back
26 comments
Tangentially related but one of my favorite stories is that the earliest derivatives contract we have recorded was based on astrology:

> A story, with different versions, recounts how Thales achieved riches from an olive harvest by prediction of the weather. In one version, he bought all the olive presses in Miletus after predicting the weather and a good harvest for a particular year. Another version of the story has Aristotle explain that Thales had reserved presses in advance, at a discount, and could rent them out at a high price when demand peaked, following his prediction of a particularly good harvest. This first version of the story would constitute the first historically known creation and use of futures, whereas the second version would be the first historically known creation and use of options.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus

Aristotle clarifies that Thales supposedly predicted the weather by using astrology:

> Thales, so the story goes, because of his poverty was taunted with the uselessness of philosophy; but from his knowledge of astronomy he had observed while it was still winter that there was going to be a large crop of olives....

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1...

we seem to be using astrology and astronomy interchangeably here, and that makes me not happy.
I would agree, but as DoreenMichele pointed out, they were treated the same in ancient Greece. And it's not like the Greeks had extremely sophisticated climate models able to predict the harvest seasons in advance. As far as I know, even today these sorts of models are hit-and-miss. I think we should call it astrology in English in this circumstance.

(Edit) even so if you look at an untranslated version of the Politics (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...), you can see that he is using the word ἀστρολογίας (astrologias).

That's all well and good for the nerds that really want to know what words were used by some ancients. But when translating from the ancient language to the modern language, it is best to use the more appropriate modern words.

Lots of languages loose a lot in translation, and need a bit of help to make better sense when translated into the new language. In 2023, it will always make me a little sad when someone confuses astrology and astronomy.

But a man must see to his own sustenance; and Jerome was constrained to prepare horoscopes to earn his keep.

Ah, money. "The root of all evil."

I have a hypothesis that astrologers (of this era) were learned men who weren't nobility or such themselves. They gave good advice because they knew a lot, not because the "stars" told them anything, then chalked it up to "the stars say so" because both kings and astrologers were equally uncomfortable with admitting that a learned commoner was the power behind the throne.

And then sometimes nobility, being human, wanted astrologers to reassure them about the future in ways that were beyond their capacity to meaningfully predict anything but they were in no position to say "no."

Dante's Inferno described astrologers in one layer of hell, with their heads turned backwards and taking small steps forward.

Astrology requires heavy, recursive and intellectual effort to describe events in the world. Whenever a new fact or piece of novel information is introduced to the initial interpretations of symbols, you have to go back and rework your understanding of the relationships between symbols.

It can be interesting and stabilizing of your feelings and emotions because you're constantly filtering down interpretations of character and meaning into symbolic pockets, but it also is an incredibly slow process that is reactive to new information. It is definitely a net negative on participant's ability to move forward in the world.

The ability to predict entirely depends on how the astrologer fills their symbolic pockets with particular meanings and then lays it out across time. Due to the sheer quantity of interpretation one can invest in this process, and constant refinement of it, the setup of one astrologer is not communicable to another. Studying the past astrologers is a curiosity at best, fuel for the fire at worst.

Astrology never comes to a final end. It doesn't have the completeness of a religious book, nor the ability to begin new events itself. You just interpret forever.

> It is definitely a net negative on participant's ability to move forward in the world

I rather like Vettius Valens (2rd century) take on the value of Astrology. It shares much with eastern thought and practices, just with a different tool:

"As a result, those ignorant of the prognostic art—or those not willing to engage in it at all—are led away and enslaved to these previously mentioned gods. They endure all blows and suffer punishment along with their pleasures. Some partially attain what they hoped for, their confidence begins to increase, and they await a permanently favorable outcome—not realizing how precarious and slippery are these accidents of Fortune. Others are disappointed in their expectations not just once, but always; they then surrender body and soul to their passions and live shamed and disgraced—or they simply wait, living as slaves to fickle Fortune and deceitful Hope, and they are entirely unable to achieve anything.

