The “New Astrology” explained… sort of

I used to be really into astrology. I mean really into it – I had multiple books, drew up my own charts with computer programs, and even did a speech on it for my high school speech class. Being a lifelong atheist, it was my one woo of choice, and I’ve written about this embarrassing fact before. So when this “story” broke that astrological signs have now been “updated” and everyone’s sign is different, I did a triple facepalm.

The first facepalm was shared with the rest of the skeptical community:

1. It doesn’t matter if the signs up are updated, because both new and old signs are complete and utter bullshit. (I admit, I’m a bit hurt at PZ saying “only the deeply gullible and ignorant can fall for it any more.” It’s no more crazy than religion… though I guess a lot of teenagers, including teenage Jen, are gullible and ignorant to an extent.)

The second facepalm was the old astrologist in me bubbling up:

2. This is not news. Most Western astrologers use the Tropical Zodiac. It’s not based on the position of the stars in the sky, but rather when the sun crosses the Tropic of Cancer (the summer solstice), the Tropic of Capricorn (the winter solstice), and the equator (which happens twice). These four points are used to divide the Zodiac into 12 neat little sections that are basically the same from year to year. The “new astrological signs” this press release is talking about is actually using the Sidereal Zodiac, which has been used for ages by Eastern astrologers. That uses the position of the constellations.

If you ask an astrologer why they use one and not the other, they’ll give a BS answer about how one is better for showing certain aspects of your life. I “understood” this ten years ago, so it’s annoying seeing this covered by every news outlet or having a flood of facebook friends babbling about their new sign. Old news, guys.

The third facepalm was aimed at myself:

3. I still have a visceral emotional reaction to people not “understanding” astrology even though I now logically know that it’s all horseshit. If you were formerly religious, you can probably relate to this feeling. Someone says something incorrect about Catholic doctrine, and you feel compelled to correct them even though you’re arguing about something irrelevant because you know the wine isn’t actually blood, or whatever. But you still emotionally revert back to Catholic mode for a second.

When I think “Eww, I am so not a Virgo, I’m totally a Scorpio,” I want to slap myself.

But I wondered how a Western astrologer would respond to this news. If someone who dabbled years ago was annoyed, they must be furious. I looked up my old buddy Eric Francis who drew up my chart around Boobquake (and was nice enough to not get too mad when I tore it apart). Sure enough, he has a post about this news, and it’s just too chock full of goodies to ignore.

After explaining what I went over in my second point, he states “This is not rocket science — but it is science.” Oh yeah, you know it’s going to be good.

So, hear ye, hear ye! Vedic astrologers use the the sidereal zodiac, and most Western astrologers use the tropical zodiac. They have different purposes, and different philosophies. Both zodiacs work. Most Western astrologers are familiar with their sidereal chart — it tells a different story, and can reveal deeper tendencies you may have noticed but not named. I’m a Pisces in tropical astrology but an Aquarius in sidereal astrology. If you’re curious, cast your sidereal chart and see where the planets show up.

The differences between the two or the reasons behind them are not explained here, or anywhere, but they both work! Because he said so! I mean, isn’t it proof enough that astrology can produce vague descriptions that sort of fit anyone? Oops, I meant “deeper tendencies you may have noticed.”

As for Ophiuchus. This is an old hoax. Historically, Ophiuchus has never been listed as a constellation in the sidereal zodiac. It is a constellation out there, but it’s off the ecliptic (that is, it’s not along the path of the Sun through the sky). I’ve read that Ptolemy mentions it in his literature as an off-zodiac constellation, meaning that the Sun never travels through it. In any event, there are some two dozen constellations that touch the ecliptic; but the sidereal zodiac uses just 12 of them.

The origin of the hoax is a sci-fi author named John Sladek — a satire writer who died in 2000. Sladek liked to prank astrology, and he has a whole novel about a fictitious 13th sign based on Ophiuchus he called Arachne that was “suppressed by the scientific community.” The Ophiuchus hoax first made its rounds in the late 1990s and pops up again like those emails from the guy in Nigeria who wants you to send him your bank account number so he can transfer $15 million your way.

Or like astrologers who say they can explain your personality and predict your future, except those pop up in newspapers every freaking day. Glad we cleared up that that’s legitimate, but everything else is a hoax. Thanks.

