1) the first part of this is that you wanted to discuss one thing but kept getting replies that diverged onto another track. I can understand how this would be frustrating.
It is not, of course, reasonable to expect me to stick to your subject in my LJ, so presumably this isn't why my post angered you so much.
2) The second part of this is basically the courtier's reply: "How can those silly skeptics know the Emperor has no clothes on if they haven't fully studied the exquisite nature of the clothes, including speculating on how the cut, and the embroidery designs have been refined over the centuries?"
Maybe we know astrology doesn't work because, once you control for the pattern picking and confirming biases, it doesn't? Just like we know the Emperor is naked because, well, we have just discovered he is not a natural redhead?
I don't know why it is necessary to understand the intricacies of the mathematics to look at the descriptions of people and realize they don't match. And if the descriptions of people can't match because there's not enough information, then why do they put them in the paper at all? You don't see doctors predicting tissue type matching on the basis of blood type in the paper.
3) You compare Astrology to art and music, and say we haven't seen the best examples.
This is not a valid comparison at the moment--nobody suggests that Beethoven's Fifth is a guide to correct living. Whereas people feel free to suggest, on the basis of a horoscope, that someone close to you will betray you today.
Now it could become a valid comparison if people drop the idea of astrology being a basis for important decisions. I am totally okay with the idea of Astrology as a type of *art*--as an elegant mathematical game whose principles must be learned before the skill or lack thereof of a particular play can be appreciated--but it can play that role perfectly well with everyone in the world realizing it doesn't actually work--just like people play Chess or Scrabble or the viola without expecting to read their futures in the results.
But if what you are seeking is really the understanding of Astrology as an elegant mathematical game, what on earth is wrong with discussing how the game is changed by using real starting points with respect to the stars as opposed to the 3,000 year old traditional ones? And whether the game calls for positions with respect to the stars, or with respect to the planets? And what would be involved in rearranging the game to work with respect to the planets?
It's like discussing whether performing Saint Saen's work _The Swan_ on kazoo and ukelele is a travesty or an exploration of the hidden humorous potential inherent in the work. You may prefer the cello version for regular listening (though I do think you should hear the kazoo version at least once in your life) but it's nothing to get so angry about.
Especially when you said you had no particular emotional connection to astrology and we could be as skeptical as we liked.
4) About your birth horoscope. That sounds fun. I think you should have someone else use the kit and cast it for you with 12 (or 13; your choice, and you can pick whether to use the old or new mathematical rules) birthdays, one of which is yours. Then they number them randomly, black out the birthdays they chose and what sign "you" were and you look them over, together with someone who knows you well but also doesn't know which horoscope is the "real" one.
If it turns out the horoscope with the correct birth date is the one that describes you best, then it might be time to say "Hey, cool--it worked for me! You try it!" Until then you don't know whether any other date would have worked perfectly well too.
no subject
It is not, of course, reasonable to expect me to stick to your subject in my LJ, so presumably this isn't why my post angered you so much.
2) The second part of this is basically the courtier's reply: "How can those silly skeptics know the Emperor has no clothes on if they haven't fully studied the exquisite nature of the clothes, including speculating on how the cut, and the embroidery designs have been refined over the centuries?"
Maybe we know astrology doesn't work because, once you control for the pattern picking and confirming biases, it doesn't? Just like we know the Emperor is naked because, well, we have just discovered he is not a natural redhead?
I don't know why it is necessary to understand the intricacies of the mathematics to look at the descriptions of people and realize they don't match. And if the descriptions of people can't match because there's not enough information, then why do they put them in the paper at all? You don't see doctors predicting tissue type matching on the basis of blood type in the paper.
3) You compare Astrology to art and music, and say we haven't seen the best examples.
This is not a valid comparison at the moment--nobody suggests that Beethoven's Fifth is a guide to correct living. Whereas people feel free to suggest, on the basis of a horoscope, that someone close to you will betray you today.
Now it could become a valid comparison if people drop the idea of astrology being a basis for important decisions. I am totally okay with the idea of Astrology as a type of *art*--as an elegant mathematical game whose principles must be learned before the skill or lack thereof of a particular play can be appreciated--but it can play that role perfectly well with everyone in the world realizing it doesn't actually work--just like people play Chess or Scrabble or the viola without expecting to read their futures in the results.
But if what you are seeking is really the understanding of Astrology as an elegant mathematical game, what on earth is wrong with discussing how the game is changed by using real starting points with respect to the stars as opposed to the 3,000 year old traditional ones? And whether the game calls for positions with respect to the stars, or with respect to the planets? And what would be involved in rearranging the game to work with respect to the planets?
It's like discussing whether performing Saint Saen's work _The Swan_ on kazoo and ukelele is a travesty or an exploration of the hidden humorous potential inherent in the work. You may prefer the cello version for regular listening (though I do think you should hear the kazoo version at least once in your life) but it's nothing to get so angry about.
Especially when you said you had no particular emotional connection to astrology and we could be as skeptical as we liked.
4) About your birth horoscope. That sounds fun. I think you should have someone else use the kit and cast it for you with 12 (or 13; your choice, and you can pick whether to use the old or new mathematical rules) birthdays, one of which is yours. Then they number them randomly, black out the birthdays they chose and what sign "you" were and you look them over, together with someone who knows you well but also doesn't know which horoscope is the "real" one.
If it turns out the horoscope with the correct birth date is the one that describes you best, then it might be time to say "Hey, cool--it worked for me! You try it!" Until then you don't know whether any other date would have worked perfectly well too.