skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Chronobiology
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

soniah wrote:
Juan, you are very confused with it all.
I was enough clear in my previous posts...
Also you lack a lot of information and I am sorry but I am not your teacher


I am not interested in what you think of me.

Your concept of Astrology is very common. I have explained why it has very little to do with astrological practice, a practice which contradicts what you and many others proclaim to be Astrology.

The evidence of this contradiction is what astrologers do and have been doing since the invention of Greek horoscopics, and it is there for anybody to examine it and corroborate each of my points.

If necessary I can explain or illustrate what I'm saying with more detail. If I am writing and asking questions it is because I am open to discussion, refutation, and dialogue, so that we can separate what is mere opinion from what are demonstrable facts.

I have no doubts that there will be in the future an empirical science dealing with how we interact with our extra-terrestrial environment, but this is not Astrology, and what astrologers do in practice speaks for itself.

Of what use is to maintain an idea about Astrology that we astrologers contradict all the time in our practice?

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 36
Location: Ireland

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Sonia,
Quote:
Juan, you are very confused with it all.

So am I.

Quote:
I was enough clear in my previous posts...

No you were not. You have not been clear at all.

First of all you claim there is rock solid scientific evidence for astrology, but will not explain what it is. Given that virtually all scientists and most astrologers do not believe there is such evidence, the burden is on you to explain why they are all mistaken. If it has to do with the Gauquelin results, then by your standards they provide ‘rock solid evidence’ for the insignificance of half of the solar system symbols used by most western astrologers – the Sun, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto – which show no significant planetary effects on the aspects of human behavior tested, or evidence consistent with the ‘planetary heredity’ model. Apart from which, the Gauquelin experiments were not about astrology; they were about celestial mechanics, statistics and a hypothesis to do with the influence of the planets on human behavior.

By your own definition, astrology “is best understood as a celestial mirror, with the movements of the heavens presenting a mythological drama in which we see our lives reflected.” There is nothing scientific about that, to put it mildly, and if you have rock solid evidence to support it, do let us know what it is.

Quote:
Also you lack a lot of information and I am sorry but I am not your teacher, this is why I insist in how important is a good training for astrologers with a modern and realistic approach of the science.


That is one of the most arrogant and rude statements I have read for a long time. The idea that you have anything to teach Juan about astrology is laughable. He has been practicing astrology since he was a teenager, and as a full time professional since graduating from college with a BA in Geography and Anthropology a number of decades ago. His comments on the metaphysical problems which astrology brings up are some of the most astute and informed to be found anywhere.

Sometimes when you’re in a hole, it’s a good idea to stop digging. You seem comfortable with your certainties, but seem incapable of engaging in any kind of informative dialogue about them. You extol the necessity of critical thinking, but don’t seem to be able to handle critiques of your ideas. You just resort to patronizing bluster and avoid addressing the issues.

Quote:
Everyone call themselves an "astrologer" today after read a few books of astrology (usually crap ones), with this so low academic level we cannot hope for much more.


If you wish to raise the level of academic discourse about astrology and show us how it is done, why not start here? Many of us have academic qualifications and experience. My comments for example are based on 10 years as a research scientist and 25 years as a full time professional astrologer. Naturally, given that background, I find your claims bizarre, because astrology is so obviously not a science to anyone who has practiced both. The differences are glaringly clear, so much so that they don't require any empirical validation.

All one has to do is look up the criteria used to judge what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is generated to immediately be confronted with a list of reasons why astrology is not a science. If you wish to claim otherwise, whether to scientists, philosophers or astrologers, you had better have some good arguments to back them up. Pontificating from on high with solipsistic opinions does not help to change anyone’s views, and only contributes to maintaining astrology as a laughing stock for its critics.

Quote:
Almost 90% of classical medical methods had been discarded in modern occidental medical practice, we have a modern and effective Medicine today because among other things they were able to separate productive activities from those which are part of the history of Medicine but not longer useful or even counterproductive in modern practice.


The same happened with astrology in the west. We now have a modern and effective astronomy because ‘they’ were able to separate out from older perspectives what does not fit into the modern scientific model. Out went myths, subjectivity, qualities, cosmologies, and much more. The modernization of astrology removed about 90% of the classical model, and in doing so gave birth to celestial mechanics and the beginnings of objective science. What was left was thrown into the dustbin.

