargoyl tooth demented me with fire.” Notice how no more than two words can be used in sequence and still make sense. “Time is…a landscape where like attract like,” is close, and “The temporal terrain will promote…certain flavors of novelty,” is pretty good, but a few more random words would be an improvement.
January 17th, 2006 at 7:44 am
Astrologer: If you want to broaden our horizon, you have to use language we understand! Then you’ll be surprised how many open minded people you will find among scientists.
January 17th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Cut these astrologers a break. Remember all of the trouble we had with year 2K.
Now at last I can find out if all of the bad luck I have been having is because of this new planet. Gosh what a wonderful escape clause this could be. I can just see it now. Fine print at the bottom of your horoscope explaining that if an eleventh planet is discovered then this forecast may be or not be accurate.
Sort of like the warranties that you get with cars and tires. Come to think of it cars and tires are not the only things that would compare to astrology.
Maybe the stock market should pick up on this and companies can blame their problems on this new thing. I can see kids going to school and telling the teacher they could not do their homework because of the new planet.
James
January 17th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Zoot>>
“I’d say that that was the most sensible hypothesis of astrology I’ve ever heared.”
And it was complete gibberish. Doesn’t speak well for astrology, does it?
January 17th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Astrologer’s hypothesis is very odd: only in some branches of Indian philosophy prior to this had I heard the hypothesis (meant literally) that time itself has causal efficacy.
January 17th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Zoot:
First, watch your language — not everyone here is an adult male over 18 years of age.
Second: There IS no “sensible hypothesis of astrology” other than a “faintly amusing bit of self-contradictory nonsense”.
Irrespective of what “Astrologer” says, there is no map of time, per se. Time is merely the framework that keeps everything from happening all at once (cf Big Bang).
January 17th, 2006 at 8:16 am
I noticed that comment about the 10th planet in the Weekend Magazine, too, but thought it was funny. Let’s lighten up a bit and see the humor in some things, even if it was inadvertent~ Joyce
January 17th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Actualy. It makes sense to me.
January 17th, 2006 at 8:27 am
>>Time is merely the framework that keeps everything from happening all at once
And this somehow makes more sense?
You argue like a neocon.
January 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am
This stuff really pisses me off. Can’t these people see that it’s crap? It’s never mad any sense to me. I was talking to a friend recently who was convinced that it affected us somehow, that is, the gravitational pulls, etc.
I asked her a simple question: “How can this affect your prosperity?” She just shrugged and said something about how not all of it is real. She couldn’t answer when I asked her which was though. IT’S ALL CRAP! I’m all at once amazed and disgusted at the credulity of the masses.
January 17th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Zoot:
“Actualy. It makes sense to me.”
Doesn’t speak well for you, does it?
January 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Astrologer said: “Have you ever repeated an experiment where all relevant variables stayed the same, yet the outcome was different?”
Yes I have, and every time it turned out I was wrong, the variables turned out to be different from what I thought they were.
Always check your variables before commencing your experiment.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:13 am
What a load of gibberish. I just sent a letter to the editor about it through their online form.
Astrologer Said:
>Time is not a flat line, but a landscape where like seem to attact like. Events tend group together according to charachter.
Interesting hypothesis. Now let’s see some data.
>Speaking of “the influence of jupiter†is merely a figure of speech.
>There is no influence as such. Just that the temporal “terrain†will promote certain kinds of events, certain flavours of novelty.
If you say so, but it totally disagrees with the article.
———-quote:
…astrology maintains that the positions of the planets, the moon and the sun influence our lives. Each of the 12 signs in the zodiac (the word comes from the Greek, meaning “little animals or creatures”) is “ruled” by a specific planet and influenced by that planet’s given qualities.
[snip]
The angles and relationships that form within and between objects in the two charts take on personal significance. “As planets move through a chart, they either get along with one another and create opportunities for us, or they’re at odds and create challenges,” says Susan Miller, founder of AstrologyZone.com and a columnist for the “New York Daily News.”
Astrologers believe that as the planets move, these “personality clashes” reverberate into the individual charts. “We are all part of a vast, organic system,” says Michael Lutin, horoscope writer for “Vanity Fair.” “We connect the changes in us to what takes place in the planets and vice versa.”
[snip]
“Venus moves through your sign in less than a month because it’s so close, whereas Pluto can take 14 to 25 years,” Miller says. The longer a planet stays in your sign or in your chart, the more it has the time to make its presence known. Which explains why Xena, at about 100 times Earth’s distance from the Sun, may have a formidable influence on society. That’s a powerful force and one worth getting to know.
———
That pretty much declares that the objects themselves are having the effect.
