The enduring success of horoscopes in so many newspapers and on television and radio must have its reasons. If no one recognized themselves in the personality descriptions offered by psychics, and if their predictions of events did not regularly come true, these features would have disappeared long ago. Could astrology have an objective basis? Set aside the jumble of astronomy and astrology found in many predictions (whether Mars, Venus or Jupiter might influence our lives in ways beyond our control). To understand the remarkable success of astrological predictions, we need only consider their distinctive vocabulary—their semantics and grammar alone. Nothing reveals the true content of horoscopes and their lexical underpinnings better than reading them diligently and regularly. Comparing the claims made by fortune-tellers across all zodiac signs and periods brings to light general semantic rules of remarkable effectiveness.
-
Table, chair and beer mug
------------------------------
But first, what of mathematical semantics? According to some mathematicians, mathematical concepts are introduced through rigorous definitions based on an axiomatic system: they are independent of the words used to denote them. But is that really so? Hilbert is generally credited with saying that, in geometry, “point, line and plane” could be replaced by “table, chair and beer mug.” The fact remains that he did not do so. The familiar, intuitive notions of “point,” “line” and “plane” remain closely connected to mathematicians' rigorous definitions. Although arguments fit within a rigorous axiomatic framework and lead to propositions shown to be true (theorems) or false (counterexamples), they are regularly presented in everyday language, leading at times to a higher-level understanding—or even to misunderstanding. Mathematics, then, is not free of grey areas. What about astrology?
