csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/17/85)
In article <2178@iddic.UUCP> kendalla@iddic.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes: >In article <2109@burdvax.UUCP> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >> >>Communism is to government what astrology is to science. >I'm not convinced that astrology is totally bogus. I don't mean the >astrology you get on the comic page. I mean the idea that a person's >life, health, and personality are (to whatever extent) influenced by the >exact time and place of his/her birth. Any astrology buffs/debunkers >out there care to comment? Astrology has no basis in "fact" (yet?) so it's impossible to "prove", but I can provide some food for thought. In the late 70's, a French statastician did a study of athletes in relation to various "Natal Horoscope" attributes that ought to endow one with athletic ability. I believe the correspondance was 86%. Statistics are funny things, so while this researcher was intrigued, he said it didn't prove anything or sway his opinion. Another intuitive leap is "why do the movements of planets affect people?" This is not a stupid question, but compare it to the question:"why does the number on my watch affect the position of the sun?" Many modern astrologers consider the planets as a passive "clock" that can be used to describe events. Another interesting observation comes from Tarot cards, a hobby of mine. No matter WHAT the question is, the first card in the reading will fit it. If you get the the tenth card and they're still making sense, that should be a statistical fluke. An interesting book called "Disproving Astrology" makes some fundemental errors in this sense. It shows that any single attribute, taken by itself could be bent to fit the person, but it ignores that a real chart contains a lot of factors that must interrelate. This discussion will move itself to net.philosophy. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_