James McEnanly Said:
>I also read the article. The astrologer used the unofficial name ‘Xena’ to determine the planet’s attributes, a blending of male and female characteristcs, which makes no sense.
Yes, according to some astrologers, the name of the astronomical body affects/reflects it’s characteristics. So if we name the new object Xena, it will have one set of traits, but if we decide to name it Mickey Mouse, it will have a completely different set of traits. Of course, we won’t know until they actually name it, because we can’t measure the effects independently and then use that to determine what the name should be.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:32 am
I am amazed! For so many thousands of years people believed the stars and planets shaped their destiny, and so many still do. Why do so many of us get hot under the collar because some people like to cling to the past? Just treat them like you would dotty Aunt May– you know the one that’s not all there!
January 17th, 2006 at 11:04 am
The pseudoscientific astrology, creation, magic healing party lines are ubiquitous. And, it’s getting worse as a whole new generation buys into the flapdoodle which claims anything is possible.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:59 am
James McEnanly: “The astrologer used the unofficial name ‘Xena’ to determine the planet’s attributes, a blending of male and female characteristcs, which makes no sense.”
Oh, it does if you Google for “Xena/Gabrielle slash fiction”*. Astrology and slash; two great tastes that taste great together.
[* may not be entirely safe for work]
January 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Astrologer / Zoot:
If astrology makes so much sense, and if UB313 (aka Xena) will have such a profound influence on our lives, how come no astrologer predicted its existence??
Face it, if the planets were somehow able to influence our lives, the existence and orbits of previously-undiscovered bodies would be predicted by astrologers. Especially if the “influence” of a body is large.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
We finally have an answer for who the loser gets to blame. Seems there is always a pro athlete for whatever given sport, after the game during some interview gives credit for the win to God. I guess the loser can blame Xena. We couldn’t blame something we didn’t know about, but now that we know the cause isn’t is so obvious!
January 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Nigel Depledge: If you read my post again, I’m sure you will notice that you are asking the wrong person.
Irishman and everyone: I am not attempting to prove anything to anyone. I was just hoping to provide perspective, for the purpose of peaceful coexistence if you will. And for the record, I don’t agree with what is said in the article (but it does serve as an indicator that most astrologers don’t think these things are relevant).
January 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Astrologer:
“…but it does serve as an indicator that most astrologers don’t think these things are relevant).”
I couldn’t agree more. Nope, not relevant at all.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Thank God someone else saw that article; I almost vomited when I saw it.
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I can go on believing that cheese is made up of monkey brain, despite all the evidence to the contrary, right? Where can opinion end and overwhelming fact begin? The division occurs when the fact is proved via an accepted method, in this case logic. However, as logic replaced faith, is there yet another system of explaining the universe that will replace logic, and thus science?
January 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Did anybody write to USA Weekend to comment on this article? I did. It won’t do much good, but it made me feel better.
January 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
OK, Astrologer, in the interest of pursuing a peaceful coexistence, lets assume you are correct, and certain moments in time somehow attract certain events. (But this must be in a way I don’t yet understand – telling me its sun is likely to set in the evening is not an example of “non-linear” time.)
If this is true, this should enable an astronomer to make some meaningful predictions about the probability of certain events during a certain period. They might be able to say, for example, “Next Monday, between 6:30 PM and 7:00 PM, there will be a 0.50001 probability that a tossed coin will come up heads.”
This amounts to a testable hypothesis, and there is nothing that a scientist likes more! All the astronomy community needs to do is come out with a few dozen such statements, in advance, so that they can be subjected to systematic testing.
If they hold up (in a statistically significant number of trails) I’m in! I’ll go to astronomy school and begin studying these irregularities in the surface of time.
But here’s the thing – if I can learn how to anticipate and predict these irregularities, then they aren’t really irregular, are they?
When I say that you are more likely to find a pond at the bottom of a hill than the top, I am not handing down some secret knowledge which only me and my cabal can understand; I’m just pointing to a predictable consequence of the systematic application of a number of (fairly) well understood laws which are available to anyone who wants to study them. If you can reliable predict that, during a certain period of time a coin is more likely to come up heads, then you must also be applying some sort of system of laws, which means that you are just a guilty of “linear thinking” as the rest of us!
You can’t have it both ways! You cannot, on the one hand, try to tell us that astronomy is logical and reasonable and we are being closed minded for rejecting it, and then at the same time say that it is ethereal and unfathomable and we must simply accept it!
If astronomy is a legitimate tool for understanding the physical world, then teach me the vocabulary, explain to me the principles, and give me a course of experiments which I can use to convince myself of its legitimacy. ‘Cause if you can’t so that, then it’s just a parlor trick (at best), and stringing together a list of words which sound like they mean something is not going to chance my opinion.
Incidentally, Flayum, this line of reasoning is why I don’t think that some other system of though will “replace” logic and science. Because in order to do so, the new system must be more logical than our current logic is – which doesn’t make it something other then logic, but only an improved logic. Science gets its strength from it willingness to test itself (as manifest in the peer review process). If one idea works better than another, then the more successful idea becomes the more widely accepted one – it doesn’t “replace” science, it simply becomes part of our scientific understanding!
January 17th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Woops! Where I meant to type “astrology” I typed “astronomy” – this is the problem with muscle-memory, it can make it difficult to do the wrong thing. (Like try to write sensibly about a nonsense idea!)
January 17th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
LOL, I suck at explanitions and I know jack about physics, but I’ll have a go at it if you promise to try and stay out of the adversarial mindset and poo pooing everything I say because of semantics.
Testabillity: It’s problematic and here is why, what is predicted is not actual manifestation, but novelty. Think of it like an object in space. Say we give it a push. In and of it self the object hasn’t changed, but it’s relationship to us has. The event that caused this change was a novelty, a redistribution of energy, but the object remains the same. That is a hard concept to translate into something like a coin toss because all outcomes are equally probably.
Think of “cause” in the most abstract way you can. The amount of “cause” availble determines the likelyhood of novelty. The bumbs in time are groupings of causal power pulled from the surrounding time. And when we hit them novel events are likely to occur.
The best way to test it would probably be to actually reduce astrology to the single parameter of novelty in a persons life. To have subjects grade every day during a couple of months, on how unusual or unexpected the contents of the day were, and then have a bunch of astrologers do the same thing, and then test for correlation.
Laws and mystery: I don’t proclaim that Zeus made the heavens to chronicle our lives or anything. I’m just trying to make sense of my very own observations, and this model seems to fit the bill. My observation is that western astrology works alot better than it should, so to speak. I’ve compared it to many other methods of divination and there really is a gap in the quality of the result. Vedic astrology for example seems completly random to me.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
“Have you ever repeated an experiment where all relevant variables stayed the same, yet the outcome was different?”
I think that’s called standard deviation. After all, ASTM procedures allow a certain variablity between test results when performed by the same techician in the same laboratory, and even larger variance when performed in different labs.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:25 am
“Have you ever repeated an experiment where all relevant variables stayed the same, yet the outcome was different?â€
This reminds me of a faulty computer I once had. It malfuntioned at home and always worked as charm at shop where I bought it. That was annoying. It’s hard to get something fixed if you cannot prove to the repairman that there actually are a problem.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Astrologer: I salute your willingness to discuss the subject in a critical manner; you are the first astrologer I know who makes a distinction between the quality of different astrology schools. I also appreciate your effort to rephrase your earlier post in a language I can understand. I still have difficulty with “bumps in time,” but I can make an educated guess.
The point you are making is a good one: reduce astrology to a single parameter of novelty, and test it. You will have to quantify the question and the results in some way (probably statistics). If the effect is there, that would be great! But if the effect amounts to predicting the future, you need quite an extraordinary amount of evidence, and even then the experiment must be repeatable in some way.
I don’t know if something like this has been done, but I do know that people have looked at homeopathy in this way. In a recent meta-study of all studies in homeopathy, they found that there is no effect that outperforms the placebo effect. I would predict something similar will happen with astrology (but then again, we don’t have reliable data to back this up).
In the absence of data, we have to go with what we know. For a scientist, this means that we can rely only upon known mechanisms and they tell us that there is no astrological effect.
This is a very scientific way of approaching the subject, there is hope for you yet!
January 18th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Folks:
To my mind there is a single aspect of modern astrology that seems perfectly scientifically plausible. This is the notion that the time of year of birth can have some predictable influence on personality traits.
Is anyone aware of any proper scientific research into this notion?
January 18th, 2006 at 9:05 am
“It malfuntioned at home and always worked as charm at shop where I bought it.”
Thats called a heisenbug. =D
A software problem that never occurs if the observer is capable of doing something about it.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Gee, so much excitement about nothing. Might as well get upset because some kids believe in Santa or some adults believe in another unseen/undetectable something called God.
As far as anything being possible, I like the old saw about, “Anything not forbidden, is mandatory and if we wait long enough, nothing is forbidden.”
The only “magic” I know of is love, because we can give it away, yet still have it,,,but then, it is a Human thing,,,
January 18th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
The way I understand astrology is that the planets or conjunction of them at the moment of your birth have an effect on you (astrological sign you are born under and all that).
The only effect I know of a planet can exert on a body is gravitation. Given the distances and masses of all these bodies I’d venture to say that the mass of the obstetrician that brought you out would have more of a gravitational effect on you than any planet or all of them combined.
