My girlfriend said she is jealous of astrology

Science does not envy, it measures. To what it cannot measure, it simply says, "wait a minute." Astrology believers shouldn't take offense, but when the testing part is left empty, it doesn't get packaged as science.

@laboratuvarterligi I'm not saying it's science either. For me, it's more like a symbolic language. But some people sell it like a math formula, and that stresses me out too.

It's one thing for your partner to act all sassy about science, and another for them to say, "You've taken science's side." As if you're secretly messaging Newton.

Mercury retrograde collapsed the quantum wave function through the ascendant, so science hasn't caught up to the event yet. source: just made that up 🙄

@retrogradcivata I laughed at that, but some comments are really written like that. Just adding three words about physics doesn't clear astrology 😂

@laboratuvarterligi that's exactly what I'm stuck on. I'm reading daily comments and laughing, while they turned that issue into an almost academic fight. The atmosphere at the table became icy.

I look at zodiac signs, but someone's defense to the point of fighting with an engineer friend seems excessive to me. If it's for fun, then it's fun; if it's faith, then it's faith. It doesn't work when you try to force it into science.

I don't think the issue here is astrology. The guy has put you on the opposing side just because someone objected to what he believes in. Let's see if he does the same thing tomorrow on another topic 🤭

There's this issue of falsifiability, you know. If a claim can twist every outcome to its favor, then we need to stop there. Science doesn't work with the mentality of "If it works, I knew it; if not, my map is missing."

I'm guilty of being a Gemini anyway, it would be better if I didn't talk in this title.

@kozmikdefter there's no problem with what you said. The symbol, the story, the tool for self-reflection, all good. But the phrase "science couldn't explain it" directly raises a debate.

I think everyone has revealed their own zodiac sign. Skeptics got a bit annoyed briefly, believers calmly explained, and the troll just put mercury in the test tube and left.

Sometimes astrology acts like a mirror, gaining more meaning through personal experiences. Some people deny it, but it's all a matter of perspective. Science and belief may not coexist, but thinking through symbols can sometimes be more enlightening. A partner's jealousy might actually relate to questioning their own beliefs.

When conflicts arise between science and belief, most people feel compelled to choose a side. When jealousy comes into play, the conversation can explode. After all, everyone has their own value judgments, but science should come first. Even for the sake of entertainment, it's wise to be cautious about crossing boundaries.

I agree that science should be a priority, but the issue here isn't entertainment or "falsifiability." Astrology doesn't bother anyone when consumed as entertainment, but as soon as someone derives meaning from it, a defense mechanism kicks in. Science does not discuss the human spirit; should we then leave this domain completely empty?

Discussing the human soul is one thing, claiming to explain the universe through the soul is another. When astrology jumps to the latter, the defense of being "alongside science" collapses. If you are seeking meaning, that's fine, but you need to question why you accept this method as valid.

You mentioned symbols, and that's critical. Astrology provides symbols, but who interprets them? If one astrologer derives love from the same chart while another derives career, how systematic is that?

Astrology is like a complete "finding your own symbol" competition. After all, even fortune tellers use their own brains as a reference. One person's love, another's career; it's like they are placing orders based on the customer!

Astrology is just like a free market, everyone is making their own interpretations. When there are inconsistencies among what is said according to your perspective, you can easily see that something is not systematic. The outcome may often be satisfying for believers, but science demands certainty and repeatability. That’s why comparisons cannot be made.

But why do science and astrology have to be evaluated by the same criteria? They have different tools and different areas of use. One guides with its repeatability, while the other is open to interpretation. Just as the symbols of art or literature are filled with personal meanings, so is astrology. Does this mean it is "wrong"?

So someone explain to me why every horoscope comment says "love is coloring your life." Does the universe have an aesthetic concern, or has the love industry sponsored this? We call it a symbol, but does the symbol have an agenda?

The symbol debate makes sense, but there is still a problem: why are astrological symbols always shaped around human-centered and individual needs? In a system that claims to explain the universe, one would expect broader, universal symbols. Can such a personalized structure really be a system that reflects nature?

But isn’t expecting "broader, universal symbols" from the universe a way of ignoring the limits of human understanding? The place we look is our search for meaning about humanity; the tendency may be human-centric because we are the ones experiencing the universe. Could astrology be more about expressing our relationship with nature through symbols rather than reflecting nature itself?

You say they're symbols of the universe, but when even 98% of the light coming from there doesn't reach us, isn't it inevitable that we derive a human-centered meaning? And do you think it's just a coincidence that 85% of horoscope interpretations have happy endings? I suggest you also consider that astrology is more a reflection of marketing than of nature.