Quote:
Astrology should recycle in the same way if it want to have progress because as it is now practiced is a complete and total mess, regardless if ancient techniques works or not, or if they are scientific or not, this is not the issue, the issue is to put the house in order.


If you want to contribute to putting the house in order, the first thing one has to do is look at the house and its contents. Do you practice astrology yourself? If you do, just think (critically) for a minute or two about the techniques that you use and what you are trying to do. Then ask yourself some questions.

“Where do these come techniques come from, and how is it that their use leads to the illumination of meaning?”

“How many of these techniques refer to anything that is objectively real about the heavens? If it turns out that virtually none of them do, should I consider this a problem?”.

“What am I actually doing when I practice astrology; am I subjectively interpreting ambiguous symbols with no intrinsic meaning using a process in which the symbols are mapped onto a context, or am I objectively translating data into information as a scientist does, a process in which my role is completely neutral, detached and independent of the context. Or am I doing something else?”

“What is the nature of astrological knowledge in comparison to any other kind of knowledge, what kind of understanding is generated by the application of astrology, and in what way is this related to astrology’s purpose?”

“What should I make of the fact that astrology is not only diverse in cultural terms, but within each cultural form there are multiple branches that have quite different characteristics both in theory and practice, as is the case for astro-meteorology, horary astrology, and psychological astrology?”

And so on.

Any astrologer who likes to engage in critical thinking will at some stage ponder questions such as these. In attempting to answer them, which is virtually impossible without actually practicing the subject, the territory they will be led into includes philosophy, the history of astrology in theory and practice, cultural anthropology, epistemology, and much, much more. This requires time and dedication, as well as an inquiring and capable mind not handicapped by certainties and the absence of doubt.

Quote:
Many astrologers should remember also that we are in the year 2010, and not in the middle ages.


This is a statement straight from the mouth of someone enthralled by the concept of linear progress inherited from the 18th century western Enlightenment. In other words, the idea that progress is necessarily synonymous with improvement, and that precursor ideas which provide the foundations for modern perspectives are intrinsically inferior to modern concepts.

A corollary of this is that peoples whose world view is not equivalent to the modern perspective are unenlightened and primitive. Of course, the Enlightenment has its roots in western philosophy, and can be traced back to concepts set in motion by the Hellenistic philosophers, most notably Plato and Aristotle. The presumed birth of rational thinking in that part of the world is equivalent to the birth of western culture, and modernity is attached to it by an umbilical cord.

This notion of enlightened progress is culturally dominant, and provides the basis for a subliminal western ethnocentric bias. As far as the study of astrology as a cultural phenomenon is concerned, this manifests as a denial that the Mesopotamians practiced proper astrology, that Chinese astrology (if anyone bothers to take it seriously at all) has got it all wrong, and as for the Meso-American astrology –well, forget it. They lived in the jungle.

Another aspect of this western ethnocentric bias is to assume that the only true and proper type of knowledge is conventional scientific knowledge. All other types of knowledge are at best of secondary value, if not worthless. Because this western ethnocentric bias naturally proliferates via normal educational means, it can become an issue for those interested in astrology, all of whom at one point went to school. It can lead one to adopt the view the view that if astrological knowledge is to be taken seriously, it has to be framed in ways that fit the paragon of knowledge, in other words that generated by science.

If such thoughts enter an astrologer’s head, it can lead to a certain amount of discomfort. After all, it is common knowledge that the planets don’t periodically move backwards in their orbits, etc. One instinctive response to this discomfort is to try and cram whatever can be crammed of astrology into the science box, but of course it won’t fit unless it’s ripped apart and turned into something else (as was the case with the efforts of Gauquelin).

Another common response is to seize upon any models from within science that provide analogous explanatory scaffolding for astrology. So during the last two or three decades astrologers have been known to assert “The universe is a hologram – the part contains the whole. The microcosm contains the macrocosm! Astrology is true after all!” or “The universe is a giant fractal – as above so below! The microcosm reflects the macrocosm! Astrology is true after all!” or draw on some other model that constitutes the latest fashion in popular science literature (without bothering to study the primary sources and the debates which they triggered).

