He works at a community college and volunteers at a planetarium, I'd not be especially concerned about having had the wrong personality over your entire life since it seems this guy hasn't even published one paper and because the zodiac is a load of shit

Rofl.

Good point about the "astronomer", though I have to disagree in regards to the zodiac.

Horoscopes ARE a load of shit, but find a good description of zodiac signs (ie core personality traits) and the people around you do tend to fit most of those descriptors.

As far as foretelling what the day will be like, all I can say is lulz. Being a horoscope writer must be easy money, write something vague yet reasonably common, and there will atleast be one person in six billion that's going to loosely experience it.

What you see as a "fit" is merely confirmation bias and the law of large numbers doing a tag-team screwjob on your mind.

In essence, it's still a load of horse shit.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Confirmation bias and law of large numbers is equal BS in that regard, as both are also in play to make that statement.

Regardless, it's a theory, and like many theories there are exceptions and not enough hard facts. Keep in mind that it was "fact" that you could sail yourself off the edge of the world some few hundred years back.

You might want to consider how environment shapes an individual, put that in a larger sense, take note of the effect that celestial bodies like the moon have on the earth (encompassing living and nonliving things) and open your mind a little.

As much of an atheist as I am, I'm not going to outright deny that our characters can and are shaped heavily by external factors. People, environment, whatever the case may be. To think that a species we have some absolute free will in who we are is as misguided as believing in deities. =P

Don't conflate the common usage of the word "theory" with the scientific usage. There's a large difference between the two, the assertion that Zodiac signs have anything to do with personality in no way belongs in the same category as gravitational theory.

Lot's of things affect personality, but why anyone would postulate that the position of the stars in the sky have any kind of noticeable effect compared to the myriad, observable factors that most definitely do affect the development of one's personality is beyond me. Astrology also falls victim to the fallacy of misinterpreting cause and effect, or even which way a correlation flows. It's like the mayor of Chicago insisting that paying for books to be sent monthly to each and every child in the city under the age of 5 would make them all more successful in school. He misunderstood the data he was looking at completely.

The various laws of large numbers have mathematical proofs backing them up, you might want to check into your "BS" assertion on that one. Confirmation bias is also observable, this is why researchers have to correct for researcher bias.

We're getting to the point in my job hunt where I start to get really desperate. Fast food management positions seem to be next on the list, which makes me cry a little inside.

Well if its any form of scientific hypothesis, it should provide testable falsifiable predictions that apply across the board regardless of other factors and if the testing data supports the hypothesis, it MIGHT be enough for it to graduate as a theory.

If, however, there are enough people of a particular star sign who do not conform to the predicted personality traits and the number of these people are more than can be explained by statistical error then the hypothesis is rejected, fails to become a respected theory and the zodiac once more goes back to being pre-renaissance horseshit with even less validity than leech treatments

I was using it in the common sense, definitely not in the scientific sense of the word, it's somewhat arrogant of you to think that I'd lump astrology in the same league as say, quantum theory/physics. So we'll put it under untested hypothesis which no reputable scientist will ever endeavour to actually test.

Yes, lots of things do affect personality. You want something observable, look at the tide. And consider that the large percentage of a living animal is mostly. Also consider, as with my example of a flat world being fact, what we observe as the true and factual today is limited by our own understanding. In a few hundred years time, what we considered hard evidence may be brushed off as superstitious rubbish.

I was insinuating that your assertion was BS based on the fact that you did point to bias confirmation and the law of large numbers as proof, despite the fact that the two things can often mislead those affirming and those that are rejecting.

For example, say you're so incredible skeptical that you refuse to believe things can happen outside the realm of modern logic, and with your own personal bias, you yourself see the data as you want to see it. That's what I meant by it being BS. Not that confirmation bias and the law of large numbers are themselves, bullshit, but rather how they're applied to something so varied and subjective as human personality.

That's the thing, you can't use mathematical proof when it comes to individual personality. The only science we have in that regard is psychology, and even that is a work in progress. Why? Because we just don't have the ability to understand it all yet.

And don't drop bias correction, it's highly doubtful either of us performed a serious, large scale group study on the matter. I can't speak for you, but I'm basing it on individuals who I've formed close relationships with. That's probably as formal and scientific as any of our (i.e. you and I) research is going to get.

My point is that there are things beyond our understanding, I'm not going all New Age and semi-spiritual, but I refuse to be so blindly skeptical that I discount the remotest of possibilities that sometimes there are things that we can't explain.

And besides which, the link was tongue in cheek, FFS.

@Alias: Thanks for clearing that up, but as I said up above, no reputable scientist will ever seriously consider testing that hypothesis for validity. As things are, there are far more important and relevant things to dedicate ones life and time into proving and/or researching.

That's the very definition of confirmation bias...

Look, we don't need to know everything right now and the reason is we've developed a pretty good framework for evaluating information. It's the scientific method and it works pretty damned well, even after using it for a long time.

That's far more than I can say for astrology, which has been twisted so many times to "make it work" that it's beyond laughable. The reason no scientist will "touch" astrology, as you put it is because the assertion fails any kind of rudimentary test for validity.

Astrology is horseshit, you can dress it up however you want, with explanations about tides and water and whatever you feel like, you won't be the first, you certainly won't be the last. You will, however, still be wrong. I don't say this because I think science is at some sort of apex and we'll never learn anything new, I say it because astrology has been proven false by data, over and over again. You keep stating your reason for your belief is your personal experiences, that's why I said confirmation bias. Misunderstanding the law of large numbers also leads people to postulate all kinds of crazy shit as responsible for various things, including aliens (which may exist in some form but most likely didn't make Uncle Paul into a crazy loony with an anal probe), countless gods, fate, the devil, the sun, the moon, and yes, even the stars.

You seem to conflate "common knowledge" and actual science a lot with statements like "a few hundred years ago it was a fact that you could sail off the edge of the world," and "In a few hundred years time, what we considered hard evidence may be brushed off as superstitious rubbish." The first was never fact, it was a common belief, that turned out to be false. As for the second, it is extraordinarily unlikely that there will come a day when we go, "Hey this whole gravitational theory thing was BS from the beginning!" Of course, we'll continue to refine these things as we collect data, form hypothesis, and run experiments that prove or disprove them, that's how science works, Newton was "wrong" in that sense (the absolute sense) and so was Einstein, but mostly right.

Astrology is not beyond our understanding, people have been explaining this crap for centuries. If you said, "Hey we don't know everything about the human brain yet." Then I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, that is clearly true.

But that's not what you said, you stated in essence, that your experience (i.e. your personal data) lead you to believe that astrology could predict someone's personality. I simply mentioned two reasons the type of data your were presenting as valid tends to usually is actually invalid.

I want a huge sub sandwich. Dark baguette, aioli, chicken breast, jalapeño cheese, bacon, lettuce, red peppers, tomato, cucumber...

Ack...

Seriously, just calm the fuck down.

The link was tongue in cheek, all we're doing is arguing semantics, get over it.

Bitch about life: it's too serious, lighten up.

EDIT: Fuck it, I'll bite.

Did you miss the part where I was saying that you were also using confirmation bias based on your experiences and beliefs/logic/whatever? THAT'S what I was insinuating, and further emphasises the semantic nature of this argument - which is entirely fucking ridiculous for a whole lot of reasons. One being, the link was tongue in cheek.

There's your personal bias right there, I never once said I believe in astrology. I said that it TENDS to be (not a word one would use if they believed) accurate on a majority I've known. The only belief I have is that there are still an unfathomable number of things we can't work out. That's it. Not a belief in the power of the stars, the flying spaghetti monster, the horned man with an awesome cape and ET.

Refined and twisted to fit are biased choices of words, unless you haven't realised. A believer of either camp will use the words as they fit against the other camp. i.e. The hysterical fanatics who say science hasn't proved anything, but the bible has. It's a bad example, but an example all the same. Though you seem to be taking things far too literally, I might end up regretting having used that example.

It's funny that use gravitational theory as a basis for argument. What, in 500 years gravity is going to go nuts and all of a sudden start lifting things upwards in repulsion so that we can stop and say, "oops!" What kind of fucking crackpot do you take me for?

I'm talking about the more out there theories like "string theory", which for now is hard to really call a theory as we're unable to evaluate it with any observable data.

The mathematics are there, and reasonably sound, but what data do we have?

Serious comprehension fail.

Again, you use the words believe in regards to astrology, which I don't. You state that IF I had said we didn't know everything about the human brain you'd agree, even though that is something I had said, as personality is intrinsically linked to the brain (whether it be brain chemistry, trauma, up bringing, whatever and all factors that make up our personality).

Here's my point where you blindly state that I'm a believer...

You even quote that reply I made to Aliasalpha.. How can you for a second read that and think, "yeah, this guy absolutely believes in all of that without a shadow of a doubt". Because that is what believing is about. No doubt in the subject's fallibility. By lulz, I'll interpret, as far as predicting the day, month, person using astrology IS FUCKING LAUGHABLE, and the only thing that MIGHT be plausible is temperament.

My experience lead me to believe in possibilities that are (important bit) UNKNOWN, and I never threw up any data as a position of validity, FFS. It's something to think on, something to amuse yourself with like you would a cartoon show. It's to dwell, and ponder and imagine, not to be taken literally.

I'll avoid being so subtle and use a mass of ridiculous emoticons to try and emphasis the fact that I'm taking the piss. Enjoy debating the rest of this with yourself.

Well, that was a huge failure.

At least I understand the material, though.

Solution Proposal:

1. Go to the store.
2. Purchase the following: dark baguette, aioli, chicken breast, jalapeño cheese, bacon, lettuce, red peppers, tomato, cucumber.
3. Return to your place of residence.
4. Sear the bacon until crisp. Cook the chicken breast in a buttered pan until the center is lightly pink and moist.
5. Cut the dark baguette in two and add lettuce, red peppers, tomato, and cucumber to one side.
6. Next, cut and spread the chicken breast. Add jalapeño cheese and bacon.
7. Top with aoili at your leisure and sprinkle lightly with freshly ground black pepper. Add the other half of the baguette to finish the culinary masterpiece.

Fuck it, now I've got a craving for one of those of my own. :/
You're supporting astrology. Astrology. The worst kind of pseudo-science. Just let it go and lead a better life.

The person could have beaten the shit out of the owner of the homework, forcefully taken the homework, kept what he wanted for himself and then passed the rest out to his buddies. All with the school's blessing. I hear tell that is the socially responsible and correct way to steal from people.

That was never a yellow card. He clearly dragged his foot, hoping to get a touch.