? link
posted by HearHere at 2:33 AM on September 15 [1 favorite]

Western astrologers are well aware of this mismatch, but they don¡¯t see a problem with basing the signs on the stars as they were two millennia ago.

¡°Astrologers using the tropical zodiac are just using what they consider to be an equally valid system,¡± said Dorian Greenbaum, a historian of astrology who teaches at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David.

Equally valid is hilarious.
posted by Literaryhero at 3:22 AM on September 15 [27 favorites]

What about ???
posted by inexorably_forward at 4:02 AM on September 15 [3 favorites]

Yes, well, learning about this (many years ago) certainly quashed any idea that the position of the stars determined personality type. "Oh, you're such a Virgo" (or whatever)... ok, but Virgo isn't where it was when those types and date ranges were developed, so...???

I know a few astrologers and I do NOT get into this with them.
posted by inexorably_forward at 4:10 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

Ungated link
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:11 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

What about ???

mods, can you please add ?? to the title, between ?? & ?? (also, feel free to add ?? [en.wiki], if you wish)
posted by HearHere at 4:14 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

^ flagged for mod attention
posted by HearHere at 4:14 AM on September 15

It¡¯s mostly harmless.
posted by sixswitch at 4:34 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

I kind of like Vettius Valens, a 2nd C Roman who wrote a bunch on astrology and included friends¡¯ horoscopes with predictions as examples. As his life went on, he went back to the books and revised his system to try and explain why the predictions had or hadn¡¯t worked out.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:56 AM on September 15 [4 favorites]

The only accurate astrology is the account on instagram that does your sign as represented by a jpegged out image of a bratz doll holding a starbies cup saying something sassy.
posted by phunniemee at 5:17 AM on September 15 [8 favorites]

I've always hated astrology, and ran across an explanation of this mismatch a few years ago. Ever since, when someone asks me my sign, I say "It's very obscure, you probably haven't heard of it."
posted by adamrice at 5:40 AM on September 15 [8 favorites]

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be, why is the NYT running an article about this kind of fluff? Why is astrology coming back into vogue - is it an appreciation for deep mysteries, or an attempt to check the powerless feeling of contemporary life? Who is into astrology now - is it old rich people (generally a bad sign) or young poor people? What are the fans of astrology thinking, do they believe in it, or is it a game?

Or, y¡¯know, just get the web design team to draw some circles.
posted by The River Ivel at 5:54 AM on September 15 [5 favorites]

So, every time the topic of astrology (which I don't much believe in) comes up, I'm reminded of this quote from Douglas Adams, which paradoxically (I don't think he much believed in it either) is possibly the best defense of astrology--or Tarrot, or I Ching or any other kind of diviniation -- I've ever really read:

¡°In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing the indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people.¡±
posted by heyitsgogi at 6:15 AM on September 15 [51 favorites]

is it old rich people (generally a bad sign)

It's a bad one, but don't worry; "old rich people" is definitely not my sign.
posted by straight at 6:16 AM on September 15 [5 favorites]

I have a teen who is recently very into witchcraft and astrology. It is hard for me to stay appropriately reserved about it. The temptation to (counterproductively) lecture about the merits of skepticism in the face of easily testable claims often looms large.
posted by Pemdas at 6:18 AM on September 15 [3 favorites]

I think it matters how they're using it. I'd personally draw the line if they were using it to make prejudicial decisions about themselves and others. But if they're just vibing and using it as a framework to feel more confident about themselves, I'd probably be gentle and avoid going all SCIENCE! on them.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:30 AM on September 15 [9 favorites]

I was aware of this long ago, but it really came clear to me one night on my birthday 20-some years ago.
I am a 'Gemini', and that night as I walked outside after dusk, with a clear sky to the west, was the entire Gemini constellation, standing straight up in full view.
How is this my Sun sign?
posted by MtDewd at 6:37 AM on September 15 [4 favorites]

The article retails a common misunderstanding of ancient and medieval astronomy, namely, that the "signs" which divide the zodiac into 30¡ã sectors, are supposed to be fixed to the constellations from which they get their names. In the medieval period, astronomers were well aware of the precession of the equinoxes (this was discovered by Hipparchus in the 2nd century BCE) and, knowing that they had to make a choice between keeping their coordinate system (that is, the "signs") fixed to the sun via the equinoxes, or to the stars via the constellations, chose to fix it to the sun, because they could measure the position of the sun more precisely. This led directly to the modern system of ecliptic coordinates, in which celestial longitude is measured relative to the position of the sun at a specified vernal equinox.
posted by cyanistes at 6:47 AM on September 15 [12 favorites]

Horoscopes are front page news at CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) which I think is both ridiculous and also pernicious. Hey, new word - ridiculicious.
posted by whatevernot at 6:54 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

I would happily pay Galileo to draw up a horoscope for me. I would also love to find a little shop where I could have a nice glass of wine and cheese and my future prospects at happy hour. We're all sliding toward The Great Attractor.

It's also unrealistic to think of any of the star patterns in two dimensional shapes, since they are all great magnitudes of distances from each other in three dimensional space. The star catalog tags are more accurate, but would be so much drier without a little historical mythology.
posted by effluvia at 6:59 AM on September 15 [1 favorite]

Horoscopes are front page news at CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) which I think is both ridiculous and also pernicious. Hey, new word - ridiculicious.

? Only on the life page I think? Unless an article on this shift in signs was up earlier and I missed it.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:28 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

> why has a concept that has been around for thousands of years taken over the zeitgeist again? Studies show that stress, uncertainty and compound collective trauma often leads to moments of self-discovery... [:bazaar:] in his book, 2020¡¯s A Scheme of Heaven, [g] Boxer chose to uncover the links between astrology and the birth of modern science[:]

astrology was the ancient world¡¯s most ambitious applied mathematics problem, a grand data-analysis enterprise sustained for centuries by some of history¡¯s most brilliant minds, from Ptolemy to al-Kindi [en.wiki²] to Kepler [harvard (9-page pdf)]. just consider that for much of the last two thousand years, the word ¡°mathematician¡± (mathematicus) simply meant an astrologer; [wordpress]

posted by HearHere at 7:29 AM on September 15 [6 favorites]

The problem with the "it's just a way of organizing thoughts" approach is that, for many people, it's simply not true. They do actually believe in it as the stars/planets somehow controlling or determining your personality or destiny, and people pushing this stuff are often self-aware enough to try and cloak the real belief in nonsense behind a "hey, we're just having fun, quit killing our vibes" facade.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:31 AM on September 15 [4 favorites]

Should have been more clear warriorqueen - front page on cbc web site quite frequently. I acknowledge it annoys me more than it should, but, like, well, *sigh*.
posted by whatevernot at 7:34 AM on September 15

You're probably an Aries, right?
posted by mazola at 7:36 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

Fuckin LEO man! *Roar* or something something.
posted by whatevernot at 7:40 AM on September 15

We should have MeFiSigns based on our join date. I'm a MeFiVirgo!
posted by mazola at 7:42 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

Leos are liars and thieves.

(saying that as a Leo)
posted by mazola at 7:42 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

I used to run an ultimate frisbee tournament with 12 teams and so you¡¯re placed on your zodiac sign team. In the first 5 years, Pisces won perhaps one game - they, as a team, were consistently absolutely hopeless. Make of that what you will.
posted by whatevernot at 7:44 AM on September 15 [6 favorites]

I think people like astrology (not counting the basic sun sign/newspaper column version) because it¡¯s orderly and methodical and lets you fill out a chart with all the boxes in their places. It then gives you the impression of insight. I think this is a very potent combination for some people.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:01 AM on September 15 [3 favorites]

Here¡¯s a very exhaustive deep dive (though maybe the first few minutes listening will get the point across) if anybody¡¯s interested in hearing from astrologers about astrology about something that has been well understood and explained for centuries and centuries and centuries within that wisdom tradition.
posted by flamk at 8:02 AM on September 15 [1 favorite]

Complete derail sorry, but I had a Horrorscope when I was a kid. It was a little monster movie viewer, with changeable flip card monster movies. OK, back to your astrology/astronomy discussion.
posted by evilDoug at 8:02 AM on September 15 [3 favorites]

The Douglas Adams quote also works well for Myers-Briggs, which is just astrology for people with office jobs.
posted by Klipspringer at 8:15 AM on September 15 [12 favorites]

that wisdom tradition.
flamk

This is the classic trick: when someone receives flak for using astrology as a past time, declare that astrology is an ancient and venerable wisdom tradition. When it's noted that the "wisdom tradition" has no basis in reality, declare it doesn't matter because it's just a fun past time.
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:20 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

Jesus was a Capricorn. Jesus is a Sagittarius.
posted by 3.2.3 at 8:26 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

No tricks here. Promise.
posted by flamk at 8:26 AM on September 15

"we're going to use an immutable trait of birth to make assumptions of people's character..."

Crowd cheers

"based on the wisdom of old masters..."

Crowd cheers even louder

"despite everything about it obviously being nonsense"

Crowd goes totally apeshit with cheering

brandishing calipers "that's right, we're measuring skulls"

Crowd boos
posted by Reyturner at 8:27 AM on September 15 [5 favorites]

Before birth you typically spend nine crucial months in your mother's womb.

And prior to modern times, with our bright artificial lighting, your mother, especially in higher latitudes, was subject to large seasonal variations in day length ( think about vitamin D, for example) and ambient temperatures, and really large seasonal variations in the availability of foods and other nutrients.

I think the burden of proof falls on people who people who think some kind of sun sign astrology is impossible. Really the best they can do is arguing that civilization has wiped all that away, as it has to a large degree, but not entirely, and that doesn¡¯t take into account the possibilities that the eons we were helplessly subject to those variations have built timed responses to them into our very bodies, such as seasonal affective disorder, for one small example.
posted by jamjam at 8:32 AM on September 15 [4 favorites]

"we're going to use an immutable trait of birth to make assumptions of people's character..."

