[Gerben42]

Quote

OK, it may be unfair to call the ones giving personal advice "crooks". But those who claim to be qualified as presidential advisers are crooks IMHO.

Perhaps a president should be required to pass a "sanity check"... I have often asked myself if astrologers believe in their own stuff, or just pretend. After all, to be a good astrologer, there is no need to believe in it. People will buy it anyway.

Although I am not "into" astrology, I have always had a fond interest in the apparently supernatural. You can call it a search for something I could believe in.

Anyway, I can say that I know a lot more about astrology, parapsychology and all these kinds of things than most. However, in my search for the supernatural I have found exactly nothing. Zero. Nada.

The most well-known astrologists in the world cannot pass simple scientific tests, world famous mediums are quickly uncovered practicing cold reading (but some of them are VERY skilled at it). Mentalists turn out to be con artists, worth only their entertainment value. Miracles consistently turn out to be hoaxes, and what seems like a divine coincidence doesn't pass a basic statistical test.

There is still a lot that cannot be explained, but even there one can see a path how things could be explained with future research. The universe works on a set of rules (called "laws of nature", and it's up to us to identify those rules and use them to our advantage.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Dec 1 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

Have you noticed that newspapers put the horoscopes on the same page as the comic strips? They've been required for years to disclaim that these are purely for entertainment purposes, not "news".

Eh? Required by whom, and on what grounds?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Dec 2 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 1 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

Have you noticed that newspapers put the horoscopes on the same page as the comic strips?  They've been required for years to disclaim that these are purely for entertainment purposes, not "news".

Eh? Required by whom, and on what grounds?

Sorry, I was wrong. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has been advocating this since the 80's, and a few dozen newspapers do it voluntarily.

IMHO, newspapers should be required to do this in order to enjoy the 1st Amendment "freedom of the press" rights. News organizations are supposed to be purveyors of facts, and publishing horoscopes without disclaimers goes against that responsibility.

[helene_t]

barmar, on Dec 4 2008, 07:30 AM, said:

IMHO, newspapers should be required to do this in order to enjoy the 1st Amendment "freedom of the press" rights.  News organizations are supposed to be purveyors of facts, and publishing horoscopes without disclaimers goes against that responsibility.

Somewhat off-topic, I disagree with that. I am not comfortable with judges and politicians defining what constitutes scientific facts. Of course, judges and politicians have to weigh the expert advice they receive themselves, but advice given to the general public is IMHO better weighted by the "market". Some newspapers frequently publish "facts" which are later debunked. Some of us then take those newspapers less seriously, and that factors into the cost-benefit considerations of those newspapers.

The right to free speech is a right, not a privilege. Everybody has that right. Pseudo-scientists, too.

[the hog]

mikeh, on Nov 30 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

barmar, on Nov 29 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

So while there was a time when the Court Astrologer was as important a political figure as the Secretary of Treasury is now, that time has long passed.  Astrology is no longer a mainstream religion, and the people who believe in it are on their own.  Astrologers don't get tax-exempt status like churches do.

Ronald Reagan reportedly used an astrologer, as did Hitler.. so it's not perhaps as outdated as it should be

So does Norodom Sihanouk, as well as many leading Thai politicians. If you called theroyal astrologer a crook you would be up on charges of lese majeste.

[shintaro]

if a mixed group just tell them you are a virgin and see what evolves

[Winstonm]

shintaro, on Dec 4 2008, 06:04 AM, said:

if a mixed group just tell them you are a virgin and see what evolves

Virgins don't evolve - they were created by Intelligent Design.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Dec 4 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

IMHO, newspapers should be required to do this in order to enjoy the 1st Amendment "freedom of the press" rights. News organizations are supposed to be purveyors of facts, and publishing horoscopes without disclaimers goes against that responsibility.

I agree with Helene. Besides, in the US at least your suggestion would require a Constitutional Amendmentment - one that's not, IMO, a good idea.

As for news orgs being "purveyors of facts" they no more do that in their more normal "reporting" than they do in publishing horoscopes.

[ASkolnick]

It's funny people mentioned the "alternative psychiatrist" theme.

