Attention stargazers...

[kickaha]

So I know there are a few astrology buffs (serious and non-) on here.

Could someone please explain the ramifications of losing Pluto as a planet?

Thenk yew.




For that matter... how did astrology handle new planets being discovered? It would seem that's easier to work with than having one suddenly be declared irrelevant...


Just wonderin'.

Comments

[mcglk.livejournal.com]

No ramifications at all.

Before 1930, Pluto was unknown, and astrologers didn’t use it, claiming their predictions were fully qualified by the planets. Since 1930, Pluto has been incorporated into the star charts (after some initial resistance by astrologers)—with no discernible difference in predictive accuracy. Since astrologers don’t seem to care about planetary status (hence the incorporation of the Moon into the horoscopes), or even the Copernican system all that much (it’s still heavily based on the Ptolomaic system), I really doubt they’ll bother to change back.

A few astrologers have incorporated Sedna and other Kuiper-belt objects into their horoscopes. No word on Ceres, though.

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

"with no discernible difference in predictive accuracy"

And really, isn't that key?

[mcglk.livejournal.com]

Always was to me. After all, they don’t follow the actual zodiacal constellations, either. Astrology has always seemed like utter crap to me.

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

Yeah well...

Actually, I have a theory about how it started, and why it was thought to have actual import, but... suffice it to say that I think that, at one time long ago, it might have actually had some meaning. For strictly logical reasons, no less. But today? Naw.

[kimokeane.livejournal.com]

Astrology hasn't have to handle many planets being discovered - Uranus was discovered in 1741, and Neptune in 1846, and all the rest are obvious naked-eye objects, so it's not like it happens all the time. Since astrology is a pseudo-science and has no agreed-upon methods, it's hard to answer your question thoroughly, and therefore it depends on whom you ask. Ask the astrologers (as the Wall Street Journal did) and they'll say it'll be huge, and most of them (who were asked) said that the new decision doesn't matter and they'll leave it in the charts. Of course, it wasn't on the charts before Pluto's discovery (as has been noted here), but some will say that leaving it in provides better results, others will say that taking it out will produce even better results. But since astrology makes no quantifyable or firm predictions, it can't be shown that the accuracy of the predictions has changed.

Fuck them all. Let them all sputter and burn and die trying to cope with this.

What, professional rivalry? Naw, couldn't be...

for that matter

[ssandv.livejournal.com]

Astrology's always had a soft spot for a large asteroid or two anyway, so I don't see where declassifying Pluto would change anything significant.

Raymond Smullyan (logician, and Taoist) has an interesting take on astrology--there are obvious correlations between the positions of heavenly bodies and seasons, for instance, even though not all of them are relations, and he suggests, more or less, that if you treat it all as a series of various clock cycles, that it's possible some interesting things emerge from it. That is to say, you could just as well use cicadas, or sunspots, to do your astrology. Theories of spooky influence, on the other hand, he has no truck with whatsoever, and rightly so.

Who has a 'professional rivalry' with astrologers? Used car salesmen?

Re: for that matter

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

Yup, my take on it is that, given a small, genetically similar population that is 'stationary' (ie, no more than a hundred miles or so of travel in any direction in a year), you're going to have a few things going on:

1) Diet is standardized, and seasonal.
2) Genetics are 'standardized' - fairly homogeneous pool.
3) Locality is fixed, more or less.

Given the above, and given the information we're discovering over how womb influences can shape physio- and psychological traits, it stands to reason that there could be seasonal traits in the population based on when they were born, and that these traits would be noticed and recognized. The relationship with the stars is casual, not causal, of course, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't one at all.

Of course, today, with a quickly traveling, genetic melting pot, with a diet from all over the world, it's all bunk. :)