On the other hand, an inquiring mind might possibly find their attention drawn to philosophy, and questions about the nature of knowledge and truth (epistemology) or the nature of being (ontology). They may learn about the limitations of science, it’s a priori assumptions or beliefs, and discover that it has nothing to say about the most important aspects of human experience (e.g. love, family, relationships, justice, artistic creativity, the applied imagination, and so on).

An inquiring mind may also learn that science is only able to make statements about what can be scientifically tested. This is limited to those phenomena which can be reliably and reproducibly modeled in a laboratory context, which in terms of human experience is not a lot.

They might then realize that what they do as astrologers most commonly involves engagement with unique events and unrepeatable phenomena associated with contexts such as love, family, relationships, justice and so on. They might then find some comfort in the thought that astrological knowledge may well be in a different category than scientific knowledge, and cannot be reduced to it.

It is this latter sentence which provides a hint regarding how to ‘clear up the mess’ that astrology is in. The challenge is both an epistemological and an ontological one that places a focus on the nature of astrological knowledge and understanding, and the nature of astrology’s being.

According to the point of view implied above, which obviously I adhere to, promoting the idea that astrology is actually a science (apart from being wrong for a list of reasons as long as my arm) is the most direct way of ensuring that astrology remains misunderstood, and that its true nature stays obscured.

I doubt if this will make any difference to the way you look at things, as you have everything so clear, certain and doubt-free in your own mind. However, your messages provide an opportunity for me to speak to others reading this thread about these kinds of issues, which are important ones. So thanks for that.

I also don’t expect anyone else to necessarily agree with me, but I do feel driven to articulate with some conviction the opinion that anyone who thinks that astrology can somehow be corralled into the science enclosure is pissing in the wind and missing the pot completely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill wrote:
All one has to do is look up the criteria used to judge what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is generated to immediately be confronted with a list of reasons why astrology is not a science.

Hi, Bill, thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts, with which I agree entirely.

It seems to me that the widespread tendency to see Astrology as a science or at least comparabale to Science is a result of the assumption that Astrology deals with the direct effects of celestial motions on our lives. One can replace the word "effects" here, and say "Astrology deals with the direct correlations between celestial motions and our lives" and the picture would still be the same: implicit in both is the assumption that Astrology, like Science, is a body of accumulated knowledge about the direct interaction between the earth and the sky.

This notion is often taken for granted and goes unquestioned. But is this notion supported by the historical evidence? Is it supported by the empirical evidence provided by standard astrological practices? The answer to both questions is "No".

One great source of confusion is the inability to distinguish between the original Babylonian Astrology and the later Greek horoscopics. They represent two very different cultural and mathematical paradigms. The usual idea people have of Astrology is the one that characterized the ancient or original Babylonian Astrology: a direct interaction with observable celestial phenomena, and little attention is paid to the fact that Greek horoscopics --including modern Astrology-- pays very litte attention to actual "in situ" celestial phenomena and is based almost entirely on mathematical abstractions and analogies that could never be observed because they exist only in the human imagination.

This truth was clear to critics of Astrology such as Pico della Mirandola and Kepler (and no doubt to many others as well). It appears in the form of a contradiction between what astrologers say and what they actually do, and because of this, critics and historians often have a better grasp of what Astrology IS NOT than most astrologers.


Quote:
“Where do these techniques come from, and how is it that their use leads to the illumination of meaning?”

The same thing can be phrased like this: "How do those tools or techniques operate? What do they do?

We are all entitled to have our opinions, but the question about how astrological tools or techniques (e.g., birth charts, transits, aspects...) operate is not a matter of opinion. Any theory of Astrology should be based on a clear understanding of how these tools operate, of how this operation is a reflection not of natural phenomena but of the human mind, of the cognitive structure of the brain. Otherwise we will keep developing theories about Astrology that touch the reality of Astrology only marginally, or that are contradicted by this reality.

Because of this tragic contradiction between what is proclaimed by astrologers and what they actually do, this lack of clarity about the nature of the tools we use, the worst enemy of Astrology has not been Science, it has been and still is the astrologers themselves.