Because on the TV show Frazier an astrologist said

"What's the difference between what you and I do? I listen and try to help people feel better about themselves"

Frazier's reply was "Yes, but I can prescribe drugs".

[han]

How about fortune cookies, does anybody take them seriously? Some of them can be rather distressing.

[JoAnneM]

Astrology is a hobby for many people. Bridge is a hobby for many people. What is the difference? Lots of difference we think, but none to other people who probably think we are weird.

I would give my sign, and then wait for the subject to die out, or try to gently change the subject without being rude.

[Al_U_Card]

Or you could be REALLY boring and pretend that you misheard and say: "Well, astronomy is okay but I prefer cosmology." and then proceed to rant about parallel universes and cosmological constants.

[cherdano]

han, on Dec 4 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

How about fortune cookies, does anybody take them seriously? Some of them can be rather distressing.

The good ones are true.
(I.e. no I don't.)

[matmat]

han, on Dec 4 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

How about fortune cookies, does anybody take them seriously? Some of them can be rather distressing.

lucky numbers 2, 35, 17, 29, 66

You will be flamed on an internet forum.

[kenberg]

I am often, as here, surprised by which topics have staying power on the forum. For astrology I would have guessed one or two dismissive comments and then a quick burial.

I came to my non-religious life views after considerable serious thought. I have given the possibility of extra-sensory perception at least a little thought. I have never given astrology even a moment of thought. Like just about anything I guess I have to acknowledge that it could be true. But it isn't. I have absolutely no plans to reflect on the fact that it could be.

My old philosophy professor would say "We have to at least go through the motions of an open mind". No we don't.

[Winstonm]

Like my astrologist says: humans are made up of 98% water; the other half is minerals.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Dec 4 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

I am often, as here, surprised by the fact that it could be.

"We have to at least go through the motions of an open mind".

Classic capricorn...

[JLOL]

Lobowolf, on Nov 27 2008, 11:33 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Nov 26 2008, 03:38 AM, said:

I recently got into a tough social situation, and I'd like your input on it. With a group of acquaintances I was sitting in a bar and we were having a good time, when suddenly someone got the idea of asking everyone what their zodiac sign was, and analyzing if Virgo would go together with Leo and all that stuff.

Now as you all know, astrology is complete and utter nonsense, but on the other hand I didn't want to mess up the upto this point good atmosphere by pointing this out.

What would you have done?

I'd identify myself as a "skeptic" and suggest that instead, if there's someone in the group who really believes in astrology, what might be more interesting is to have that person discern each member of the group's zodiac sign from his/her personality.

LOL

[barmar]

helene_t, on Dec 4 2008, 05:31 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 4 2008, 07:30 AM, said:

IMHO, newspapers should be required to do this in order to enjoy the 1st Amendment "freedom of the press" rights.  News organizations are supposed to be purveyors of facts, and publishing horoscopes without disclaimers goes against that responsibility.

Somewhat off-topic, I disagree with that. I am not comfortable with judges and politicians defining what constitutes scientific facts. Of course, judges and politicians have to weigh the expert advice they receive themselves, but advice given to the general public is IMHO better weighted by the "market". Some newspapers frequently publish "facts" which are later debunked. Some of us then take those newspapers less seriously, and that factors into the cost-benefit considerations of those newspapers.

The right to free speech is a right, not a privilege. Everybody has that right. Pseudo-scientists, too.

We generally expect organizations to perform fact checking of their news articles. While I realize that this isn't being done these days as diligently as it once was, I feel confident that they have never even considered checking the facts of the horoscope columns they run. They know they're just running them for entertainment purposes, so they should just be upfront about it.

I'm not talking about free speech. Newspapers have an Opinions section where they can publish just about anything they want. And advertisements that may be mistaken for articles usually are marked "ADVERTISEMENT" so that readers won't be misled -- I don't know if this is a legal requirement or self-regulation by the industry.

[Fluffy]

The moon governs life in earth, I find it not completelly weird that where the sun was located when we were conceived and/or during gestation, might have something to do with how we are. It may take several millions of people to find out that those born in autum have a slightly (in average) different behaviour from those born in spring, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true.