Astrology is science under a pseudo-scientific veil.

>The season at which people are born in subconsciously affects how they are going to act in the future.

Yes, mostly because all kids have the same school year and the older kids in the year do the best statistically.

>The mysticism of Astrology is merely an artifact of the ancients usage of the stars for literally everything dealing with time

Nope. The western school of astrology are bad astronomers and do not precess their coordinates, this is why the classical "star signs" do not relate to where the Sun was on the zodiac at the time of birth. Fine you say it's just a measure of time but the Indian school of astrology do prescess their coordinates. At least 50% are talking absolute shit. The fact the two schools didn't converge tells you that astrology is not self-correcting, it's not science.

>If it was applied to Psychology, and the mystical lingo was thrown out, then there would be no objection from the scientific community.

Bullshit. If you believe it's really there then do double blind studies to show it. Oh wait, people did that and it performs no better than chance.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v318/n6045/abs/318419a0.html?foxtrotcallback=true

But I'm sure you will reject this evidence because it has a bad vibration or clashes with your aura or whatever.

File: 1501969611382.png (160KB, 695x900px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 695x900px

>>9088819

Seems pretty handwavy; any effects of the season one was born in on development would be hugely overshadowed by and indistinguishable from myriad other environmental factors. You really lost me at >the season at which people are born in subconsciously affects

>Subconciously

Red flag desu. "Subconsciously" is often misused as a sort of catch all where actual detailed explanations aren't available.

>>9088829
>But I'm sure you will reject this evidence because it has a bad vibration or clashes with your aura or whatever.
Why are you being an insufferable faggot? I merely tried to explain it in a somewhat rational way without the mysticism. Thanks for giving me a resource to look at and refine my idea, but you don't have to be such an ass.

>>9088842
>I merely tried to explain it in a somewhat rational way without the mysticism.

No, you tried to obscure the mysticism but it's still very much there. Instead of acting like a scientist and asking "is there any merit to this" you just tried to dress it as something it is fundamentally not.
Your case makes no sense, even if astrology dropped all of the astronomy stuff it would not be accepted. Astrology is much more than the time of year, the Planets individually are accounted for. If you somehow got them all to stop saying "Jupiter is in Pisces" and just said there is a cycle of 12 years the obvious question is "why 12 years?". And that question cannot be answered without going back to Planets. Astrology without the planets would be even more silly, not less.

Post this shit on /x/ in future.

>>9088819
Yeah considered it. Summer child vs. winter child, the differences in earliest memories may give rise to marginal differences in personality.

2 hitches, tho: 1) most people live in climate controlled indoor environs now, so differences that may've been more stark in the past have less oportunity to emerge.

2) if astrology were based off this phenomena, signs should flip between the northern/southern hemispheres. But the idiots try to be global.

Like flat Earth, astrology makes shit up. For instance, the signs we're all supposed to be born under were established by astrologers during the Roman Empire, and before precession was known. Now there is no serious accounting for the fact that 2,000 years later we're early a full constellation off. Or that the constellations have wildly different sizes (equating to times during which the Sun lingers within them). Some weak hand-waving excuses, and voila! Everything's cool again.

>>9089718
Note that I'm not endorsing that we start believing into astrology again, nor do I believe in it. I was just thinking of an idea for how it could be connected to current day science. I did not know that the constellations have changed as drastically as they have in the past (as I assumed it would take way longer, in the sound of millions of years for such a thing to occur).

>>9090201
About once around the zodiac every 26,000 years.
If it *could* be connected to science, it would have been. This isn't a new concept, and minds of greater charlatans have tried to exploit any relationship.

The only usage for astrology is as a means of randomly choosing some arbitrary thing that can't hurt you.

To use an example, if you're unemployed and you put all of the job listings on a dart board and throw the dart then no matter what you do you win as long as you made sure the dart can only hit a job listing.

For example: Using The Secret Language, https://www.thesecretlanguage.com/check/day/, and arbitrarily putting in 01/18/87, I get a horoscope that has a bunch of bullshit in it but namely gives me a list of things to improve or watch out for:

>Security is not to be sneezed at.
>Stay in touch with social realities; remember to pay your bills.
>Beware of becoming isolated.
>Pull your weight in any relationship.

Are any of these actually bad? Not at all and even though 01/18/87 is not my birthday it doesn't at all hurt me to take these things into consideration because as long as all of the actions in a group can only benefit you then randomly choosing any action in the group can, obviously, only benefit you.

But other than this contrived example, it's hot garbage and I don't get why you're trying to make it mesh with science. If Astrology had any worth then Greco-Roman, Renaissance, Indian, and Chinese astrology would all agree on the same findings and methods. They don't.

>>9090228
Then why don't you just take out the middle man and simply make any astrology segments just good advice?

>>9090201
Oh - I just thought of something.... I didn't mean to imply the constellations are changing. The Earth is slowly wobbling, like a toy top. The spin axis make precesses around the north ecliptic pole once every 26k years. The effect of this is to cause a precession (drift) of the equinoxes along the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth's revolution around the Sun). For instance, 2kyr ago the vernal equinox was in Aries (astrological "First Point of Aries"), now it's squarely in Pisces and close to moving into Aquarius ("This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius...").
Another issue is equal time for each constellation. Look at how small Aries is relative to Taurus and Pisces. The Sun spends far less time in Aries, yet astrologers assigne equal periods to each constellation. Check out Cancer and Libra, too.

>>9088819
>Astrology is science under a pseudo-scientific veil.

I think you got that backwards

Astrology is pseudo-science under a scientific veil.

>>9088819
>astrology
do you mean western astrology which can trace is roots to ancient Greece and father still to Mesopotamia ?
lmao nigga greeks live in the Mediterranean lol