The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is this astrologer credible?  (Read 6111 times)

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Is this astrologer credible?
« on: 28/12/2010 00:31:08 »
R i c h a r d  T a r n a s - Cosmos and Psyche:
Has any professional cosmologist/astronomer read this (his case for astrology) and would give a review? I heard RT interviewed, and given the quality of his other main book- the Passion of the Western Mind  which i read a long time ago and admire, I thought I would at least read this one before dismissing its premise although I don't believe in astrology as we usually hear about it.  I have read 200 pages and my views haven't changed yet, but i wondered if I am being too resistant and whether what he is saying strikes a chord with anyone 'in the field' out there? Seems to me there's a lot of data mining and some statements that he doesn't give any evidence for ... but ...?
« Last Edit: 28/12/2010 00:38:50 by peppercorn »


 

SteveFish

  • Guest
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #1 on: 28/12/2010 01:34:40 »
Astrology is not credible at all. Various studies have been done on astrologers and they differ all over the place on their predictions, and they are rarely correct unless the prediction is so broad that it would fit anybody. More important from a scientific point of view, there is no known way that distant stars and planets can have any effect on humans at birth. Don't bother. Steve
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #2 on: 28/12/2010 01:52:36 »
I don't know if you would lump psychics and astrologers together.

I had a Psychology Instructor and friend who was also a Magician.

His premise was that if you could replicate what a psychic did with "magic", then he wasn't a psychic at all.  And, as far as I know there wasn't anything that a psychic or a astrologer put forth that a good magician couldn't replicate...  or otherwise explain.

I assume with the newspaper astrology column, you'd be perfectly happy if all the predictions were shuffled.  And, if you read them, you wouldn't know if they were in fact shuffled.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #3 on: 28/12/2010 13:00:12 »
More important from a scientific point of view, there is no known way that distant stars and planets can have any effect on humans at birth.

Earth's position in relation to the closest star (the sun) can have an effect, i.e.  seasonal factors which can affect a pregnant mother, (nutrition, exposure to seasonal disease, sunlight exposure), can permanently affect her child, e.g ... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36057.msg335790#msg335790

« Last Edit: 28/12/2010 13:04:12 by RD »
 

SteveFish

  • Guest
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #4 on: 28/12/2010 18:39:53 »
RD, what you say is technically correct, but I assume you know that this has nothing to do with astrology. The other fun thing about astrology is that the 12 sign zodiac was developed around 450 BC and the equinox has precessed about 30 degrees in the last 2,000 years, so the signs are off. I recommend The Skeptics Dictionary for this kind of information and here is the link to the page on astrology.
http://skepdic.com/astrology.html
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #5 on: 29/12/2010 00:55:19 »
I wonder if Richard Tarnas even has a degree in cosmetology?
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #6 on: 29/12/2010 01:05:11 »
What exactly has changed?

Certainly we've had the procession of equinoxes...  so since about 450BC, we've passed from the Age of Aries to the Age of Pisces, and now into the Age of Aquarius.  However, that may be somewhat different from the zodiac signs attributed to the birth month.

If we label the Zodiac signs with seasons, then one has Spring, Summer, Winter, and Fall babies...  And, I could understand potential developmental differences with the seasons involved with both gestation as well as early childhood.

This would mean that Northern and Southern babies should have their zodiac signs flipped, and the equatorial ones might be different still.

There are many things that will affect a child's growth & development including being first-born, last-born, and being "middle children", as well as nutrition of the child and the mother.

I am certainly somewhat skeptical of an overbearing influence of what seems to be very arbitrary Zodiac signs.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #7 on: 31/12/2010 11:08:40 »
This man may well be a credible astrologer, if it is possible to have credibility within something which has no credibility itself.

Please try to understand, astrology is not in any way, shape or form, a science.
 

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #8 on: 01/01/2011 23:11:51 »
I am very aware that astrology is not a science, but cosmology is -and this book is written by a guy who is the head of a cosmology institute which he founded. He does have a Harvard PhD although  not in science. Also,In 2006, Tarnas'  book was awarded the Book of the Year Prize by the Scientific and Medical Network in the UK.[)" Since this group of scientists recognises the book as scientific, even though it branches out into what is loosely labelled and therefore confused with astrology as it is understood via media horoscopes etc. , I thought it was worth a look and just wonderd what people who do cosmology think about it. No one yet who has answered my query has done much more than suggest that I don't know the difference between science and astrology, and don't know what science is per se etc etc.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2011 23:15:37 by annie123 »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8124
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #9 on: 02/01/2011 02:59:44 »
... He does have a Harvard PhD

According to wikipedia ...

Quote
He received his Ph.D. from Saybrook Institute in 1976. His thesis was on psychedelic therapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tarnas#Biography

Quote
Saybrook University, a San Francisco, California based 'distance learning' institution (originally founded in 1971 as the Humanistic Psychology Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saybrook_Institute
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is this astrologer credible?
« Reply #9 on: 02/01/2011 02:59:44 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums