All The News That's Unfit To Report
Every newspaper out there prints a horoscope. Why? Because people are dumb enough to believe in them. Here's an excerpt from a piece from Skeptically Thinking:
Astrology is as old as human history and is based on the mistaken belief that someone or something in the universe is concerned about our lives. It has been consistently debunked and shown to have no scientific validity. (Dean, 2001) Still, 41 percent of those surveyed in 2001 by the National Science Foundation believe that astrology is at least somewhat scientific. I believe that the presence of horoscopes in newspapers contributes to the widespread belief in astrology among Americans. At the very least, it gives credibility to something that has no credibility.Why do people believe in horoscopes despite the lack of scientific evidence? The answer is the vagueness of the typical horoscope . Many horoscopes hedge their bets with the words like "could" and "may". It is hard to invalidate a horoscope when it never predicts anything with a sufficient degree of certainty.
Other horoscopes predict improved finances or new love without providing any specifics on how these things will take place. Improved finances could include anything from winning the lottery to finding a dollar on the street. New love could be a new girlfriend/boyfriend or a recently bought pet. Again, it is hard to invalidate a horoscope that it can mean a lot of things to a lot of people.
Horoscopes typically speak in generalities. They provide us with a broad outline and let us fill in the blanks. We do most of work of applying vague statements to the specific events in our lives and the astrologer takes the credit for knowing things about us that only we could know.
...Typical horoscopes includes tidbits of wisdom such as:
Communication is the key.
Meditate and reflect before acting.
Don't succumb to moods, but enjoy the evening with an old friend.Good advice, yes. Is the advice so precisely applicable to my life that it could only come from a paranormal source, not even close. These profundities would be good advice to anyone no matter what his or her astrological sign is.
Granted, advice going out to broad categories of people grouped together based on their birth date cannot be very specific. I can't expect a horoscope for Capricorn (which is my astrological sign) to say "Brenda, this is my individualized advice for you... John, this is my individualized advice for you…" . However, I would argue that this is precisely what the problem is. Do astrologers believe that the lives of every Capricorn are so similar that all of them need the same advice from their horoscopes? Even if every Capricorn has the same personality type, it is unlikely that they have the same life circumstances. A Capricorn with a happy marriage and good job is going to need different advice than another Capricorn living in poverty and married to an abusive spouse.
I have asked Jeraldine Saunders who composes the horoscopes that appear in the Florida Times Union as well as other newspapers to answer these criticisms and explain the process she uses to create these horoscopes. So far, she has not responded favorably to this request. This should not be a surprise to any skeptic since pseudoscience often seeks only the forums friendly to its claims.
And oops! Practitioners of the primitive discipline of astrology forgot to include Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, planets not visible to the naked eye, imagine that.
Astronomers discovered these planets partially through the use of telescopes, but also through the predictive power of mathematics. Astronomers noticed that the known planets did not move quite right and realized that the changes were likely the result of other, unknown planets exerting their own gravitational forces. The observations made by astronomers led to predictions which could be tested; if astrologers noticed anything, they were led to neither predictions nor tests.Curiously, many astrologers refused to even include Uranus in their charts for a while after it was discovered.
Of course, these planets have since been incorporated into astrological charts, but their notable absence for several thousand years raises serious doubts as to the efficacy of a system which makes such grandiose claims for itself. If these planets exerted any influence before, then someone should have noticed it - their failure suggests that they didn't know what they were doing. If these planets did not exert any influence to notice, then they must not be exerting any now, and their current inclusion in astrology means that contemporary astrologers also don't know what they are doing.
Here's an excerpt from an even more comprehensive piece debunking astrology, from See Sharp Press:
Fifth, many astrologers ignore precession. The Earth’s ro-tational axis is not stable, and the Earth wobbles like a top—but much more slowly. So slowly, in fact, that it takes approximately 26,000 years for the Earth’s axis to complete one rotation around the 47-degree-diameter circle it describes. This slow wobbling is called precession. It means, among other things, that the stars we now see in summer will be seen in winter (and vice versa) 13,000 years from now. It also means that the sun has receded almost a full sign along the zodiac since the Tetrabiblos was written nearly two millennia ago. So, the calculations of astrologers who rely on that hoary source are now off almost a full sign.Sixth, the most popular type of astrology is natal astrology, in which astrological forces supposedly leap into action at the moment of an individual’s birth, imprinting her or him with certain characteristics. But the choice of the time of birth as the moment of supposed astrological imprinting makes no sense at all. Astrologers choose the time of birth purely because it’s convenient. They might object that a mother’s body shields her baby from astrological "radiation" until birth, but that argument ignores the fact that almost all babies are born indoors, and it would be illogical to think that this "radiation" could penetrate wood, concrete and steel, but not a few centimeters of human flesh.