Do the astrologers take the mass of the obs. into account in their calculations? I wonder.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
[...] Nothing of substance to report, so I’ll point you to this takedown of astrology by Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy fame, which is worthy of some contemplation. We all know that astrology is nonsense, but it’s worth the exercise to try to explain to people who aren’t well-versed in science why we know that astrology can’t work even without doing elaborate double-blind tests. Phil’s argument is the same one that I’ve given before: we really do know something about the forces of nature, and there is absolutely no room to fit paranormal phenomena into what we know. There’s much we don’t know, and much we do; sometimes we even have a pretty good idea of where the boundary is. [...]
January 21st, 2006 at 8:07 am
I believe that its because astrology is more like a calendar of energy then, actual, physical, interactions between the heavenly bodies and us. Like how the old calendars were based off the phases of the moon. And if you dont belive in “energy” and etc. I suggest sitting down for a few days and studying some quantum physics. Math can explain everything lol
January 21st, 2006 at 10:34 am
I believe in energy, Steven. What I don’t believe is that the position of Jupiter or Mars or whichever planet can act as a signpost for the trivial events in my life (and I use that term in its cosmic perspective – obviously the events are not trivial to me personally, but they are when considered on the scale of the whole solar system).
When you say a “calendar of energy”, to what type of energy do you refer? Is it gravitational potential? electrostatic potential? kinetic? chemical potential? electromagnetic radiation?
Astrologer – I re-read your first post, and it didn’t mean any more to me the second time around than it had on the first reading. Vagueness is not tolerated in science, which is probably part of the reason why many scientists generally do not have a lot of time for such vague predictions as are usually the case in astrology. Unless astrologers can start coming up with predictions that are consistent and specific, do not expect science to pay any attention. Furthermore, until there is actual evidence that astrology is anything more than nonsense, you must expect critical thinkers and sceptics (or skeptics) to tear it to metaphorical shreds.
For instance, you say “Time is not a flat line, but a landscape …”
I say: show me the evidence.
January 22nd, 2006 at 5:27 am
This is all very interesting. It’s rather sad that people follow such rubbish. If I ever learn and remember anything about astrology then it will be for winning on The SIMS.
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I study astrology – not newspaper horoscopes. I seriously doubt that anyone here, apart from Astrologer has done so in any depth. In view of this I wonder how you have formed your opinions.
I am not qualified to discuss the finer points, I know what I believe.
I know that some areas of astrology work, some do not. I believe that there are pieces of the puzzle lost in the mists of time, which will, in time to come be re-discovered. I believe the the basic principles of astrology have been stretched too far by many parctitioners.
A new (ish) book – “Blinded by Starlight” you might find of interest (or perhaps just another item to denigrate!) – Here is a review of its premise. The book puts forward a new idea on the matter:
Reviewer: Richard Milton from United Kingdom
As a student of how mainstream science treats subjects supposedly hovering hopelessly on its fringes, I found Frank McGillion’s latest non-fiction book captivating.
At one level, Blinded by Starlight is a straightforward account, from a scientist with long medical experience, of the history of that hybrid of astronomy and astrology that our ancestors termed astronomia and how discoveries about the pineal gland and its regulation of melatonin have identified the influence that this previously mysterious gland exerts on our lives.
But McGillion has taken his account to an even more fascinating level by showing how and why the traditional ideas of the physician-astrologers may very well have a basis in solid scientific fact.
The discoveries with which his book primarily deals concern the pineal gland in the human brain — the ‘third eye’ venerated by mystics of east and west. The name is not merely fanciful since the gland actually is light sensitive (and even used for vision by some species). However, in humans its primary function is that of regulating the production of melatonin: the hormone that, amongst many other things, profoundly influences human sexual behaviour and reproduction.
The first clues as to the effects melatonin exerts on human fertility came from a study of Eskimo women which found that menstruation ceased during the long arctic winter. Blind women, too, have been found to be less fertile than sighted women.
Repeated studies concluded that the longer hours of daylight in summer causes a decrease in melatonin production. Since melatonin inhibits fertility in women, the decrease makes women more fertile. More simply, the longer the daylight hours, the more fertile women become.
Further research found that melatonin influences a number of other endocrine glands, such as the thyroid and adrenal glands, and also affects a variety of brain hormones and neurotransmitters.
It was also found to have effects on more general processes such as the overall balance of chemicals in the body, and the function of our body clock.
More surprising is the discovery that some of the effects of melatonin can take years to come about. When melatonin was administered to newborn rats, for instance, it was found to delay the onset of puberty much later in life.
Crucially, however, this effect only took place if the melatonin was administered in a critically short period of days around the time of birth.
