Hi James,
I don?t think there is anything I disagree with in your post, except I have had a very different experience of the Newton story. It always seemed to me that Newton was presented as an opponent of astrology, and that his quote about the bathwater was only ever pesented out of context. But I am also aware that Newton, like Kepler, was interested in alchemy and astrological reasoning. It doesn?t take much imagination to realise how quickly they would have differentiated between the features and uses of astrology. I am sure that both believed that there was a marvel in astrology until the day they died, and that this fired their inspiration for their scientific achievements, but how they must have loathed the prospect of drawing horoscopes to offer judgements on daily affairs. I am not sure if you are aware of this but there is also good article on Newton on this site by Sue Toohey ( www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html ). Sue leaves the impression that it is wrong to think of Newton as an astrologer, but it is also wrong to discount him from the list of people who have done great things with astrological ideas. I need to read your article, which I will.

I mainly wanted to add that I also found the commercial pop-up distracting, and I found the congratulatory quote on the introductory page off-putting too, and slightly out of character for a site that aims to take itself so seriously. I hope Mr Smit understands that I am not saying this to undermine his efforts but to offer constructive feedback (at least in this instance). I realise that the pop-up may be sponsoring the hosting costs, but it gives the flavour of the site having an angle or something to sell, so this, and the quote, detracts from its sense of impartiality.

Deb,

It always seemed to me that Newton was presented as an opponent of astrology, and that his quote about the bathwater was only ever presented out of context.

I am not familiar with any bathwater quote from Newton, are you perhaps, referring to the one by Kepler about throwing out the baby with the bathwater? If not, then you will have to share the quote with me. My paper is about the exchange between Newton and his friend Halley. Supposedly, Halley disparaged astrology and it is claimed that Newton rebuked him by stating ?Sir, I have studied the matter, you have not.? It turns out that this remark concerned religion not astrology.
At any rate, after you read my article I think you will find that I try to show that Newton was steeped in astrological symbolism via alchemy. (and, yes, many of his ideas may in fact have astrological origins; we should keep in mind that in Newton?s time astrological and astrologically friendly cosmological models were not so removed from the prevailing worldview as they are today). What I am trying to show however that is the idea that he was somehow a card carrying practicing astrologer (as Kepler was BTW) is not believable. First, Newton was a recluse; one does not become a judicial astrologer without practice on usually hundreds if not thousands of charts; given his personality and taste for seclusion that would simply have not been possible. Secondly, Newton's library only contained three books of astrology and one of those was a refutation of astrology. Compare this with Lilly's library. One does not in my opinion become a judicial astrologer with such a limited library. Finally, we have no horoscopes drawn by Newton?s hand as we do in the case of both Kepler and Galileo.
I think we have to reflect that there may have been (as still are ) many people who would accept a certain type of astrology and astrological symbolism at the same time be appalled by the way astrology was (is) practiced. Ficino comes to mind.
I am actually still doing research on Newton and I have run across some more interesting information that connects him to a deep understanding of astrological symbolism which I hope to publish; but I still think that predicting the future would have insulted his religious beliefs and I cannot imagine him doing horary astrology in the Lilly tradition.

Deb
Thanks for pointing out Sue Toohey's very fine article. I had not seen this before but it appears that we cover much of the same territory. I would comment on this statement however.
Sue writes:

In an unpublished biography by his nephew-in-law John Conduitt, Newton is quoted as saying "I was soon convinced of the vanity and emptiness of the pretended science of judicial astrology." It is unconvincing to perceive this statement as an outright condemnation of astrology.

I don't know, it sounds pretty convincing to me. I don't know how he could have made it much plainer. He states Judical astrology is vain and empty and that it is "a pretended science".
Now, of course, it is possible that this was simply Newton presenting his public face; I do not think it would have been above him to hold ideas that he would keep secret as he did with all of his alchemical writings. The problem is we cannot know that since, unlike the alchemical writing which have survived, we have no refuting evidence other than the fact that alchemy and astrological symbolism are quite emesshed (and a few hits I am presently working on). So we have to rely on what evidence we have and my best guess is that the above statement concerning judical astrology would be more closely alighned with what we do know about Newton's religious, albeit, unorthodox beliefs.

James Frazier wrote:Whern I tried this link www.astrology-and-science.com I got some popups that had nothing to do with astrology or science. You might want to check to make sure your site has not been high jacked.

try

www.rudolfhsmit.nl

Woodwater,
Thanks for that additional link. The popups are still annoying.......

Has my photo been removed to protect the public? Or me, after this series of posts?

Hi James

Your photo is showing up fine ? at least on my computer.

