37
I think it would be much more fun for a number of Astrologers to post his chart and discuss his intellectual stagnation in detail in a completely non aggressive, very light hearted mode and make lots of interesting suggestions about his personal life, than to legitemize his so called experiments by dissecting them. But then I'm a bit brutal in some respects (hey, my aries ruler has to show up somewhere)
Why? That does sound like derogatory name-calling of the most futile kind. One can choose to take this argument seriously or simply ignore it. However, one approach that won't earn astrologers any respect is to use astrology to make 'lots of interesting suggestions about his personal life' in an effort to ridicule the man, and therefore, presumably undermine his work.

Terrible suggestion and if you don't want to take the argument seriously then you were free to ignore it and perhaps should have left the discussion to those of us who take a more reasoned view on these issues. :evil:

38
As I'm new to the forum (in it's present incarnation) I apologise if I am repeating points already made in the lengthy discussions - I've tried to go through them as best I can but I might have missed something.

I was trained as a social scientist, studied the philosophy of science and teach statistics and methods of investigation. Firstly the scientific method is rooted in a materialist view of the world and in the collection and analysis of data observed through the five senses. What's more the data needs to be applied to a clearly defined set of concepts and relationships that have been put forward. Here lies one of the first problems that bedevils scientific research - there is often much disagreement about what such concepts are or how the should be measured - Economics (my own discipline) is a great case in point. It's quite possible for research to be carried out and then disputed because of its underlying definitions and assumptions. The end result is that it can be very difficult to change or challenge the prevailing orthodoxy - there is an inbuilt bias and conservatism. The orthodox view is that Astrology is 'superstious nonsense' and really, no amount of research is likely to change this.

Scientific approaches also depend on the 'law of large numbers' - they work at the 'general' level not at the specific. So in Economics there are theories which explain the behaviour of consumers on mass, but not individual consumers. Science is not very good at the specific level.

Scientific method also requires that the research is replicable. That if we carry out the same research again, in the same circumstances then the results will be the same. However Astrology is non-replicable. It is a series of individual and significantly different circumstances. Client A's problems are not the same as Client B's, etc. Indeed Client A's problems now are different from Client A's problems last month and from what they will be next month. Indeed our whole approach is based on the idea that individuals, events, and indeed moments in time are significantly different and cannot be generalised in any meaninful way.

Astrology doesn't really work at a General Level - the same planetary positions or combinations can mean many things. What they mean in a particular set of circumstances is where the art of Astrological interpretation comes in - and yes the Astrologer is vital to the process. What is more Astrologers rarely use one or two symbols in isolation - they look for repeated themes from a variety of symbols and it is quite possible for two Astrologers to come to the same conclusion based on different symbolism but symbolism conveying the same meaning.

I've just finished reading Moment of Astrology by Geoffrey Cornelius and I must admit that I agree largely with his view that Astrology is divination, not science. The Scientific paradigm so dominates our thinking that we rarely question it but there are other ways of viewing the world around us and we should not feel that in order to justify Astrology we have to show that it is scientific in the modern sense of the word.

39
It seems that science as practiced is considered to be an objective experience, but many who practice it are unaware of their subjective involvement. Astrology is ultimately a subjective experience, but many who study and use it are seduced into justifying it in objective terms. The Trickster has plenty here to have fun with.

As in politics, religion, or whatever, true rational thought is lost when ego involvement takes over: I=my ideas. Attack my ideas=attack me. This is solidified and hardened by the desire to be right. Then we are stuck in the muck of irrationality and emotion.

I don?t want to involve astrology in proving the worth of my intellectual abiliites. Astrology gives me a palette to play with, and while playing in my corner of the room I will hopefully be continually changing.

40
Just so Kirk,

In my experience Scientists just don't recognise their own subjectivity entering into their analysis and research. Often their are subjective judgements underlying choice of methods, definitions of concepts and classification issues. The 'good' scientist shoud and does try to make explicit their subjective judgements but overall I've been shocked by the number that don't.

I think the underlying problem in science tends to be a belief that numbers and measurement are objective and value free. As a lecturer in statistics I know that, for example, even choosing one measure of average instead of another can lead to different conclusions but the impact of this decision is rarely evaluated to begin with. Much of the skill in statistics lies in interpretation and this is certainly not a value free area.

Unfortunately the same can be said of Astrologers, we rarely challenge the underlying axioms and often seem to believe that there is an 'objective' Astrology that can be discovered 'out there' rather than in our own hearts and minds.

41
But is it even worthwhile discussing astrology with the scientific crowd? To answer my own question: Yes (maybe). If positions of belief are dropped and a spirit of exploration is allowed to enter, investigating other world views and disciplines can be a way to new perspectives and an appreciation of the different manifestations of fundamental energies and images. Otherwise it is a waste of time and we are back to ego vs. ego.

Perhaps we are spending too much time with the wrong academic people. Instead of screaming out the window at the scientists in the building across the way, our time may be better spent becoming acquainted with the art and literature professors who are a few doors down the same hall.

42
The Guardian (the only newspaper that won't have a star sign column)recently published comments in a column from a well known astro sceptic. He began his bit on astrology by saying "a funny letter letter arrives. . ." He went on to make fun of an astrologer's qualifications behind her name (DFastrolS, RCastrol), he said he thought astrologers were deranged, that we couldn't agree on the most basic of concepts.
It really made me angry mostly because the astrologer he was insulting is one of my tutors from the faculty. I felt frustrated because there was no way I could respond to him without him answering back with more insults. The whole argument about the validity of astrology is so vast (as it should be) and so complicated (again as it should be) that we may never have an answer in our lifetimes. My point is this: I'm not looking for converts (clients perhaps). I really couldn't care less what Dean believes--but I would like to wipe the condescending smirk off his face, that I have to admit.
Is it really worth our time arguing when these sceptics are challenging us to "prove astrology works" when we already know it does because we se it in action every day. It is important to know what the other camp is saying because we can only benefit from exploring our our beliefs and toughening up our techniques.
I do get asked every now and again if astrology is a religion. I've always said "no" but I'm starting to have my doubts. Maybe faith (science can't measure that either) that Astrology works is just as important as our techniques.
Brilliant stuff from you guys--real food for thought.
And I'm late for work again!
See you,
Alex

43
...he said he thought astrologers were deranged, that we couldn't agree on the most basic of concepts.
Economists and politicians are allowed to get away with it. A fair number of them have sounded deranged to me. I don't want to allow myself to fall into the "they" trap, though. The world seems to have gone into high gear with the us/them, good/evil. either/or way of seeing and understanding the world. I can't do much about the the actions of other people, but I can stop myself from seeing things so simply and bludgeoning others with my views. When I was writing the two previous posts on this topic the current transit of Pluto in Sagittarius popped into my mind. There has been much written on the subject: Power and control in the realm of beliefs and ideas. Our job is to not get caught up in it.

44
Alex,

I think we all get angry with condescending jerks who attack people we care about. It shows your heart is in the right place.

As to proving of disproving astrology, I'm with you I dont get the need. the closest I can come to understanding this desire is that I think you should always question your philosophies to see if they still hold true for you personally, and you should never buy someones assertion that only "X" works, or is valuable, or is correct.... the only's in life are the pluto attractors!

to quote Dido "its just a thought"

Granny

45
Alex,

I think we all get angry with condescending jerks who attack people we care about. It shows your heart is in the right place.

As to proving or disproving Astrology, I'm with you I dont get the need. the closest I can come to understanding this desire is that I think you should always question your philosophies to see if they still hold true for you personally, and you should never buy someones assertion that only "X" works, or is valuable, or is correct.... the only's in life are the Pluto attractors! (Aha! a wall to break down, I can rebuild it!)

to quote Dido "its just a thought"

Granny

46
I haven't read the article completely yet, nor have I read through all of the posts on this thread. But it does bother me that James Brockbank doesn't appear to have answered the question "There is no theory to explain why astrology works." I don't know the answer to this myself. All I know is that astrology works. I have first hand experience of that. But I was recently locked in a debate about astrology with a bunch of sceptics on another forum. I answered all of their questions, many of them more than once, but was unable to answer the question of how astrology works. And because I couldn't answer this, they all sat back and said "There you go. That PROVES astrology doesn't work." So all the valid arguments I put to them were wasted, simply because I couldn't answer this one question. :x I'd really like to know the answer to that one.

Ok, so there is the question of do we really need to prove ourselves to these morons? But I think it's a matter of choice. As an astrologer I believe I have a responsibility to speak up if it is misrepresented. And it constantly is, by scientists. These are people who know diddly squat about astrology, yet because they are scientists, the general public believe everything they say. :???: All of the people I spoke to on that forum had no knowledge of astrology other than what they had seen in sun sign columns. No matter how many times I told them that this was not real astrology, they still threw this argument back at me. They cited all the common 'scientific' tests on sun sign astrology that (not surprisingly) didn't work. I explained why, but it fell on deaf ears. There were a couple of people who I was able to have an adult conversation with, and I will be speaking to these people again. Some of their arguments were intelligent and worthy of further discussion. Although they haven't changed their opinions on astrology, they did take on board what I said and have said they learned something in the process.

But if anyone does know the answer to the first question, or can point me in the direction of some literature on it, I would be really grateful as I know I'm going to get asked this again at some point.

47
The reason they were clinging to that argument is this - even if astrologers were able to provide conclusive and indisputable evidence in a statistical setting that astrology works, it still wouldn?t be accepted within the scientific community because there is no scientifically-accepted mechanism to explain why it works. Within science it isn?t so much the results that matter as the theory (the mechanism) that supports it. Within the science of mathematics, for example, it isn?t the fact that 3 times 3 can be reliably demonstrated to equal 9; it?s the establishment of a principle, or a fundamental law that means that this is not only demonstrably consistent, but can never be anything but consistent. Science is established by building one demonstrated and proven principle on top of another, so it can accept very grand suppositions that can never be verified outside of theory, but places no value on something that appears to prove itself in practice but isn?t constrained by an established law.

We don?t have a mechanism to support astrology ? what we have is a philosophy, mainly that all ?individual? life is really an interconnected part of a greater being, the universe (the whole), the collective influence of which drives us in the same way that an atom of water is driven by the tides of the sea. Astrology also assumes that individuals have a subconscious recognition of ?universal will? which allows us to recognise its signature in the natural world through fundamental principles such as shape, form, colour, luminosity, etc. Many great scientific advances have been made by astronomers and philosophers who worked with those principles to originate new laws accepted by science. In fact the philosophy of astrology has spawned too many thousands of scientific advances to be counted by mortal man, but it will never be a science in its own right because too much of it has to be approached symbolically and symbols yield themselves to circumstances and therefore reject the ?this has to equal this? demands of science.

Astrology, as a philosophy, works in a contra-direction to science. Science develops knowledge from the smallest principle up, but the unyielding principle of astrology is the assumption of universal consistency (all life is connected, all movement has meaning, purpose governs all) and then filters this knowledge down into subject areas where it is capable of distortion, so judgement is needed to extract its meaning. Because of the conflict in the way that the acquisition of knowledge is attained, it?s hardly surprising that scientists and astrologers can feel so averse to each other when claiming to possess it! I think the world needs both approaches and the real conflict arises when astrologers attempt to gain scientific credulity whilst refusing to recognise how judicial their knowledge is, and vice-versa when scientists try to impose themselves on ridiculing the central tenets of astrology. I know quite a few ?hard-nosed? scientists who reject astrology out of hand, but then when you ask them if they reasonably believe that the planets in our solar system including the Sun and Moon have no influence upon us or connection with life on earth, they become stuck ? because they know, of course, that they do, but they don?t know how deep the connection goes or how to effectively measure it. Most will accept that there is ?something? in astrology, but with no mechanism to support its methods, they just don?t know what to make of it.

48
Hi,

Deb makes some good points. Part of the problem, I believe, is that only certain questions and answers count in a given discipline, so conversations across disciplines can easily break down unless you have people conversant in both. This is especially so when dealing with questions of metaphysics. Suppose I go to the symphony, and you ask me later what it was like. You are asking me a value-question, an aesthetics question. But if I say, "Well, there were many vibrations of such-and-such frequency," what I'm saying is technically true but it's clear I have not answered the question because I didn't really understand what it was about. My understanding of what music or art "is" is attuned to physical explanations.

The same goes for astrology and its skeptics in science. It would be great if we could come up with an explanation for astrology, but it would probably have to rely on complicated Neoplatonic metaphysics (which is how some ancients and medievals explained it). But we would then have to talk about cosmic intelligences and levels of being that would probably sound crazier to the skeptics than claims that the planets have some gravitational effects on us. So unless there is some vocabulary and conceptual base that each side shares, we can say "but it works!" until we're blue in the face, because what something "is" and what it means for something to "work" in scientific explanations have criteria and concepts peculiar to them.

What is frustrating, of course, is that art, politics, ethics, logic, and a whole host of other realities involve types of being and levels of explanation that the natural sciences don't address -- and questions about them have not been settled -- but astrology skeptics don't deny their existence.

Ben
www.bendykes.com
Traditional Astrology Texts and Teaching