Friday, July 25, 2008

Astrology of Disintegration

Rev. Heron has posted an interesting article entitled The Astrology of Disintegration. (Thanks Heron)
Posted by Craig at 2:19 PM

46 comments:

  1. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 2:29 PM

    The skinny on astrology,

    The usual objections to astrology boil down to: how the hell could it possibly work? After all, the stars are unthinkably distant, and the planets, an essential part of astrology, revolve around the sun, not the earth. Besides, what's so magical about the time of your birth--wouldn't it make more sense if your personality were determined by the time of your conception? On top of everything else, astrologists don't even agree on how to do charts--check out the difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs sometime.

    But this is not what astrology buffs want to hear. To them it doesn't matter that there's no plausible basis for astrology; they claim it just "works." By this they mean a skilled astrologer can give you genuine insights into your personality. In this they're undoubtedly correct--but the credit goes not to astrology per se but to the practitioner.

    Many experienced astrologers are pretty fair amateur shrinks. In the course of a one or two hour consultation they can usually get a good fix on your problems. Back this up with a lot of BS about Mars conjunct Uranus and the effect is convincing--and what the heck, it may even do you some good.

    But to say astrology can be helpful doesn't mean it has any objective validity. Studies have shown that (1) astrologers trying to deduce someone's personality from his chart do no better than chance; (2) astrologers studying the same chart come to opposite conclusions as often as not; (3) the birth dates of people with occupations linked to certain signs (e.g., politicians, scientists, soldiers) are in fact randomly distributed throughout the zodiac; and (4) couples with "incompatible" signs get married and divorced at the same rate as compatible couples.

    The fact is, people who want to believe in astrology will convince themselves it works no matter what. In one study of 22 astrology buffs, half were presented with their real horoscopes and half were presented with fake charts saying the exact opposite. Both groups said their horoscopes were 96 to 97 percent accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 2:32 PM

    Check out this video,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2ECKevJ7k

    ReplyDelete
  3. CraigJuly 25, 2008 at 2:33 PM

    Just passing it on. Not saying I buy into any of it. : )

    ReplyDelete
  4. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 2:34 PM

    Oh, I know, Craig, I just have no patience for pseudo-science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 2:45 PM

    I just find it amusing that some people believe that dead pieces of matter floating millions of miles away from Earth somehow determine something about one's personality.

    ReplyDelete
  6. caterpillargirl2July 25, 2008 at 2:52 PM

    I think that was very interesting, Rev. I've always been interested in the subject, but it's always seemed so over my head.

    Thank you so much for sharing! I enjoyed reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rev. HeronJuly 25, 2008 at 2:55 PM

    As with most things, people looking for evidence to prove something can come up with just as much evidence as people looking to disprove something. The observer paradox in quantum physics states this fairly unequivocally.

    For instance, a 2006 study looked at 100,000 drivers and found a correlation between the time of the year that you were born and the rate of car crashes experienced, and found a statistically significant correlation.

    I'm not about to get into a big debate here regarding the validity of astrology, or lack thereof, but I will agree to disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. sofiaJuly 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM

    jpx, i see you read the straight dope. word for word.

    http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_071.html

    at least credit cecil for chrissakes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. hynreckandjoeJuly 25, 2008 at 3:07 PM

    Astrology is just like religious faith. You could say it's just another religion.
    Like the great Bowie said: Looking for Satellites.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MareeJuly 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM

    The astrology stuff is a little irritating, but the gross misinterpretations of quantum theory are the really infuriating pseudoscience. *shakes fist at Ramtha zealots for what bleeping amounts to a bullshit meme* >:^[]

    ReplyDelete
  11. RandyJuly 25, 2008 at 5:05 PM

    but i loved him on family feud! he was the best game show host ever!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rev. HeronJuly 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM

    You could also just take it for what it is, one person's opinion on both astrology and the Cure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Genital BenJuly 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM

    Wait is there another Richard DawkinS, I'm talking about the British biologist. If he were the host of Family Feud I don't think he would have lasted one episode without getting a wedgie from the losing family!

    ReplyDelete
  14. MareeJuly 25, 2008 at 5:43 PM

    I love Dawkins. It's about time someone talked plainly rather than give in to the pressure to treat personal superstitions like special cases, exempt from rigorous critique. :^P

    ReplyDelete
  15. AbrashTXJuly 25, 2008 at 5:44 PM

    Hey Ben, you'll enjoy this video then:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

    ReplyDelete
  16. RandyJuly 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Genital BenJuly 25, 2008 at 5:57 PM

    That's pretty good Abrash, I like what South Park did on him. I just think if he wasn't such a douche some people wouldn't be turned off of him like they are.

    And maree, it's not that black and white. If you think him or any other skeptic is above supersticion and cliques look up the "Brights", which is a group of people who think alike and try to get others to think just like them, but they're not a religious group of course, right?

