![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Phil Plait rants about the "astronomers just invented a new zodiac sign" thing.
Unlike Plait, I'm pretty sure I remember the last two or three times this came up; actually, I remember reading about it when I was a kid. I'm also aware that there are people who treat astrology as a traditional art form and intuition pump instead of a divination technique based on some causal connection. (But this isn't, as far as I can tell, the mindset of most people making positive claims about astrology.)
Regardless, I get the impression that most astrologers are well aware that the "houses signs" (thanks ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mskala) they're dealing with aren't literal constellations, but a set of names for sections of the ecliptic based vaguely on where the constellations were thousands of years ago. From that perspective the intrusion of Ophiuchus on the zodiac shouldn't particularly matter to them at all, nor are an astronomer's concerns about these things particularly relevant.
From either direction, the fundamental misunderstanding behind this story is the idea that, in the modern world, astronomy and astrology have some kind of significant connection to one another. Since they don't, it's difficult to see how astronomers could have any effect on your horoscope, unless astrologers explicitly decide to riff on something they do.
Unlike Plait, I'm pretty sure I remember the last two or three times this came up; actually, I remember reading about it when I was a kid. I'm also aware that there are people who treat astrology as a traditional art form and intuition pump instead of a divination technique based on some causal connection. (But this isn't, as far as I can tell, the mindset of most people making positive claims about astrology.)
Regardless, I get the impression that most astrologers are well aware that the "
mskala) they're dealing with aren't literal constellations, but a set of names for sections of the ecliptic based vaguely on where the constellations were thousands of years ago. From that perspective the intrusion of Ophiuchus on the zodiac shouldn't particularly matter to them at all, nor are an astronomer's concerns about these things particularly relevant.From either direction, the fundamental misunderstanding behind this story is the idea that, in the modern world, astronomy and astrology have some kind of significant connection to one another. Since they don't, it's difficult to see how astronomers could have any effect on your horoscope, unless astrologers explicitly decide to riff on something they do.