Astrology and WWII Leaders

[minoru genda]

Astrology and WWII Leaders

Scorpio:
Erwin Rommel born November 15, 1891.
George Patton born November 11, 1885.
Bernard Montgomery November 17, 1887.
Charles de Gaulle born November 22, 1890.
Curtis Emerson LeMay born November, 15 1906.

Sagittarius:
Albert Kesselring born November 30, 1885.
Erich von Manstein born November 24, 1887.

Gemini:
Günther Lütjens born May 25, 1889.
Heinz Guderian born June 17, 1888.

Aries:
Ernst Lindemann born March 28, 1894.

Taurus:
Adolf Hitler born April 20, 1889.

Capricorn:
Gunther Prien January 16, 1908.

[Pr_Eugen]

Excuse...
In what sense???
There is any correlation?

[minoru genda]

That's what I'm traying to find.
For those who believe in astrology there must be some correlation and for those who don't it is just coincidence.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Yeah, that people copulate a lot in February at the end of XIX Century...


Ah, and also the exception to the rule: if we want to believe that November is a month in which military genius are born then De Gaulle is the exception that confirms the rule...

[RF]

Astrology is a complete load of tosh.

As any professional astronomer will tell you, the positions of the constellations no longer correspond to the dates they are supposed to represent. That is because the Earth and solar system are not at fixed points in the universe, but are revolving around the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

[Karl Heidenreich]

What we see of the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is the light emited four years ago!

[RF]

What you see from Alpha Centauri is light from Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B and Proxima Centauri, at varying periods of between four and five light years depending on their relative positions to each other and to Earth, and as Proxima Centauri is a flare star even here there is substantial light variation.
You can't plan a campaign on that.

[lwd]

Astrology is a complete load of tosh...

Although it may not always have been.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

Although it may not always have been.

I´m mystified...

[lwd]

Prior to the modern era people ate for the most part what they could get locally. This was often sesonal in nature. Prenatal and early natal nutrition can have considerable impact on brain development. Since the constellations visible at birth also correlate with seasons there could well be a correlation with certian mental characteristics and the constellations. This effect would likely be stronger in marginal societies and would very from place to place but ....

[RF]

....is there really any evidence for this?

Astrology is an easy cop out for people to ''explain'' phenomena they just do not understand.

[lwd]

Evidence for what?
Seasonal dietary variation in preindustrial societies? Yes
Seasonal food shortages in the same? Yes
Selective effects of nutrition and brain development in prenatal and early natal development? Yes
There's also seasonal variation in vitamin D due to exposure to sunlight.
Note that this would imply that astrology in preindustrial societies might have some predictive value. It doesn't imply that the "stars" control our or their lives. Just that there is a correlation between certain traits and birth month. (ie correlation does not equal causation). Astronomy was big in preindustrial agrarian societies because it helped determine when to plant things. Most such societies did not have huge surpluses and planting early and loosing a crop was a dissaster as was planting late and not getting one in.

[RF]

With respect, this evidence is superficial and metaphysical. There may be loose correlations as you define but that does not elevate astrology to a legitimate science. Neither can it offer reliable prediction, even if believers think it does.

In fact many societies prior the the Enlightenment believed that the stars regulated their lives, not entirely unresonable as the sun regulates our lives and indeed there would be no life on this planet without the sun. I think it is more reasonable than millions of people believing in God and in the totalitarian religions we have today.

[RF]

. Astronomy was big in preindustrial agrarian societies because it helped determine when to plant things. Most such societies did not have huge surpluses and planting early and loosing a crop was a dissaster as was planting late and not getting one in.

Please, please do not insult astronomers by confusing astronomy with astrology.

Astronomy is the oldest of the physical sciences, and in part gave rise to mathematics.

Pre-industrial societies did use astronomical phenomena as you say, but remember also that they had by definition a primitive techmological base, no fertiliser, proper irrigation/flood control, proper storage etc

[lwd]

With respect, this evidence is superficial and metaphysical.

No it is neither.

There may be loose correlations as you define but that does not elevate astrology to a legitimate science. Neither can it offer reliable prediction, even if believers think it does.

As to whether or not it is a science that depends on the defintion of both science and astrology. If you consider it a (admitedly unsophisticated) study of the correlation of birth month and certain mental or even physical characteristics then it might be fairly catagorized as such. If it's a field that tries to predict ones future based on the controlling influence of the stars then no. Note that even if it was valid in the context I raise above the "astrology" in one location would have to be considerably different than the "astrology" in another. Furthermore it would be almost completely irrelevant in todays society.

. Astronomy was big in preindustrial agrarian societies because it helped determine when to plant things. Most such societies did not have huge surpluses and planting early and loosing a crop was a dissaster as was planting late and not getting one in.

Please, please do not insult astronomers by confusing astronomy with astrology.

Astronomy is the oldest of the physical sciences, and in part gave rise to mathematics.

In ancient times there was little difference between the two. The divergence only comes in the last few hundred years.

Pre-industrial societies did use astronomical phenomena as you say, but remember also that they had by definition a primitive techmological base, no fertiliser, proper irrigation/flood control, proper storage etc

I think you do them a bit of an injustice. Fertilizer was used by many pre-industrial societies as was irrigation and flood control (not sure what you mean by proper in this context). Some ancient storage techniques were also quite good.