Homeopath Explains Astrology. Hilarity Ensues.

The folks at Natural News, who advocate naerly every conceivable bit of pseudo-scientific bullshit known to man, have decided to explain astrology and the results are everything you might imagine. Jennifer Hollie Bowles, who appears to have no expertise whatsoever, lets loose with this amusing statement:

If we look at Astrology from a logical perspective, it makes sense that the energies of planets and constellations have some effect on earth and its inhabitants; that’s basic magnetic field stuff.

*snicker*

A huge problem with Astrology, however, is that far too many “Astrologers” have used the term synonymously with the word “psychic,” when nothing could be further from the truth. Astrology can never accurately predict even a single outcome, it only indicates an influence, a trend, or energy that can be used as insight or for awareness. Interestingly enough, Quantum Physics scientists run into the same problem with prediction when context and consciousness are put into laboratory research.

Use of the word “energy” without a definition or a source? Check. Pointless and inaccurate invocation of quantum physics? Check. Yep, we’ve got a bit steaming pile of bullshit here.

If we take a look at the intersection of Astrology and health, interesting elements emerge. If, for example, a natal or birth chart has the sign of Virgo in the sixth house along with the Moon, psychosomatic energies will be influential in that particular chart. Virgo is a sign related to health and critical analysis, while the Moon’s energies are about change, sensitivity, and emotions. If we find these energies in the sixth house, which is the house of health, it’s easy to see how this can correspond to psychosomatic tendencies for an individual.

This “psychosomatic” tendency, however, would not be viewed as deterministic by a professional Astrologer, but rather as a tool for insight. Astrologically indicated or not, psychosomatic tendencies can lead to an incredible awareness of the body and then used for fine-tuning personal health. This is but one placement in a huge sea of possibilities when it comes to interpreting a natal chart, which, at minimum, is based on calculations of the exact time, date, and place of birth.

Let me translate that for you: We can say this shit means anything we want without a shred of evidence. And since any outcome whatsoever would be consistent with it because we aren’t actually predicting anything at all, everything counts as evidence for this vague nonsense.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • corwyn

    Pluralizing ‘energy’ is often enough to make me run screaming, but ‘psychosomatic energies’ is way over the top.

  • alanb

    And since any outcome whatsoever would be consistent with it because we aren’t actually predicting anything at all, everything counts as evidence for this vague nonsense.

    See Forer effect

  • R Johnston

    If we look at Astrology from a logical perspective, it makes sense that the energies of planets and constellations have some effect on earth and its inhabitants; that’s basic magnetic field stuff.

    The atheist variable just has this – it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.

    It just makes sense! It’s just biology! Cant you see it’s true!

    Sam Harris, astrologer.

  • Katie Anderson

    Not just a pointless and inaccurate invocation of “quantum physics”, but of “Quantum Physics.”

  • garnetstar

    OK, a lot of things annoy me, but one that really does is the ceaseless repetition of “quantum” when not one of the people using it to explain things has the slightest idea of what it means.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Constellations – how the fuck do they work?

  • caseloweraz

    Jennifer Hollie Bowles: If we look at Astrology from a logical perspective, it makes sense that the energies of planets and constellations have some effect on earth and its inhabitants; that’s basic magnetic field stuff.

    The title of the blog post is “Astrology: Pseudoscience or Guide?” This is a false dichotomy because plenty of people are guided by pseudoscience. Unfortunately, they are guided toward a place no rational person would want to reach. The three comments express that same sentiment in various ways.

    The IAU recognizes 88 constellations. Many — like Ip, the Scorpion King — date from the time of ancient Egypt. Others such as Telescopium are of modern origin. Hindu astrology is based on 27 or 28 Nakshatras; the western world’s astrology, with a mere 12 constellations, looks like a pauper in comparison.

    Wikipedia has a good long article on astrology. It describes the objections of Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Thagard and Edward W. James, who each rejected astrology on different grounds, and quotes the latter as follows:

    What if throughout astrological writings we meet little appreciation of coherence, blatant insensitivity to evidence, no sense of a hierarchy of reasons, slight command over the contextual force of critieria, stubborn unwillingless to pursue an argument where it leads, stark naivete concerning the effiacacy of explanation and so on? In that case, I think, we are perfectly justified in rejecting astrology as irrational. … Astrology simply fails to meet the multifarious demands of legitimate reasoning.”