Some astrologers, especially the "humanistic" variety, attempt to discount criticisms such as these by claiming that the planets and stars do not produce astrological effects, but, rather, that the positions of astronomical bodies only serve as "indications" of astrological forces. This is a transparent attempt to evade questioning of astrology’s supposed causal mechanism by retreating into a fog of ever-vaguer claims. By taking such a position, astrologers are saying in effect that for unknown reasons the positions of some of the stars and planets are indications of the undetectable effects of unknown types of undetectable forces emanating from unknown, undetectable sources. Such a proposition is even more ludicrous than the traditional astrological view that the stars and planets—never mind how—influence our daily lives.
Finally, there is absolutely no empirical evidence, absolutely none, that astrology has any value whatsoever as a means of prediction. What scientific testing has been done indicates that there are no astrological "effects." For instance, former Michigan State University psychologist Bernie Silberman asked astrologers to list compatible and incompatible signs. Silberman then inspected the records of 478 couples who divorced and 2978 who married in 1967 and 1968 in Michigan. He found no correspondence beyond that of random chance between the astrological signs predicted to be compatible or incompatible by astrologers and the signs of those getting married or divorced. French statistician Michel Gauquelin has conducted far more detailed tests which also have discovered no astrological effects. (Gauquelin’s early, highly publicized report of a "Mars effect" on professional athletes was the result of an error in his calculations, and similar studies conducted by others showed no such effect.) In one test he examined the signs (moon, zodiacal, planetary, ascendant, and mid-heaven) for 15,560 professionals from five European nations in 10 different occupations. He found no evidence of any astrological effects. His calculations showed that the correlation between astrological signs and occupations to be that of random chance.
What's your sign? Whenever anyone asks me that, I first tell them I don't have one. If they press me, I tell them it's "Street Cleaning Wednesday, 10am-Noon."
You have to give a little credit to the St Louis Post Dispatch (http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/horoscopes) and probably others who say "NOTE: Horoscopes have no basis in scientific fact and should be read for entertainment, not guidance." And they put it in the entertainment section.
Probably some people get suckered in when they're idly reading that paper, and the day's horiscope says "be careful" and they wreck their car, and they're hooked. But you know, coincidences happen. Like the Tom Petty song says, "even the losers get lucky sometimes".
steve at July 22, 2006 3:51 AM
Nobody could possibly have enough patience, or tolerance of crass stupidity, to read the entirety of the wikipedia discussion pages on astrology. Two themes stand out:
The astrolopologists simply don't accept the results of scientific analysis. Confronted with Prof. so-and-so's study definitively disproving connections between planetary positions and human personalities, they ask "Pray tell, what training in astrology does Prof. so-and-so have?"
One of the most rebarbative (that word again!) of them asserts that planetary influence is no more improbable than the guidance of evolution by cosmic rays -- a process that is known to occur. Never mind that this assertion utterly misunderstands the role of cosmic rays in mutagenesis.
What they're really doing is putting their hands over their ears and yelling "NAAAAAA NAAAAAA, CAN'T HEEEEAARRR YOOOOUUUU!!"
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at July 22, 2006 8:44 AM
In our local paper, The Inlander, the astrology column is usually opposite The Advice Goddess. It is the best 2 sections of the paper and the first I open to. Rob Brezny is the astrologer, though he calls it Free Will Astrology, and I usually read all 12 sign's advice because he oftens refers to things I have to look up and investigate. It's entertaining, like a fortune cookie after Chinese takeout.
PS- Proud Capricorn / Year of the Dragon.
Eric at July 22, 2006 9:01 AM
> What they're really doing is putting their
> hands over their ears
Excellent point, hadn't thought of it.
So why do people bother?
Maybe wasting one's time is a relative thing. There are a lot of people who go to church who don't care about heaven and hell, or even much about morality... Their morality is in great shape and they don't need help from some minster in a collarless sportcoat, thank you very much. But they need something social to do on Sundays. It's a good reason to put on some clean clothes, say hello to the people you knew in high school twenty years ago, find out if anyone knows a good plumber, see if that one cute new widow is ready to date yet, prove to people that your three years of sobriety are about to turn into four, etc. It's a community thing. Also, many churches are air conditioned, an important consideration.
I think people who really take astrology to heart are the ones who don't sweat the details for any of life's processes. They have no idea why the process of mortgaging a house has the paperwork that it does. Or why auto mechanics are so fanatic about oil changes, or why airlines have all those rules, or why school enrollment is so tedious, or why courts have to consult all those books, or why scientists take all those notes and label all those slides.
The fact that astrology is inscrutable is irrelevant; in fact, it's part of the charm. Because nothing in life is scrutable... But our astrology enthusiast always manages to stumble through OK. So here's this woman with weird makeup and freaky nails who's tossing tarot cards in a room with green paint, red-bead curtains and lava lamps, and she's talking about the most important stuff in life. 'Hell, if I make it through this, I can handle anything!'
People into astrology really don't have anything to say to each other. But (outside the newspaper) it's an excuse to make eye contact and exchange words in close quarters. To them, it's no less meaningful about chitchat over war or politics or science... They don't understand that stuff, either.
Astrology should be discouraged in all respects. But we're never going to be able to insist that human exchanges make sense or be rational.
Crid at July 22, 2006 10:47 AM
Outside of our own, I mean.
Also, bloggery is exempt
Crid at July 22, 2006 10:48 AM
Do people really take newspaper horoscopes seriously? I have read that some people take astrology seriously - certain politicians for example. But what evidence is there that people take newspaper horoscopes as more than just fun? I don't think even astrologers take them seriously.
Norman at July 22, 2006 2:36 PM
I remember a Summer when I worked my butt off on a complex, big mo-fo deal. It finally closed at the end of August, and I got some time to go to the hairdresser -- where I dove on those silly magazines I'd never dare to buy, and peekaboo'ed on my horoscope. It said : "no more lazing around, stop slacking and enjoying doing nothing, time to go back to work." Or something like that. I had to laugh. Any interest I may have had in horoscopes stopped right there.
LA Frog at July 22, 2006 2:58 PM
> certain politicians
That would be Nancy, aka "Mommy" Reagan. George Will is a tiresome blowhard... But I distinctly remember that when word got out that Nancy's astrologer had been influencing high-level events throughout both terms, Will had the decency to express revulsion in the clearest terms. All the other conservatives said nothing.
Norman, I think the problem is not the people who read them but don't take them seriously. We have to remember that children and idiots are always watching us. And we don't want to leave any nourishment at the verge of belief.
It's bullshit, and we should say so in as many words.
crid at July 22, 2006 3:25 PM
Norman says:
"But what evidence is there that people take newspaper horoscopes as more than just fun? I don't think even astrologers take them seriously."
Unfortunately, there are many people who take it very seriously. I know a woman who'll only date men of certain signs COMBINED with the "right" rising sign. She won't start her day without reading her horoscope in the paper. This is on top of regularly consulting her astrologer about any major life decisions. When asked about this, she'll laugh and claim she doesn't take it seriously. Uh-huh.
It's sad, but many people are really addicted to the stupid things.
Kimberly at July 22, 2006 4:54 PM
Every paper I've ever read has run the horoscopes on the same page as the comics, Jumble, bridge column, and crossword. It sure isn't put with "news". Most people I know read the horoscope for entertainment purposes, just like fortune cookies.
Yeah, there are dumb people out there who might think it means something, but there are people who think Garfield is funny. Takes all kinds.
meep at July 23, 2006 4:00 AM
Guess what, Meep...if they canceled the horoscope, more people than you can imagine would cancel their subscriptions. I would venture that MOST people believe in it. Certainly most women.
Amy Alkon at July 23, 2006 8:19 AM
Horoscopes are trashy and good for a laugh, like the National Inquirer. Astrology is based on a model of the universe that is long obsolete. It's completely irrelevant and useless. Whenever people bring it up in a conversation -- and not as a joke -- I feel a bit embarrassed for them.
Lena at July 23, 2006 10:51 PM
Leave a comment