heartfelt flamebait

[gfish]

(What follows is not entirely tolerant. Sorry. I've gone back and forth on whether I should post it, but in the end this is something I do actually feel strongly about.)

There has been a surprising amount of coverage about someone's proposal that the zodiac be changed. Which, yes, it annoys me that so much coverage has been given to silly made-up stuff. But we live in a pluralistic society, live and let live, etc. As long as you aren't using your Ptolemaic worldview to make important decisions for other people, I guess I don't really care. I understand in the abstract how someone could believe in it, at least. But what I don't get is believing something, and not bothering to actually learn about it. The precession of the equinoxes is not new, people. It has been well understood for 150 years, and the underlying principles are as old as Western astrology. The fact that the "sun signs" have drifted is simply common knowledge, has been all my life. How can you simultaneously believe that astronomical motion has massive, direct, personal effects on your life and not bother to learn the most basic facts behind it? I mean, taking astrology as a given, axial precession is a really interesting and important thing! It's slow, but still visible across recorded history. You could do longitudinal studies of the changing astrological influences on people across the last several thousand years! Likewise retrograde motion. Sure, it looks weird when a planet within our orbit appears to go backwards. But now that we know why that happens, surely it would be more relevant to pay attention to when Earth is retrograde as seen from Mars!

If you're going to believe something, take the time to do it right. Science isn't a specific set of beliefs, it's a tool set for understanding things. If can't even be bothered to use those tools, don't expect me to take your beliefs seriously. You obviously don't.

Comments

[dianthus.livejournal.com]

As someone who does use astrology for some purposes (other than flim-flammery), I did already know this.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

I don't use it but for non-astrology reasons I own a couple of (decent) astrology textbooks and an ephemeris, and yes, it's quite well explained in those too. It's not new, and it's not startling.

[inaurolillium.livejournal.com]

But it hasn't been corrected for. "Sun sign" becomes meaningless when the sun isn't actually in that sign. It stops being astrology, stops having anything to do with the stars, and becomes something else.

[inaurolillium.livejournal.com]

This.

Seriously, I've never been much for astrology, even though I'm, y'know, all woo-woo myself. And since I grew up with astronomy, I knew the standard stuff was off. I found out how much it was off about ten years ago, when I had an astronomy prof who made a big thing about it, and actually had a question on a test about it. (I think he was trying to get people interested rather than it being about his beliefs.)
So yeah, I have ranted about this a bit in person to various people. I've met a few people who are into astrology who've actually done the research and have moderately intelligent things to say about it, but most of them say things like, "Oh, the signs are really about seasons, it's the planets that are important." But they don't seem to actually pay attention to the mechanics of that, either.

At least I'm educated about the history and mechanics of the divinatory methods I use, and readily admit that it's mostly psychology, used to help people understand their options, desires, and motivations.

(But yes, from your point of view, still made-up goofy stuff. I'm fine with that.)

[goodconceited.livejournal.com]

Well put. I really want to print this out on a pamphlet and pass it around, or at least copy it to a few people.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

Somebody mentined story about reforming the astrological calendar to me once--I suppose I run into the source of it eventually. And yes, I agree with you on all points.

Except that I should mention that Earth is in retrograde as seen from Mars when Mars is in retrograde as seen from Earth. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

One of my students this term took the class because he misread the title as astrology. But he says he doesn't believe in astrology anyway, so he figured astronomy would be an OK class. Uh, OK, sure.

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

Three points:

• The difference between sidereal astrology and tropical astrology is well-known among astrologers.

• Naming equal 30° sections of the ecliptic relative to the vernal equinox after the constellations as they were in ancient Hellenistic times isn't new either. I believe Omar Khayyam did it in 1079 when establishing the Iranian calendar.

• Unless you believe astrology is science, don't expect it to follow scientific methods. Look instead to cultural tradition. Otherwise one might as well complain to Christians that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th.

For the record, I have no use for astrology besides the calendrical.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

I am also puzzled by what appears to be many people's sudden discovery of the precession of the equinoxes.