Social Question

gamefu91's avatar

Are horoscopes, astrology, palmistry and numerology related?

Asked by gamefu91 (591points) December 17th, 2010

• Is it that horoscope is different from astrology or they are the same?
• Is astrology something more than horoscopes?
• Is numerology a part of astrology or a different thing?
• Do horoscopes, astrology and numerology use only our time of birth or even something else?
• Does palmistry have anything to do with our time of birth?
• Studying about which of these three,horoscope or astrology or numerology, would help me know more about the person just from his date of birth?
• Has palmistry anything to do with other three?
• So which gives more knowledge of the persons nature,his past-present-future,a look at his palm or his date of birth?
• Any of the four got to do something with our name?
• Can a name tell something about a person? Which science is it then related to?
• Which of the four is more close to science?
♦ Which takes less time to gain knowledge about?
♦ Any best book to start with horoscopes,palmistry,astrology,numerology?
Anything more you would like to say?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

60 Answers

Rarebear's avatar

“Anything more you would like to say?”
It’s all bogus.

YARNLADY's avatar

They all purport to use a set of rules to foretell your future.

lillycoyote's avatar

@Rarebear said it. They are primarily related to each other in their bogusness.

crisw's avatar

A third vote for the relationship between all of these and pure bogusness.

“Studying about which of these three,horoscope or astrology or numerology, would help me know more about the person just from his date of birth?”

None of them.

“Which of the four is more close to science?”

None of them are even remotely close to anything even faintly resembling science. Science makes testable predictions then seeks to validate them. None of these do the same.

TexasDude's avatar

All bullshit.

Horoscopes are based on astrology, though, and numerology plays into palmistry.

Jeruba's avatar

They are all equally valid and equally worthy of your inattention.

gamefu91's avatar

But most of the things are correct to some extent.They do make sense most of the times.It is a fact and we cant argue on facts!

TexasDude's avatar

But most of the things are correct to some extent.They do make sense most of the times.It is a fact and we cant argue on facts!

lol, wut?

gamefu91's avatar

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard
I was talking about palmistry and astrology.One person (‘pandit’) read my hand and asked me my date of birth,then he said many thing about my personality,what is going on in my life which were very close to truth.Obviously the person can’t be perfect in this technique or the technique might not be accurate,but most of the things he said were true,so these things do have something in them,they are not fake or bogus.They work.This is a fact i was talking about.
And don’t lol if you can’t understand my language(English) cause i m still good in it though it is my third language.

TexasDude's avatar

@gamefu91,

This and this may be of interest to you.

seazen's avatar

I check my horrorscope daily and it’s usually right. Just saying.

Response moderated (Spam)
ragingloli's avatar

Horoscopes and co. are written in such a fuzzy and generalised fashion that they automatically “fit” the majority of people. Nothing supernatural about that.

seazen's avatar

I read horoscopes and I take comfort in knowing that 1 in 12 are exactly like me, and will have the same day. Exactly.

Rarebear's avatar

@gamefu91 That’s a classic example of cold reading, as @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard said. Here is a blog post of a friend of mine who interviewed Ian Rowland, expert in cold reading. You can follow links and research from there if you like.
http://skepbitch.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/ian-rowland-cold-reader-extraordinaire/

Summum's avatar

Just understand that all things make up who we are and that there is more that just the physical that makes up man. We have the capacity to love one another and to be one with each other. Just love everyone and give give give.

filmfann's avatar

They all belong to the HorseShit portion of the Brain-Food pyramid.

Jeruba's avatar

@gamefu91, pretend for a week that you are a Pisces and read only the horoscope for the Pisces. Don’t even look at yours. If you are a Pisces, read, um, Libra instead. Come back in a week and tell us if most of the things are correct to some extent and make sense most of the time.

crazyivan's avatar

They all rely on confirmation bias, vague wordings and people’s desire to believe in a flagrant attempt to scam others.

Of course, most of the practicioners have no idea and probably believe in the efficacy of these things, but the people who wrote the books they read probably know better.

gamefu91's avatar

@Jeruba @crazyivan @filmfann @Summum @Rarebear @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard @lillycoyote But generally the predictions given by one person (or astrologer) are very similar to given by those.If its bogus,how can they be similar? How can both say the same false or incorrect thing?
@seazen what? i didn’t get you

Rarebear's avatar

@gamefu91 Have you followed any of the links we provided to learn about cold reading?
Try reading this. This is written by the same women I linked to above. She posed as a psychic and wrote about the experience. http://www.bad-language.com/psychicskeptic

crazyivan's avatar

They are all working from the same or similar ideas about planetary motions and their influences… the fact that they all say similar things is to be expected. This certainly doesn’t lend any credence to the claims. There are established texts in astrology just as there are established texts in cryptozoolog (thank God my spellcheck still underlines that one),ufology, etc.

Astrology has been extensively studied for efficacy. Those who believe in its efficacy have either never looked at the data or are willfully ignoring it. Any amount of time of truly “open minded” research will bring you to the same ultimate conclusion. When I say open-minded, of course I mean coming to it without preconceived notions and simply looking at the testable claims.

Paradox's avatar

I’m not very knowledgable on this subject and I can’t say I have any real opinions on it. From what little I’ve read about astrology, numerology, etc is it all depends on the right person using the proper techniques which apparentely most people don’t use.

I’m somewhat of an amateur psi investigator but I usually don’t dwell into this end of it but here is an interesting link where Michael Shermer gets debunked on his own show, or so it seems. It’s interesting if you have 10 minutes to kill. It looks like the Youtube version of this video is gone so this will have to do.

crisw's avatar

“From what little I’ve read about astrology, numerology, etc is it all depends on the right person using the proper techniques which apparentely most people don’t use.”

That is, of course, what they always say when scientific experimentation fails to show, again and again, any basis whatsoever for these practices. “The person wasn’t experienced enough.” “They didn’t do it right.” Etc. etc. It really is just an excuse.

crazyivan's avatar

In the world of logical fallacies we call this one “special pleading”...

mattbrowne's avatar

Yes, they all make one or several of the following mistakes:

1. Theory Influences Observations — When you have a theory of something, you interpret the results inside your theory. So when Columbus arrived in the New World, he saw Asian spices and roots. His theory said he should be in Asia.

2. The Observer Changes the Observed — The act of studying an event can change it. This can happen with anthropologists studying tribes to physicists studying electrons. This is why psychologists use blind and double-blind controls. Science tries to minimize this, pseudoscience does not.

3. Equipment Constructs Results — The equipment used often determines the results. The size of the telescope shaped and reshaped the size of the universe. The kind of fish net determines what fish it can catch.

4. Anecdotes != Science — Stories that people pass on is not the same as controlled experiments. Pseudoscience points to anecdotes; science points to reputable studies.

5. Scientific Language Doesn’t Make It Scientific — Dressing up a belief in scientific language doesn’t make it science. This is easily seen with “creation science” and New Age pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

6. Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True — L. Ron Hubbard called Dianetics “a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his invention of the wheel and the arch.” But it wasn’t. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary well-tested the evidence must be.

7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness — Copernicus and Galileo and the Wright Brothers were rebels. But just because someone is a rebel doesn’t make them right. Holocaust deniers are rebels, but they need historical evidence for their position. It’s heresy to say Bush planned the 9/11 attack, but that isn’t evidence of the government suppressing the truth.

8. Burden of Proof — The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving their claim is true and better than the commonly accepted position. If a man claims he moved a mountain with his mind, the burden of proof is on him.

9. Rumors Do Not Equal Reality — Rumors begin with “I read somewhere that…” or “I heard from someone that….” Before long, the rumor becomes reality, as “I know that…” passes from person to person. These stories are often false. For instance, everyone knows George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and couldn’t lie about it. He also had wooden teeth. Both stories are false.

10. Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable — Just because you can’t explain something doesn’t mean it can’t be explained. Firewalking seems inexplicable, but once you know the explanation it seems obvious. The same goes for all magic tricks. And even if an expert can’t explain it doesn’t mean it can’t be explained someday. Think of how many things — from germs to atoms to evolution — couldn’t be explained two hundred years ago!