But those who have trained themselves in the prognostic art and in the truth keep their minds free and out of bondage; they despise Fortune, do not persist in Hope, do not fear death, and live undisturbed. They have trained their souls to be confident. They do not rejoice excessively at prosperity nor are they depressed by adversity, but they are satisfied with whatever happens. Since they do not have the habit of longing for the impossible, they bear steadfastly the decrees of Fate. They are alien to all pleasure or flattery and stand firm as soldiers of Fate."

Makes you wonder what they'll laugh at us for believing in five hundred years.
Modern intellectuals have such a (justified) disdain for astrology, it's hard for them to appreciate how respectable it once was. In Italy of the period, Astrology was a popular 4-year university degree. Afterwards, you bought the equipment, rented office space, and you were in a stable profession, rather like becoming an optometrist today.
Honestly I believe in this kind of shit (lines on the forehead). It's basically the holographic principle for black holes (?), that all the information inside is readable from just examining the surface.

And there would be an absolutely beautiful symmetry there. If actions and attitudes imprint themself on the face, then amazing social gameplay emerges from that feedback loop.

The other angle is that, like divining rods, having a focus is a great excuse to let your subconscious do its own thing.

Also, look at how worn out (and weirdly happy?) everyones eyes are in that sketch. ****ers high on life.

"That the celestial bodies are not always reliable became evident when no astrologer was able to predict that on March 30, 1981, at 2:27 p.m., EST, President Reagan would be shot in the chest during an assassination attempt.", "Unfortunately, her occupations had precluded her from doing this."

Quigley wasn't his astrologer at the time. I believe she was either dismissed from his service, or had left for some other reason. She was called back to his service after the shooting.

"Today, people’s blind belief in the power of astrology to reveal the future strikes us as absurd, because our mental stance is radically different."

Blind belief in anything is absurd.

This guy seems to conflate pop astrologers / grifters with actual astrologers. The grifters will claim to be able to predict the future. Actual astrologers will claim to explain the fields of possibility that will present themselves to people using archetypal languages; this is what astrology 'actually is': a language of archetypes. It has been my experience that 100% of the time it is people who know very little about astrology (like the author of this article) who deride it as 'false'. But that's about as useful as saying chemistry or Swahili is false.

"the astrologer-physician predicted that Hamilton would live happily, but would be in danger of dying from cardiac disease", "he predicted a life of political as well as ecclesiastical power.", "he foretold that the young king was going to live a long life"

This... is not how astrology works at all. Grifter or just woefully uninformed.

We don't go around proclaiming that physics is trash because of Newton.

Predictions are falsifiable, which is why prediction-making astrology is easy to show as bullshit.

Your "real" astrology sound like it is vague enough to be non-falsifiable. But it is still bullshit, since celestial bodies does not affect the "fields of possibility" unless you are an astronaut.

And your 'proof' is where?
What needs to be proven is the claim that the stars _do_ influence anything, not the default position that they don't.
Proof of what? You can't prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim.
"But it is still bullshit, since celestial bodies does not affect the "fields of possibility" unless you are an astronaut."

I imagined you could back up the claim if you were going to make it.

You can't prove a negative, as I'm sure you are aware. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim of an effect.
It would be beneficial to have an open mind to the possibility of there being an effect. It serves no purpose to say "I know" when in fact, one does not.

No scientist knows how quantum entanglement works, we don't know how light photosynthesizes in plants, but by some magic we're super-familiar with the macroscopic properties of planets enough to say they're dead rocks/gas?

Astrology is a tricky one. Any competent astrologer could look at a chart and say any number of objectively false things that are simultaneously true within a given field of archetypal possibility. It's ability to narrow the scope in this way is astounding, and also what makes it "true" even though most predictions might factually miss the mark.

Without a sophisticated understanding of the house system, no skeptic could possibly understand. I've given up trying to explain it. Those who know, know.