Except that among the astrology practitioners that I've know, nobody is doing that. It's almost always about self and introspection, not about being prescriptivist to other people.

I've run into a person or two who claims to be able to predict earthquakes based on the stars, they get an eyeroll from me, but they're way, way in the minority.
posted by gimonca at 8:32 AM on September 15 [3 favorites]

What's my sign? Nefarious, with Egg rising!
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:43 AM on September 15 [1 favorite]

I think the burden of proof falls on people who people who think some kind of sun sign astrology is impossible.

No, because even by your own account it's wrong. You list a whole host of factors that you're trying to handwave the signs as being some kind of stand-in for.

Please don't do this. You don't have to try and backward rationalize this mystical nonsense. It's okay to just accept that it's mystical nonsense but you find it a useful framework for thinking or whatever.
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:59 AM on September 15 [4 favorites]

A friend's kids got really into tarot and I was initially very disapproving of it until someone explained to me that the cards were essentially story prompts and "reading" them was somewhat akin to being a DM in a very abstract tabletop game about people. And given the way the kids were playing with lots of back and forths that included exciting affirmations and petty rejections about what the cards revealed, I found it to be a very convincing argument.

All this stuff is bunk, but so long as you're not a captive of it and have enough self awareness to cherry pick the fun bits without succumbing to selection bias.....a milquetoast horoscope that's deliberately written so everyone can identify with it is not the enemy of Enlightenment Thought that some people want to make it out to be.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:00 AM on September 15 [4 favorites]

brandishing calipers "that's right, we're measuring skulls"

Considering the equally-worrying return of physiognomy enthusiasm online, I seriously think you could get pretty far pitching astrophrenology, that the stars at your birth determine the shape of your skull.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:02 AM on September 15

The stars have moved relative to the seasons but the astral polyhedron around the Earth whose faces shape the energetic environment of your birth has not. Simple.

This accounts for all the quibbles about things like "precession" and "there's thirteen constellations in the zodiac of widely varying sizes".
posted by egypturnash at 9:02 AM on September 15

I think the burden of proof falls on people who people who think the moon *isn¡¯t* made of blue cheese.
posted by whatevernot at 9:03 AM on September 15 [5 favorites]

A friend's kids got really into tarot

Tarot is interesting in that it's doubly fake. That is, originally it was just a recreational card game developed in 15th century northern Italy. It wasn't until French occultists in the 18th century made up (as far as research can determine) esoteric histories of the practice with links to things like ancient Egypt, the Kabbalah, Indic Tantra, or the I Ching that it gained its current mystical character.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:07 AM on September 15 [5 favorites]

On the one hand I firmly believe that autoharuspicy is the only valid form of divination. When you want answers about your future and you¡¯re willing to accept the possibility that the news is going to be bad, autoharuspicy is the all-time champ.

On the other hand, without astrology I would never have won my friend group¡¯s Worst Pickup Line contest in which I submitted this gem:

¡°Do you enjoy highly processed meats? Because I¡¯m an aggressive Cancer that wants to get into your rectum.¡±
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:08 AM on September 15 [8 favorites]

And if the kids weren't playing with tarot cards they'd just be deriving everything about themselves based on their affinities for houses at a certain fictional wizarding school written by a horrible fascist.

So on balance, I'd rather they play with the tarot cards.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:08 AM on September 15 [4 favorites]

jamjam: "¡­prior to modern times, with our bright artificial lighting, your mother, especially in higher latitudes, was subject to large seasonal variations in day length ( think about vitamin D, for example) and ambient temperatures, and really large seasonal variations in the availability of foods and other nutrients.

I think the burden of proof falls on people who people who think some kind of sun sign astrology is impossible."

If it¡¯s about the seasons and the length of the days then you would expect a southern hemisphere Pisces to have the traits of a northern hemisphere Virgo, and so on, as the cycle of the seasons is six months offset. But I do not believe this is commonly suggested.

I am quite prepared to entertain the hypothesis that spring babies might share some characteristics that tend to differ from those of fall babies from the same location ¡ª at latitudes father from the equator ¡ª potentially based on environmental differences in solar illumination, temperature and weather, seasonally available foods, etc.

I think the burden of proof falls on people who think something about the position of the sun against the background stars (whether at their present day orientations or an ancient one chosen as a reference point) is a relevant factor.
posted by Songdog at 9:21 AM on September 15 [5 favorites]

But I have long been inclined towards Douglas Adams¡¯ take on this as well. If this system of ideas is useful to someone for helping them think about a problem or decision then I¡¯m mostly just glad for them.

So long as they don¡¯t try to engage me in reasoned argument about the plausibility of astrological claims using the trappings of science.
posted by Songdog at 9:25 AM on September 15 [3 favorites]

On the one hand I firmly believe that autoharuspicy is the only valid form of divination.

