Then WTF then is a zodiac, Mr. Young?

[athon]

You might well have come across this guy, James Young. Astrologer who has been quite prolific in his You-tube clips.

In this one he gives a rebuttal of a Bill Nye clip in which Nye describes the change in the Earth's orbit which means the sun no longer rises in one's astrological constellation.

Young says the confusion arises when we confuse 'zodiac' with 'constellation', and that astrologers don't refer to constellation at all when they describe a person's charts.

If that's the case, what in all that is woo is a zodiac, if not a constellation? The system gets more and more obscure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPVAY1ml1_4&NR=1

I realise James Young probably doesn't read here, but I'm wondering if anybody who has a better idea of the claims of astrology than I do could entlighten me.

Athon

(ETA: The second 'then' in the title came in a 'two for the price of one' sale, so I had to use it up)

[athon]

Heh. 96 views, and nobody has a clue what a zodiac is?

Maybe this is an answer in itself.

Athon

[wahrheit]

Maybe this is an answer in itself.

Not sure.

James Young is familiar, of course. Actually, I'm sick of seeing his face on YouTube.

I found the explanation on Wikipedia in German, but couldn't find that same paragraph in the English version. It said that astronomy knows 12 (out of a total of 88) constellations which happen to have the same name as the 12 zodiacs used in astrology. And this is where the misunderstanding comes from. While the constellations slowly move and change during time, the zodiacs are fixed to 30 degrees by definition.

Well, that's what they say.

ETA: The English article explains the same, I guess. But more complicated for me to figure it out immediately.

[Hokulele]

Heh. 96 views, and nobody has a clue what a zodiac is?

Maybe this is an answer in itself.

Athon


Fine, I was assuming someone else would post this, but here is a link (http://www.zodiacmarineusa.com/).

On a more serious note, there is a celestial based coordinate system used by some references that avoid the errors introduced by the Earth's orbit, rotation, and precession. (See this link for a description (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/sidereal/sidereal.html).) Could this be what they are referring to?

On a side note, I always wished I had been born in early December so I could tell astrologers I was an Ophiucan just to see their reaction.

[Checkmite]

Wait....I know what a zodiac is! (http://www.zodiacmarineusa.com/)

[Simon Bridge]

http://hw001.gate01.com/papirow/13s.htm
13 Constellations on the ecliptic these days.

However - the zodiac names are best thought of as historical names given to intervals of time. These intervals historically were tracked by noting, amongst other things, the relative position of the sun.

Similarily, astronomers still refer to classical constellations even though they know that there are not really any animals and heroes up there. They still talk about a body being "in" a particular constellation, even though they can see the body is many light years away from the stars more usually associated with that constellation.

There are lots of historical names that are still used passed the time when their original meaning is dead and decomposed. Even many modern names don't mean what they say... how many countries are invited to compete in the (US reference) World Series?

So lets calm down a bit here.

(Personally, I like following the actual track of the Sun.)

[Quinn]

It's very simple: the difference between a "zodiac" and a "constellation" is whatever it needs to be in order for astrologers to continue to rationalize that the whole thing isn't just a bunch of crap. This holds true of any instance wherein any aspect of astrology is shown to be at odds with observable reality. Definitions can be altered, terms reassigned, and even basic tenets completely changed, if that is what is needed to fend off the cognitive dissonance rudely inflicted by mean-spirited science and its nasty rational facts. Get it now?

[Beleth]

It's probably more defined along the lines of "the first 30 or 31 days after the spring equinox is defined as being Aries. The next 30 or 31 days is defined as being..."

[FramerDave]

It's very simple: the difference between a "zodiac" and a "constellation" is whatever it needs to be in order for astrologers to continue to rationalize that the whole thing isn't just a bunch of crap.

ding ding ding ding!

And we have a winner!

[Tumblehome]

The esteemed Mr. Young is right in that a zodiac is not a constellation (it's the entire collection of the 12 zodiacal constellations), but that's as far as his correctness goes. From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zodiac):


–noun
1. an imaginary belt of the heavens, extending about 8° on each side of the ecliptic, within which are the apparent paths of the sun, moon, and principal planets. It contains twelve constellations and hence twelve divisions called signs of the zodiac. Each division, however, because of the precession of the equinoxes, now contains the constellation west of the one from which it took its name. Compare sign of the zodiac.
2. a circular or elliptical diagram representing this belt, and usually containing pictures of the animals, human figures, etc., that are associated with the constellations and signs.
3. a circuit or round.An astrologer/homeopath once told me that Mercury had just reversed the direction of its orbit.

"You mean it actually stopped and started going backwards?"