It is at this point that the ideas of the physician- astrologers make an appearance. If exposure to melatonin during a critically short period around birth can affect important developmental stages in later life, and if melatonin production is controlled by day length and other cosmological factors, then crucial life developments are indeed determined by the state of the heavens at the time of birth, just as the physician- astrologers claimed. And if this is the case then what other, similar, long range effects might be determined by the time we enter the world?
Another main plank of McGillion’s argument is that we now know it isn’t only sunlight that affects the pineal gland and hence production of melatonin, many forms of electromagnetic radiation and magnetic fields have similar effects – as indeed may other putative fields that appear to interact with living systems, but have yet to be comprehensively investigated – as in the case of the fertility test that mysteriously stopped working in 1938.
McGillion describes, for example, the work of Professor Michael Persinger at Canada’s Laurentian University who has carried out strikingly original investigations into the effects of magnetic fields on the human brain, promising in the treatment of depressive illness and — even more interesting — affecting our perception of consensual ‘reality’.
And it isn’t only in the laboratory with experimental magnetic fields that such effects have been observed. There is now persuasive evidence that the Earth’s own geomagnetic field can cause a wide range of phenomena, including increased aggressiveness in some animals. This discovery takes on greater significance when you know that some mainstream scientists believe the planets may influence geomagnetism, and that formal statistical studies have found a correlation in the Twentieth Century between wars and increased geomagnetic activity.
The incidence of seizures and death in animals and humans is also increased during periods of geomagnetic fluctuation. One theory is that this may be partly due to the suppression of the production of melatonin by geomagnetism — melatonin having a pronounced anticonvulsant action.
It’s not just homing pigeons that are sensitive to magnetic fields. The iron compound magnetite is present in many of our body tissues and forms receptors called ‘magnetosomes’ which detect changes in magnetic field strength. Brain tissues, too, contain magnetite, especially the pineal gland.
A study of water diviners showed that when their heads were shielded, they no longer produced muscular responses to weak magnetic fields; the effect was attributed to magnetosomes in the area of the pineal.
In the light of findings such as these, McGillion says; ‘We know the exposure of new born babies to light changes melatonin secretion, which can lead, in turn, to alterations in development. We also know that ambient electromagnetic radiation at the time of birth alters the circulation of melatonin in humans, and that the planets – certainly as the physician-astrologers understood this term – influence this process.’
‘So is it possible that the cosmologically controlled radiations which new-borns are exposed to could predetermine their future physical, psychological, and indeed, spiritual, development as our forebears claimed? Some medical and scientific professionals certainly think so.’
It is likely that many more will think so when they’ve read this highly original and utterly fascinating book.
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Sigh.
Properly conducted tests have shown that astrology does not work. I outline this, with links to sources on my astrology page which in turn is linked in this blog entry.
Astrology fails to make any reliable predictions. It never does better than random chance.
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Deeper sigh!
“Properly conducted tests” – proper in the view of scientists who do NOT understand the principles of astrology.
This is an argument which cannot go anywhere. Closed minds.
Carl Sagan said “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” It could well be something which will open your eyes to the truth about astrology. OK – you wait for it. I’ll carry on believing.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Astrology cannot possibly work because skeptics have been saying so for ages, and since most of them have never bothered to study astrology and learn about how it is used, astrology must not be worth studying seriously.
Perhaps as scientists gain understanding of the true nature of human consciousness and understanding they will be able to wrest control of the “psychological and spiritual” art of astrology from their oh so foolish and wayward little sisters (astrologers) and put it back in the realm of science where it began (observation of heavens and observation of people). They could call this new branch of study “Science of Massive Volumes of Elements Moving Ceaselessly in Jungian Synchronicity with Consciousness, Understanding and Natural Power”- (”SMVEMCJSCUNP” for short) Astrology may not work according to skeptics, but scientists do need to work for a living after all
January 24th, 2006 at 11:47 am
“The only effect I know of a planet can exert on a body is gravitation.”
At least this scientist admitted the limits of his knowledge. Perhaps others should follow his example. It’s a plain fact, astrology does work. It’s more like a combination of a science and an art than something easily quantifiable. A skilled practitioner can use it to monumental effect without ever being able to explain to skeptics WHY it works. It’s a special thing, harder than science because it involves both sides of the brain, and it doesn’t really matter whether you believe in it or not. It was the first astronomy and the first psychology, and probably the first religion. Every culture has had it and it isn’t going away because it’s really just the study of time — the quality of time, not the quantity. So relax, it won’t bite. Actually, an interesting study might be of the birth charts of people who are afraid of astrology . . .
