Principle of Astrology Proven to be Scientific!

Principle of astrology proven to be scientific: planetary position imprints biological clocks of mammals

Researchers demonstrate scientific principle of astrology Skeptics must be further bewildered by the new research published in Nature Neuroscience and conducted at Vanderbilt University which unintentionally provides scientific support for the fundamental principle of astrology -- namely, that the position of the planets at your time of birth influences your personality.

In this study, not only did the birth month impact personality; it also resulted in measurable functional changes in the brain.

www.naturalnews.com...

I didn't see this posted anywhere else, but if I missed it, mods - you know what to do!

Here is the link to the actual study that Mike Rivero draws his compelling conclusions from:

Perinatal photoperiod imprints the circadian clock

The author's conclusion depends on the conflation of causation and correlation, and is misleading. The crux of the results of the study is that the season in which a mouse (in this case, although presumably the results can be generalized to some extent) is born effects the mouse's brain and therefore its behavior. Saying that there is a connection to the seasons and saying that the effect is a result of the position of the planets are two different things.

There are no astrological forces at work here. The position of the planets have nothing to do with the observed effect; there is no mechanism by which they can exert a significant influence on biology, they are too far away. There are seasonal changes that occur within the mother that could account for the results much better than some mysterious influence coming from Jupiter or Mars.

There are clear physiological changes in many animals that are associated with the seasons. It's reasonable to suspect that these changes could influence the animals offspring. As the seasons change, the position of the planets changes also, but this is irrelevent; it just happens to be something that is occuring, it's not causing anything at the biological level.

The theory of astrology isn't really a theory until some causal mechanism is proposed, and as long as that mechanism is magic, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

Consider this text from published article linked above:

Environmental factors, particularly light, can markedly influence neural development1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It is known that seasonal light input can acutely reorganize the mature biological clock located in the suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN)6, but whether development under different seasonal photoperiods can imprint the mammalian circadian clock is unknown. We exposed mice to different seasonal developmental photoperiods (short day, light:dark (LD) 8:16; long day, 16:8) until weaning, followed by 4 weeks of a matching or counter-balanced continuation seasonal photoperiod. At approximately 7 weeks of age, we either assayed the properties of their SCN circadian clocks by ex vivo imaging of a dynamic fluorescent reporter of circadian gene activity (as in ref. 7, see Supplementary Methods) or recorded wheel-running behavior in constant darkness (Supplementary Fig. 1). All animal care was conducted in accordance with Vanderbilt University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines. In mature mice raised on LD 12:12 light cycles, seasonal photoperiod has been shown to be encoded by altering the relative peak times of individual neuronal electrical or molecular rhythms in the SCN, with long days eliciting more dispersed timing of neuronal rhythms and a broadened overall rhythmic waveform, and short days eliciting an increased degree of neuronal synchrony and a narrowed SCN waveform8, 9, 10. Analysis of the main effects of the proximal continuation photoperiod with our mouse line and reporter imaging method revealed similar findings, with long days eliciting SCN molecular waveform broadening, primarily as a result of increased variation in the phases of individual clock neurons, but with substantial changes in neuronal waveform and period as well (Supplementary Results, Supplementary Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 1).

The authors are investigating the effects of seasonal lighting conditions, not the position of the planets. Their experiment was completely disconnected from the actual seasons; their lighting conditions were artifical. They didn't even test mice born in different calendar seasons. They varied the artificial light in order to mimic the lighting conditions of different seasons.

The experimental conditions rule out the astrological explanation without a doubt. (Thats not to say that astrology is disproven by this study, only that it is a matter of fact that this study does not support astrology.)

reply to post by OnceReturned


Great cautious rebuttal to Mike Rivero's article. I have to admit, I am still working through the research article to see how far I might be able to endorse some of Rivero's conclusions.

The theory of astrology isn't really a theory until some causal mechanism is proposed, and as long as that mechanism is magic, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

The same could be said of Darwin's theory of evolution (in which I happen to believe). You see, that theory purports that evolution is based on natural selection acting on random mutations. As there is no causal explanation for the random mutations, it is as if they appear by magic. That is why evolution is only a theory, and an incomplete one at that. This seems to be a similar situation.

P.S. Thanks for the elaboration. I will review your points. I don't necessarily agree with Adams' conclusions (that was his provocative article title) and posted it to, hopefully, spur a lively discussion

reply to post by GirlGenius

As there is no causal explanation for the random mutations, it is as if they appear by magic

As far as I know the cause of most mutations is errors in the reproduction of DNA. For instance there are mutations were you get a redundant copy of a gene. The mechanism for adding new information to the genome via mutation is fairly well understood and, as far as I know, there's no magic involved.



As for astrology I really don't think so. The poster above has it right, while the seasons may effect physiology the planets and stars are all too far away to have any real effect. Any correlation found is likely coincidental.

The original article in Nature Neuroscience states :

we found that the perinatal photoperiod has lasting effects on the circadian rhythms

The study involved varying the ratio of daylight hours to darkness hours (simulating seasonal variations) in the environment of newly-born mice and observed their neurological behavior. Their conclusions?

These results indicate that there is an environmental imprinting of the mammalian circadian clock

But the referring article in Natural News misquoted the author and described the results as:

unintentionally provides scientific support for the fundamental principle of astrology -- namely, that the position of the planets at your time of birth influences your personality

Just goes to show how information can be twisted to make a (fallacious) point.

In fact, now that I think more about it, the research actually disproves the concept of astrology...in that the day/night cycles in the mice's environment was artificially produced in a lab, regardless of the actual time of year. The mice responded to the light conditions, not to the positions of the planets.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

As far as I know the cause of most mutations is errors in the reproduction of DNA.

That is an assumption. A theist or physicist might theorize that there is a teleological or purposeful causation factor that uses feedback from future states to influence current observations, evidence of which can be found in recent physics findings. This is a much more compelling explanation, IMO. Perhaps when I have more time, I'll start a thread on it because it's a little off-topic here.

I merely brought in the example to highlight the invocation of magical assumptions that abound in science

reply to post by GirlGenius


Magic is never called for in science. Any intellectually honest scientist will admit that there is plenty that we just don't know about the Universe rather than invoking magic or god(s) to fill the gaps in knowledge. I don't know of any evolutionary biologist who would invoke magic to explain mutations which, as I stated, are fairly well understood at this point.

There's no magic at work in this "Astrology" study either. They did a similar experiment, I believe it was in the 70s, where a man was placed in a cave underground and he still lived on a 24 hour cycle despite having no contact with the sun or moon. All of this does go to show how in tune we are with our planet (although for the mice things were simulated). Kinda makes me wonder what it'll be like when people start living on other planets, maybe then Mars really will affect people's destiny

Once a women is impregnated put her in a Faraday Cage and leave her in it until she gives birth.

Leave the child in the Faraday Cage until he's 5.

I bet you'd find the kid would be in a coma or a vegetable.

Astrobiology explains which souls can enter a new physical body. It shows when their door is opened to enter Earth and claim a piece of meat to exist within.

By using a Faraday Cage in the manner above I believe Astrobiology could be proven as fact.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Exactly. My invocation of "magic" was in response to another poster. I merely pointed out that if you invoked it in astrology, you can point to other instances and say the same. Glad I was able to make that point

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by GirlGenius

 

Magic is never called for in science. Any intellectually honest scientist will admit that there is plenty that we just don't know about the Universe rather than invoking magic or god(s) to fill the gaps in knowledge. I don't know of any evolutionary biologist who would invoke magic to explain mutations which, as I stated, are fairly well understood at this point.

Any scientific "hypothetical" could be equated as "magic," and you could even say modern science is descended directly from the ancient study of magic. Dark energy, dark matter, and dark flow are good examples of such hypotheticals, which outside of a scientific context would almost universally be considered "magic."

Something tells me our science has reached the peak of it's potential, and will not go too much further until "legitimate" sciences and "illegitimate" sciences are merged. There is a lot of valid wisdom sitting right under our noses, but science is afraid to tread in such water (must be the grant money).

After reviewing the research article, I find Adams' comments to be reasonable. The researchers conclude that

The seasonal imprinting of the biological clock that we found likely has further implications for circadian-influenced neurobehavioral disorders. Perinatal exposure to winter-like seasonal light cycles identical to our procedure induces persistent elevated depressive and anxiety-like behaviors in rodents14, and winter-born humans exhibit enhanced rates and severity of seasonal affective disorder, as well as elevated risk of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia6. In addition, individuals with seasonal affective disorder also exhibit enhanced circadian responses to seasonal light cycles15, similar to the short day–matured mice that we used. An understanding of the mechanisms by which seasonal stimuli shape the circadian system during development may contribute to understanding the neural basis of seasonality and the influence of season on neurobehavioral disorders.

The relationship between personality style and neurbehavioral (i.e., psychological) disorders is already quite well-known so it is fair for Adams to extrapolate, IMO.


PS I erroneously referred to Mike Adams as (Mike) Rivero earlier. Unfortunately, I could not edit my earlier post.

reply to post by xiphias


You make some excellent points. Unfortunately, mainstream science is reductionistic/materialistic so you are correct. It is hitting a wall. This is easy to see for individuals who do not not possess a worldview of strict materialism. This is why you see some in the physics community considering ideas that may have seemed outlandish a few years ago.

reply to post by GirlGenius


The important bit is this:

Perinatal exposure to winter-like seasonal light cycles identical to our procedure induces persistent elevated depressive and anxiety-like behaviors in rodents...

The emphasis is my own. The effects of interest in this experiment were brought about by lighting that was intended to simulate seasonal lighting conditions. This means that the effects are totally unrelated to planetary motion and therefore unrelated to astrology. It is simply the lighting conditions - in the lab or in the real world - that have an impact, regardless of the positions of the planets. Since the "winter effect" is observed in the real world when it's actually winter and in the lab when the lighting simulates winter, the winter configuration of the planets cannot be implicated in the "winter effect." If the astrological explanation were true, the effect could not be reproduced under artificial conditions such as those in the experiment.

reply to post by xiphias


Only dark matter's effects have been observed. It isn't something that's just made up although we don't understand much about it yet. It doesn't count as magic simply because its mysterious.

and will not go too much further until "legitimate" sciences and "illegitimate" sciences are merged.

There's a reason the legitimate sciences are called the legitimate sciences, because they employ the actual scientific method. So called "illegitimate" sciences such as astrology, new age pseudoscience, etc will never be merged with actual science because they don't rely on experiments or the scientific method.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
There's a reason the legitimate sciences are called the legitimate sciences, because they employ the actual scientific method. So called "illegitimate" sciences such as astrology, new age pseudoscience, etc will never be merged with actual science because they don't rely on experiments or the scientific method.

That's exactly the point I'm making. Our own standards are probably holding us back scientifically, or at least slowing us down. It seems science is afraid to touch anything mysterious, or maybe science just isn't imaginative enough, yet.

reply to post by xiphias


The standards are what make science honest. If we didn't use the scientific method it wouldn't be science and we'd drift farther from reality. The reason science is better at describing our world than religion and pseudoscience is because it has standards and it uses the scientific method.

Originally posted by Pervius
Once a women is impregnated put her in a Faraday Cage and leave her in it until she gives birth.
Leave the child in the Faraday Cage until he's 5.
I bet you'd find the kid would be in a coma or a vegetable.
Astrobiology explains which souls can enter a new physical body. It shows when their door is opened to enter Earth and claim a piece of meat to exist within.
By using a Faraday Cage in the manner above I believe Astrobiology could be proven as fact.

To the best of my knowledge astrobiology is a fairly new science which concerns itself with the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. It does not explain which or how souls (if there is even such a thing as a soul) enter a physical body. That is more like the religious/philosophical theory of reincarnation. And I really don't have a clue what the Faraday's cage is supposed to do, and how it proves astrobiology as a fact. Astrobiology is a fact, already, as a theoretical science. Hopefully, someday it will be more than that, but for now we haven't found life anywhere else except on this planet, we call Earth.

I think it's funny that whenever a scientific study challenges the traditional "skeptics'" dogma, they're immediately drawn out to defend their present beliefs as if some army has invaded their intellectual territory.

Just reading the responses here, you can tell the people who have come to attack the article aren't thinking, "Wow, this is an interesting development in psychology/physiology," they're thinking, "Oh God damn it now I have to debunk these stupid people that are wrong again!"