11. Failures Are Rationalized — Scientists acknowledge failures and reformulate theories. Pseudoscientists ignore or rationalize failures.

12. After-the-Fact Reasoning — Also known as, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” literally, “after this, therefore because of this.” It’s superstition. Because I carried a rabbit’s foot, I sold more products today. Because I have blonde hair, I’m ditzy. Because I used a dowsing stick, I struck water. All superstition. Correlation does not mean causation.

13. Coincidence — Most people have a very poor understanding of the law of probability. Say you are about to make a call and as your hand touches the phone they call you. How could that be a coincidence? It must be ESP. We forget about the other thousand times we call someone and they don’t call us first. You make 5 baskets in a row, and you’re “on fire.” But statistically your chances are the same as a coin-flip. The human mind looks for patterns and often finds them when there are none.

14. Representativeness — Something may seem unusual when it’s not. Baselines must be established. For instance, tapping and scratching sounds in your house may be ghosts, but it’s probably just pipes and rats. Many ships are lost at the Bermuda Triangle, but only because there are more shipping lanes there than in surrounding areas. When that is factored in, the accident rate is actually lower in the Bermuda Triangle.

15. Emotive Words and False Analogies — Loaded language can be used to provoke emotion and obscure rationality. Industry can be called “raping the environment” or abortion “murdering innocent children” or a political opponent a “communist.” Rarely does this further rational thought, but clouds the issue with emotion and rhetoric.

16. Appeal to Ignorance — This claims if you can’t disprove something, it must be true. So if you can’t disprove psychic power or ESP or ghosts, they must be real. The problem is you can’t disprove Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, either. Belief should come from positive evidence in support of a claim, not a lack of evidence.

17. Attacking the man —Redirect the focus from thinking about the idea to thinking about the person holding the idea. Calling Darwin a racist or a politician a communist or past figure a slaveholder does not discredit their ideas.

18. Hasty Generalization — Also known as prejudice, or drawing conclusions before the facts warrant. A couple of bad teachers and it’s a bad school. A couple of bad cars and that brand of automobile is unreliable.

19. Overreliance on Authorities — We must be careful not to accept a wrong idea from someone we respect, nor write off a good idea because of a supporter we disrespect. Examining the evidence ourselves helps us avoid these errors.

20. Either-Or — This is the argument that when one position is wrong, another must be accepted. For instance, creationists spend much of their time attacking evolution because they think if evolution is wrong, then creationism must be right. But for a theory to be accepted, it must be superior to the old theory. A new theory needs evidence in favor of it, not just against the opposition.

21. Circular Reasoning — Also known as begging the question, this is when the conclusion or claim is merely a restatement of one of the premises. For instance in religion: Is there a God? Yes. How do you know? Because my holy book says so. How do you know your holy book is correct? Because it was inspired by God. Or in science: What is gravity? The tendency for objects to be attracted to one another. Why are objects attracted to one another? Gravity. While these definitions can at times be useful, we need to try and construct operational definitions that can be tested, falsified, and refuted.

22. Reductio ad Absurdum and the Slippery Slope — Reductio ad absurdum is the refutation of an argument by carrying the argument to its logical end and so reducing it to absurd conclusion. For instance: Eating ice cream will cause you to gain weight. Gaining weight makes you overweight. Overweight people die of heart disease. Thus eating ice cream leads to death. A creationist might argue: Evolution doesn’t need God. If you don’t need God, you reject him. Without God, there is no morality. Therefore, people who believe in evolution reject God and have no morals.

23. Effort Inadequacies and the Need for Certainty, Control, and Simplicity — Most of us want certainty, want to control our environment, and want nice, neat simple explanations. But it doesn’t always work like that. Solutions are sometimes simple, but other times they are complex. We must be willing to make an effort to understand complex theories instead of rejecting them out of laziness.

24. Problem-Solving Inadequacies — When solving problems, we often form a hypothesis and then look only for examples to confirm it. When our hypothesis is wrong, we are slow to change our hypothesis. We also gravitate towards simple solutions even when they don’t explain everything.

25. Ideological Immunity — We all resist changing fundamental beliefs. We build up “immunity” against new ideas that do not fit within our paradigm. The higher the intelligence, the greater the potential for ideological immunity. This can be the greatest barrier to changing our weird beliefs.

(Source: Michael Shermer)

TexasDude's avatar

Gotta love Michael Shermer. GA, @mattbrowne

Summum's avatar

Lordy I would hate to be so stuck on answers that drive someone to push out so many possibilities. Science is a wonderful thing and has really helped mankind but it is NOT the say all to everything this life has to offer. It is a great thing to be able to measure physical and concrete things and study them and come to some pretty accurate conclusions. But really do you honestly think science has all the answers? It doesn’t and frankly can’t have all the answers we cannot measure things that are not physical because we live in a physical existence. There have been great advancements in being able to measure small things that are not physical and the (For lack of a better word) Ghost Examiners are getting measurements and also actual words coming from the NON PHYSICAL. This has been done thousands of times and with the same results. I would just say don’t allow a physical science to close your minds to so many possibilities.

mattbrowne's avatar

@Summum – Do I honestly think science has all the answers? No, I don’t. Math has limitations. Science has limitations. Science has the potential to explain any natural phenomenon, but it can’t explain and will never be able to explain the meta-phenomenon of existence itself which led to natural phenomena for us to observe and explain.

Science can tell us virtually nothing about the ultimate purpose and meaning of our existence. To me, spirituality means embarking on a lifelong journey of learning and searching for a purpose and a deeper meaning of our cosmos and our own life, while acknowledging that some sources of knowledge are beyond science and scientific method.

Yet what what belongs to the realm of science, is best handled by science. To devise strategies against cancer or multi-drug resistant bacteria, we need to understand evolution and genetics and scientific method. We won’t get meaningful strategies from consulting horoscopes or reading palms.

Summum's avatar

With that we are in agreement @mattbrowne

crisw's avatar

@Summum

“Ghost Examiners are getting measurements and also actual words coming from the NON PHYSICAL. This has been done thousands of times and with the same results.”

Can you point me to the cites of double-blinded studies in scientific journals that show this? After all, if it’s been done ” thousands of times and with the same results” there should be many such studies…

crazyivan's avatar

@Summum They get these readings by misusing equipment. I’d strongly urge you to educate yourself on both sides of this issue. When anyone looks at the objective evidence without “wanting” to believe one thing or the other, they tend to come down on the side that actually knows how to use the equipment they’re holding.

Also, I have an issue with the statement often made that “science doesn’t know everything” or that “science doesn’t have all the answers”. Science, in it’s broadest definition is the collection of all things known. All things proven to be so are collected in one broad umbrella that we often deem “science”. I’ll admit that science “doesn’t know everything” and never will, but I wouldn’t use it to justify believing in something that science has thoroughly debunked.

The argument is appropriate in a discussion of pure philosophy or (because I’m in a generous mood) theology, but not when it comes to things like medicine, physics, geology, psychology, etc.

I would hate to have a worldview that didn’t immediately discard those things that can be or have been falsified. The other choice is to stop investigating when you get to the nonsensical answer that fits the world you want to live in. When you have a higher standard of evidence you end up getting to the real answer, which is, as Brian Dunning is fond of saying, always far more interesting.

Summum's avatar

There are many studies going on in that realm and you can find the studies online. I saw a program the other day where they were actually measuring how plants reacted to aggressive behavior and kind behavior. They did it in an isolated room and the results were uncanny and then they tried it out in the open and the results were not quite as positive but it was still measurable. It was a machine similar to a lie detector machine. My view of the matter is that I have had my own personal experience that makes me know that spirits exist. I don’t call them ghosts. But that is my experience and cannot be scientifically proved at all.

Rarebear's avatar

“cannot be scientifically proved at all.” Exactly.

crisw's avatar

@Summum

“There are many studies going on in that realm and you can find the studies online”

Web sites are not scientific journal articles.

“I saw a program the other day”

TV programs are not scientific journal articles.

“I have had my own personal experience that makes me know that spirits exist”

Personal experiences are not scientific journal articles.

So where is the actual scientific evidence? Or are you really reconfirming the truth- that no such evidence exists; that it’s all anecdotes and personal experience, and sensationalistic television and other such “sources” that are easily manipulated and proven unreliable?

Summum's avatar

There are thousands of scientific articles on web sites but I won’t argue with you at all. You keep your scientific journal articles and I will keep my way of life and learn more in life than science can offer. :)

crisw's avatar

@Summum

Frankly, I get really tired of that cop-out. You do realize that it’s used all the time by those that cannot truly defend their positions, right?

Rarebear's avatar

@crisw He’ll be fine doing stuff that science can’t offer until he turns on his TV, computer, gets in his car, uses his GPS, listens to his ipod, and goes to the doctor.

Brian1946's avatar

I know when Charlie Sheen is out at night lookin’ for hookers, that his whorescope is real accurate. ;-p

Otherwise, horoscopes and astrology are somewhat accurate in making ex post facto estimations about when one was born.
E.g., if I tell a trained astrologer that I’m a Capricorn, then that person will be able to conclude that I was born sometime between December 21st and January 22nd (I think that’s when it is; I don’t have an *AsD).

The second paragraph should suffice to modproof this quip. ;-)

Summum's avatar

@crisw

And Frankly I get sick and tired of you thinking science is the answer all to everything it is NOT and will NEVER be. We are much more than science and a physical body.

That will all be gone in the near future @Rarebear so enjoy it while you can.

Summum's avatar

http://www.assap.org/

Here is a link to one source of study and there are so many.

Rarebear's avatar

@Summum What will be all gone in the near future?

Summum's avatar

All the electronic gagets you talked about to @crisw.

crisw's avatar

@Summum

Thanks for the link, but I don’t see any cites to any scientific journals anywhere on the site. Anyone can claim that they are “doing research.”

Rarebear's avatar

@Summum First of all, that’s a straw man argument, which diverts attention from my original point that although you eschew science, you use it every day.

Second of all, to address the straw man, you feel that the computer will be gone in the near future? Why do you think that?

crazyivan's avatar

Because when you abandon critical thinking it’s in for a penny, in for a pound. I’m sure the same reputable resources that provide @Summum‘s knowledge of the aphysical also ensures the timely destruction of all things…

Summum's avatar

I use many things everyday and love science it has helped mankind thougthout the ages but it is not the answer to everything and never will be.

Rarebear's avatar

And again with the special pleading.

I’ll ask you for a third time. Why do you think the computer will be gone in the near future?

Summum's avatar

The Earths technology will be completely destroyed as will most of the surface of the planet. At that point when some are brought back to rebuild there will be greater technology then mankind has ever known. BUT it will be present but it will not be used the same way we use as technology as a Human Race. @Rarebear I have been shown this and watched it like you would a movie and a walk in. So again it is My Own Experiences and IMHO not SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

crisw's avatar

@Rarebear

Mattbrowne posted a very interesting link in another thread, just in case you haven’t seen it.

Summum's avatar

@crisw

There is a web site called “Summum Sealed Except to the Open Mind” and no it is not industrial strength lunacy and who are you to say so? How do you know this did not happen? How do you know what is said is not so? Who are you to say it did not happen? Something to think about and open your mind and maybe learn beyond your closed one.

Rarebear's avatar

@crisw Ah….it’s even crazier than the theosophy stuff I was into in high school. I laughed out loud when I read that, thanks for sharing. I won’t waste my time on him any more.

crazyivan's avatar

Wow… it makes you feel a lot better about your own position when the people opposed inevitably revert to insanity at some point in the conversation.

ragingloli's avatar

I just had a talk with the administrator of the Matrix we live in. He says you are wrong and will be purged from the hard drive after you cease to exist.

Summum's avatar

It is so right that you guys make fun of someone who thinks different than you. In the entire History of this world this has always happened to those who spoke the truth and who bring a brighter light to the world. Thank you for the compliment and how you have shown me I am on the right track. May you find the ability to open your minds and discover more value in your time in this space.

ragingloli's avatar

I am serious.

crazyivan's avatar

Yes… discounting things because overwhelming evidence stands against them is exactly the same as closing your mind. Oh wait.. that’s the opposite. Nevermind.

Response moderated (Spam)
Response moderated (Spam)
Response moderated

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther