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

hopeless evidence??
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: hopeless evidence?? Reply with quote

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-arti2.htm

what do you think about this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arihant



Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 66
Location: INDIA

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank You,Woodwatter ,for giving us the Link., Refernce list was also impressive.
Arihant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to see where he got this from:
"But the charts had come from the files of an astrologer, whose advice to the couples had nudged the sample into detectable conformity. "
It is my understanding that they came from several sources from across Europe. Perhaps I am wrong, but since he does not reference where he got this I have no way of checking it out. Anyone have any idea? Garry? What say you?
Besides the fact of possible incorrect information about the source of the charts I would also like to know how any astrologer could manage to "nudge" the sample. All Jung collected was the birth times from the sources and had some of his associates work out the charts. They were married couples and to my knowledge the sources did not know what the data was being collected for much less how would they "nudge" a birth time to support Jung's study. This implies that every couple and the astrologers or sources involved knew in advance what Jung would be looking for and then faked their birth times to illict that tiny .04 percent obove chance result. This seems not only highly unlikely but damn near impossible. If they had "nudged" the results would not one expect a much more promising statistical result that "detectable conformity"?
That also ignores the divinatory nature of the second part of the astrological experiment where he had three collegues pick out randon pairs of charts that then matched their psychological make up- this was a pure divination move and could not possibly have been "nudged".
If this author will supply his source for this information and he is right on both counts, I will gladly eat my astrolabe (the cardboard one).
Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok I see that he references Dean's 1996 article in Correlation so I will have to wait to see a copy. I have no way of knowing whether Dean made any such claims or gave any references. I did my masters thesis on this astrological experiment and synchronicity and so I spent about a year reading everything I could get my hands on about this and NO WHERE did I see what he claims.
Jung himself states,in The Intrepretation of Nature and Psyche, his major work on synchronicity where he first revealed the astrological experiment, " The material to be examined, namely a quanitity of marriage horoscopes, was obtained from friendly donors in Zurich, London, Rome, and Vienna. Originally the material had been put together for purely astrological purposes, some of it many years ago, so those who gathered its collection knew of no connection between its collection and the aim of the study, a fact that I stress because it might be objected that the material was specially selected with that aim in view." (Jung, C. G. a. W. P. (1955). The Interpretation of Nature and Psyche. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul., p 60)



It is pretty hard not to see the glaring disjunct here. Either Jung is lying and Shmidt is telling the truth or ....oh well you get the point. I do not think I will be in danger of having to eat my astrolabe any time soon.


Last edited by James Frazier on Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I went back to the article and now see that it appears to have been written by Dean and not Schmidt, apologies to Schmidt. I still have just as much problem with this as before. Perhaps even more so because Dean claims that Jung's astrological experiment showed positive results for astrology. That is simply not the case especially from the pure analysis of the data using statistics in the way Dean would advocate is their only legitimate use. Jung's original use of the data can best be, charitably, described as "creative" but certainly not how a statistic expert would have arranged the data.
What the experiment did show was synchronicity in that in three separate batches, the three most common indicators for marriage came up BUT in each of the three a different factor was significant so this means that as far as astrology goes it did not bode well and Jung said so while admitting that symbolically it was quite stunning.
After the experiment was repeated with quite different results Jung came to the conclusion (this is the one point Dean appears to be correct about) that the original results had been the result of his heighten emotional expectations ( Jung was deeply involved in the alchemical symbolism of the Royal Marriage at the time in preparation for his great opus -his final book Mysterium Coniunctionis) and that they were a true synchronicity and not a validation of astrology.
Now Dean and company are not usually folks impressed by symbolism since they want scientific statistical and control group proofs- exactly the opposite of symbolism. So it is a surprise that they would make the claim that the initial results were in favor of astrology since they are devoted to showing just the opposite which is in the end what they conclude here as well.
My offer to eat my astrolabe still stands.


Last edited by James Frazier on Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 213
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi James,

Just picking up on your query re. this passage:

Quote:
"But the charts had come from the files of an astrologer, whose advice to the couples had nudged the sample into detectable conformity. "


I don't have any inside info here, but I imagine Dean's thinking might have been along these lines: the data came from astrologers; astrologers quite often rectify charts, sometimes with reference to a partner's chart; therefore there is something in the astrologer's approach to chart data which could be expected to produce stronger relationships between the charts of partners, than was to be found in the original, unrectified, data.

If this is the basis of Dean's statement (and I emphasise that I'm just speculating), then we'd probably expect to see a stronger effect in Moon-Asc connections than in Moon-Moon connections, which in turn should be stronger than Sun-Moon connections. I say this on the basis that most rectifications are within a range of a few hours, which can change the rising sign dramatically, but have less impact on the Moon and even less on the Sun.