    Dawkins is just like anyone else who says I'm right you're wrong and I will spend no more time on your thoughts. Fundamentalism under any other name is still fundamentalism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Genital BenJuly 25, 2008 at 5:58 PM

    superstition

    ReplyDelete
  19. MareeJuly 25, 2008 at 6:23 PM

    Oh, noes! Not that that clever argument that conflates science and rational thinking with religion and superstition via a mushy definition of fundamentalism! o_O

    ReplyDelete
  20. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 6:29 PM

    Sofia, you're absolutely correct, in my haste to get some accurate info up there about the nonsense of astrology I called it the skinny instead of the straight dope. I stand by the comment and again reiterate that astrology is absolute nonsense. Read the straight dope comment carefully. Empirical research has demonstrated that astrology is just meaningless silliness. Stating, "people looking for evidence to prove something can come up with just as much evidence as people looking to disprove something" is a fail safe statement that basically says, "I can't prove what I'm saying but nothing can be proven", which is absolutely ridiculous. It's the difference between saying "I believe it because I just believe it" versus, "I've conducted empirical research that has shown this to be nonsense." It's insulting because the former is unsupported nonsense while the latter is empirical research. Do you know what that means? It mans that people have spent a long time running clinical trials to support or refute a hypothesis.

    It's why I get infuriated that people pay "psychics" and other people willing to take advantage of the naive. It saddens me that someone would pay an astrologer (e.g., a person who believe is magic and superstition) rather than placing their money on sound research. It baffles my mind that someone would spend their life studying astrology and other silliness. Here's an excellent book reference on the matter

    http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0716733870

    It's interested that the people who immediately criticized me made no mention of what I actually posted. It's that knee-jerk resistance to readon. As the strightdope person notes,

    "To them it doesn't matter that there's no plausible basis for astrology; they claim it just "works."

    This analysis of Robert Smith is no more accurate than anything I could make up as well. I just read the Rev's post and it makes me sad because I imagine what would happen if the Rev put that kind of thoughtful time and attention into something that was actually relevant or useful. I have no problem with the Rev, I just get my feathers ruffled with pseudo-science.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rev. HeronJuly 25, 2008 at 6:53 PM

    JPX, as I said, I will not debate with you, or any other person regarding the validity of astrology.

    I will, however, ask you to please refrain from insulting me personally in future posts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. mcjaxpedsJuly 25, 2008 at 6:58 PM

    "I have not been able to turn up a confirmed time of birth for Robert Smith, so the chart that I have done relies on my experience as an astrologer in order to determine his time of birth. I have not done a thorough chart rectification in order to determine an exact time of birth, so the following is merely speculation, based on a cursory rectification that uses his marriage date and the major album release dates as significant events. I have also included his family's move in March of 1966 as a relocation event. Using the Solar arc progression of year-for-a-day, I have tentatively identified his birth time based on these events as 11:08 am, on April 21st, 1959 in Blackpool, UK."

    Purely from memory, there is an edition of Cure News where Robert responds to a question about his exact time of birth as being shortly after midnight...0003 I think.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Genital BenJuly 25, 2008 at 7:01 PM

    Hey maree, nice argument from absurdity! The truth hurts, sweety.

    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rev. HeronJuly 25, 2008 at 7:06 PM

    mcjax, that would be great to know for certain! I'll take a look through the Cure news archives later and see if I can find it. Thank you for the tip!

    ReplyDelete
  25. MareeJuly 25, 2008 at 7:08 PM

    Ben, nice try... and nice touch throwing in the "sweetie." I am not getting into this any farther here. *steps aside to let ben puff up and proclaim victory.* :^P

    ReplyDelete
  26. sofiaJuly 25, 2008 at 7:10 PM

    jpx, cecil adams is my brain crush so i had to make certain the straight dope was properly credited! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dumb AnguishJuly 25, 2008 at 7:12 PM

    Wow. That was pretty neat. I didn't know about that whole Return of Saturn thing. But now that I think about it, my 29th year was just about one of my best years.

    Though I don't have much faith that all psychics are for real: Like the lady who lives nearby and runs a psychic business out of her house. One day I saw her go out to check her mailbox...And it was empty.

    Just think about what that means for a bit :)

    But I did meet a lady once who claimed she was able to sense where a person had lost their virginity. And, I'll be damned, she got mine right.

    ReplyDelete
  28. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 7:17 PM

    Sofia, you're my absolute new hero!

    Rev, I"m sorry, but if you're willing to post such silliness you're opening yourself up to both praise and criticism. Like I said, I have no problem with you and I've enjoyed your posts in other conversations, but I take umbrage with pseudo-science. It's insulting to me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 7:20 PM

    Also, Rev, you note "I will not debate with you, or any other person regarding the validity of astrology". That's a convenient response because there is no debate. I understand that for you to believe the research that tells us otherwise, would force you to confront the fact that you're wasting an awful lot of time on nonsense. It's a well known phenomenon called cognitive dissonance. Read all about it here,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rev. HeronJuly 25, 2008 at 7:34 PM

    JPX, I have no problem with your issue with astrology, however, when you insinuate that I am wasting my time, and my life, and that my resources would better spent on something more "useful" that is just directly insulting to me, and has nothing to do with whether or not astrology is valid.