January 26th, 2006 at 7:32 am
In reply to Mongo, last I knew, astrologophobia was not in the dictionary, thus this so called “fear” of astrology you mention doesn’t exist. Astrology itself is a form of hysteria or primitivism of some sort. Everyone (non astrologers anyway) knows that human awareness is flat, the universe revolves around it, and if you go too far you will fall over the edge. So there.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Mark, Mark, Mark, Mark, you’re so glib. I’ll spell it out for you: a rabid distrust of the unknown is based upon fear – you simply lack the confidence to be open to things that worry you. It’s understandable, many people suffer from it, in fact, all your skeptical friends are fearful souls too. And it helps you to find eachother and direct your collective anger at life’s uncertainty, at “primitivism’ or “hysteria” or whatever little hate-on you’ve got going. Meanwhile, there’s all that Star Trek to watch, huh? Take the edge off with tales of the glorious “future” of mankind finally getting control of the universe – gosh, it’s gonna be great when all the primitives are wiped out, huh? Okay, apologies for the sarcasm. My bad.
As far as human awareness being flat? I have absolutely no idea what tha means . . . What is your birthdate, time and location? Maybe we go out for a beer and talk – no guns.
January 29th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Hey Mongo, I’m sorry you mistake our common sense for “fear”. Skepticism is responsible for all the great discoveries that have brought us toward this great asceptic Star Trek future you mention. Galileo’s logical refutal of Kepler’s occult idea that the moon caused the tides… er, bad example. Einstein’s rational refutal of the nonsensical quantum physics…er,never mind, another bad example. But you get what I mean? Logic good, astrology bad. At least, that’s what I have been taught, and I am rather proud of my very expensive education and do not appreciate you astrologers coming out to tell us that we do not have a complete picture. Like, what if you had a house and year after year only repainted the front of the house, ignoring the other sides? The neighbors start complaining- pesky neighbors, you astrologers are like those annoying neighbors. Ya’ll aughta be run out of the neighborhood!
My beaf against astrologers and other primitives is that you are blind,blind,blind,blind,blind! (jumps up and down, face turns beet red, spittle flies…time out, regains composure, wipes spittle from monitor) You astrologers onlybother to keep abreast of modern science because you appreciate its truth. We don’t bother to learn astrology because we would have to humble ourselves and stoop to what we have been taught is your inferior level… who wants that? Like a husband having to admit that his wife is right, ecchh!
Flat awareness…bad writing, my fault. What I mean is the human consciousness behaves very predictably like ball on a pool table, A bumps B, B moves to rail etc. Outer experience triggers gland A to release chemical B so human reacts in C mode etc. Any talk of action at a distance, holographic models of consciousness or extra dimensions obviously belongs to our rude, superstitious and primitive past, or worse yet, to theoretical physicists and have no place in our glorious skeptical Star Trek future.
No I am not giving you my birthtime mongo. You will probably blame my lifetime bachelorhood on my heavily afflicted seventh house Saturn, or blame my erectile dysfunction on my eleventh house Jupiter, or even blame my twisted satirical sense of humor on third house Mercury in Scorpio. Meet you for a beer? If you try to tell me astrology works I will throw the skeptics biggest gun at you, which is to stick my fingers in my ears and say very loudly “lalalalala I can’t hear you lalalalala!” Peaceout
January 29th, 2006 at 10:38 am
“Like a husband having to admit that his wife is right, ecchh!”
He’s got it! By gad he’s got it!!!!!
And I suspect Mark is a closet believer
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
just the idea that something like this works and is unexplainable seems to offend (read: frighten) a lot of people, astrologer. it’s like in buddhism, when a meditator finally breaks through and realizes there is nothing permanent or solid in this world – it simply freaks some people out. most of our lives are spent building up and attaching desperately to our egos and our cherished pictures of reality. it’s understandable that concepts which threaten those pictures are unsettling. the rabidness of skeptics is a clue to the level of uncomfortableness astrology provokes
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Well, the world is a confusing place, and so sceptisism is a pretty sane response, even as a defenece mechanism. My beef with the sceptics, if you could call it that has little to do with the mindset as such.
There is a war of memes out there, and here for that matter. The information space is a battle ground where everyone and his brother is fighting for territory.
In this war, everyone is constantly bombarded with messages about how they should think, how they should interperete reality, and what is right, good and true. And everyone has an agenda it seems. No one is pushing the message that people should make up their own damn minds, and mind their own business and let people think as they wish.
So, people get stressed out and schizoid because their own judgments, feelings, thoughs and life experiences does not map cleanly to the dogmas that are out there.
Dont trust yourself, dont trust the others, trust us and only us because only we know the truth. Again and again. And no one is happy.
