/sci/ — Astrologists were right all along

>february spike on valentine's day c-sections
>july 4 no children since mothers don't want to be in labor that day [same for christmas, thanksgiving, and other holidays]
>more babies born in summer since parents stay indoors to fuck in the winter
>new years/christmas/v-day fucking gives august and september babies
nothing mysterious here boychik

File: file.png (300 KB, 1214x840)

>>16995725

>>16995725
wow you shouldn't be allowed to post online or even look at a graph

>>16995729
>chart unrelated

>>16995721 (OP)
>Check source [1]
>Jewish authors
>Check source [2]
>Jewish authors
>Check source [3]
>Jewish authors
it's all so tiresome

>>16995721 (OP)
have there been studies on environmental birth conditions, childhood living conditions and phychological issues?

right now I live in a cold house, and I know it affects me a LOT phychologically. this shit makes me depressed. I lived in the same place as a kid, and I was constantly depressed and shit.

File: horseshit.jpg (286 KB, 1055x1054)

>Astrologists were right all along
Sorry bub, but astrology is a lot more than just the time of the year you were born.

>>16995747
>literally anything happens[1]
>DA JOOS
>literally anything happens[2]
>ISRAEL DID THIS!!!
>literally anything happens[3]
>NETANYAHU KILLED MY GOLDFISH!
it's all so tiresome

Growing up, I thought it was strange that so few of my classmates had a September birthday. For the longest time, I thought having been born in September made me weird. Turns out what happened was the local school system changed the cutoff date for being able to start kindergarten, resulting in a one year cohort of students with far fewer than normal September birthdays. We moved to that town when I was in fifth grade, so we didn't know anything about that rule change half a decade earlier.

File: Timezone-boundary-builder_release_2023d.png (611 KB, 1920x960)

>>16995883
Yes, it's tiresome how often it actually ends up being true. That said, the anon you replied to didn't really have a good point. Just saying "jews" doesn't mean much beyond exercise additional caution and skepticism. He should have pointed about an actual flaw in the study and then noted it was a weird coincidence that the authors are part of small population group that's seems vastly over-represented in certain negative of academic and society.
>>16995781
I'll never forgive astrologicalfags for what they did to the Olson time database. Everything eventually got settled, but not before causing tons of problems for basic computing and networking operations around the world.

>>16995910
If I squint hard enough will I see a jew in that picture?

>>16995907
I'm still convinced May through July birthdays are some psyop to target me specifically. Nobody is really born in those months. I know zero people online or in real life with a May through July birthday. It's inevitable when I find out someone's birthday it's September through November, or rarely August like mine.

13 sign astrology is the most scientifically accurate.

It's not astrologists but months of birth that are important. And the school year is important. Be one of the oldest in your class and you have a year longer to mature and your brain is developed, and that is very important in development, you get picked for more things, are usually stronger etc. Be one of the youngest in the year and you tend to be slightly smaller, weaker, brain less developed, easier target for bullying.

Yeah they catch up eventually but the confidence gained from being 6-7 months older than everyone else has a compounding effect.

>>16995721 (OP)
is central limit theorum a myth?

>>16995911
Yep rotate clockwise 90 then look at india

>>16995721 (OP)
There's a grain of truth in astrology and not a single credible study has debunked it. Scientists just assume it's bullshit so very few have bothered to give it a fair shake. (Which is not very scientific, but what do you do; 90% of scientists are retards just like everyone else.) The few studies "debunking astrology" have amounted to exposing charlatans (people selling birth charts, fortune tellers and the like).

>>16995725
this
/thread

>>16995729
>>16995730
You guys wrongly assume he was commenting on OP's subject rather than the pattern of birthdates. Reading comprehension is key.

>>16995781
That's literally the point of OP's post.

>>16996131
Sidereal Astrology is what Indians use. Tropical Astrology is what everyone else uses, and is treated as accurate. The reason Sidereal works less (if at all) than Tropical is because Astrology isn't actually based on the constellations used as symbolism, but more likely the regions of space those constellations then-occupied at time of system conception, meaning their travel out of those regions is irrelevant, because those regions are fixed and their power and influence so too.

>>16997330
Astrology is an interpretive discipline, much like psychology and anthropology. It being "unscientific" has no bearing on its validity. Scientism is a mental illness.

>>16998278
>no bearing on its validity.
And how might we objectively determine whether it is valid? Maybe there is a process for that? A method???

>>16998358
Yes.

You theorize what a placement is supposed to effect. You do this by consulting established theory, historical data (famous charts and their biographies), and personal interviews (readings and conversations with people you can speak with now). Then, you take all of that to come up with an even more focused idea of what a placement is supposed to do. Then, you start applying that theory to random cases and seeing how accurate that assessment is.

It's relatively simple. You just come up with an idea and then test it with charts until it's proven consistent.

>>16998365
> Then, you start applying that theory to random cases and seeing how accurate that assessment is.
Strange. I thought you said "Scientism is a mental illness". And now you propose science.

>You just come up with an idea and then test it with charts until it's proven consistent.
Or it is rejected, and is consistent with random chance.

So where are these big scientific studies proving it works?

>>16998375
>Strange.
What is?
>I thought you said "Scientism is a mental illness".
It is.
>And now you propose science.
Do you want to call that "science"? Because in my understanding, there's more to it than what I wrote. I thought scientism-ists abhorred calling any old intellectual discipline "science"?

>Or it is rejected
If it doesn't work at all, then yeah.
>and is consistent with random chance.
That's the wrong way of thinking about this. One would presumably have had reasons for the postulation, so the failure of their theory is moreso a failure of their interpretation of things, rather than of things to conform to that theory—here, your "random chance" science talk.

>So where are these big scientific studies proving it works?
I already explained to you implicitly that Astrology is essentially exegesis, which scientism "science" doesn't engage in.

>>16998437
>Do you want to call that "science"?
Hypothesis, prediction, experiment, evaluation. Science.

>I thought scientism-ists abhorred calling any old intellectual discipline "science"?
Science is a methodology of investigation. You can investigate ghosts with scientifically, it doesn't make it a discipline of science.

>One would presumably have had reasons for the postulation
Which you have no idea if they are correct or not.

>>So where are these big scientific studies proving it works?
>I already explained to you implicitly that Astrology is essentially exegesis, which scientism "science" doesn't engage in.
Another word for that is dogmatism. It's in a book so it must be true.
This isn't science not engaging, this is astrologers not engaging in scientific demonstrations of their claims.
If you claim there is actual merit to then it must be testable and replaceable.

>>16998449
It's not "dogmatism", it's simply not the same standard of verification you're expecting as a scientism-ist.

You're sophistically trying to paint astrology as being beholden to science's standards because it supposedly uses some of the same procedural steps, when in reality "science" is not synonymous with systems of hypothesizing and testing and verification and therefore doesn't supercede any and all such underneath it, being positioned to judge whether any such beneath it is worthy of it. *That* is dogmatic.

It *is* testable, and doesn't need to be typed up in a paper with figures and graphs to be valuable either. If you want to test it, you can do some basic research on commonly agreed upon interpretations of certain placements and see if it lines up with what you know about certain people who have them.

Aries master race here