?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Intersting

http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/reverse_astrology.htm

I do like the guy's scientific approach to this, it is interesting. I find it a mix of amusing and irritating that he goes on to say *but I don't believe in astrology* which to me is similar to saying *I don't believe in snowfall* a)because if you live in africa and have never seen snow it doesn't mean it is an invalid experience for other people b)it is irrelevant to snow whether you believe in it or not.

I get angry at scientific types when they are dismissive of Tarot and Astrology without bothering to investigate them properly. Learn about something and then say *I disagree/this is bullshit*, that's fine. But to discount something without doing any real research on it, I consider arrogance and ignorance.

It did peg me wrongly as a Gemini and I thought it was an interesting mistake because I do have some qualities typically associated with water signs (but that's also because I pruposefully worked on replacing/balancing some of my innate water sign qualities that I was less pleased with).

Your Reverse Astrology Results

Red is your most probable sign and Blue is your least probable sign. The scores are from 0 (not you at all) to 100 (dead on match).

Aries Mar 21 to April 19 49
Taurus April 20 to May 20 54
Gemini May 21 to June 21 76
Cancer June 22 to July 22 58
Leo July 23 to Aug 22 61
Virgo Aug 23 to Sep 22 67
Libra Sep 23 to Oct 22 76
Scorpio Oct 23 to Nov 21 58
Sagittarius Nov 22 to Dec 21 67
Capricorn Dec 22 to Jan 19 52
Aquarius Jan 20 to Feb 18 71
Pisces Feb 19 to Mar 20 75


According to our analysis, you are a Gemini, May 21 to June 21. But you are certainly not a Aries, Mar 21 to April 19.
You claim to be a Cancer, but you are simply in error. Please consult your parents as to your actual birth date. You can click on the link on the bottom of the web page to see how this divination was made

Comments

( 14 comments — Leave a comment )
livemeat
Mar. 11th, 2004 03:41 am (UTC)
The thing is though,
it comes down to proof or the absence of such.

Consider, if you will, the basic absurdity that an astral body - so far away from you as to have absolutely zero magnetic, thermodynamic,
or photonic influence on your very existence...

and yet Astrology claims that it does.

It's different to not believing in snowfall, especially considering the vast number of africans who have actually seen snow.
{it's always either they haven't seen snow or there are lions wandering the streets}

Science requires that you place belief in numbers,
and rules that are measurable in science' own terms -

so you have to believe in it, or it's just another hokey religion.

Science tells us that most religious beliefs are not currently provable,
by it's own calculations - science has yet to discover a way to measure these things.

Religions usually tell us that Scientists are heretics and must be incinerated at the nearest stake.

He doesn't totally discount the possibility that it may have some merit.
rainsinger
Mar. 11th, 2004 04:14 am (UTC)
Consider, if you will, the basic absurdity that an astral body - so far away from you as to have absolutely zero magnetic, thermodynamic,
or photonic influence on your very existence...


Sure, most planets are ridiculously far away, although the more *core* ones to astrology and natal charts such as the Sun and the Moon have clear physical influences on the earth and our lives. It's not meant to be taken literally I don't think. It is primarily a system of symbols and for me has validity as such.

One of the primary arguements against the tarot is how a card out of 78 picked at random could possibly have any relevance whatsoever. I admit that I started out as a huge sceptic and while I won't accept every reader/astrologer unquestioningly I have seen it work. Symbols are a powerful and ancient language that defy easy rules but if they were irrelevant than a lot of psychology and particularly psychoanalysis would be in deep trouble.

It's different to not believing in snowfall, especially considering the vast number of africans who have actually seen snow.
{it's always either they haven't seen snow or there are lions wandering the streets}


You mean there aren't lions wandering the streets? *shocked gasp*

You're right, it was a bad example and it was intended as arbitrary rather than a social comment.
A better example would have been to say *I don't believe in Freud* or something of that sort. Saying I have studied Freud's ideas and I think they are unfounded/wrong/short-sighted/twisted/simplistic is fair enough and I'd be very likely to agree with you ;)

Religions usually tell us that Scientists are heretics and must be incinerated at the nearest stake.

*has brief and strangely fulfilling visions of a few choice psychologists burned on the stake at the pyre of their own convoluted and largely pointless texts*

Science requires that you place belief in numbers,
and rules that are measurable in science' own terms -


Yep. Yet still science accepts things like magnetism, atomic physics/quantum physics (not to mention Roscharch and similar psychometric tools) on the base of thier demonstrable effects yet by the same token demonstrable effects are not seen as a sufficiently solid basis for validity of astrology/tarot.
livemeat
Mar. 11th, 2004 04:27 am (UTC)
Sure, most planets are ridiculously far away, although the more *core* ones to astrology and natal charts such as the Sun and the Moon have clear physical influences on the earth and our lives. It's not meant to be taken literally I don't think. It is primarily a system of symbols and for me has validity as such.

That's a similar argument to that used to justify all the various contradictions of the bible though....

The Sun, being a star, also throws up the quandary of - stars vs planets divided by spatial influence.

All life comes from the sun, or so science tells us:-
the difference comes when science tries to prove itself,
whereas other religions/beliefs tend not to...

Symbols are a powerful and ancient language that defy easy rules but if they were irrelevant than a lot of psychology and particularly psychoanalysis would be in deep trouble.

Agreed.
Then again, a huge amount of psychology is supposition and theory,
dogged by association to freud {screaming maniac}
or other such absurd theories.

If the foundation is flawed the building is unlikely to be weather proof.