February 5th, 2006 at 10:02 am
In response to Annie, O.K.,you got me guilty as charged
I apologize that my first satiric entries weren’t obvious enough. Now I realize that if one tries to draw a charicature of a cartoon it’s going to look an awful lot like that cartoon.My bad.
The artificial differentiation between what is primitive and what is not has retarded science for ages until certain women (Margaret Mead, Goodall and Fosse come to mind) overturned that and great strides were made in the understanding of what it means to be human.
In response to mongo, yes I wholly agree with you that it is fear of the unknown and control and power issues which have fueled the skeptics’ hatred and invective hurled at us astrologers all these years. I came to astrology on a lark, I thought it was silly but people I greatly respected swore by it. I have since fallen in love with astrology and love is just one more thing that science will never be able to quantify or explain rationally.
Skeptics feel that science is threatened by religious fundamentalism and rightfully so in my opinion. I only wish skeptics would limit their invective against the real threat, willfull ignorance, than waste time on a subject they refuse to understand,astrology, whose practitioners have ever enjoyed science and rejoiced in scientific discoveries along with the skeptics. Peaceout
February 16th, 2006 at 11:45 am
I give 10 to 1 odds that the above astrology supporters believe in such other nonsense as homeopathy, accupuncture, and magnetic healing.
Because, as with any other quacks, astrology enthusiasts are fooled by anecdotal evidence and testimonials, as long as they confirm their preconceived ideas of mysterious unseen pseudoscientific forces acting on us “in ways science fails to observe.â€
But for the astrologer to say something “works” if you study it and understand it, but that the same something appears to “not work” if you are a close-minded scientist demanding double-blind studies and repeatable experiments, is to ignore reality and hang on to fairy tales.
I especially like this charming character attribute of the true believers:
They will agree that your basic “newspaper astrology” is probably just bunkum, but they explain this with the claim that newspaper astrology isn’t “real†astrology. They claim that skilled practitioners of “real” astrology can successfully chart somebody based on exact time and location of birth of that individual. Because, you know, adding more precision and variables makes it all sciencey. See?
They present themselves as reasonable because they only believe in the supposedly valid well-informed version of their field, which only a close circle of experts really get. So they can discuss it from a position of authority on a forum such as this. They “know” their field in a far deeper way than those scared scared scientists.
They “know” their field well enough, in fact, to completely ignore any true scientific studies that show absolutely no correlation between someone’s daily fate and the positions of constellations and planets at the moment of their birth. Period.
“How can pesky scientists who have never bothered to ’study’ astrology deign to tell us that the laws of physics refute our claims!?! They must be scared of us!! Those scientists just refuse to see that there are completely invisible and undiscovered forces acting upon us, and that we astrologers have ways of observing the unobservable! One day all will become clear! Then they won’t be laughing at us!”
Homeopathy practitioners use precisely the same argument about their field. What, scientific studies that show absolutely no more efficacy than placebos? Pshaaah! We have Anecdotes! We have Testimonials! 19th-century causal fallacies! Confirmation Bias!! Beat that!
Intelligent Design “theorists”: ditto.
Accupuncturists “know” their field, and homeopathy practitioners “know” their field. Water diviners know their field.
Mystics, remote viewers, karma believers, pi water producers, magnetic healing bracelet salespeople, same thing.
See the pattern? C’mon, you’re trained astrologers, how can you not see the pattern? It’s what you do.
Oh, and one last thing: Planets and asteroids and stars and galaxies are unimaginably far away from us. All of the energy ever collected from the entire sky via our optical telescopes and radio telescopes etc – light, radiation, microwave, you name it, from the stars and bodies outside our own solar system – in the history of mankind, combined, to date, would equal the energy released by a single snowflake hitting the ground.
No matter where you are in the United States at this moment, you are more affected by the gravity of my own body than that of any planet or asteroid in space. The static electricity from me pulling on my socks this morning would have more physical affect on you than the magnetic or microwave radiation from any star in the sky. Follow me?
To say that the positions of any one item or group of items in the sky could have even the slightest effect on any humans on this planet is beyond absurd.
Even to only suggest that the sky is some sort of readable mapping of patterns or of correlations of “like” events and novelties, based specifically on the time and place that an individual exited his or her mothers’ womb, at a specific space-time moment, is equally absurd. What, there was no effect at conception? Only at emergence? Hmm.
I have to wonder: What is it in the lives of astrology freaks that causes them to so desperately seek order and meaning from such baseless correlation fantasies? Now, THAT would be a great study.