What do you think of all that, then?
Cheers,
Garry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't have any inside info here, but I imagine Dean's thinking might have been along these lines: the data came from astrologers; astrologers quite often rectify charts, sometimes with reference to a partner's chart; therefore there is something in the astrologer's approach to chart data which could be expected to produce stronger relationships between the charts of partners, than was to be found in the original, unrectified, data.

That is not what he said. He said the charts came from an astrologer implying one astrologer. He implied that they cheated in order to influence the test. He implied that the test was positive for astrology as a result of this manipulation.
And, Yes, Garry to answer your question if the data were fudged one would expect the results that you state or perhaps an even a better set of results that actually “proved’ astrology which this experiment flatly did not. It is understandable, perhaps, that Dean who used this experiment in his attack since this is the point where astrology got married to the concept of synchronicity but I would encourage Dean to actually study the whole experiment so as to be better informed.

Now my additional response:
What is surprising about this is that it appears that either Dean has not adequately studied the astrological experiment that Jung conducted and therefore misunderstands the results which leads him to argue that it had a positive result and further that this result was due to an astrologer coaching the participants so as to ‘nudge” the results. Either this is a really bad case of misunderstanding or he is “nudging” the evidence of the whole experiment just to make his point. I believe that this is the same tired argument used to refute the Gaugelin material.

The strangeness of me arguing against Dean arguing for a positive result from an astrological experiment is almost too much to bear. My head is about to explode.

Let me repeat my objections.
1) Unless Jung is lying the horoscopes were collected from at least four different sources in four different countries. Not “an astrologer”. With all due respect to Dean, since it was Jung who did the original experiment- I’ll bet my money on Carl.
2) At least some of the horoscopes were collected long before for another purpose so there is no possibility of an astrologer nudging the results unless he could time travel which would, of course, be much more amazing than an astrological result no matter how accurate..
3) This experiment did not show a positive statistical result for astrology- it demonstrated synchronicity (a concept Dean and his colleagues’ at Skeptic magazine have as much difficulty accepting as astrology.)
4) If this happened the way Dean claims, namely, that an astrologer collected the horoscopes, knew in advance the way the experiment was to be conducted, knew the results Jung was looking for, then coached each and every participant to alter their birth time so as to make the desired result (or rectified the charts so as to accomplish this), would make this astrologer much more magical than any astrology ever conceived. Particularly since Jung did not follow conventional scientific methods plus the second part of the experiment is pure divination based on three different people randomly picking horoscopes and those horoscopes accurately reflecting their individual psychic states! If the “astrologer” knew all of this in advance then he/she must be a miracle magician of the first order. With that kind of power, who would bother with astrology?

So until I hear from Dean and he provides the references that back up his claim, my astrolabe is safe.

I can’t help but throw this little example of synchronicity since it involves the book in which Jung published this astrological experiment. I am not claiming this as a Level II synchronicity but it is meaningful to me.
When I began my dissertation research, I ordered (from an internet based used book dealer called Bookmans in Orange California) Jung’s major work on synchronicity The Interpretation of Nature and Psyche, in hard cover first edition. This Book was published and presumably sold in the same year 1955 and I ordered it 50 years later. Keeping in mind that this book was to figure profoundly in my master’s dissertation on synchronicity for a master’s degree in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology, imagine my surprise when I opened the book and stamped inside the front cover was the following words. “This book sold through the American Federation of Astrologers”. Now I do not know how to calculate the odds that a book published 50 years previously and sold, at some point in time, by one of the few astrological organizations in the United States becomes the one I happen to buy sight unseen through a book dealer hundreds of miles away from me when pursuing a master degree in astrology! Just a coincidence, I guess.


