Those who believe in astrology need to update their charts.
At the link, the following new alignments are offered:
Link.
The ancient Babylonians based zodiac signs on the constellation the sun was "in" on the day a person was born. During the ensuing millenniums, the moon's gravitational pull has made the Earth "wobble" around its axis, creating about a one-month bump in the stars' alignment...
Indeed, most horoscope readers who consider themselves Pisces are actually Aquarians. So instead of being sensitive, humane and idealistic, they actually are friendly, loyal and inventive. Or not.
At the link, the following new alignments are offered:
Astrology buffs should be using these dates, reflecting where the stars currently are aligned: Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16. Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11. Pisces: March 11-April 18. Aries: April 18-May 13. Taurus: May 13-June 21. Gemini: June 21-July 20. Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10. Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16. Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30. Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23. Scorpio: Nov. 23-29. Ophiuchus:* Nov. 29-Dec. 17. Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20.
* Discarded by the Babylonians because they wanted 12 signs per year.
Link.
I knew I was. All that loyalty crap? Nonsense!
Since the '40s, a handful of astrologers have been working with he rediscovered, correct system, called Sidereal astrology.
The error was introduced accidentally by Ptolemy.
2,000 years ago, he observed that 0 degrees Aries corresponded to the spring equinox. Since then, we've been mistakenly keeping 0 Aries fixed at the equinox, while the earth precessed.
There was a 1950 study published as "Profession and Birth Date" where they surveyed 2,492 people and found zero correspondence between birth date and profession using standard astrology for Sun and Moon signs.
However, when you correct he data, using Sidereal astrology, there is a correlation that you can't chalk up to mere coincidence.
http://oed.com/view/Entry/118508
What an unusual way to lose one's virginity.
My claim (that when you go through the data from the peer-reviewed 1950 study, using sidereal signs, the correlation is interesting, and not in line with what you would expect from chance) has not been subjected to peer review.
I'm sorry I mistook this court of law, or a scholarly board, for a blog.
By the way, if you're going to subject anonymous posts to the same scrutiny as a group of scholars, we're going to have to establish that you're an expert, and not just a monkey copying and pasting the phrase, "please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific journal to substantiate your claim."
I'm all for scholarly review and empiricism to verify and substantiate correlations with data.
I'm just not into using the narrow range of peer-reviewed knowledge to dictate my casual conversation topics.
I can see how it may look like a reflexive response on the part of MadMolecule, but it is unfair to condemn people for asking for evidence to back up your claims regardless of the arena in which such a demand takes place.
I am curious; can you please be more specific as to how you arrived at these conclusions? Did you go over the data of the study in question and correct the data of each of the apply Sidereal astrology to each of the 2,492 individuals yourself of did somebody else? Is there a link to this analysis? What is your definition of "not in line with what you would expect from chance"? Was a statistical analysis performed?
And more importantly, can you explain to me what the mechanisms are that cause celestial bodies to influence the human psyche based on one's date of birth?
"Did you go over the data of the study in question and correct the data by applying Sidereal astrology to each of the 2,492 individuals yourself or did somebody else?"
I'm personally agnostic about the sidereal zodiac. As far as a mechanism; I would first want to demonstrate reliably a correlation before I jumped to finding a causation.
I seriously doubt we'll discover that the stars somehow influenced our personality at birth; at the same time I imagine it could be possible that a cycle on earth corresponds to the cycle of the zodiac, in the way that seasons, lunar months, and days do. But that's all pretty useless speculation.*
The research I mentioned was done by someone I know. It's not a scholarly article, so take it or leave it as you wish.
It's a large (68MB) PDF. The relevant sections are pages 64-72 of the PDF.
http://www.thelema.org/publications/bp/bp_set_10-11.pdf
The persons doing the study went through and changed the attributed signs based on the individual birthdays. The results are graphed and subjected to statistical analysis.
A correction of my earlier statement. The raw data they used was not from the 1950 survey, but from a sample of about 16,000 people compiled by Michel Gauquelin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Gauquelin
*By the way, Gaugelin's research, which pretty much disproved Tropical Astrology, did discover an interesting thing called the Mars Effect. A verifiable correlation between the presence of Mars in a person's chart (which is not affected by issues of Sidereal vs Tropical astrology), and the person's athletic eminence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect
1 of 3
@Jessss, I didn't condemn him. I criticized his post.
I'm personally agnostic about the sidereal zodiac. As far as a mechanism; I would first want to demonstrate reliably a correlation before I jumped to finding a causation.
I seriously doubt we'll discover that the stars somehow influenced our personality at birth; at the same time I imagine it could be possible that a cycle on earth corresponds to the cycle of the zodiac, in the way that seasons, lunar months, and days do. But that's all pretty useless speculation.*
The research I mentioned was done by someone I know. It's not a scholarly article, so take it or leave it as you wish.
It's a large (68MB) PDF. The relevant sections are pages 64-72 of the PDF.
http://www.thelema.org/publications/bp/bp_set_10-11.pdf
The persons doing the study went through and changed the attributed signs based on the individual birthdays. The results are graphed and subjected to statistical analysis.
A correction of my earlier statement. The raw data they used was not from the 1950 survey, but from a sample of about 16,000 people compiled by Michel Gauquelin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Gauquelin
*By the way, Gaugelin's research, which pretty much disproved Tropical Astrology, did discover an interesting thing called the Mars Effect. A verifiable correlation between the presence of Mars in a person's chart (which is not affected by issues of Sidereal vs Tropical astrology), and the person's athletic eminence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect
Now a question.... These dates are NOT mutually exclusive. In the old system, if a sign ended on the 15th, the next sign started on the 16th.... But according to this one, for example: Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30. Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23. So if someone (like me) is born on Oct 30.... Am I a Virgo or Libra? Or do I exchange my former Scorpio sign for both the Virgo & Libra signs? Two for the price of one?
A statistical data set does not necessarily speak for itself. Interpretation can make all the difference. What I see in the linked article is an author with an obvious bias attempting to take existing data and make it fit his own agenda. He admits that the effect size for predicting vocation is not as powerful as it could be and so resorts to exchanging the analysis for character traits to resolve the problem. I admit that he makes a seemingly logical justification as to why he did so, however there are several problems that remain. The first is that we are not provided with any standards by which these character traits were assigned (we know they came from biographies, but what standards were set in place?). The second is that the data is not presented appropriately but rather dumbed down (e.g. referring to odds and probabilities rather than providing a table of p values so that the reader may view the results for him/herself. Instead we must take the author’s word for his interpretation of the data.
http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
“Researchers are sometimes guilty of confirmation bias by setting up experiments or framing their data in ways that will tend to confirm their hypotheses. They compound the problem by proceeding in ways that avoid dealing with data that would contradict their hypotheses.”
@Chels
As for the psychological aspect of astrology, I personally would recommend reading up on research in social psychology concerning the Barnum effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect
"Your Sun sign is not changing! You are a combo of all your planets, not just your Sun. Get to know your rising sign, and the mystery [is] solved.
"Dear twitter pals, your rising sign is far more vital than this topic! A Greek astronomer discovered the shift in constellations in 125 AD!
What a frenzy! You are the sign you think you are, the sign you knew since you were little! Nothing has changed!
There is no 13th Zodiac sign to worry about. Mama Mia. Some groups are just dying for publicity. No, no, no. I will write a newsletter:
My iPhone has been exploding with media. My friends: You are still the same sign! Do not panic. This concept was developed in 125 AD! Gee!
You haven't seen me tweeting, as I've been giving interviews to Good Morning America, ABCNews.com, CNN, CBS radio, ABC radio. Links soon!"
It's often cited as evidence for astrology; if that's as strong as it gets, we can safely say that astrology in any way, shape or form is about as good as guessing when it comes to evaluating personalities.
Indeed, the writer was not a scientist. And the data should be taken less seriously then if it were a rigorously reviewed study by competent statisticians and scientists.
However, it's the most thorough investigation of Sidereal astrology from a statistical point to date. There's just not enough research to warrant a strong knee-jerk opinion either way.
And obviously, from a scientific point of view, we know where the burden of proof lies.
But I never claimed that the Sidereal Zodiac exists, just that there are some interesting statistical anomalies that occur when you account for the Sidereal placement.
The only thing I am convinced of (by adequate scientific research) is that the Tropical Zodiac signs are complete bunk.
Oliver, your original post said, "However, when you correct he data, using Sidereal astrology, there is a correlation that you can't chalk up to mere coincidence." (My emphasis.)
That's what set me off. I can chalk a whole lot up to mere coincidence. Correlation does not indicate causation. (Although lack of correlation DOES indicate lack of causation.)
It's fairly simple. Tropical Astrology and Sidereal Astrology have both been around since the Babylonians.
Tropical is based on the earth's position in relation to the sun.
Sidereal is based on the earth's position in relation to he stars.
Both systems indicate that your life and personality are decided by the earth's position, and not by your environment, upbringing, or genes.
So, I wonder why the internet is full of it today. (Of course, the internet is full of it every day... sorry, I never could resist an old joke.)