    Regardless of how *YOU* personally view astrology, when you turn it into a personal attack, you cross that line. The way in which I choose to spend my resources is my own business, and is not open to "criticism".

    I certainly did not write the blog post in order to spark any sort of controversy, it is my own personal opinion, as I said before, and should be treated as such. If you disagree, then fine, you are cordially invited to NOT read my blog. I don't have the time or interest to argue with zealots of any stripe.

    ReplyDelete
  31. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 7:39 PM

    Point well taken, Rev.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Genital BenJuly 25, 2008 at 7:43 PM

    maree, I'm sorry I stooped to calling you sweety. My point was I really don't like Dawkins, James Randi and Penn (from Penn and Teller) explain everything without sounding patronizing and they don't act like they know everything about this great complex world.

    Anyway, JPX, it may be a waste of time to you, but it's something that makes her happy. If she's not hurting anyone I don't see the harm in it. Now I do know pyschics who try to contact the dead of loved ones and that pisses me off. They're exploiting people's emotions for a buck and that's never right.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Genital BenJuly 25, 2008 at 7:45 PM

    Wait I should be clear I don't like Dawkins. I do like James Randi and Penn.

    ReplyDelete
  34. CraigJuly 25, 2008 at 8:08 PM

    Why has everything at COF turned so negative lately? What happened?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Genital BenJuly 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM

    I'm on my period.

    ReplyDelete
  36. CraigJuly 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM

    Ah! That would explain it then. You're excused Ben. : )

    ReplyDelete
  37. KateJuly 25, 2008 at 8:23 PM

    Heya, Rev. I found your article very interesting. Thank you for sharing it with us.

    ReplyDelete
  38. JPXJuly 25, 2008 at 8:24 PM

    Um, I'm on my period too..

    ReplyDelete
  39. MareeJuly 25, 2008 at 9:21 PM

    Ben, that's rather standard fare for you on here... I mean, *scrolls, reads, laughs at apology.*

    If you want to get into a full blown debate about the distinctions between atheist groups and religions or about the comparative delicacy of Randi, Dennett, Dawkins, Shermer, Penn, Harris,
    Hitchens, et al, there are a great many online fora that are dedicated to such discussions.

    I would like to stay on topic here and discuss my favourite band. One or two OT comments are about all I am willing to offer, and those are about up.

    Oh wait... one more...

    :^P

    There.

    ReplyDelete
  40. AnonymousJuly 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM

    Thank you for that read Rev! It sure was interesting to read and it does "force" us to position ourselves about astrology. I personally think it's a matter of believing so I disagree with the discussion that ensued. I personally don't believe in it, but it was still interesting to read. So thanks :o)

    ReplyDelete
  41. sofiaJuly 26, 2008 at 1:03 PM

    regardless whether anyone believes in astrology or not i think we can all agree that turning 30 can be difficult. i certainly thought long and hard about what i was doing with my life around that time.


    i like freewillastrology.com myself.
    more like self actualization and positive thinking than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  42. RandyJuly 26, 2008 at 6:01 PM

    craig, i don't know if things have necessarily gotten 'negative' per se. i think there have been some rather hot button topics that have come up, especially the politics. though i certainly have never really considered astrology a hot button issue, it does seem to have divided the crowds as well.

    anyway, those subjects always put people at opposite poles. in a secret game. but nothing like these i suppose. :D

    however, i do notice a certain negativity from some folks who seem to enjoy being contrary. mostly because he or she probably isn't getting laid.

    ReplyDelete
  43. MareeJuly 26, 2008 at 7:07 PM

    I think it's just the tour being over... not such a steady stream of Cure-related stuff to discuss and get excited about, so other conversations spring up, revealing the great diversity of people here.

    When differing opinions are expressed, resentments are harboured, etc, etc... I really think that staying on topic is a great idea, since The Cure is fundamentally our common ground.

    ReplyDelete
  44. AnonymousJuly 26, 2008 at 9:43 PM

    It's always humorous how people who may believe in extraterrestrial life is automatically labeled a kook, yet people who believe in silly things such as Organized Religion, Astrology, Witchcraft, The Incredible Hulk etc have to be dealt with kid gloves. Especially when looking at the fact that life on other planets is likely in comparison to the fairy tale lifestyle that a good chunk of the human population lives in.

    Never underestimate the gullibility of the human race.

    ReplyDelete
  45. cure_kittyJuly 27, 2008 at 10:10 PM

    Great blog topic rev! Very interesting interpretation of Robert & The Cure during the time of Disintegration. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  46. mock goth gurlAugust 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM

    Craig, you asked "why has everything turned so negative here, what happened?"

    Answer: skwege101


    Does it every time.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)