It can lead to problems, though. A friend of mine was so obsessed with autoharuspicy that he had to talk to a therapist about it. Unfortunately, she told him he needed to stop spilling his guts to her.
posted by nickmark at 9:29 AM on September 15 [17 favorites]

milquetoast horoscope

New username up for grabs!
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:42 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

CTRL+F "homestuck," 0 results

oh come on I know a few of you were at the devil's sacrament
posted by The demon that lives in the air at 10:03 AM on September 15 [2 favorites]

A friend's kids got really into tarot and I was initially very disapproving of it until someone explained to me that the cards were essentially story prompts and "reading" them was somewhat akin to being a DM in a very abstract tabletop game about people.

That's a good way to describe it.

What I don't like about astrology is that it's an essentially deterministic system -- it claims that everything about you, and everything that will ever happen to you, was dialed in from the moment of your birth.

I gather most astrology fans don't experience it that way -- they see their daily horoscope, with all its specifications about sun signs, moon signs, etc., as new information. And of course interpretation is a storytelling process, which varies depending on the practitioner.

But since we know what the observed movements of planets and stars will be for millennia into the future, it's all derivable from your birth horoscope... so if you really take it seriously, you are locked into your fate from day 1.

I prefer the Tarot and the I Ching because you have random inputs every time, so you get a complete fresh set of outputs every time.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:25 AM on September 15

Equally valid is hilarious.

Hilarious, but can also be aggravating. Is there anything more annoying than a vociferous vegan with astrological tendencies?

It¡¯s mostly harmless.
Mostly.
But people can find a way to weaponize the weirdest beliefs.
posted by BlueHorse at 11:19 AM on September 15 [1 favorite]

This is actually turning into a fun discussion!

The problem with the "it's just a way of organizing thoughts" approach is that, for many people, it's simply not true. They do actually believe in it as the stars/planets somehow controlling or determining your personality or destiny, and people pushing this stuff are often self-aware enough to try and cloak the real belief in nonsense behind a "hey, we're just having fun, quit killing our vibes" facade.

Yeah, but you could say that "some people take it too seriously" about just about anything. So where to draw that line is a bit of an inexact thing.

....One of my childhood friend's mothers was an astrologer - she got into it because my friend was born an Aries, but was not behaving anything like the traditional Aries people are supposed to. So she got into astrology to explore "exactly what's going on here" and ended up really doing a deep dive. She did my own chart as a gift for my 12th birthday, but instead of explaining what it all meant, she just gave me a book to help me interpret it. It went way over my head at the time, and I set it aside until I was older. I still can't vouch for the validity of astrology, but I was amused by one part of my chart - a lot of the other bits of my chart are all flighty and wishy-washy, but both Mars and the Aries constellation are in the same spot, which the book said means that it's one part of my life I can get really aggressive about.

...that spot was the spot that, in part, has to do with sex. And back in the day I had a libido the size of Idaho, so when I read that I just chuckled and thought "okay, the rest of this might be bullcrap, but that one bit kinda tracks...."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:20 AM on September 15

....One of my childhood friend's mothers was an astrologer - she got into it because my friend was born an Aries, but was not behaving anything like the traditional Aries people are supposed to. So she got into astrology to explore "exactly what's going on here" and ended up really doing a deep dive.

That's a pretty good place to draw a line. If thinking others aren't acting the way they're "supposed to" because of their sign doesn't cross it, being obsessed enough with the apparent inconsistency to want a resolution certainly does.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:31 PM on September 15

As with a lot of things that people find entertaining, if you can't repeat to yourself "It's just a show game, I should really just relax" you're taking things too seriously.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:37 PM on September 15 [1 favorite]

II was born in 10 BC so my chart should be off by 2000 years.
posted by clavdivs at 12:39 PM on September 15 [2 favorites]

I think it's important to point out that getting way into something dumb that ALSO pisses off adults around you is a time-honored Youth Priority.

Astrology is dumb. I never got into it. But I do enjoy facing mirrors certain ways in my house and tossing spilled salt over my shoulder for luck because superstitions are fun to me. They are equally stupid! It's fine.

You can use astrology for making random decisions or use a coin flip. It's fine.
posted by emjaybee at 12:57 PM on September 15

Parasite Unseen: "¡°Do you enjoy highly processed meats? Because I¡¯m an aggressive Cancer that wants to get into your rectum.¡±"

worst. eponysterical. evar.
posted by chavenet at 1:04 PM on September 15 [8 favorites]

If thinking others aren't acting the way they're "supposed to" because of their sign doesn't cross it, being obsessed enough with the apparent inconsistency to want a resolution certainly does.

Mmmm, nah, in her case it was more "huh, that's funny - the thing in the newspaper is wrong, I wonder exactly what's going on here, is this just total bullshit or what?.....Oh, hang on, the thing in the newspaper is shit but just because they're watering something way down. So exactly how does it work in the first place, is it bullshit or....? .....Okay actually this is getting kind of intriguing...."

You know? Say you had a friend who told you that "WWE wrestling is totally real you guys" and you decide to look into the matter more - but while you do indeed find out that WWE wrestling is fake, you also get so intrigued by the practice of Stage Combat that you get caught up in that instead.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:08 PM on September 15 [1 favorite]

The River Ivel: "Why is astrology coming back into vogue "

It has been out of vogue?
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:27 PM on September 15 [1 favorite]

Astrology is fun and if you hate it that's fine but it's not really necessary to tell everyone that.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:31 PM on September 15 [3 favorites]

Astrology is fun and if you hate it that's fine but it's not really necessary to tell everyone that.

Exactly. From Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria to Adam Ellis' "let people enjoy things," we've done a lot of work in society to figure out how to talk to one another when we have conflicting and yet somewhat-loosely-held views.

If someone wants to mention a horoscope or a card reading in conversation, it's okay to let them! If someone wants to proselytize on why you personally should believe in their efficacy, then it's okay to have a talk about why you differ! Like, not everything has to be full-on culture war! We don't have to pretend everybody's making strong testable claims that bear some 'burden of proof'!

(That said, it would be so nice if astrologers would update their systems based on the past couple hundred years of discoveries! Maybe my bad luck is due to a black hole in Pisces when I was born!)
posted by mittens at 1:59 PM on September 15 [3 favorites]

I have been drawn into conversations at work about my (supposed) star sign far too often, and it's a real drag. I always decline to reveal my sign in these conversations and most people don't know my birthday, but that usually leads to guessing and a lot of discussion about my supposed personality traits. It would be actionable behavior if we were discussing my race or creed or any number of other factors. Not much I can do, though.
posted by hydrophonic at 2:06 PM on September 15

clavdius had a wolf cub dropped on him as a child, so he is an outlier adn should not be counted
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 2:16 PM on September 15 [5 favorites]

I have been drawn into conversations at work about my (supposed) star sign far too often

What's your sign? (make up a nonsense name, like above)

No really, what's your birth date? "Ahh, this is a question about the Past, isn't it..." or "Sorry, that information is need-to-know basis only." or "My records were lost in The Event" then just say "I can't talk about it. Not yet." if asked.

...and so on. Baffle 'em with bullshit! It's fun!
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:22 PM on September 15

Astrology is a pseudoscience not because it is false, but because it is not falsifiable (testable). You can put psychology in the same category as far as philosopher of science Karl Popper is concerned. Both astrology and psychology have explanations but little predictive power. Kid having problems? It's your parenting, it's ADHD, it's genes, culture, gender, poverty, pick one pick all. Somehow we're even sicker and many bad ideas are back.

Astrologers also have poor predictive powers but it doesn't seem to dampen their enthusiasm for being wrong 50% of the time.

I find astrology fascinating because of its ancient roots and its anthropomorphic view of the universe. The planets and stars have personalities, more so than people, who are a mishmash of planetary influences. When you read ancient texts it's astonishing how much they reveal about how people lived and what they wanted.

I wish these media outlets with their seemingly annual debunking of astrology would also include other belief systems that lack explanatory power and do real harm.
posted by mygraycatbongo at 2:29 PM on September 15 [2 favorites]

As an example of how well known the phenomenon of precession was in the medieval period, Dante mentions it in his Convivio. In a passage in chapter 6 where he is explaining somewhat poetically that "the movers of the moon are of the order of Angels; and those of Mercury are Archangels; and those of Venus are Thrones" he goes on to say that (according to the Persian astronomer Al-Farghani) each planet undergoes three motions (in addition to its daily motion around the sky):

one according to which the star [meaning planet] moves in its epicycle; the second according as the epicycle moves together with its whole heaven, equally with that of the Sun; the third, according as that same whole heaven moves, following the movement of the starry sphere, from west to east one degree in a hundred years.

The last of these being the precession of the equinoxes, and Al-Farghani's value for the precesssion is close to the modern value of one degree in 72 years. When Dante writes in Inferno 1.38¨C40 that "The sun rose up with those stars that were with it when the divine love first moved those beautiful things" he means that the sun is in the same sign (Aries) as it was at the creation (not literally with the same stars, as these had moved sixty degrees or more since the creation due to precession), indicating that he considered the signs to be fixed to the sun.
posted by cyanistes at 2:40 PM on September 15 [3 favorites]

hydrophonic: "I have been drawn into conversations at work about my (supposed) star sign far too often, and it's a real drag. "

Oh hydrophonic, that's exactly what a [supposed] would say.
posted by phunniemee at 2:46 PM on September 15 [3 favorites]

I read this article with delight and expecting to find my ¡°real¡± alternative sign; only to discover I¡¯m one of the few for whole the sign has apparently not quite yet changed.
My mother taught me a great approach to interpreting horoscopes. Get in a room with people born on many dates and read only the contents of the horoscope from the day before. Then everyone has to volunteer who thinks it best describes them and the day they had. Great fun, totally random.
posted by meinvt at 4:08 PM on September 15

...all the quibbles about things like "precession" and "there's thirteen constellations in the zodiac of widely varying sizes".
Yes! Nobody cares about Ophiuchus. (Nov 29- Dec 18) - they don't even get a symbol
A lot of those folks out there.
posted by MtDewd at 5:39 PM on September 15 [1 favorite]

I read this article with delight and expecting to find my ¡°real¡± alternative sign; only to discover I¡¯m one of the few for whole the sign has apparently not quite yet changed.