Sorry if I’ve insulted a whole lot of you astrology-reading, homeopathy-swallowing, accupuncture-loving, pi-water-drinking, anti-reality dreamers, but you need to have your heads examined. Honestly.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:54 am
Hi DJ. Again I would like to opine that I wish the skeptics would limit their invective against the true enemies of science, the willfull ignorance of religious fundamentalism fuelled by corporate backed governmental agendas, rather than throw flowers at the wall of a subject they have not even bothered to study in the first place, astrology. We study astrology because we have found that it works, not because we are “charlatans seeking to profit off of a gullible public” as you would like to believe.
Yes gravity is an apparently weak force as you say, and the static charge in your sock can lift a small piece of paper against the gravitational force of the entire planet but physicists believe that is because gravity is diluted in our 4 dimensional space time, and is much stronger in other dimensions. Any talk of how these unseen dimensions play out in our mundane reality is obviously the place of mystics, dreamers and theoretical physicists, not for skeptics who can only believe in that which they can crush in their hands, as Plato would have put it. It is not my place to opine “how” the “unseen world” affects our everyday existence. Obviously astrologers sense a connection though.
No one truly understands quantum physics but they believed in it because it provides an accurate roadmap to what we observe in reality. Likewise we believe in astrology because we have found that it provides an accurate roadmap to what we observe in the darker waters of the human psyche. If I didn’t have my mind blown when I first had my chart read 10 years ago I would have chucked astrology on the burn heap along with hollow earth theory, Santa Clause and “winning hearts and minds through bombing and invasion” theory.
I thank you for your skepticism, a stance which serves to shed light on the patently false, but for you to tell us astrologers that what we have observed and discovered with astrology in our lives is wrong is akin to a Biblical fundamentalist telling you that the Earth is only 6,000 years old despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We are stunned by your own ignorance on the subject of astrology, not awed by it.
DJ, for you to understand where we are coming from with our “subjective” evidence of astrology’s truth would require you to take a step in having your own chart read, by a real astrologer, not a one size fits all computer program. And perhaps picking up a few books on the subject yourself and learning to cast charts yourself of friends and loved ones and see how your own readings compare with what you know of those close to you.
I don’t expect that enemies of astrology will ever do so but for those who do I’m sure it would be an enlightening experience. Until then you will rave on like a fundamentalist on a tirade against Darwin, secure in your belief against a subject you refuse to acknowledge you are ignorant of. Again I wish you the best DJ, and really, the best way to have your head examined is to get a good astrology reading.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:35 pm
“…but for you to tell us astrologers that what we have observed and discovered with astrology in our lives is wrong is akin to a Biblical fundamentalist telling you that the Earth is only 6,000 years old despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.”
Actually it’s exactly akin to me telling the fundamentalist that there isn’t a shred of scientific evidence for his claims and that I won’t be holding my breath while he waves his arms about and explains all the spectacular coincidences in his sorry life that have convinced him that science just doesn’t get it.
It’s exactly like that.
When do you whip out the Galileo Gambit?
Let’s go with your analogy for a second, though.
You appear to be saying I’m denigrating the reality of astrology “despite all scientific evidence to the contrary”. Please present such scientific evidence. The burden of proof is on the astrologers, my friend. If all you have are fantasmagorical anecdotes, you have exactly zero scientific evidence. That’s all I’m saying.
Actually, I’m saying one more thing: All of your causal fallacies and coincidental correlations are working to delude you in the same way as homeopathy victims and numerology rubes, to name just a couple.
Should I also have my cards read by a “real” Taroh reader? Should I have my aura analyzed by a “real”, um, aura reader?
I guess I should make sure to do some serious investigation with a “real” magnetic healing specialist. Not the fake ones just cashing in on gullible hopefulls.
But I can’t do any of that right at the moment because I have a Feng Shui master rearranging my furniture inside and a Shaman of some sort out in back yanking out my iceplant and arranging a homeopathy factory. He’s a “real” homeopath, though, and my wife says the Feng Shui master has some sort of a certificate that he faxed her last weekend.
Gotta go. The big tin-foil pyramid they’re installing over my house is ready to set down and I want to take pictures.
May the force be with you.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Oh, and thanks for proving me right about this:
“I especially like this charming character attribute of the true believers:
They will agree that your basic “newspaper astrology†is probably just bunkum, but they explain this with the claim that newspaper astrology isn’t “real†astrology. They claim that skilled practitioners of “real†astrology can successfully chart somebody based on exact time and location of birth of that individual. Because, you know, adding more precision and variables makes it all sciencey. See?”
You didn’t do that on purpose, did you??
February 24th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Reading the above (_all_ of it), I’m surprised no one’s pulled out the TimeCube yet. A lot of the astrology “support” has gotten eerily close to it.
TimeCube: an idea so advanced that only an insane man (who’s really nice in person but comes across as unforgivably aggressive on the Internet) can understand it. How very Lovecraftian.