The irony. It burns like the fire of a thousand Suns conjunct Aries.

*slaps self* Whoops, sorry about that.

The "New Astrology" explained… sort of

I used to be really into astrology. I mean really into it – I had multiple books, drew up my own charts with computer programs, and even did a speech on it for my high school speech class. Being a lifelong atheist, it was my one woo of choice, and I’ve written about this embarrassing fact before. So when this “story” broke that astrological signs have now been “updated” and everyone’s sign is different, I did a triple facepalm.

The first facepalm was shared with the rest of the skeptical community:

1. It doesn’t matter if the signs up are updated, because both new and old signs are complete and utter bullshit. (I admit, I’m a bit hurt at PZ saying “only the deeply gullible and ignorant can fall for it any more.” It’s no more crazy than religion… though I guess a lot of teenagers, including teenage Jen, are gullible and ignorant to an extent.)

The second facepalm was the old astrologist in me bubbling up:

2. This is not news. Most Western astrologers use the Tropical Zodiac. It’s not based on the position of the stars in the sky, but rather when the sun crosses the Tropic of Cancer (the summer solstice), the Tropic of Capricorn (the winter solstice), and the equator (which happens twice). These four points are used to divide the Zodiac into 12 neat little sections that are basically the same from year to year. The “new astrological signs” this press release is talking about is actually using the Sidereal Zodiac, which has been used for ages by Eastern astrologers. That uses the position of the constellations.

If you ask an astrologer why they use one and not the other, they’ll give a BS answer about how one is better for showing certain aspects of your life. I “understood” this ten years ago, so it’s annoying seeing this covered by every news outlet or having a flood of facebook friends babbling about their new sign. Old news, guys.

The third facepalm was aimed at myself:

3. I still have a visceral emotional reaction to people not “understanding” astrology even though I now logically know that it’s all horseshit. If you were formerly religious, you can probably relate to this feeling. Someone says something incorrect about Catholic doctrine, and you feel compelled to correct them even though you’re arguing about something irrelevant because you know the wine isn’t actually blood, or whatever. But you still emotionally revert back to Catholic mode for a second.

When I think “Eww, I am so not a Virgo, I’m totally a Scorpio,” I want to slap myself.

But I wondered how a Western astrologer would respond to this news. If someone who dabbled years ago was annoyed, they must be furious. I looked up my old buddy Eric Francis who drew up my chart around Boobquake (and was nice enough to not get too mad when I tore it apart). Sure enough, he has a post about this news, and it’s just too chock full of goodies to ignore.

After explaining what I went over in my second point, he states “This is not rocket science — but it is science.” Oh yeah, you know it’s going to be good.

So, hear ye, hear ye! Vedic astrologers use the the sidereal zodiac, and most Western astrologers use the tropical zodiac. They have different purposes, and different philosophies. Both zodiacs work. Most Western astrologers are familiar with their sidereal chart — it tells a different story, and can reveal deeper tendencies you may have noticed but not named. I’m a Pisces in tropical astrology but an Aquarius in sidereal astrology. If you’re curious, cast your sidereal chart and see where the planets show up.

The differences between the two or the reasons behind them are not explained here, or anywhere, but they both work! Because he said so! I mean, isn’t it proof enough that astrology can produce vague descriptions that sort of fit anyone? Oops, I meant “deeper tendencies you may have noticed.”

As for Ophiuchus. This is an old hoax. Historically, Ophiuchus has never been listed as a constellation in the sidereal zodiac. It is a constellation out there, but it’s off the ecliptic (that is, it’s not along the path of the Sun through the sky). I’ve read that Ptolemy mentions it in his literature as an off-zodiac constellation, meaning that the Sun never travels through it. In any event, there are some two dozen constellations that touch the ecliptic; but the sidereal zodiac uses just 12 of them.

The origin of the hoax is a sci-fi author named John Sladek — a satire writer who died in 2000. Sladek liked to prank astrology, and he has a whole novel about a fictitious 13th sign based on Ophiuchus he called Arachne that was “suppressed by the scientific community.” The Ophiuchus hoax first made its rounds in the late 1990s and pops up again like those emails from the guy in Nigeria who wants you to send him your bank account number so he can transfer $15 million your way.

Or like astrologers who say they can explain your personality and predict your future, except those pop up in newspapers every freaking day. Glad we cleared up that that’s legitimate, but everything else is a hoax. Thanks.

The irony. It burns like the fire of a thousand Suns conjunct Aries.

*slaps self* Whoops, sorry about that.

Speaking in Seattle this week… twice!

If you Seattlites aren’t sick of seeing me yet, you should come to one of my talks this week! Or you can be an Uber Fan and come to BOTH! Crazy, I know. Here’s the info if you’re interested:

Boobquake and its Aftershocks
Saturday, January 15th at 1:00 pm
Followed by a town hall-style discussion on how atheists/freethinkers handle the holidays.
Light refreshments provided.
Greenwood Public Library
8016 Greenwood Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103
Hosted by the Seattle Atheists

My Trip to the Creation Museum
Tuesday, January 18th at 7:00pm
Eat, drink, and be entertained by the horrors of the Creation Museum!
Blue Star Cafe & Pub
4512 Stone Way N
Seattle, WA 98103
Hosted by the Seattle Skeptics

I’ve been going to the meetings of both of these groups since I moved here and enjoy them a lot! I’m honored to be presenting for them. And I’d be even happier if people showed up, so stop by!

And in case you’re not in the Seattle area, don’t worry – I have a lot of conferences planned in the next couple months. So far I’ll be in Southern California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Boston, and Kamloops BC. Check out my speaking page for all the info.

Skeptical Valentines

If you and your significant other consider this “your song”…

…then here’s a great idea for a Valentine’s Day gift! Katie Hartman and other Skepticon volunteers are selling handmade skepticism-themed Valentine’s cards to raise money for Skepticon 4. There are a bunch of choices, ranging from nerdy to blasphemous:I’m kind of hoping The Trophy Wife gives PZ the one that says “You’ll do until PZ Myers is single” for irony’s sake. Or PZ could get that for his wife, and… yeah, I have no idea what that would even mean. Maybe not the best idea.

(Via JT’s blog)

Gay rights are to blame for massive bird deaths

Everyone around here should know by now that any disturbance in the natural world is a direct result of God agreeing with the political agenda of the religious right. Here’s yet another example: the recent massive bird deaths are all because of DADT being repealed!

Cindy Jacobs is obviously wrong. Birds aren’t dying because Americans made progress in gay rights! Birds are dying because they’re so gay! With your lesbian albatrosses, and gay penguins (who got a book deal to corrupt our youth, no less)… There are so many examples of homosexual behavior in birds that Wikipedia has a list devoted to it!

No wonder why god struck them down. It’s just unnatural.

Sometimes I wonder if there's any hope for skepticism

My friend Mark sent me to an excellent article over at National Geographic that explains all of the recent mass bird deaths people have been freaking out about. Is it the Apocalypse? Do we need to call Kirk Cameron?! Was 2012 a typo and the Mayans meant 2011?!?!

Nope. Turns out it’s normal, and the media decided to hype it up:

But the in-air bird deaths aren’t due to some apocalyptic plague or insidious experiment—they happen all the time, scientists say. The recent buzz, it seems, was mainly hatched by media hype.

At any given time there are “at least ten billion birds in North America … and there could be as much as 20 billion—and almost half die each year due to natural causes,” said ornithologist Greg Butcher, director of bird conservation for the National Audubon Society in Washington, D.C.

But what causes dead birds to fall from the sky en masse? The Arkansas case points to two common culprits: loud noises and crashes.

What follows is a more in depth explanation that I, as a biologist, found interesting. I was content knowing skepticism had prevailed once again… until I made the mistake of reading the comments. Emphasis mine:

?Now that the evil media brought falling dead birds to our attention I ask why hasn’t NG ever done a documentary on this ‘common’ occurrence that apparently the general population knows nothing about? It is strange that so many of us have not witnessed birds dropping from the sky at a fireworks show. World firework competitions are held every year in my area and not one bird has died from blunt force trauma. I know wind turbines are deadly for birds and bats and solutions are being examined. I remember a robin hitting the window one day… it was stunned and it took awhile, but he eventually flew away… obviously a lucky one.“

“Alfred Hitchcock knew a thing or two! Birds don’t fall from the sky! We’ve been setting off fireworks for 235 years and this has NEVER happened!!! Wake up America! This is just another government compromise for terror! Are we going to wait until PEOPLE start dropping dead in the streets? Get A grip”

“What else did she say that ya’ll aren’t printing? What’s up with this story? “Birds just die all the time, no big!!” Well, they don’t fall from the sky all the time. And our global environment isn’t poisoned all the time like it was with this gulf spill made worse by corexit. Then you’ve got cell masts and communications technology that has been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier and dead birds and health problems surrounding cell masts.
What’s the deal here, National Geo? I subscribe and love your articles and photos.. You’re one of the best. But printing garbage like this really makes me lose faith. I thought, Oh good! National Geographic did a story on this. Then I read it and felt very frustrated.
Birds do not fall en masse out of the sky all the time. It does not happen. Does Mr. Whatsit from the Audobahn society think we’re all stupid?
Do you?”

Yes, yes I do.

I was about to lament that there was no hope, but as I was writing this post, this comment appeared:

almost all of theses skeptical comments are more irrational than unexplained mass animal death. Little creatures are most susceptible to minute events. Your anecdotal evidence that “i’ve never heard of this” or “this has never happened” has zero weight in the real world of animal life. You ignore basic facts of animal life that has happened since thousands of years before your ignorance was formed and insist there must be something sinister happening.

your tinfoil hats reflecting sunlight probably kill more birds through disorientation than any of your made up fantasies.

One out of 25 people being sane is good, right? …Right?

Sometimes I wonder if there’s any hope for skepticism

My friend Mark sent me to an excellent article over at National Geographic that explains all of the recent mass bird deaths people have been freaking out about. Is it the Apocalypse? Do we need to call Kirk Cameron?! Was 2012 a typo and the Mayans meant 2011?!?!

Nope. Turns out it’s normal, and the media decided to hype it up:

But the in-air bird deaths aren’t due to some apocalyptic plague or insidious experiment—they happen all the time, scientists say. The recent buzz, it seems, was mainly hatched by media hype.

At any given time there are “at least ten billion birds in North America … and there could be as much as 20 billion—and almost half die each year due to natural causes,” said ornithologist Greg Butcher, director of bird conservation for the National Audubon Society in Washington, D.C.

But what causes dead birds to fall from the sky en masse? The Arkansas case points to two common culprits: loud noises and crashes.

What follows is a more in depth explanation that I, as a biologist, found interesting. I was content knowing skepticism had prevailed once again… until I made the mistake of reading the comments. Emphasis mine:

?Now that the evil media brought falling dead birds to our attention I ask why hasn’t NG ever done a documentary on this ‘common’ occurrence that apparently the general population knows nothing about? It is strange that so many of us have not witnessed birds dropping from the sky at a fireworks show. World firework competitions are held every year in my area and not one bird has died from blunt force trauma. I know wind turbines are deadly for birds and bats and solutions are being examined. I remember a robin hitting the window one day… it was stunned and it took awhile, but he eventually flew away… obviously a lucky one.“

“Alfred Hitchcock knew a thing or two! Birds don’t fall from the sky! We’ve been setting off fireworks for 235 years and this has NEVER happened!!! Wake up America! This is just another government compromise for terror! Are we going to wait until PEOPLE start dropping dead in the streets? Get A grip”

“What else did she say that ya’ll aren’t printing? What’s up with this story? “Birds just die all the time, no big!!” Well, they don’t fall from the sky all the time. And our global environment isn’t poisoned all the time like it was with this gulf spill made worse by corexit. Then you’ve got cell masts and communications technology that has been shown to cross the blood-brain barrier and dead birds and health problems surrounding cell masts.
What’s the deal here, National Geo? I subscribe and love your articles and photos.. You’re one of the best. But printing garbage like this really makes me lose faith. I thought, Oh good! National Geographic did a story on this. Then I read it and felt very frustrated.
Birds do not fall en masse out of the sky all the time. It does not happen. Does Mr. Whatsit from the Audobahn society think we’re all stupid?
Do you?”

Yes, yes I do.

I was about to lament that there was no hope, but as I was writing this post, this comment appeared:

almost all of theses skeptical comments are more irrational than unexplained mass animal death. Little creatures are most susceptible to minute events. Your anecdotal evidence that “i’ve never heard of this” or “this has never happened” has zero weight in the real world of animal life. You ignore basic facts of animal life that has happened since thousands of years before your ignorance was formed and insist there must be something sinister happening.

your tinfoil hats reflecting sunlight probably kill more birds through disorientation than any of your made up fantasies.

One out of 25 people being sane is good, right? …Right?

Getting off my ASS for the SSA

I have a little bet going with JT Eberhard, who you may remember as the brains behind Skepticon and the new high school organizer for the Secular Student Alliance. JT and I were discussing our dismay at the extra pudge we’ve put on, the holiday season definitely not helping despite our godlessness. Finding motivation to get off our butts is hard for two bloggers, but we came up with a good idea: Competition!

JT and I are both speaking at the SSA regional leadership conference in Southern California on February 19th. Starting on January 1st, whoever can lose more weight before February 19th is the winner. And to turn it into a good cause, we’re encouraging our readers to donate to charity to support our goal. If you want to be awesome, you can support me by using the widget below to donate to the SSA.

You can either donate a flat amount, or pledge (in the comments) to donate a certain amount per pound I lose. JT and I will post updates every Saturday, so you can either donate as we go along, or wait until February 19th in case you think I’m going to break down and gain it all back in a Day After Valentine’s Day Chocolate Sale moment of weakness.

And if you want to be less awesome, I guess you could always support JT by donating to Skepticon.

It wouldn’t be a bet without consequences. The loser has to buy the other drinks for the whole night at the conference. It’s kind of unfortunate that JT is going to spend a significant portion of his first paycheck from the SSA buying me alcohol, but oh well.

Anyway, I hope you’ll donate! The SSA and Skepticon are both great causes, and who doesn’t want their skeptics to adopt healthier lifestyles?*

*And in case anyone thinks a weight loss competition will just encourage unhealthy dieting or starvation… trust me, I like food way too much. I plan on cracking out DDR and EA Sports Active 2 every day. Yes, I will win this nerdily!

——

EDIT: JT thinks he has me beat with his plan to eat lots of pizza in order to gain weight before January 1st. Oh yeah? Well you know what I have to say to that?!?!Great minds think alike. (Yes, that’s the best Game Face I can come up with)

This needed to be said about rape allegations

And Furry Girl says it perfectly [Warning, NSFW link], in respect to the Julian Assange drama :

When lefties fanatically spearhead every rape/abuse allegation leveled by anyone, they are creating an environment that enables and even encourages false accusations from angry parties. While it’s a travesty that police and courts tend to not believe people claiming that they have been sexually assaulted, the solution is not to unquestioningly champion anyone who makes the claim. Never believing and always believing allegations are both wrong. Rape and assault are awful, fucked up things, but that doesn’t mean claims shouldn’t be subjected to any fact-checking or skepticism. Murder is awful, too, and even with our badly flawed judicial system, we still generally try and sort out the facts and give the accused their day in court and a chance to defend themselves.

Hysterics will no doubt claim that I’m defending rape or don’t take it seriously. On the contrary: I consider rape and sexual assault accusations to be so serious that they deserve extra consideration and yes, even questioning when it’s warranted. I think we’re obligated to turn a critical eye on potentially fraudulent allegations. As someone who recently sung the praises of vigilante justice, I’m clearly all in favor of exacting harsh physical and social revenge upon rapists, predators, and abusers – but if you’re going to do that to someone, you had better be sure.

What is the workable alternative to having some degree of caution about rape accusations? Is the argument that rape is so terrible that it’s morally justifiable to destroy innocent lives in the pursuit of ferreting out any potential rapists? (The word for that is collateral damage.)

Make sure to read the whole article, as it’s a great overview on what’s gone down in Assange’s case specifically.

The only thing I disagree with Furry Girl about is her labeling this as a problem of the “feminist left.” I’m part of the feminist left, but I’m first and foremost a skeptic. This is just one of the many reasons why I think it’s so important to get more women to be skeptical thinkers. Questioning does not make us a “tool of the patriarchy” – questioning is empowering.

My interview at Radio Freethinker

In which I discuss women in skepticism (it’s a little less than half way in*).

I was a bit sleep deprived thanks to a long post-talk pub night the evening before, and the interview took place early morning sans coffee, so I don’t quite remember what I said. Something about ladies and skepticism and such.

A ringing endorsement, I know. Oh well, go listen! Thanks to Ethan and Chloe for having me be a part of the show.

*That’s what she said.**

**Aren’t I the best spokesperson for women?