Anonymous Mom, No Dads, + 14

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Nothing personal, but you didn't repond to the points raised by the clip I posted.

Dawkins claims astrology is "fascile discrimination, dividing humanity up into exclusive groups based on no evidence." And I believe him.

And after all, NO newspaper in Britain (can't say for the States) devotes the same column inches to any established religion as it does to astrology. Shocking! Esp when astrology has been proved/ disproved/ proved by the appearance and disappearance of planets. And the shifting science of the universe as we know it. What a load of old tosh.

Like Phrenology. Except we should know better by now.

I didn't listen to it yet because I was thinking about my response to Dana. And I am very well aware that most people don't believe in astrology. Pop astrology is different though than astrology. If you go deeper into it, it can give you a lot of insight. It is a very deep subject. It has nothing to do with what your sun sign is. It is tool, that's all.

I don't know what you mean the appearance/disappearance of planets. What planets have disappeared?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Pop astrology is different though than astrology. If you go deeper into it, it can give you a lot of insight. It is a very deep subject.

BS is BS, no matter how deep it is piled.

No astrologer, pop or not, has passed a double-blind study. Such an experiment would have a group of people give [through an anonymous method] the times and dates of their births to the astologer, have the astrologer write the horoscopes, and then have each person pick the one that is most applicable to their life. If the matchups are better than that which would be expected by chance, that would be a strong data point in favor of astrology.

It's never happened, though.