Inaccurate Headlines

[Andara Bledin]

So, there's this big kerfuffle over some astronomer making commentary on the actual position of the sun as related to the zodiac.

This is not anything new. Astronomers have been making this distinction for quite some time, as the earth's position and rotation are not static. Also, this is an astronomical observation, which is not the same as an astrological proclamation.

Yet, nearly every headline on the subject is some over-the-top claim that our sun signs aren't what we thought they were. The astronomer in question is honestly surprised at the attention, since it's not anything particularly new or newsworthy.

But this is only the latest in a long string of bad journalism.

These are veteran news establishments serving up sensationalistic and flat out wrong information in the bid to pull eyes to their sites. It's disgusting.

^-.-^

[Ginger Tea]

aye I read that, the whole thing has been known to shift slightly over time hence things like "the age of aquairius" as that would be the most dominant in wherever they are looking
but astrologers work that into their stuff

I think too many people get astrolgers and astronmers mixed up in the media

if this was true I would no longer be a scorpio, (but the one before it) and that would only last a week, with this new one inbetween that and sagatarius and one month was even longer
erm what?
13 positions one now 2 weeks longer and another just a week?

[AdminAssistant]

I don't know, but I sure wish people would stop bitching on Facebook about it.

[Ipecac Drano]

The worst that could come of this is some people are going to have to buy new keychains and belt buckles. (I feel sorry for those born under Ophiuchus or Orion!)

Their days (as well as others') aren't going to be affected by this change, just like before.

[lordlundar]

This whole shift says a lot of just how little weight astrology has in real science.

For 30 years I was a Libra and supposed to be a particular type of personality, according to the celestial bodies. Now I'm a Virgo and am now supposed to be a completely different type of personality.

Funny, I woke up today feeling like the same personality as yesterday, and the day before, etc.

[Andara Bledin]

Now I'm a Virgo and am now supposed to be a completely different type of personality.

No, you're not. You're sun sign is still Libra. That's what has me pissed off; that so many so-called news outlets are spewing patently false information.

^-.-^

[IDrinkaRum]

Wait? I'm not a Virgo, but still a Libra?

Huh?

I read the new dates for each sign.

I'm confused.

Could someone please use little words to help me figure this out?

Gah. I need coffee too.

[Ginger Tea]

whatever you were before you read this article, you still are
It's Astronomers talking about things that are normally Astrologers domain
They are two totally different fields of *ahem* expertise, that both rely on needing stars up in the sky, but the media probably can't tell the two apart*

This whole shift says a lot of just how little weight astrology has in real science.

ROFL about the same as people who tout healing christals have to geology, I don't think it has ever claimed to be scientific, there are some maths involved, plotting sun position etc, but hardly a science as in Lab coat and MIT course



*in the same way the news of the world reading mobs couldn't tell the difference between a pediatrician and a pedophile a few years ago

[JustaCashier]

I didn't get around to checking out the "new dates", when I heard of this on the News, but was wondering if I had been affected.

My birthday is September 26, and the switch from Virgo to Libra is around the 21st or 22nd.

I don't necessarily think Astrology is bogus, but take Horoscopes with a grain of salt. I think they probably lean more toward being inaccurate, than accurate, on describing how a particular day will pan out for me.

That being said, I find many of the qualities described of Libras to be accurate in regards to my personality and such, as well as other Signs, and how they pertain to people that I know that are under those particular Signs.


Mike

[BigGiant]

Actually, since the signs and dates associated them were originally made however many thousands of years ago, and since every 2000 years or so the earth's precession (wobble on its axis) shifts enough that a different astrological sign rises on the solstice (or equinox...whichever they use), your "sign" has changed.

Basically if we say that January is for Capricorn (just as an example, I know the dates aren't exactly to the month), when the original charts were made...let's just say 2000 years ago. That means that the sun was rising in the constellation Capricorn on the day you were born...hence Capricorn.

But, since 2000 years have passed since this was originally made, the sun is no longer rising in Capricorn, but whatever the next sign is.

The funny thing is to read what some of the Astrologers have to say about it. One said something to the effect of "I've been getting so many tweets! It is hard to explain something so complex with a character limitation!" - yeah, explaining BS psuedo-science can be pretty difficult.

Anyway, I agree it isn't newsworthy.

[Ipecac Drano]

I'd like to know what "wrong information" is being reported via the headlines in question. Most of the ones I had Googled asked if we have new signs and had answered "no" in the articles.

