What is behind Astrology, and how this is relevant to philosophy

[JackDaydream]

@Atla

In thinking about astrology, one of the areas which I think is interesting to explore is popular thinking in culture and academic thinking, as classified in philosophy. It is a wide area, and I think that in some philosophy circles, astrology is regarded as complete nonsense and superstition. It is on the cusp of what is seen as acceptable thinking, but many regard it almost as 'delusion'. Astrology has its roots in esoteric thinking about correspondences within nature and had a connection with astronomy. However, it is hard to know what role astrology will have in future thinking, and will it be demoted almost a form of primitive thinking? I am sure it probably captures some important aspects of 'truth', but it is hard to know how these stand up to the rigour of philosophy of the twentieth first century, which has so much 'faith' in the findings of the physical sciences as a basis for knowledge.

[JackDaydream]

@Atla
I am just adding this because my previous post may have been a little vague. I am wondering about the language of academic philosophy and where astrology stands in regard to that. In many ways, philosophy may seem as outdated but many cling to it in society. On one hand, the thinking of popular culture may be seen as lacking the clarity of scientific thinking. But, it could be argued that astrology is holding on because the philosophy and thinking within academic culture leaves a void of unknowing, and, for this reason many people turn to ideas such as astrology to fill in the gaps. So, it could be asked whether astrology, and other aspects of 'mind, body and spirit' literature capture truths which are not explored fully within academic culture. Can philosophy deal with this gap at all, or will there always be a gulf between academic and popular thinking and imagination?

[Count Lucanor]

Quote me where I said my speculations MUST be taken seriously, I said many times that the effect could be negligible. I think there are mountains of psychological circumstancial evidence that they are not, so I'm pretty confident, but it's still possible that countless people including me were wrong somehow.

What will be the sign of gullible, naive people? I'm pretty sure it's not Acquarius.

When you proceed to claim that there are mountains of evidence to support your speculations and in the same sentence you cast a big shadow of doubt over that very same claim, one might believe you that you're not serious at all.

Quote me where I said that any criticism of them amounts to peddling supernaturalism, I said yours was. I don't think you speak for everyone. You already know that the yearly cycle of seasons certainly don't have a yearly cycle of effects on foetus/newborn brains, that there's not even a possibility, so you already must know that our minds are supernatural.

Surele I could have quoted from your previous post, but it is not needed: you confirmed what you were accused of in this post again. That's what your fallacy is about: if one doesn't accept your speculations, then one must be peddling supernaturalism. Utter nonsense! It's not up to me to prove that your claim about seasons affecting brains is false, it is your burden to prove that it is true. And even if you got away with that one, you still would need to prove that it is THE variable that makes the difference in people's personalities. Oh, wait, you couldn't ever do that, because "the effect could be negligible" and "it's still possible that countless people including [you] were wrong".

We've also seen that "no factual evidence of any natural distinguishable effect of seasons in brains and people's personalities" is no true, as there already seems to be statistical evidence for a yearly cycle of a few basic issues that can impact/manifest in the personality. Infant growth / initial weight (including brain growth I presume), neurological issues, smoking, suicidal tendencies.

You acknowledged there is no scientific evidence: "There is no scientific evidence for or against it, it was never researched." And when I asked you where was the statistical evidence you could only provide a Wikipedia entry which, as I explained, "only takes us to a study that talks about frequency of births by season (irrelevant), a study on mice (irrelevant too) and some not very conclusive suggestions that birth in given seasons show a correlation with diseases and social patterns. Nothing pointing to the "obvious" yearly cycle of personality." Most of your straw man and red herrings started right after that.

[Atla]

Quote me where I said my speculations MUST be taken seriously, I said many times that the effect could be negligible. I think there are mountains of psychological circumstancial evidence that they are not, so I'm pretty confident, but it's still possible that countless people including me were wrong somehow.

What will be the sign of gullible, naive people? I'm pretty sure it's not Acquarius.

When you proceed to claim that there are mountains of evidence to support your speculations and in the same sentence you cast a big shadow of doubt over that very same claim, one might believe you that you're not serious at all.

Quote me where I said that any criticism of them amounts to peddling supernaturalism, I said yours was. I don't think you speak for everyone. You already know that the yearly cycle of seasons certainly don't have a yearly cycle of effects on foetus/newborn brains, that there's not even a possibility, so you already must know that our minds are supernatural.