You say astrology expresses our relationship with nature, but then what criteria will we use to test its accuracy? I mean, if a system makes both personal and universal claims without needing to prove either definitively, what basis does that give us to evaluate it? The question is: where do we draw the line?

Maybe we're putting the truth test in the wrong place. Astrology might be less about whether the claimed things are "real" and more about a way for people to reflect on their relationships with themselves and their surroundings. The symbolic language is ambiguous for this reason; it operates with layers of interpretation rather than clarity. But does that mean it is a system that must necessarily be debunked? What if instead of debunking, we should discuss it functioning differently?

Let's say we accept astrology as an art of interpretation; then why is it presented in such a mathematical language? 12 signs, endless planet combinations, degrees, radix charts, and so on... If a system says, "Actually, I'm open to interpretation" while also adopting an algorithmic tone, isn't there a contradiction here? Does "art" really try to count every brushstroke on the canvas?

You say that astrology is both open to interpretation and mathematical, but here lies a problem: mathematical claims must be testable. If the angles of the planets are calculated with such precision, then this claim to certainty calls for a truth test. So why are the results of these calculations not tested or cannot be tested?

But we seem to be stuck on the issue of evaluation based on this certainty. Astrology may use a "mathematical pattern" as a tool; a foundation established for questioning, not for results. Could it be that what needs to be tested is not the accuracy of the calculations, but rather how these patterns resonate within a person?

So the question is: If these patterns resonate with a person, is it really due to the positions of the planets, or is it because people are already in a state of mind where they seek that resonance? In other words, does the system work, or does the person adapt it to themselves? Where does this resonance begin?

"If these patterns resonate with a person," you are making the cause of the resonance entirely subjective. However, the initial mathematical claim remains unaddressed. So, is there an experiment or control mechanism that excludes the possibility of humans fabricating these patterns? What is your proposed real test that eliminates the human factor?

Sure, it's difficult to find the places where people connect their moods with astrology; you're right. But this is more about human stories than mathematics. The question might be: Does the subjectivity of something completely negate its validity? In psychology, many methods also vary from person to person; but their effectiveness is measured by the impact they leave. Could understanding these effects not be the real testing ground for astrology?

It is already a source of confusion that something whose validity is completely subjective is adorned with such a systematic mathematical infrastructure. You are comparing it to psychology, but there the method is open to experimentation and observation. You say you want to understand the effects of astrology, but wouldn't it make more sense to examine this effect within a broader behavioral mechanism, freeing it from the hypothesis that "the stars caused it"?

If you think it makes sense to examine the influence of astrology independently of the star hypothesis, this would essentially mean bypassing the system's claim. In other words, you're removing astrology from its astrological context. If the claim is "the positions of the planets affect human psychology," we must look for a direct causality here. If this causality does not exist, then there is no serious foundational basis to defend this system. Why is there still an attempt to tread on this ground?

Those who use astrology without a serious foundation to defend it may be more concerned with the pragmatism of "this system is a nature law" rather than the claim itself, believing that "this system has been framed with a series of symbols, and it works for me." In other words, the person may not really care about the effects of Venus retrograde but rather enjoys the excuse to reflect on the relationships they have left behind in the past. Chasing causality is probably not that important for the user base of the system.

I got stuck on the part "you're taking astrology out of astrology," but maybe that's part of the issue? Using astrology not as a 'natural law' but as a language of metaphor that is not alien to human experience. If the positions of the planets are not a cause but a mirror—which is the case for many users—then we are not talking about 'cause and effect,' but about 'interpretation.' Perhaps we are narrowing the definition of what we call seriousness?

If you are using the positions of the planets as a "mirror," then this is entirely a byproduct of human perception. Here, you are still not pointing to an external cause; you are merely creating a practice of interpretation. So, in this case, why do you necessarily involve the sky in this interpretation? Can't an infinite number of other metaphors serve the same function?

You absolutely have to include the sky because that's the point of astrology. So the question "Why must it be planets?" is like asking why a ball is used in football. You can come up with an alternative that serves the function, but that would be a different game. Since we are using it as a symbol, the real question is: Why are people so attached to these symbols in particular?

Perhaps the reason for the eclipse is that the sky already opens up a realm of associations within us? Infinity, order, chaos, rhythm, magnitude... The sky is not outside of life; it is both abstract and concrete. An alternative metaphor can certainly be found, but does it require abandoning this ancient visual language?

Alright, let's call it an ancient visual language; but can the effect of this visual language on people, cultural accumulation, and recurrence be explained by something else? In other words, are these associations inherent to the sky, or do we feel this way because we have attributed meaning to them for centuries? Could our ancestors, who did not know about the asteroid belt, have felt the same "order"?