RE: In Today's Horoscope: You Are an Idiot
Yup, that I am. However, the stuff in the morning newspapers has nothing to do with horoscopes, astrology, or anything at all. So I am going to skip some of those points which talk about that rubbish. ;)
This works like any other systems that people use. You heard that phrase that beleif is a tool? That is the reason why people had the most ridiculous sytems work for them. Still it is not something you can count on, because that stuff requires discipline, and that is what most people lack.
If you want to talk horoscopes, then I'd like to point out that prior to the invention of the computer, about 2/3 of any beginners books on astrology was a lot of maths dedicated to calculating the positions of the planets.
Oh, about that Libra/Virgo thing? I know that it is popular thing these days, but you are doing the same thing that people in the newspapers are doing.
Western astrological systems use the tropical zodiac, which starts from the point of the vernal equinox, and thus moves like 50" of arc every year. Well, for people that care about the consteations, the fixed stars there are the systems that count from a particular star, called "sidereal", and they use a number to correct for the precesion.
This whole tirrade is not about right or wrong of the astrology. It is about people who are all above those predjudices not doing their homework. That might cut it for the morning newspaper crowd, but you're on Steemit now, so please do a bit better! ;-)
Btw, those people born between 12.12 and 01.01, which sign are they? ;-)
I'm not sure I even got your points - you are saying that even though the earth's axis shifted, the zodiac signs did not? And you are saying this, even though the core principle of astrology is the relation of planets and stars to each other?
And you also said that you are, in fact, compensating for the progressive shift of the axis with a correction? In order to keep the dates of the zodiac the same? How does this work?
And you just went over all my points, clearly showing horoscopes are just fairy tales, with the statement "I'm going to skip those points"? That is, indeed, scientific.
Those born between the 1st of January and the 31st of December (my bad, not 12th), are actually all humans, right? With different characters, emotions and future. Thanks for correcting my typo!
You should probably read up on the history of astronomy. The precision of equinoxes was known to man for several millennia now. And most of those men were doing astrology at the time, because it became Astronomy much later. Oh, they also did a lot of maths in the process advancing that field also.
What I am talking about is that in your article you are committing the same fallacy as the writers of daily horoscopes. That is you have no idea about how the systems used in astrology work (if they are fairy tales, or not is beside the point of my comment), which is the same as with writers of those columns you are critiquing!
That is really an excellent way to be "scientific". ;-) My post was to urge you to take a gander at those systems, since well. Most common models of the celestial sphere in use today were made by astrologers between some centuries BC (5-2 or so) and 17th century or so.
I am not arguing with your points, that is why I skipped over them. Oh, perhaps I do. That is: people who write daily horoscopes have nothing to do with astrlology, there aren't 12 human characters (I know that your point was in jest so what is there to argue about?), and etc. Since there is nothing to argue about and I didn't please tell me how it is scientific or not scientific? Especially if we are talking about astrology, wich is not a science.
My point is, since being scientific is so important for you, why are you not holding yourself to a higher standard, and are operating on the same level as the people you are critiquing?
Both astronomy and astrology started with human curiosity and desire for knowledge. As time passed, one was based on mathematics and personal beliefs about the surrounding world (hence the name pseudo science), while the other was based on mathematics and facts (science).
Astrology and in particular horoscopes, which are based on it, were the subject of my critique. Whether astrology is more complicated and involves more mathematics than a simple horoscope is not really the purpose of my article. My aim was to show the logical fallacy of horoscopes in particular.