Surele I could have quoted from your previous post, but it is not needed: you confirmed what you were accused of in this post again. That's what your fallacy is about: if one doesn't accept your speculations, then one must be peddling supernaturalism. Utter nonsense! It's not up to me to prove that your claim about seasons affecting brains is false, it is your burden to prove that it is true. And even if you got away with that one, you still would need to prove that it is THE variable that makes the difference in people's personalities. Oh, wait, you couldn't ever do that, because "the effect could be negligible" and "it's still possible that countless people including [you] were wrong".

We've also seen that "no factual evidence of any natural distinguishable effect of seasons in brains and people's personalities" is no true, as there already seems to be statistical evidence for a yearly cycle of a few basic issues that can impact/manifest in the personality. Infant growth / initial weight (including brain growth I presume), neurological issues, smoking, suicidal tendencies.

You acknowledged there is no scientific evidence: "There is no scientific evidence for or against it, it was never researched." And when I asked you where was the statistical evidence you could only provide a Wikipedia entry which, as I explained, "only takes us to a study that talks about frequency of births by season (irrelevant), a study on mice (irrelevant too) and some not very conclusive suggestions that birth in given seasons show a correlation with diseases and social patterns. Nothing pointing to the "obvious" yearly cycle of personality." Most of your straw man and red herrings started right after that.

Wonder how he found a study on mice on a Wiki page that's about seasonal variuances in humans?

[Count Lucanor]

Wonder how he found a study on mice on a Wiki page that's about seasonal variuances in humans?

Easy: I opened up the link you provided and read it. Too bad you had not read it yourself.

Astrology is nonsense.

[Atla]

Wonder how he found a study on mice on a Wiki page that's about seasonal variuances in humans?

Easy: I opened up the link you provided and read it. Too bad you had not read it yourself.

Astrology is nonsense.

Even though there is no mention of mice on the page?
Anyway, to those who aren't biology-deniers: the seasons obviously also affect animals, especially if their natural habitat has different climate.

[Count Lucanor]

Wonder how he found a study on mice on a Wiki page that's about seasonal variuances in humans?

Easy: I opened up the link you provided and read it. Too bad you had not read it yourself.

Astrology is nonsense.

Even though there is no mention of mice on the page?
Anyway, to those who aren't biology-deniers: the seasons obviously also affect animals, especially if their natural habitat has different climate.

Not a thorough reader, I see. Too bad, worst when it is your own link, supposedly to support your point.

[Atla]

Wonder how he found a study on mice on a Wiki page that's about seasonal variuances in humans?

Easy: I opened up the link you provided and read it. Too bad you had not read it yourself.

Astrology is nonsense.

Even though there is no mention of mice on the page?
Anyway, to those who aren't biology-deniers: the seasons obviously also affect animals, especially if their natural habitat has different climate.

Not a thorough reader, I see. Too bad, worst when it is your own link, supposedly to support your point.

Okay, copy the part with the mice.

[Count Lucanor]

Okay, copy the part with the mice.

No problem. Citation #5 in the article leads to this reference:

Choi CQ (2012-05-11). "Being Born in Winter Can Mess With Your Head". livescience.com. Retrieved 2021-11-16.

This is the article that opens:

https://www.livescience.com/20237-birth ... rders.html

And this is a link from that reference to the study on mice:

https://www.livescience.com/9074-winter ... study.html

In any case, there are other references in the Wikipedia entry of studies in animals, which are also irrelevant.

[Atla]

Okay, copy the part with the mice.

No problem. Citation #5 in the article leads to this reference:

Choi CQ (2012-05-11). "Being Born in Winter Can Mess With Your Head". livescience.com. Retrieved 2021-11-16.

This is the article that opens:

https://www.livescience.com/20237-birth ... rders.html

And this is a link from that reference to the study on mice:

https://www.livescience.com/9074-winter ... study.html

In any case, there are other references in the Wikipedia entry of studies in animals, which are also irrelevant.

So it's a reference of a reference, and it wasn't used on the page I linked.

But now that you brought it up, yes this again shows that the date of birth may have unexpected permanent effects on organisms, both human and non-human. Thank you.

[Count Lucanor]

Okay, copy the part with the mice.

No problem. Citation #5 in the article leads to this reference:

Choi CQ (2012-05-11). "Being Born in Winter Can Mess With Your Head". livescience.com. Retrieved 2021-11-16.

This is the article that opens:

https://www.livescience.com/20237-birth ... rders.html

And this is a link from that reference to the study on mice:

https://www.livescience.com/9074-winter ... study.html

In any case, there are other references in the Wikipedia entry of studies in animals, which are also irrelevant.

So it's a reference of a reference, and it wasn't used on the page I linked.

But now that you brought it up, yes this again shows that the date of birth may have unexpected permanent effects on organisms, both human and non-human. Thank you.

No, it doesn't show that, at least not in humans.

[Atla]

Okay, copy the part with the mice.

No problem. Citation #5 in the article leads to this reference:

Choi CQ (2012-05-11). "Being Born in Winter Can Mess With Your Head". livescience.com. Retrieved 2021-11-16.

This is the article that opens:

https://www.livescience.com/20237-birth ... rders.html

And this is a link from that reference to the study on mice:

https://www.livescience.com/9074-winter ... study.html

In any case, there are other references in the Wikipedia entry of studies in animals, which are also irrelevant.

So it's a reference of a reference, and it wasn't used on the page I linked.

But now that you brought it up, yes this again shows that the date of birth may have unexpected permanent effects on organisms, both human and non-human. Thank you.

No, it doesn't show that, at least not in humans.

Okay, show that the studies done with humans weren't studies done with humans.

[Count Lucanor]

Okay, show that the studies done with humans weren't studies done with humans.

I already answered that and all of your claims related to the point you were trying to make:

[...] This entry only takes us to a study that talks about frequency of births by season (irrelevant), a study on mice (irrelevant too) and some not very conclusive suggestions that birth in given seasons show a correlation with diseases and social patterns. Nothing pointing to the "obvious" yearly cycle of personality.

[...] Several biological, environmental and social factors can have an effect on personality, but those factors would be randomly associated to each person's life history and would make each case specific to that individual, not to 12 or any other set of personality types. Two individuals could be born the same day, at the same hour, at the same place, but the likelihood that they will have the same personality and have the events in their lives predetermined, as it is claimed by astrologers or anyone associating date or season of birth with personality, is negligible.

[...] Seasons are natural events, but they are not biology. The point you have been trying to advance is that seasons determine biology and biology determines personality, so ultimately seasons determine personality. The premises and the conclusion are evidently false.

[...] Without going that far, it seems pretty obvious that for your argument to survive, it would be required that seasons alone were the primary or only factor determining the fate of individuals. Otherwise, your theory should account for all the factors and define what is their relative weight, and also come up with the relation between these factors and the limited set of personality types that you say exist.

Then you ignored most of my points without rebuttal and went astray.

[Sculptor1]

The only thing about astrology that is relavant to philosophy is a set of examples of how susseptible humans are to fakery.
In particular we might want to examine the role of selective bias, a desperate need for control, a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning.
There is also a strong element of flattery which many are suseptible to.

Most of this is psychology, not directly philosophy.

All arguments positing "Seasonality" are utterly bogus, since the earth has two major hemispheres in which winter reigns in one whilst summer in the other; whilst al the equatorial earth has little to no seasonal variation at all.

It should be of note that the origin of astrology; modern Iraq has minor only two seasons.

[Atla]

Okay, show that the studies done with humans weren't studies done with humans.

I already answered that and all of your claims related to the point you were trying to make:

[...] This entry only takes us to a study that talks about frequency of births by season (irrelevant), a study on mice (irrelevant too) and some not very conclusive suggestions that birth in given seasons show a correlation with diseases and social patterns. Nothing pointing to the "obvious" yearly cycle of personality.

[...] Several biological, environmental and social factors can have an effect on personality, but those factors would be randomly associated to each person's life history and would make each case specific to that individual, not to 12 or any other set of personality types. Two individuals could be born the same day, at the same hour, at the same place, but the likelihood that they will have the same personality and have the events in their lives predetermined, as it is claimed by astrologers or anyone associating date or season of birth with personality, is negligible.

[...] Seasons are natural events, but they are not biology. The point you have been trying to advance is that seasons determine biology and biology determines personality, so ultimately seasons determine personality. The premises and the conclusion are evidently false.

[...] Without going that far, it seems pretty obvious that for your argument to survive, it would be required that seasons alone were the primary or only factor determining the fate of individuals. Otherwise, your theory should account for all the factors and define what is their relative weight, and also come up with the relation between these factors and the limited set of personality types that you say exist.

Then you ignored most of my points without rebuttal and went astray.

Of course I ignored those "points", it's clear from them that you have still haven't read my OP and my following comments. First you need to be able to address what I actually wrote.