    As far as “basic magnetic field stuff” goes, most constellations are made up of stars that are far apart in astronomical terms. And even if they were closely related, the magnetic fields of their constellations would have negligible effects on Earth.

    But there is one constellation that has a significant magnetic field. I refer of course to the Lockheed Constellation.

  • Al Dente

    that’s basic magnetic field stuff.

    Fucking magnets, how do they work?

    Sorry, somebody had to say it.

  • corwyn

    A huge problem with Astrology, however, is that far too many “Astrologers” have used the term synonymously with the word “psychic,” when nothing could be further from the truth. Astrology can never accurately predict even a single outcome…

    Doesn’t that make it synonymous with ‘psychic’?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    I’m a homeopathic astrologist. As such, my calculations only take in to account the smallest planets. Oddly, I find that the fifth smallest world (including Pluto, for classicists), has the greatest effect. If it wasn’t where you were when you were born, your life line is quite short. Nonexistent, really.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed writes:

    Let me translate that for you: We can say this shit means anything we want without a shred of evidence. And since any outcome whatsoever would be consistent with it because we aren’t actually predicting anything at all, everything counts as evidence for this vague nonsense.

    Ed’s conclusion is not correct.The astrologer’s argument, if true, would show up if we sampled representative populations and found differences in outcomes between these groups that are consistent with the predictions made by the astrologer. So it’s not only bullshit, it’s bullshit that should be easily falsified if a researcher cared enough to test this hokum.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Michael Heath “So it’s not only bullshit, it’s bullshit that should be easily falsified if a researcher cared enough to test this hokum.”

    Everybody knows that the Observer Effect is particularly strong on hokum. The astrologer has already Observer Effected it, so anybody else coming along and Observering it will stretch it even more. That is why astrology is so inaccurate now; it got worn out by all those astrologers and, later, “scientists” trying to debunk the hokum.

    Luckily, I have some of the original charts. Written by my ancestor, Bodusoperandi, the First Astrologer, they’re the most accurate, as his observations took place before anybody else thought to look up, and using that chart and the date of your birth and your credit card number, I can astrologize the skeptic out of you.

  • vereverum

    Well, Modusoperandi’s explanation would work if it were Newtonian physics, but it clearly states Quantum Physics so the real explanation is governed by the principle that it is both nonsense and not nonsense until you observe it at which point it becomes nonsense therefore if you don’t observe it, it won’t be nonsense. This is the Cheshirenger Cat.

  • Sastra

    caseloweraz #7 wrote:

    The IAU recognizes 88 constellations. Many — like Ip, the Scorpion King — date from the time of ancient Egypt.

    Ok, that does it. I officially have a new sign. I am no longer a Capricorn: from now on, I was born under the constellation of Ip, the Scorpion King. It sounds cooler.

    Most people who believe in astrology will “test” it by seeing if it makes their life better. How? Any way which is ‘valid’ for them. They confuse fact claims with subjective assessments. Mostly, they want to be the kind of people who would believe in astrology if astrology was real. This makes it real. Magic.

  • peterh

    “Homeopath Explains Astrology. Hilarity Ensues.”

    ANY explanation of astrology: hilarity ensues.

  • sugarfrosted

    If we look at Astrology from a logical perspective, it makes sense that the energies of planets and constellations have some effect on earth and its inhabitants; that’s basic magnetic field stuff.

    Even if it made sense that they would have effects on the earth’s inhabitants, that has nothing to with being logical. THat’s the pop definition of logic, popularized by Leonard Nemoy through Star Trek.

  • Loren Petrich

    Astrologers often say “The stars incline, they do not compel”. But there is a big field of mathematics for testing for the occurrence of influences that incline without compelling: statistics.

    Astrologers have yet to show that they can make statistically significant predictions.

  • ah58

    I’m a Virgo. We’re supposed to be the logical ones. Therefore, I don’t believe in astrology.

  • amadan

    @ah58: ”

    I’m a Virgo. We’re supposed to be the logical ones. Therefore, I don’t believe in astrology.

    You’re a Virgo, so you haven’t tried it!