Same. I was the only one in my family whose sign didn¡¯t change. Even my Aries husband who started off ¡°Well it¡¯s all BS, right?¡± To which I said, ¡°I mean, sure. But it¡¯s fun BS. You¡¯re a Pisces now.¡± Replied ¡°Absolutely not.¡±
posted by eekernohan at 6:18 PM on September 15

"Why is astrology coming back into vogue "
> It has been out of vogue?

[wiki:] Vogue began in 1892

[smithsonian:] The first real newspaper horoscope column is widely credited to R.H. Naylor, a prominent British astrologer of the first half of the 20th century
posted by HearHere at 7:00 PM on September 15

Astrology is a pseudoscience not because it is false, but because it is not falsifiable (testable).

It's eminently falsifiable; it makes concrete claims about the world. These claims routinely fall flat on their face, which falsifies it.

What makes it a pseudoscience is that its followers just don't give a shit about it having been falsified a kajillion times.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:19 PM on September 15 [4 favorites]

There are two books that I want that I can't find:

1) How astrology could have changed over millenia in light of actual star position etc. changes we can observe and the scientific background on the constellations. I don't normally give a fuck about space (it's empty and if you're looking for an exploration challenge the ocean is right there) but this would intersect with science history in a way I'd like

and

2) Details of what is known about the world's cultures and their zodiacs. I know there's the ancient Greek zodiac and the Chinese zodiac and I'm sure other cultures have their own versions but I've never heard about them. At the very least, stories about constellations as perceived by the world. For example I'm sure the Arctic peoples who live in the dark most of the time probably have some good ones.
posted by blnkfrnk at 9:04 PM on September 15 [1 favorite]

It's also unrealistic to think of any of the star patterns in two dimensional shapes, since they are all great magnitudes of distances from each other in three dimensional space.

I used to play around with a 3D star simulator called Celestia which would let you look at the stars from from Earth or from orbit around some other star in the galaxy.

You could also turn on the lines that connect stars into constellations. If you did that then looked at them from a distant star, those 2-dimensional line drawings became 3-dimensional light-years-long spiked claws surrounding and all poised to grab the Earth.
posted by straight at 9:32 PM on September 15 [3 favorites]

Birth season appears to have a very modest effect on personality. Lu et al (2020) surveyed 170,000 people and found that people born in summer were more extroverted. (They did this in the process of debunking astrology more generally - it was a factor they had to control for.) Lee et al (2021) found that people born in spring and winter were more sensation-seeking.
The effects of birth season on health are established enough to have a wikipedia article. Doblhammer et al (2001) found that, as expected, the effect flips based on hemisphere, so that probably applies to personality too.
(disclaimer: I just skimmed the abstracts!)

Due to the incident, I don't have a star sign. Tarot is better anyway.
posted by dustletter at 9:49 PM on September 15 [2 favorites]

On the contrary, mygreycatbongo, psychology is absolutely falsifiable. There are many examples of psychological ideas being tested and proven correct or incorrect. Freudian psychoanalysis, for example, once popular, since found wanting and largely falsified by modern evidence from the fields of developmental psychology and neuroscience.

Or there's the Stanford Prison Experiment. Its methodology and conclusions have been falsified by subsequent research.
posted by rosiroo at 4:27 AM on September 16 [1 favorite]

Personal anecdote offered only to show why I'm highly suspicious of astrology: My friend group once invited a self-identified astrologer to our meeting; in preparation I did my chart with an online tool but I don't know when I was born, so it apparently defaulted to midnight. At the meeting I brought it out as an example and their response was to say "Interesting". They examined it for a bit and I was waiting for insights when I added that I didn't know my birth time. They immediately handed it back and said in that case it was useless.

Orthogonal example - Chinese zodiac - Many of us are familiar with the ubiquitous place mats, but if you were born between Jan 1 and that year's "Chinese New Year" and don't take that into account you probably assigned yourself to the wrong animal.
posted by achrise at 8:42 AM on September 16

"There are many examples of psychological ideas being tested and proven correct or incorrect. Freudian psychoanalysis, for example, once popular, since found wanting and largely falsified by modern evidence from the fields of developmental psychology and neuroscience."

Can you offer examples of a test where Freudian psychoanalysis was falsified?

BTW, you can't prove things "correct" only not correct.
posted by mygraycatbongo at 9:28 AM on September 16

"It's eminently falsifiable; it makes concrete claims about the world. These claims routinely fall flat on their face, which falsifies it."

What "concrete" claims does astrology make that are testible (therefore falsifiable)? I've been studying the subject for decades and can't think of one, can you?

"What makes it a pseudoscience is that its followers just don't give a shit about it having been falsified a kajillion times."

What makes it a pseudoscience has nothing to do with what followers think.
posted by mygraycatbongo at 11:17 AM on September 16

What "concrete" claims does astrology make that are testible (therefore falsifiable)?

People born in this date range have this trait but not that one. This event is more likely to happen to people born in this date range.

I haven't studied astrology at all, because I don't care about it.

What makes it a pseudoscience has nothing to do with what followers think.

You have to get beyond Popper since his philosophy of science has almost nothing to do with actual science, even when it's firing on all cylinders. When you get to Kuhn and especially Lakatos for more considered and reasonable treatments of what separates healthy from unhealthy fields, you get to this. Degenerative versus progressive research programs.

What makes astrology different from physics is precisely what its followers or practitioners think. When Newton was falsified, was increasingly just irreconcilable with observed data, physicists accepted that the data were right, the theory was at least a little bit wrong, and looked for a new theory.

Astrologers... not so much.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 11:45 AM on September 16 [1 favorite]

"I haven't studied astrology at all, because I don't care about it."

Then how can you claim to know about its claims?
posted by mygraycatbongo at 11:55 AM on September 16

BTW, you can't prove things "correct" only not correct.

What about the statement "you can't prove things "correct" only not correct"?
posted by jamjam at 12:15 PM on September 16

"What about the statement "you can't prove things "correct" only not correct"?
I get it, is the statement itself is not falsifiable. It's a fun game.

The problem with claiming that a scientific theory is 'correct' is that some new discovery might eventually overturn or significantly alter the original theory, which is what happened with Newtonian physics. But most scientists would't conclude that Newtonian physics was falsified, it was incomplete.
posted by mygraycatbongo at 1:13 PM on September 16

Self referential paradoxes kill so many wonderful things.

It¡¯s almost as if all thought refutes itself before it even opens its mouth.
posted by jamjam at 1:26 PM on September 16

Then how can you claim to know about its claims?

There's kind of an easy answer to this, right, because astrology's whole point is making claims, and even if you're not interested in the topic, you will have come across those claims in popular culture. The horoscope in the morning paper is a claim. Your friend saying you're such a Scorpio is a claim. The astrology book at the bookstore makes claims on the back cover.

So--even though I believe in a good bit of tolerance around this stuff!--I do think the claims have a certain cultural pressure, and if enough of that cultural pressure is applied, then yes, it only makes sense that someone would ask for something to substantiate those claims.

It's unfortunate that when that time comes, people withdraw into "it's just for fun" or make completely nontestable claims for astrology. "Just for fun" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but then the cultural pressure of the claims needs to lighten up.
posted by mittens at 1:46 PM on September 16

"There's kind of an easy answer to this, right, because astrology's whole point is making claims,"

Not really. People who study astrology seriously, yes, we exist! are not saying things like 'you're such a scorpio' or writing sun sign columns. My point is that the study of astrology has not produced any claims that are testable, which is why it's a pseudoscience. For some reason a poster has taken that as an endorsement, probably because I put astrology in the same category as psychology.
posted by mygraycatbongo at 2:46 PM on September 16

Pseudoscience doing harm right here on Metafilter.
posted by phunniemee at 2:56 PM on September 16

mittens: "It's unfortunate that when that time comes, people withdraw into "it's just for fun" or make completely nontestable claims for astrology. "Just for fun" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but then the cultural pressure of the claims needs to lighten up."

I'm not responsible for an entire culture - just think astrology is fun. Which is fine and perfectly "acceptable" as people think all kinds of things that aren't true or scientific are fun. I didn't "withdraw" into that opinion, I simply think astrology is fun. Which some people think is evading responsibility for something? I don't get it. I'd love it if people who dislike it could just give these threads a pass.
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:54 PM on September 16 [2 favorites]

[quote] I'd love it if people who dislike it could just give these threads a pass.

Indeed. It's not like we're in an age where people are making important decisions based on your horoscope. It's more likely that decisions are now, and in the future, be based on your genes, or your skin color, or your scores on personality tests or any number of bullshit signifiers.
posted by mygraycatbongo at 4:29 PM on September 16 [1 favorite]

your scores on personality tests

Ooh, let's do a thread on the 'science' behind Clifton Strengthsfinder!!!
posted by mittens at 4:54 PM on September 16

I don't think it's news that astrology has nothing to do with the actual positions of the planets etc. I'm also not sure if mefites would react the same way to a post about, say, group prayer at a given hour in a room in a hospital hall having some kind of correlate effect on the average BP of nearby patients, say. I think most everyone around here ..a majority .. are materialists ,and probably a majority would say that's silly, any changes in bp are just that - correlation and coincidence, the prayer was not causitive. Which is fine of course and may be true..

Well, where am I going with this .. Im not a fan of the determinism of the natal chart. I don't like the idea that folks with already small dating pools are narrowing it further based on sun signs ... Even if I had achieved total astrological gnosis and was a real believer, I'd probably find a sun sign approach reductive

Here's the thing.. I'm not a believer. I don't love sorting hat type things, ruling out Meyers Briggs as well.. But I do find the history of the development of different systems of astrology fascinating and for sure the ancients would not recognize our modern 20th century on psychological approach to natal charts. In so far as I have heard, in the past astrology was used in a much more "electional" fashion : which times and dates might be suspicious or inauspicious for x activity ? Well . .. that arrives at another sort of mechanism - if the court astrologer said the best day to plant crops was Tuesday at three, perhaps telling the farmers that did lead to better yield , I. The same way that a kid does better on a math test if you pump them up tutoring them, rather than criticizing them. Will it compensate for a total lack of numeracy? No. Will it prevent second guessing oneself and help an insecure kid get more questions done in the alotted time? Perhaps. Anyway..

I know, the dark sides are abundant, but the ancient world wasn't so easy.. a UTI or asthma would take anyone out in the blink of an eye, ditto an infected wound. If positive prophecy could fuel hope, maybe hope would help. In matters of state craft or war, well.. if everyone was using it - and I don't claim any expertise here , I'm just thinking - if everyone was using the same system perhaps you could predict things others might be up to, or perhaps if everyone believed you'd have all sorts of real , even if psycho somatic or placebo, effects.

I'm just not sure making fun of it as a sole response to it is particularly fair minded at this point. Whatever it's many misguided and anachronistic applications today, and however much of a materialist science it is not, it's history on the world and personal stages of our ancestors is pretty indisputable and I'm no more ready to dismiss it as "whatevs, not for me" as I would the new testament for not being about historical Jesus. Certainly here in the US that isn't stopping its prophecies from affecting our defense spending and risking taking, thanks to plenty of christian nationalists having political power, or from it being referenced constantly in all of our literature, our collective psyche, our language. Literal belief in a thing isn't necessary to be intrigued enough to examine it, and how it effects society.. to think otherwise seems ... Eh.. kind of saturnine : P
posted by elgee at 11:46 PM on September 16

Leos are liars and thieves.

We¡¯re too smart to not be.
posted by bendy at 1:58 AM on September 17

I don't believe in astrology, but I kind of enjoy it sometimes in meme or humor form--like the old MAD Magazine article that said Scorpios were prone to "crouching in swamps".
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 3:33 AM on September 17

Indeed. It's not like we're in an age where people are making important decisions based on your horoscope

People hire and fire based on these things, it s worth worrying about discrimination

Particularly racism disguised as astrology, the iron glove in velvet
posted by eustatic at 6:15 AM on September 17 [1 favorite]

two books that I want that I can't find:

1) How astrology could have changed over millenia in light of actual star position etc. changes we can observe and the scientific background on the constellations

would ~a millennium & a half work? music of the heavens [g] is one of many books on ¡°the copernican revolution¡± [loc], i.e. after possibility of seeing significant star shift since tetrabiblos [en.wiki]

and

2) Details of what is known about the world's cultures and their zodiacs...For example I'm sure the Arctic peoples who live in the dark most of the time probably have some good ones

the Arctic sky [archive:]

Interestingly, the basic conditions governing the naming of Inuit stars match precisely the astronomical naming system said to have been used by ancient Arab peoples:

The archaic nomenclature of the Arabs . . . in one respect is unique. They did not group together several stars to form a living figure, as did their Western neighbors. . . . Single stars represented single creatures, a rule that rarely seems to have been deviated from¡ª

posted by HearHere at 6:43 AM on September 17

Pseudoscience doing harm right here on Metafilter.

I read that link, and....honestly, it sounds more like it was the poster's projection that was more at fault, and the answers they favorited seemed to suggest that they realized that themselves. I mean, when Charles Manson took "Helter Skelter" to be Secret Instructions To Murder People, we didn't say the Beatles actually killed Sharon Tate, right?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:43 AM on September 17

we didn't say the Beatles actually killed Sharon Tate, right

Well, if you believe their 'alibi' that they were busy shooting the Abbey Road cover that day, sure.
posted by mittens at 9:58 AM on September 17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvyuk3kqr80

would you like a video on how this actually works in astrology
posted by egypturnash at 8:08 AM on September 25 [1 favorite]

Pseudoscience doing harm right here on Metafilter.

I read that link, and....honestly, it sounds more like it was the poster's projection that was more at fault, and the answers they favorited seemed to suggest that they realized that themselves.

I don't even believe in astrology, and yet I have to say I'm pretty struck by someone getting a horoscope in January 2020 warning of possible chronic illness challenges ahead.

Telling someone to prepare for that possibility, at that time, doesn't strike me as doing them harm... even if the prediction was totally by chance.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:38 AM on September 29

You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.