Without a sophisticated understanding of the house system, no skeptic could possibly understand.

There are over a dozen house systems. I prefer Placidus myself, but it seems like a meaningless statement.

https://www.horoscope.com/us/editorial/faqs/editorial-faq-ho....

I studied astrology in earnest in my teens and twenties and considered becoming an astrologer. I was a homemaker who wanted a divorce. It's a field with no governing body telling you who is a "qualified" astrologer and who isn't.

As far as I can tell: You don't get a college degree in it. There's no equivalent of a bar exam.

At least such seemed true last time I cared to look.

I was casting charts for friends and such. I also had done a lot of therapy.

One day, I realized my advice had gotten better because of all the therapy I had done, not because of astrology.

I knew the day I met her man the first time that he was not right. Casting a chart and telling her "It's a bad relationship." amounted to giving her my longstanding opinion of her relationship and using astrology as an excuse to do so, thus my opinion expressed elsewhere in comments here that astrologers were likely learned men giving good advice because they were educated and saying "the stars say so" to cover their butts.

I like astrology. I don't think it's useless.

I like it because it provides me a menu to choose from to sort my problems that I have as yet not found in any other school of thought.

"Ah, it's a Saturn influence. Saturn rules poverty and limitations. It also rules time and effort and hard work. I can accept my poverty and limitations or I can put in the time, effort and hard work to overcome them."

I like astrology, but at some point I made the conscious decision that if I was going to be paid for my professional advice, I would get a degree and call it "my professional opinion, based on thus and such" and not claim "the stars say so" as my way of washing my hands of personal responsibility for sometimes being wrong.

HN is probably the worst place possible to mock skeptics of astrology. Historically, admitting to belief in it was a good way to cut your throat.

I have no idea why this piece is on the front page. But maybe we can try to discuss the topic without skeptics suggesting people who believe in it are merely idiots and vice versa.

> it seems like a meaningless statement

To elaborate, I was using it to qualify my description of astrological truth vs concrete truth; without understanding the houses, and thus the archetypes at ones disposal for a given frame of reference, one can't understand how an incorrect prediction could simultaneously be true.

To give the simplest of examples: Astrologer predicts in 2033 that so and so is going to have a child, based upon Jupiter transiting the 5th house. So and so doesn't have a child, but rather publishes a book that they have been passionately working on. The prediction is concretely false, but if you understand the houses, it is actually true, since the 5th governs children and creative endeavors. One has "given birth" to a book. Roughly speaking, this is the primary mode of astrological prediction. It takes a certain fluidity of mind and some learning to grasp this sort of thing -- that is, archetypal thinking -- and one can't expect skeptics to equip themselves for such a task unless they are already so inclined.

I fully understand why the house system is a big deal to astrologers. For one thing, it's like half the chart. It dramatically enriches the amount of information you have to work with.

I've spent a lot of years toying with the idea of writing a blog that critiques astrology in a serious way. I've even made a few stabs at it.

But it seems like a pointless waste of time. People who believe in astrology wouldn't want to hear "You're wrong!" and people who think it's hoccum wouldn't bother to read it.

Understanding the house system can explain to other people who believe in astrology why astrologers sometimes make predictions that are so off the mark. It cannot explain to skeptics why astrologers think the stars empower them to predict anything.

And skeptics are not wrong to wonder that. Astrology has a poor track for prediction.

I don't personally think predicting extremely specific future events (like the birth of a child) is even a good use for astrology. And I'm someone who studied it in earnest and still thinks it has some merit, yet I spend less and less time on the topic.

> But maybe we can try to discuss the topic without skeptics suggesting people who believe in it are merely idiots and vice versa.

Why? All the rest of your comment was you explaining how you had come to realise there was no "there" there to believe in. So, congratulations on having stopped being an idiot, but why shouldn't we be allowed to point out that those who believe in idiocy are being idiots?