Last edited by James Frazier on Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(Apologies to all as this is starting to look like a conversation with myself)
Lest anyone think from reading my post regarding Geoffrey Dean, that I have any ill feeling towards him I want to publicly state that I do not. I am, perhaps, one of the few astrologers who is grateful to Dean and group because I think their work is valuable. I respect him and what he does. The fact that he and I are completely opposite on issues does not deter me from admiring him and trying to learn from the challenges he presents. Dean has forced us to get more rigorous as well as better informed about science and scientific methods. In some ways, I credit these critics with spurring us to become better educated in general not just about astrology (which is part of it) but all other disciplines as well (witness the number of astrologers pursuing advanced degrees). Partly due to these folks, I have learned to refrain from making statements that I cannot back with references. The downside for Dean and Company may be that I am now in a much better position to call others on the carpet for failing to do just that, as I have done in this case.
I suspect that somewhere inside, Dean has a warm spot for astrology and astrologers. Otherwise, why would he stay so attached to this group even if through criticism? One would have thought he long ago would have moved on to more interesting scientific problems. I suspect that Dean, perhaps secretly, likes this wild group of astrologers. So perhaps we represent his shadow, I suspect that we do.
He is clearly my shadow. I do not mean that he personally is a dark shadowy figure, just that he and I are complete opposites in how we think (he thinks rationally, logically, and in alignment with the scientific method, whereas, I am a symbolic thinker, one interested in seeing patterns behind the visible world, psychology, myth, and religious interest, etc.), what we value, what is meaningful to us, and how we see the art of astrology. He values the “objective” over the “subjective” like all good card carrying scientist. I am the complete reverse. Becoming aware of shadow is a great learning experience-difficult but effective. That does not mean I am above questioning him as I am doing with this piece.

I publicly acknowledge Dean and Company for all they have done for me. So, Mr. Dean, if you read this by chance; please accept my acknowledgment as sincere. Your work has influenced me positively, though not in the way you would have imagined. It has forced me to really think about astrology and to refine my views. It has forced me to investigate what I had formally taken for granted and accepted without question. So thank you.
But I still want to see your references to the above material.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll second that acknowledgement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
(Apologies to all as this is starting to look like a conversation with myself)


I think you are speaking for many of us though James, so I am glad you are speaking to yourself outloud Smile I've been following your posts with interest and it inspired me to actually take a look at the article, even though I'd sort of given up on these things years ago. I don't have a problem with Dean either, except the sort that you have highlighted. The recent death of Franciose Gauquelin brings her views into focus and I find them more interesting - that she could accept some astrological effects, whilst maintaining that astrology as a whole does not stand up to scrutiny. This is a position I am very comfortable with, because it acknowledges the personal influence of the astrologer within the process of judicial analysis. If they ever did prove astrology scientfically (which of course they won't, because they can't), then I'll be glad to leave the subject well alone and let the scientists do the judgements too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Deb. I appreciate your kind words.

Yes, I for one would be extremely disappointed if astrology were to be ever proved by science. That would be a minor disaster in my not so humble opinion. It would mean that science would co-opt astrology. I value astrology as a symbol system, namely because the symbol points to what is essentially "not-completely-known", and thus is experienced as a mystery. A symbol has the ability to access different levels of consciousness. Science cannot, in principle, stand for mystery, or paradox, of one thing representing another, and thus science has little capacity to fill us with a deep sense of meaning. Meaning comes from the numinous, the mystery, the unexpected, the sacred (which is not controllable), the capacity for awe and wonder and serves as a countermeasure to the rational, logical, and soul denying mechanistic models of science.
I am not anti-science. I just argue for balance. Both the irrational and the rational have their place. I am against one or the other trying to lay claim to the "only" legitimate way to view the world. One cannot deny the successes of science but one can also see that they have come at a heavy price.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Malcolm Ramsay



Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Lincoln, England

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes, I for one would be extremely disappointed if astrology were to be ever proved by science. That would be a minor disaster in my not so humble opinion. It would mean that science would co-opt astrology.


This seems to be a common view - I've seen the same idea in books by Stephen Arroyo and Patrick Curry. I think you're underestimating what a shock it will be for them; it's not something that they will be able to accommodate in their current world view. In the short term they might try to use such a proof as a stick to beat astrologers with, but I think the astrological perspective is fundamentally broader - ultimately I expect that it will be astrology that absorbs the objective sciences.

Quote:
If they ever did prove astrology scientfically (which of course they won't, because they can't), then I'll be glad to leave the subject well alone and let the scientists do the judgements too.


I don't believe you Deb - I don't think you could ever leave the subject alone!

On this subject, perhaps you can offer me a view on some transits. I read 'The Moment of Astrology' recently (at a time when I was thinking about how orthodox science would react to proof of astrology). In it Geoffrey Cornelius mentions what he calls the Anti-Astrology chart, which was given as an example horoscope in a tract called 'Objections to Astrology' issued by a group of scientists in 1975.

I had a look at transits to that chart: in February the Saturn/Uranus opposition will be 2 arcminutes from Saturn in that chart (Uranus conjoins it a few hours later) and in July the second Jupiter/Neptune conjunction will be conjunct Mars to the minute (the first conjunction will be half a degree away). (As James gave an example of synchronicity, I'll mention that I received the book in the post on the day Uranus made its first pass to that Saturn.)