"Yeah. The planets do it all the time, you know."

I figured she was misinterpreting the apparent reversal of direction we see from Earth, but I thought, What's the use, and excused myself.

[Foster Zygote]

It's very simple: the difference between a "zodiac" and a "constellation" is whatever it needs to be in order for astrologers to continue to rationalize that the whole thing isn't just a bunch of crap. This holds true of any instance wherein any aspect of astrology is shown to be at odds with observable reality. Definitions can be altered, terms reassigned, and even basic tenets completely changed, if that is what is needed to fend off the cognitive dissonance rudely inflicted by mean-spirited science and its nasty rational facts. Get it now?

Nail on head. Young is just trying to cover up the fact that even if astrology were valid, the charts that astrologers use are all long out of date. Early astrologers used to actually look at the skies. These observers of the heavens eventually evolved into astronomers. Modern astrologers don't even look at the sky anymore.

[mumchup]

I can't see the "difference" as anything more than a way to explain away the fact that when people were making all this crap up, they didn't know things were going to meander around a bit.

So anyway, that's quite an amazing coincidence huh? The zodiac and the constellations having exactly the same names? What are the odds?

[athon]

I can't see the "difference" as anything more than a way to explain away the fact that when people were making all this crap up, they didn't know things were going to meander around a bit.

So anyway, that's quite an amazing coincidence huh? The zodiac and the constellations having exactly the same names? What are the odds?

This was my thought. Ok, sure; the zodiac is not the constellations, but rather just the spaces where the constellations were a few thousand years ago. We refer still to that section of the sky as a house of the zodiac, even though the constellation it was named after has since meandered a little. The stars themselves, therefore according to astrologers, have no impact. It's just the planet which is moving through the 'house' (the patch of sky), right?

While I know it's all a crackpot science, I still like to have some tenuous grasp on what the loony rantings are.

Athon

[Lynx2174]

What is a zodiac?

It's not a big truck you can just dump stuff on. It's.. It's a series of tubes!.

[CFLarsen]

He's a Tropical Astrologer.

He goes with the imaginary Zodiac instead of the actual one. And yes, Zodiac simply means the constellations where the sun moves across - the path of the Ecliptic.

Of course, this only proves how fraudulous Astrology is: They look at the actual placement of the planets, but disregard the constellations by which they measure the planets up against.

So, they are quite alright with where the planets are in reality, but superimposes an imaginary sky over it.

Yes, that's fraud.

"Astrologers do not use the constellations."

Oh, yes they f***ing do: If they are Sidereal Astrologers.

Read more here:

Time Is Not On Astrology's Side (http://skepticreport.com/predictions/astrotime.htm)
One thing immediately strikes the student of Astrology: The predominant feature is confusion. No consensus seems to be achievable on just how Astrology works. Sure, it's the planets that "influence" us humans here on Earth, but that's about where the agreement ends. And when we look at the basic piece of data that all Astrology centers around - the time you were born - it turns out that it isn't as simple as one might have hoped.

[Uncle Feedle]

I've been trying to engage James Young in debate for over two months (I have a YouTube video on there, but am unable to post links just yet). I also challenged other astrologers to debate. So far, I have received nothing but insults, cowardly evasion, relentless excuses, lies and hypocrisy. Most of them cant seem to decide what astrology even is.

My experiences with astrologers have been the most unpleasant experiences I've ever had online, particularly with an astrologer called Arthyr Chadbourne, who freely insults his critics. His response to some of my questions to him was to childishly mock my accent. As a result of some of all this, Chadbourne was mentioned in Randi's commentary a few weeks back.

In our debate challenge, myself and others asked for a simple demonstration of the effectiveness of astrology. So far, one astrologer has accepted. However the test he proposed is easily passed by random chance alone, so we are currently trying to come up with something more viable and fair.

[Dancing David]

This is the logic as others have pointed out

1. The signs of the zodiac are related to a portion iof the sky relative to the equinoxes and solstice. They are not based upon the constelations that they are attributed, because the procession of the equinox has shifted the equinox 16 degrees since astrology began.

2, Question: if the signs of the zodiac are associated with area of the sky and not the constelattion why are they called Bob, Jorge, Julie and Charlene? Why are they named for the constellation that were in the signs of the zodiac when the greeks wrote them down?



Obviously to me, the ancient astrologers looked at the night sky, they knew the constellations and they observed the motions of the planets. Whil;e most likely a mistaken belief, you could use thier charts to navigate.

Modern astrologers practice a mistaken belief that is one further step removed from reality, you can not navigate with thier charts.(At that time.)

(Actualy I don't know if asian astrologers use the sky or the bogus charts.)