[Ginger Tea]

My birthday is September 26, and the switch from Virgo to Libra is around the 21st or 22nd.

I belive the term used for crossovers is Cusp, where you might time wise fall on one but characteristically you might be the previous or next, depending on which side of the cross over you are.

I don't necessarily think Astrology is bogus, but take Horoscopes with a grain of salt. I think they probably lean more toward being inaccurate, than accurate, on describing how a particular day will pan out for me.

The ammount of people born on the same day as you in the same year will probably have drastically different days to you also, even more so when you factor into time zones, but still all born in the same time zone and not closer to the next day or last from your point of view, it's still hard to say you would find many that match.

That being said, I find many of the qualities described of Libras to be accurate in regards to my personality and such, as well as other Signs, and how they pertain to people that I know that are under those particular Signs.

Actually, now I'm lost, I don't follow other dates I only know I'm listed as a scorpio, so are you a Libra or do you find youself more libra like and Cusp like my first response?

But, if the classic traits of your sign were re written (ala time travel not this hookum) to swap your main attributes, brave = cowardly, focused = scatterbrained, swapping positve for negative and vise versa, you could probably see those traites in you also.

I can be volitile at times, mostly at work and due to work, but I think I would be like that regardless of my birth date or zodiac sign, its just one characteristic of my sign, if it wasn't I would still be me, it just wouldn't be a classic traight.

[Hyena Dandy]

As a fairly new agey guy, I've always called astrology bullshit. And even when I haven't called it bullshit, perhaps you can read things in the sky and I don't know, but you can't tell everything just from the month. I got a work-up out of idle curiosity, and they ask a lot more than what month you were born. They include the day, time, and place as well...

Point I'm making is that astrology is bullshit. And even the astrology that tries not to be bullshit still thinks newspaper horoscopes are bullshit.

[Andara Bledin]

I'd like to know what "wrong information" is being reported via the headlines in question. Most of the ones I had Googled asked if we have new signs and had answered "no" in the articles.

The first three articles I read all mentioned people having different sun signs with no mention about it being an astronomical and not astrological observation which would have nothing to do with one's zodiac sign.


Here's one from Winnipeg Free Press.
Another from ValleyCentral.com by Action 4 News.
This from Newsroom New Jersey.

Those are all from the first dozen Google News responses.

Of course, I first read about it when it was still the "hot topic" and well before many publishers had the opportunity to wipe the egg off their faces and correct their accounts.

The ammount of people born on the same day as you in the same year will probably have drastically different days to you also, even more so when you factor into time zones, but still all born in the same time zone and not closer to the next day or last from your point of view, it's still hard to say you would find many that match.

The vast majority of people out there only know about sun signs. They don't know about all of the other signs that are supposed to affect a person's basic traits. Nor do they know that the zodiac signs aren't really all that related to the constellations that bear their names.

Regardless, that's largely irrelevant to the thread at large; the astrology/astronomy kerfuffle was just to illustrate a point about bad reporting.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Here's one from Winnipeg Free Press.

And the astrologers fought back with "Hogwash!" and didn't offer a further explanation.

Another from ValleyCentral.com by Action 4 News.

From that article, we get:

Susan Miller from Astrologyzone.com tells ABC news, "We have studied this as an astrological community and we have made a consensus that when we go back to the old formulas and the old algorithms, they work.

So, Susan, you can't adapt to new information? If the sun's position in the sky is supposed to influence events on Earth, wouldn't it be important to consider that if the sun is actually in another sign that might alter things a bit? Isn't that cheating by ignoring that the sun may be in Virgo and pretending that it's in Libra?

Then there's this:

A spokeswoman for the American Federation of Astrologers, Shelley Ackerman, said she'd been swamped with e-mails from worried clients. She advises them not to overreact.

"This doesn't change your chart at all. I'm not about to use it," she said. "Every few years a story like this comes out and scares the living daylights out of everyone, but it'll go away as quickly as it came."

More defiance? She chooses to ignore recent discoveries?

The first three articles I read all mentioned people having different sun signs with no mention about it being an astronomical and not astrological observation which would have nothing to do with one's zodiac sign.

So, what's the difference between an astronomer's observation of the sun's position and an astrologer's?

Again, I fail to see said "bad reporting". I do see some people denying evidence and clinging to old habits.