The chart is 23 Nov 1907, New York (73W58 40N43), 4:00 am EST Asc 25Lib27

Cornelius says that when he first wrote about his analysis of this chart, other astrologers objected that the chart didn't represent a beginning of any kind. My instinct was to look at it as the birth of a Zeitgeist, the spirit of secular scientism (but I found his arguments quite reasonable as well).

I haven't looked yet how often really tight simultaneous transits happen, but I think to get two so close together must be very rare - but I possibly put more weight on very tight orbs than other people.

So, would anybody like to offer an interpretation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If they ever did prove astrology scientifically (which of course they won't, because they can't), then I'll be glad to leave the subject well alone and let the scientists do the judgements too.



I don't believe you Deb - I don't think you could ever leave the subject alone!


Well the chances of it ever happening are so infetesimal that neither of us need worry about losing face over that comment. James will eat a thousand astrolabes before we come close to it.

I need to read up again on the anti-astrology chart but here comes a comment that links in to James’ last post about Dean. I am far (I mean faaarrrrr) too young to know about the Zeitgeist of 1975, but from how I remember the presentation of astrology to astrologers in the late 80s, you would think that it was a proven objective science. I can only imagine that it was worse in the 70s, and I can completely relate to the desire of scientists at that time to say ’look, this is not a proven science you know’.

I think astrologers need to be able to take themselves out of the centre of the issue before they realise the sanity of not expecting scientific acknowledgement. So let’s forget that we are western astrologers, and let’s imagine that we are talking about the scientific acknowledgement of Chinese astrology. Is it likely to happen? No. Will it be better for Chinese astrologers or the world at large if it does happen? No. (In fact quite the opposite - surely part of the charm of Chinese astrology is that it offers a different viewpoint to that of science?) There is an immense amount of human knowledge in the system, and it can be used to great advantage, but science can evolve quite happily without understanding of the year of the pig and it is never going to acknowledge the tendencies of Taurus (or sidereal Aries, if you like). On the other hand, no one cares whether science can measure the power of human belief, because most human beings have a belief and most come to realise that it is most powerful when believed in most. So my view is that astrology gains support from the fact that we are human, not from anything that can be given or taken away by science. James nails it where he talks about our need for a sense of meaning, ... and that needing a sense of mystery.

And yet …. At the same time I’ve noticed a real decline in the number of experiments and statistical studies of astrology, and this sort of saddens me too. I am sure that there are many more objective realities to be recognised than we presently allow for, but it seems that Dean has demonstrated that astrologers and scientists are talking such different languages that few people seem willing to make the effort anymore. (Papretis excepted of course! It is good to see some of the studies that have been mentioned in the news forum lately).


Sorry if I seem to be side-tracking here. Hope I haven’t drifted too far off topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I totally agree.

To me, science can never really deal with astrology because the two disciplines operate on a fundamentally different and perhaps ultimately non-reconcile systems of thought. They differ greatly in how they operate; although it is true we both use mathematics- the questions we are asking are radically different. They are entirely different orders of information. Science, while it uses notations called symbols (H2O stands for water, etc.) is not actually capable of using symbols in the real sense of symbol. The word symbol comes from the root word "symbolos" which literally means to throw together. Science separates in order to understand- symbols throw together. Science cannot deal with one thing meaning another; it cannot do what symbol systems can do. Science demands precision, control, repeatability, as well as mathematical and statistical proofs.

And despite the many years and much effort, in the main, astrological research has never produced much statistical proof. Yes, I know the Gaugelin studies are always dragged up to counter what I just said but let’s face it that work is far removed from what astrologers really do and besides that the results were less that overwhelming. One would have perhaps expected a better yield from a field so frequently plowed.

If one can write an entire book on the various meaning of the symbols of Saturn imagine what science would look like if it tried that! When I can say "well this Saturn in your chart could refer to the restrictions you felt in childhood, or it could indicate the stern Father figure in your life, or it might mean limitations in your perception, or it could indicate the testing you are going through, or it could mean death, or it could symbolize your fight with city hall, or....oh well, you get the idea.

The problem it seems to me is;
A) We are suffering (consciously or unconsciously) from physics envy. This is perhaps understandable when the sciences have been elevated to the ultimate position of authority in modern culture. There have all of the cookies so to speak- the funding, the job security, and the respect of the large majority of the culture whereas we astrologers are on the fringe and left out in the cold. Most of us do not earn our living from astrology. And God forbid that we should apply for funding to do astrological research (especially the kind I would be in favor which would be phenomenological not statistical).

B) We humans had a very difficult time dealing with paradox and even astrologers who one might think would be the most open to "both/ and " thinking are often just as resistant and insist that science will one day prove astrology and they will all be one thing. If that were to happen you can bet your astrolabe that science will be seen as the authority not astrologers.

Science works like this:
1- Phase 1- This (whatever- fill in the blank) is complete hogwash- totally without merit, ludicrious.
2- Phase 2-Well, there are some anomalies here maybe we should take a look at just in case there is anything to this.
3- Phase 3- Ah! We have proven this is actually so.
4- Phase 4- We knew this all along, it was just a matter of proving it.

This happens very frequently in science. For example, medical doctors who performed surgery were greatly insulted when it was first suggested that they at least wash their hands before doing surgery to prevent infection. They were, in fact, outraged at the idea.

C) Astrology is nearly always defined in relationship to something else. Either it is "pseudo-science", or "alternative religion" or the reverse but always linked to something else. Why not just astrology, a mystery, and better for being so.

D) At times, we astrologers seem to have the same theoretical position that science claims, namely, that it is possible to answer all questions about life and the universe though our astrology- everything from the purpose of life to why my cat just got up and crossed the room. I find that just as disenchanting as the program of science that claims the same thing.

I apologize that I did not have time to make this shorter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James Frazier wrote:
I totally agree.

To me, science can never really deal with astrology because the two disciplines operate on a fundamentally different and perhaps ultimately non-reconcile systems of thought. They differ greatly in how they operate; although it is true we both use mathematics- the questions we are asking are radically different. They are entirely different orders of information. Science, while it uses notations called symbols (H2O stands for water, etc.) is not actually capable of using symbols in the real sense of symbol. The word symbol comes from the root word "symbolos" which literally means to throw together. Science separates in order to understand- symbols throw together. Science cannot deal with one thing meaning another; it cannot do what symbol systems can do. Science demands precision, control, repeatability, as well as mathematical and statistical proofs.

And despite the many years and much effort, in the main, astrological research has never produced much statistical proof. Yes, I know the Gaugelin studies are always dragged up to counter what I just said but let’s face it that work is far removed from what astrologers really do and besides that the results were less that overwhelming. One would have perhaps expected a better yield from a field so frequently plowed.

If one can write an entire book on the various meaning of the symbols of Saturn imagine what science would look like if it tried that! When I can say "well this Saturn in your chart could refer to the restrictions you felt in childhood, or it could indicate the stern Father figure in your life, or it might mean limitations in your perception, or it could indicate the testing you are going through, or it could mean death, or it could symbolize your fight with city hall, or....oh well, you get the idea.

The problem it seems to me is;
A) We are suffering (consciously or unconsciously) from physics envy. This is perhaps understandable when the sciences have been elevated to the ultimate position of authority in modern culture. There have all of the cookies so to speak- the funding, the job security, and the respect of the large majority of the culture whereas we astrologers are on the fringe and left out in the cold. Most of us do not earn our living from astrology. And God forbid that we should apply for funding to do astrological research (especially the kind I would be in favor which would be phenomenological not statistical).

B) We humans had a very difficult time dealing with paradox and even astrologers who one might think would be the most open to "both/ and " thinking are often just as resistant and insist that science will one day prove astrology and they will all be one thing. If that were to happen you can bet your astrolabe that science will be seen as the authority not astrologers.

Science works like this:
1- Phase 1- This (whatever- fill in the blank) is complete hogwash- totally without merit, ludicrious.
2- Phase 2-Well, there are some anomalies here maybe we should take a look at just in case there is anything to this.
3- Phase 3- Ah! We have proven this is actually so.
4- Phase 4- We knew this all along, it was just a matter of proving it.

This happens very frequently in science. For example, medical doctors who performed surgery were greatly insulted when it was first suggested that they at least wash their hands before doing surgery to prevent infection. They were, in fact, outraged at the idea.

C) Astrology is nearly always defined in relationship to something else. Either it is "pseudo-science", or "alternative religion" or the reverse but always linked to something else. Why not just astrology, a mystery, and better for being so.

D) At times, we astrologers seem to have the same theoretical position that science claims, namely, that it is possible to answer all questions about life and the universe though our astrology- everything from the purpose of life to why my cat just got up and crossed the room. I find that just as disenchanting as the program of science that claims the same thing.

I apologize that I did not have time to make this shorter.


response by rudolf smit:
I spoke to Dean, on the phone, this morning. He is aware of Frazier's writings. He should consult the issue of Correlation which is mentioned in the article on the site. This issue of Correlation can be ordered from the Astrological Association in London.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
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