Yet still science accepts things like magnetism, atomic physics/quantum physics (not to mention Roscharch and similar psychometric tools) on the base of thier demonstrable effects yet by the same token demonstrable effects are not seen as a sufficiently solid basis for validity of astrology/tarot.
i dunno - i think it's worth doing what the older universities used to do,
and that's differentiate science from psychology:-
believe it or not - you can still get a BA in psychology,
because some don't consider it a science...
atomic/quantum physics are an obvious example of how absurd science can be - and thus why it should be considered a religion.

i'm not sure about demonstrable effects of tarot or astrology,
beyond dave gorman that is...
rainsinger
Mar. 11th, 2004 11:47 pm (UTC)
The Sun, being a star, also throws up the quandary of - stars vs planets divided by spatial influence.

I know, astrology is weird because it is subjective and it starts out with the same principles as astronomy but then completely throws them off and turns them on their head. Eg. the constellations astronomically are of different sizes but for the purposes of astrology and having a workable symbol system they are neatly divided into occupying a space of 30 degrees each.

and the sun and moon are treated as planets in the chart, and I use the word for the sake of convenience because it is the standard reference. as are other words, like rulerships, even though that is not strictly accurate either.

If the foundation is flawed the building is unlikely to be weather proof.

I agree totally. But I think it depends on what you see as the foundation. In astrology, I see the foundation as a symbol system and that's how I treat it rather than basing it in astronomical relevance. Just as dreams may look like the representations of the real world but are something else entirely and their imagery and meaning is rarely literal.

i'm not sure about demonstrable effects of tarot or astrology,
beyond dave gorman that is...


lol!
me neither, not fully. but I do have ideas for experiemnts and would love someday to run them, or have someone else run them. Tarot-wise, whatever psych methods were used to prove the psychometric reliability and validity of the Roscharch and tools like it, I think could be adapted for Tarot.

Astrology-wise I know there's been a few decent attempts at experiemnts by non-astrologers and I can't think of the guy's name off the top of my head but I shall go look. He was a French statistician I think who tried to prove randomness of astrology by plotting the planetary positions in the charts of famous sportsmen, politicians, actors and so on (france being a blessed place where the time of birth is recorded and easily available thus making the whole thing easier) and ended up finding definate patterns in his data. e.g. In the charts of athletes for instance, Mars (the plaent of energy, aggression, drive) was very prominently placed (e.g. it was on the ascendant, or in some other very dominant position on the chart where its influence would be seen as amplified/to amplify).

Of course there are no hard and fast proofs, nor will there ever be perfect patterns but it was interesting to read. I am always so cheered when people set up half-decent experiments. Whether or not people are ever find any sort of viable *proof* for astrology is much less important to me than whether people make a good attempt to do so.
meepettemu
Mar. 11th, 2004 05:10 am (UTC)
I am definitely NOT a libra.

So it says. Hmm. Obviously, they lied on my birth cert then :o)
rainsinger
Mar. 11th, 2004 11:50 pm (UTC)
the evidence for a world wide parental conspiracy slowly emerges ;)
lillfive
Mar. 11th, 2004 08:45 am (UTC)
According to our analysis, you are a Pisces, Feb 19 to Mar 20. But you are certainly not a Leo, July 23 to Aug 22.

I certainly am a Leo, so the test is not right :)
rainsinger
Mar. 11th, 2004 11:49 pm (UTC)
hehhehe yeah, I'm not thrilled with the wording of it but I find it so interesting to think about, even if it is in vague terms of what characteristics do you see as dominant in your personality, what face you present to the world.

do you know anything at all about your moon or your rising sign?
grazia
Mar. 11th, 2004 09:22 am (UTC)
oh - it said i'm most like a gemini, least like a capricorn.

my sun sign is pisces, but my moon and rising signs are both gemini. interesting!

e
rainsinger
Mar. 11th, 2004 11:58 pm (UTC)
Oooh, a double Gem! That's always such an interesting combination.
67threnody
Mar. 11th, 2004 07:12 pm (UTC)
Yes to Virgo, definitely no to Leo.

The weird thing was that I was born early. If I'd stayed in the womb the whole nine months, I'd have popped out in September. Go figure.

I don't know anything about rising signs or anything like that. But this was a kick.
rainsinger
Mar. 11th, 2004 11:56 pm (UTC)
Yes, rising signs are a damn pain because you need the time of birth in order to calculate it and these are often unrecorded.

glad you had fun with the test :)
lillfive
Mar. 12th, 2004 11:52 am (UTC)
Ok. The astrologer at ivillage.com says my moon sign is Gemini and
my Sun sign is definately Leo.

But I can't find anything on what that combo would mean.

rainsinger
Mar. 12th, 2004 12:46 pm (UTC)
do you know your time of birth? (if so I can work out your ascendant)

Moon represents your hidden self, your inner you, the sun is your essence. Moon Geminis- *scans brain* I think I've most often seen it described as *the intellectual type*, as children are meant to read everything they get thier hands on; very curuous, very mercurial, have difficulty on distinguishing the crucial from the unimportant (missing the mental wood for the trees) and going off on thought tangents. Also chatty, gossipy, social, I think might seek emotional security (moon) through good communication (gemini).

Difficulties: making a decision and sticking to it; emotional commitments. restlessness. other problem area would probably be doubt, having everythign torn apart/undermined eventually by skepticism and a certain degree of emotional superficiality, ie. not being keen on the deeper darker side of feelings, perferring to stay with *surface feelings*

Leo is a fire sign and Gemini is air, and those two elements interact fairly well/easily. These are just the basics I'd need to see your chart to really get any info (such as the angles and aspects and the houses and where the other planets are at).

but anyway :) a nugget to mull over.
( 14 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

smiley
rainsinger
deep sky, firefly

Latest Month

December 2013
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow