Do you need to believe in astrology?

Question

I guess all the regulars know my story, for those who don't, I guess people's sunsigns. Done over 100 people, cheated 3, got 5 wrong, and I guessed a preist's and dog's starsigns (oh and two cats! forgot that). Anyway, it started because I was bored at my job and started noting the similarities between people of the same sign. If I look for the similar traits in others, I guess the starsigns, bingo. So, for me, it's not a matter of believing in astrology. It just is. I guess you need to believe in it when it comes to horoscopes and nodes (reincarnation) etc, but just the barebones - the evident stuff - , I have no reason to think it's wrong or I need to "believe" in it. That's me.

Do you need to believe in astrology? Explain please =)

Answer 1

NO.  It's a complete farce.  Somewhere there's quite a number of people that were born at the same time on the same date I was.  I guarantee you that we don't all think and act alike.

There are not 12 personalities defined by when someone was born.  I've known people who were #%@ holes that were born year round.

Answer 2

sorry i am a non believer

Answer 3

Okay remember with no belief, see how well the concept of astrology stands up to this.

My favorite method is using Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Note that this can be effective even with non-paranormal claims.

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

*Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts

*Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

*Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

*Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

*Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

*Quantify, wherever possible.

*If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

*"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

*Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

*Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

*Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

*Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

*Argument from "authority".

*Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

*Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

*Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

*Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

*Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

*Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

*Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

*Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

*Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

*Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

*Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

*Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

*Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

*Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

*Confusion of correlation and causation.

*Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..

*Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

*Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

To not think about any easier or more likely alternitives can make people more gulible.

Answer 4

Yes I believe in Astrology.

Following only Sun signs is not astrology. You should take all other planets and at least ascendent also. Then you can get accurate results after thorough research. You should learn astrology from experienced astrologers. Otherwise, you may be cheated or gotten wrong answers.

Answer 5

Of course its ridiculous to believe in astology. In fact, its Satanic. There is no beginning and no end and no true answers through astrology. You are taking hold of a lie. You will get no one where it nor will it help you with any problems you may have. Go to the Bible which is real and true and the Word of God.

Answer 6

i think its fun :)

Answer 7

Astrology if FUn not my LIFE..

like omg..2pts thanks..edit..

Answer 8

I don't need too, like if didn't have them to read I would die or something but they are fun and mine are always so on, it's some times scary, though it could be self fulfilling I guess, oh well, I'll go back to the it being fun part.

Answer 9

Yes, i beleive in astrology.

By knowing the characters of a person we are able to understand which sun sign is theirs. but only in the way of horoscope reading it is possible for us to determine their past, present and future deeds. In indian astrology it also states that their sun signs which u predict can be wrong due to their past life deeds.

Answer 10

NEED to believe? Nope. But I love astrology for the personality and compatibility parts. The pros and cons, the accuracies / inaccuracies / variations in real-life people... these are fun to observe! Just like all religions try to explain God and His creations, I think astrology is just an alternative mean to understand humankind, much like psychology and medicine.

However, I think the horoscope section you get in magz is nonsense. I don't believe in astrology in this sense and I laugh at people who ask stuff like "I'm a (sun sign) born on (date) at (time) in (place), should I pick my nose or do my homework?"

Answer 11

I am a believer,can you guess my sign

Answer 12

Universe. yes it is their. alot of people use to believe back in the day, but as people grew more sophisticated and rules and religion all kinds of stuff got changed but not the universe.

Answer 13

Need to? No.

No one truly needs to believe in anything.

It's all choice.

I enjoy astrology. I like helping people. I like playing with it.

You're on a roll tonight, Lencow...