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really applaud the last two posts - to which I also entirely agree. I have often felt that astrology’s ‘placement’ or ‘definition’ presents an unresolvable dilemma but you two have nailed the problem so precisely I now wonder if there is a new way forward. Is it not possible that a small group of well informed, experienced astrologers, who understand the scientific angles and have sensitivity to the cultural problems, could now work on creating a new definition – one that allows for an astrologer to give a ‘correct reading on the wrong chart’ without necessarily making a mockery of what astrology claims to be, and which explains that all generic systems of astrology have inbuilt flaws but can still be useful as an integrated system. I suppose I’m suggesting that a small group (like Bill and Juan and maybe one or two others they know) could come up with a sort of statement as to what astrologers as a collective consider themselves to be. If this could be circulated for approval around various societies, maybe we could create a new reference point which media and scientific representation would need to adhere, in order to treat out subject with the due respect.
I’m guessing this is probably just a crazy thought but I do think that this could and should happen at some time. We are all a little lost as to how to define astrology; it is a word that has 1001 different expectations, with many members of the public immediately associating it with the horoscope columns in women’s magazines. So I think this is a great idea – but its not something I would want to get involved in myself at any level ! Smile

But anyway, thanks to you both, Bill and Juan, for the credibility that you lend to the subject.
Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aglaya



Joined: 05 Sep 2008
Posts: 1138

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am completely blown away by your post, Bill.
I don't think that I can add anything to what deb has already said but I will say that, if I had bought a book and found your post in it, I'd think: "It was money well spent!". Thumbs up

It is hard to believe that such amazing discussions and even complete articles can be found on an internet forum.

It is a real pleasure to read yours and Juan's comments, honestly!


Quote:
However, your messages provide an opportunity for me to speak to others reading this thread about these kinds of issues, which are important ones. So thanks for that.


And we're grateful for that! Very Happy Thumbs up

Cheers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dione T



Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 39

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
They may learn about the limitations of science, it’s a priori assumptions or beliefs, and discover that it has nothing to say about the most important aspects of human experience (e.g. love, family, relationships, justice, artistic creativity, the applied imagination, and so on).

I disagree on that and will try to explain why (I don't fear your ability to understand but my ability to express my opinion in english).
That Bill, is if we accept science as a mere tool, deprived of any philosophy, ripped apart of essence as a whole. If science is seen in its broader sense, it seizes being a mere tool with limited application.
Perhaps the use of another language may be more descriptive of what I am saying. Επιστήμη is the Hellenic word for science. It means to supervise (attend and observe) but also to "stand above/on top" and derivatively one stands upon sciences, based on them to further attempt to acquire knowledge of the whole.
I understand "science" with the limitations of my language if you wish, as somebody else is limited by the use of his language. As such though, I find sciences to be not a dim-witted tool with no further implications of true wisdom, but to have roots and branches in philosophy and therefore wider abilities.
I don't see science as the crippled, narrow minded, maths plagued, deprived of any philosophy, subject they teach in every school of any degree.
Today's science is a most potent child that is imprisoned unable to be what it is. A stallion tied in a ground for wheat, forced to accommodate human needs beneath its ability. My definition (that derives of what science means in my language and not on any personal whims) is that science is one of the foundations, has philosophy and connections to the divine as much as astrology. Sciences try to map and unravel the divine/unknown, pretty much like occultism and religion but by using different means and roots.
I argue with what is said based on this reasoning. I see astrology having connection with science and both of them being connected to philosophy.
Always based on my language, astrology is a scientific - to some extend - Art (Tέχνη, from τίκτω-give birth; creation). A science of/about creation if you like.

I do not expect anyone to agree and I don't mind. Bill's post impacted me as much as everyone else. Shuttered so many things, it was an alchemical death of sorts: It killed to give rebirth.
I expected contradicting simplistic science (and win) but never expected an astrologer to be so thorough and accurate and actually managing to make almost my whole system collapse. Congratulations Bill, it was really a pleasure. And I saved your post for future reference. ^^

I am set that astrology can be explained, verified and therefore validated, through sciences, to a certain degree. If we consider science as we accept it today, in its small poor definition, as such, even if we could prove any relation, it would just be pulling astrology down to the level of today's science. A very low level indeed (low not in achievements but in essence).

Does science has limitations? Certainly. The same limitations astrology and cooking and religion and driving have. They are all human. They derive from humans and therefore are bound to the limitations as well as abilities the humans have.
- Wait what? Gravity exists irrelevantly from humans!
- Probably, however the conceptualizing and explanation about it, is entirely human and therefore subject to the limitation aforementioned.

If we reenact science in its classical meaning, raise it above the level it is given today, re-attribute its connection to philosophy, then a possible parallel or connection to astrology (if it is found to exist), will not be diminishing.
Both have sets of rules, both have certain tools and theories in use, both are human devices and both try to investigate the possible connection between the physical world and the human, as well the human itself.
_________________
Be kind, but be brave.

http://wroskopos.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill wrote:

First of all you claim there is rock solid scientific evidence for astrology, but will not explain what it is.


It is not something that I claim as if it were a belief, it is in fact a fact. A scientific fact, but then you an other "astrologers" can choice to see the moon at night or deny its existence. Everyone is free in their choice of how they perceive reality, and if this reality deeply question their beliefs and even their "rock-solid self-built knowledge" then sometimes can be wiser not to see reality at all, so they don't need to rebuild their perception of the world once again, something hard to do as we go older.

The whole problem here is not astrology per se, but the concept that many of you have of science. I personally see the beautiful mythological drama presented by the movement of the heavens as wonderfully scientific and real.

Once the fundamentals of Astrology have been scientifically proven as it happened (even if you negate it, it is a fact of reality that it has been proven, but you choice to not see it, what is your choice, not the reality), then all the rest of the art acquire a new real scientific dimension never experienced before, this is logical and make perfect sense, even when it is needed to improve scientific methodology still a lot to achieve a modern explanation of the world from a new dimension.

There is not measurable scientific evidence for Gravity but it exists, to put a quick and simple example.

Sonia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1395

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is not measurable scientific evidence for Gravity but it exists, to put a quick and simple example.


Lala Happy

I would suggest this thread to be locked. It have received several good contributions for posterity, but I don´t see the point of the thread being constantly kidnapped by someone who obviously aren´t reading the contribution of others, don´t care to really answer any of the important questions asked on the thread by Bill and Juan, and it is also obviously changing definions (if she has anyone) every two paragraphs. And that, probably, should do a crash course of "Introduction to Science" before shoving to every one´s troats her definitions of science.
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem with these discussions is thaty they almost always seem to lead to the discussion of sobjective versus objective, fact versus meaning. Unawareness of this leads to endless discussions.

It's like two people discussing a painting in which the first person says that it's a gouache. The second opposes this and says: "No, it's a beautiful picture with a lot of symbols". The first one says: "No it isn't an aquarelle but really a gouache, just have a look at the structure of the paint". The second says: "No, you are absolutely wrong, what you describe is not a painting, just have a look at these red colours, this surely discribes war". And on and on the discussion at cross-purposes continues.

Just note that the thread started about the discovery of a 'clock gene', and it turned into a thread about how astrology is to be considered. Anything physical in relation to astrology seems to make quite a stir.

Deb wrote:
I suppose I’m suggesting that a small group (...) could come up with a sort of statement as to what astrologers as a collective consider themselves to be.
My first thought on this is, heaven forbid, that the same thing would happen as in the history of the Christian church. If one reads about the history of the church one finds that already in the first centuries CE there were many disagreements among the early christians; did Jesus only have divine nature (monophysitism) or both divine and human (like the Nestorians believed) or none of then, and what about the filioque question? Several times there were oecomenical councils in which several bishops determined what christianity was supposed to be. Disagreeing groups were excommunicated or even persecuted. Many people have been killed because of such disputes. However this is about religion, but where the astrology discussion turns to be about the meaning/subjectivism, similar things as discribed above seem to occur.

If we again take Jesus for example. The general story is that he was born out of a virgin, healed people and got crucified, to arise from the dead again and be taken up into heaven a while later. One could discuss if all this is possible in a scientific way or even as whether the man existed at all. Believing this would be utter nonsense from a strictly materialistic scientific point of view, there is namely no evidence and noone has been seen doing similar miracles. On the other side one could go entirely symbolical. There are christians to whom it doesn't matter if the stories aren't real or who believe that the stories have an allegoric meaning. Others see Jesus as the first socialist, drawing attention to the poor. However there is also a large amount of people who believe something in the middle between fact and meaning. Even the scientific oriented people among these still believe in the (physical) Resurrection, virgin birth and healings etc. To these people an entirely symbolic view ('of what use would a Jesus be that cannot physically heal') would rip away the foundation of their belief and shatter their hope and belief to pieces.

To these last people, the unexplainability is not really a problem and not even the issue. Perhaps this is where fact and meaning meet. And it also illustrates that nobody in the world can impose on others what true Christianity implies. The same applies to astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TC



Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 15

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

May I say please, I agree, astrology is not science, for the precise, elegant, and eloquent reasons and questions raised by both Bill and Juan. Thank you.

Yes, astrology is an unknown, deep, poetical mystery. However this insight does not make astrology a science.

Fascinated by this thread -- Have been an astrologer for 40 years, and still am perplexed by its acuity. How is it that the mathematics of movement and life are so eloquently expressed through astrology? How did this ever become to be so?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TC wrote:
Have been an astrologer for 40 years, and still am perplexed by its acuity. How is it that the mathematics of movement and life are so eloquently expressed through astrology? How did this ever become to be so?


The answer --to me-- is in the ordering provided by the mechanics of celestial motions. Because celestial motions are precisely ordered and predictable, they can be used to construct --given the necessary protocols-- concise analytical models of any human or natural phenomenon.

If we are able to answer "why do models in the physical and social sciences work?" "How do models operate?" "How are models evaluated?", we would understand how and why astrology works. It is essential that we understand how astrological models (e.g. charts) are built, and how they work.

Every time astrologers base their work on charts or horoscopes(inceptional, natal, horary...) their practice is no longer tied to the physical world, but to these charts.

Astrological charts are based on a principle that is the negation of the physical and spiritual experience of the sky, i.e., the artificial freezing of time. They represent a frozen time in the past that is used to chart the actual flow of duration in the physical world, but they are (including directions, transits, and progressions) completely asynchronous with natural phenomena.

Thanks to a series of cultural conventions derived largely from the metaphor of a seed, horoscopes are used AS IF they were symbolical entities (a question, a country, a person...), but most of what is represented in them is not natural or physical phenomena.

For example: the sections of equal 30-degrees, the elements and qualities, the specific characteristics of each sign, the intermediary houses and all house specific meanings, all rulerships, terms, directions and progressions, and transits. Additionally, in 60% of the cases where an exact Moon/Venus conjunction appears in a radix or in the ephemeris, they are separated physically by a minimum of 3 degrees, reaching a minimum of 4 degrees in 40% of the cases (that is a minimum of 8 full-moon disks in the sky).

The mathematical basis of these devices is derived from celestial motions, but their characteristics as astrological tokens are not found in the physical world. When they become operational during an astrological analysis, they are used as a classification system through a mental procedure known as componential analysis: the astrologer assigns each element of reality to each of the astrological categories, according to principles that are provided aprioristically by the chart itself.

So what all astrologers do when working with charts or any other astrological model is to classify reality and reduce it to a small number of components, and examine the dynamical structural interactions between these components. Astrologers manipulate and make use of celestial motions as one would use a pencil to draw simplified diagrams with which to qualify, give meaning to, and have a limited control of, any specific reality that comes under their scrutiny.

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan wrote:

Every time astrologers base their work on charts or horoscopes (inceptional, natal, horary...) their practice is no longer tied to the physical world, but to these charts.


Following your same reasoning then when a doctor takes a X-Ray of a patient's part of the body, his or her practice is no longer tied to the physical reality of the patient's body, but to the X-Ray.

I find many of your and Bill's ideas to be really bizarre, not mention the questions you made me, they are even more bizarre, and I sense a feeling of panic about astrology being seen as a science, to what I ask WHY? Why is so menacing this? Why negate and hide scientific proof?

Of course there is not full scientific validation for the whole astrology but we have very strong scientific evidence of its fundamentals, which means that "something is scientific REAL within Astrology", in the own words of the five skeptic researchers interviewed by Phillipson in the book Astrology in the Year Zero.

A birth chart is more than the sum of its parts: the interpretive schema and the interaction with clients produces something that can not be studied in the way science generally studies things, by reducing the object of scrutiny to bits and fragments that are weighed, measured and analyzed. Consecuently, science need to develop much more complex methods of analysis for complex natural sciences as Astrology it is. But until that day arrives we cannot say that astrology is not scientific, to say that it would be a completely non-scientific statement by the way.

99% of the so-called "astrologers" today are not accredited astrologers and this is another problem in order to build up a good academic level of astrology. Many of the finest astrologers in the world (quite a lot) are self-taught and they made excellent contributions to the science, but if we look to the future, then we need to set up a more standard academic level.

My sister used to work as journalist in the U.S. for a long time and she has a grade in Journalism but she is used to continually deal with everyone who call themselves "journalists" because just they wrote a blog on the internet, this so low-level intrusion into the professions makes very hard for true astrologers or true journalists to make a living or just being taking seriously by the rest of professionals, I don't mean to say that only accredited astrologers are true astrologers but unfortunately 99 per cent of them are only just charlatans and a professional accreditation is needed and today more than never before, so we have reason to protest for this and even sound arrogant about it, because this whole mess affects us, our professions and our personal image and lifes.

Why is Kepler College closing?

Why not University in the world offers a degree in Astrology?

Why most students of astrology are women in their mid-forties?

Do people really understand what Astrology is?

Do astrologers really understand what Astrology is?


There are many issues to raise here into serious consideration.

Sonia H., D.F.Astrol.S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 214
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

soniah wrote:
Following your same reasoning then when a doctor takes a X-Ray of a patient's part of the body, his or her practice is no longer tied to the physical reality of this patient's body, but to the X-Ray.


An x-ray is an interesting analogy. If we were using x-rays as we use birth charts, it would have to be something like this:

We take an x-ray of the little newborn's body at the exact moment of birth, and throughout his life keep referring to what appears in it. If at the age of 30 as an adult he comes crying because his wife and children left him, we take this x-ray of the moment he was born 30 years ago, do some strange math with it, and say to ourselves: "here is him, now I can see why his wife left him".

We look at the x-ray and say: the left arm is his father, the right arm is his mother, the heart is the place of his love life, his head is his personality, that backbone is his friends, the left leg his profession, the right leg is family life, his feet is work environment. Additionally the x-ray is divided into superimposing symmetrical and colored sectors that have nothing to do with anatomy, one sector is fire, the other water, etc.

The funny thing about this bizarre x-ray is that many of the things that appear in it cannot be traced back to the body of the newborn. For example, the liver is on the wrong side (differing positions due to ignoring celestial latitude), or the heart may appear too large (partile aspects that are mere artifacts of the x-ray). But we ignore all these discrepancies with physical reality and say something that has nothing to do with physics such as: "you are incredibly loving and generous".

So no, the moment we work with astrological charts we are no longer dealing with the physical world except marginally or indirectly.

Juan


Last edited by Juan on Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to disagree once again.

A birth chart reflects the heaven of a precise moment (a Unit of Time) as seen from a specific place, it reflects the physical world in a similar way as a X-Ray reflects a specific physical reality of an adult part of the body.

Then what kind of elements are of astrological interest in the chart this is another completely different issue, is an issue of selectiveness, as with any other kind of analitical tools used by other natural sciences.


Sonia H., D.F.Astrol.S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
soniah



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:
Soniah wrote:
It's standard astronomy knowledge that planets aren't source of energy.

Before Newton came up with gravity theory, Galileo dismissed the idea of the Moon causing the tides as occult superstition. Science will never be completed. So perhaps a similar thing would count for astrology.


Perhaps, Eddy, perhaps...

But in the meantime, Could you explain me how planets can have direct influences on the psychological trends of entire groups of people and nations?, or in other words, How can we apply this fantastic superstition of the "planetary influences" to explain Mundane Astrology?


Sonia H., D.F.Astrol.S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated