Re: [debate 270] Astrology: Pseudoscience and Delusion

[Keith MacNevins]

The government of France may be the only government in the entire world to have invested taxpayer money to investigate astrology. The conclusions drawn include that there is indeed some correlation between the phases of the moon and human behavior. It was determined that the New Moon does seem to have an effect on human behavior -- which can not be accounted for by mere coincidence or other factors such as expectation, or self-fulfilling prophecy as could be the case attributed to the Full Moon.

On 8/5/08, Alexandre <alexandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Astrology: Pseudoscience and Delusion
I have recently posted the text below in my blog (I am the author). I
would like to know the opinon of the members of this group about it.

There are various theories (physical, spiritual, magical, psychic and
informational) that try to explain how astrology is supposed to work.
All these theories have something in common: they offer explanations
that are incompatible with existing knowledge. The aim of this article
is to expose some of the main flaws of astrology. The arguments
presented here are not exhaustive, i.e., they do not comprehend all
that is wrong with astrology. If you are interested in having a deep
understanding of the scientific evidences against astrology, I suggest
that you visit the following web site: http://www.astrology-and-science.com.
It offers an impressive quantity of detailed information on this
subject.
The main problem of the physical theories resides on the fact that
long range forces, like gravity, get weaker with distance. Astrology
does not take this fact into consideration. Concerning gravity, for
example, astrology not only disregards the influence of the distances
and masses of the celestial bodies, but also ignores the fact that it
is an extremely weak force. The influence that a planet like Mars
exerts upon us, for instance, is much smaller than the influence from
the objects and people around us. Gravity force is so weak that, when
you pick up an object from the floor, you are opposing the force that
the entire planet Earth exerts upon that object. Besides, if the
distances and the masses of the celestial bodies and matter are not
relevant, shouldn't astrology take into consideration all the
innumerable billions of celestial bodies? What about black matter and
black holes? Shouldn't they be taken into account as well?
Astrology techniques are very inaccurate and its criteria are
arbitrary. Astrologers disregard the existence of a 13th constellation
of the zodiac (Ophiuchus). Furthermore, they do not take into account
the fact that the constellations do not fit well into the 12 equal
segments of the sky that astrology assigns them to. They overlap and
are irregularly distributed in space. Thus, the Sun path across them
is not equally divided along the 12 months of the year (a person's
sign is determined by the position of the Sun in relation to the
constellations of the zodiac on the date of birth), and it can cross
more than one constellation at the same time. Astrologers also ignore
the precession movement of the planet. Due to the precession movement,
Earth constantly changes the inclination of its axis of rotation. The
complete cycle takes thousands of years. The result is that the sky
that we see today is not the same that people saw centuries ago.
Astrology charts are based on the moment of birth (birth charts). This
choice is arbitrary. Isn't the moment of conception much more
significant? Besides, if the time of birth is so important, how do
astrologers explain the fact that twins (as well as any other people
who are born in the same place, at the same time) are able to lead
lives completely different from each other? They simply cannot explain
it.
Many people who believe in astrology affirm that it effectively
describes their personality and successfully predicts events of their
lives. How can science explain that? First of all, horoscopes are so
vague that their statements can be applied to almost anyone. In
addition to that, mere chance and psychological biases are the most
reasonable explanations for most of these apparent successful
descriptions and predictions. As a matter of fact, in innumerable well
conducted scientific experiments, astrologers failed to show that the
accuracy of their predictions was any greater than what is expected by
chance.

Alexandre Couto de Andrade
http://sciencereason.blogspot.com/




--
Ambassador From Hell