I?m doing too much at once here, which is why I am getting confused about babies and bathwaters, and the quote I was really thinking of, which was the ?I have studied the matter, you have not?. I shouldn?t rush my words in *this* forum! It will be interesting to learn more about your ongoing research into Newton. The judicial astrology quote is intriguing. It sounds cut and dry, ? and yet, I could quite easily find myself saying the same thing! I think it compares to comments made by Alan Leo, and we might glimpse a similar motivation since both held sincere religious views:

Leo's own attitude towards horary was somewhat ambivalent. He practised horary and even wrote a book about it, [3] but he also referred to the type of horary practised in his day as "the vilest rubbish imaginable". [4] He alternates between recommending it as something best pursued in conjunction with the birth chart, to elsewhere arguing that it's real value is when the birth time is unknown. Overall it seems that Leo had respect for the concept of horary when used to answer serious questions, and on occasions he felt it could be "exceedingly useful"; but from a moral standpoint he loathed the idea of people becoming overly reliant upon it, through which he felt it would weaken rather than strengthen the individual's character and sense of free will. [5]

Prediction, Providence & the Power of the 'Self' in Horary

We need to be wary of reading too much into isolated snippets and quotes - but your guess is better than mine! It?s just that I?ve heard Dennis Elwell trash horary, and I?ve also heard him say that, used properly and respectfully, it is the purest form of astrology. I?m more persuaded by the way you put several objections together to present your view which shows that you have a more rounded and informed opinion.


Woodwater, the two URLs point to the same address, but I didn?t get the pop-up last time, so maybe someone has fixed something?

the problem with the discussion betwen skeptics and astrologers is that the last one to speak wins. Such is the law of rethorics

Deb you stated:

We need to be wary of reading too much into isolated snippets and quotes

This is really sage advice and I appreciate you reminding me of this. And thanks for the acknowledgement as well. Part of my reasoning around Newton is admittedly pure conjecture BUT it is based on reading several biographies, as well as Betty Jo Dobbs' works on Newton's alchemical papers. Besides the reasons I have given, from a psychological point of view it seems unlikely that Newton would be engaged in any a practice such as astrology (judicial) namely due to his own inflation. Newton was born on Christmas Day and felt that he was uniquely and divinely chosen to discover the secrets of the universe to further God's plan and movement toward the end of time. It s unlikely that he would have engaged in the practice of reading charts for clients ( and that would be one of the requirements for me to consider him an astrologer rather than someone using astrological symbolism). As far as an astrological connection through the alchemical symbolism, the attempt to solve the perennial problems associated with the planetary movements as well as other esoteric connections around an astrological worldview, I do not have much problem. That is the point I am trying to make when I gave the same quote from Maynard Keyes regarding his being not the first great scientist but the last great magician. The term ?scientist? was not even in use in Newton?s time and based on his modern biographers opinion as well as that of Betty Jo Dobbs, it appears that his alchemical research occupied even more of his time than his ?scientific? researches.

Hi Deb,

Thank you for answering my question. I might have imagined it, but I thought I detected a faint trace of cynicism - I wonder if that could make the reasoning unreliable? But I suppose if it's backed up by a chart.... could you tell if the cat was dead or alive?

You said previously that you are saddened by the decline in the number of experiments. Could there be a connection between that and statements by leading astrologers that "astrology can't be proved scientifically'? It seems to me that that's the same kind of reasoning that the sceptics are using - reading more into the failure of the experiments that have been done than is actually there. I remember reading the Culver & Ianna book 'Astrology: True or False' about ten years ago, and being amazed that they could draw any conclusions about astrology (rather than astrologers) from the experiments they reported. I came to the same opinion then that Geoffrey Dean has apparently expressed: that any test to demonstrate the validity of astrology has to leave out all interpretation.

As I see it, the fundamental premise of astrology is that there is a correlation between the movement of the planets and human affairs - for the majority of uninterested sceptics, that's all that needs to be demonstrated. And I think it's perfectly reasonable that people who are not instinctively drawn to the subject should expect to see some evidence before they believe it - when we see it so clearly, how can it not be possible to demonstrate it? As you say, the ones who are actively hostile to it will try to find, or invent, holes, but they're not actually important; if we can produce clear evidence the majority of people will accept it and the whole issue will disappear. But the symbolism and the mystery is not important here - there is an objective reality to the subject that we can see, so why would we believe that we can't show it to others?

I stepped into this debate because of James's statement:

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 is a live issue for me, because I've just started work on a statistical study. When I committed myself to doing it I found myself confronting a residue of doubt - having become immersed in the subject over the last twelve years, how would I react if the study didn't show any correlation? That was resolved when I threw away the last of my scepticism - if the study does prove negative my attitude will be that the gods are playing a deeper game than I've appreciated. But, having resolved that, I started wondering about the implications for astrologers and I remembered what I had read in Arroyo and Curry - the same sentiments that James expressed - and started questioning whether in fact it I should do the study at all.

That's part of why I came to Skyscript (via Rudolf Smit's site as it happens - he describes Skyscript as "The best site for quality astrology by quality astrologers"); I was hoping to get a sense of how astrologers feel about this divide and what their expectations would be if clear evidence does emerge (reading Garry's interview with Bernadette Brady, where she talks about status, was very useful in that respect).

I asked, Deb, if your certainty was astrologically based; that question was prompted by a feeling of confidence from seeing those transits in the anti-astrology chart from 'The Moment of Astrology' (which I was inspired to get by comments on Skyscript). I felt that I had asked a question, and been led to an answer - via a book on divination. And it was seeing those transits that started me thinking that the impact on science would be of greater importance than the effect on astrology.

But of course those transits could mean a hundred things (or none at all if that interpretation of the chart has no validity) and my confidence might just be from Uranus stationing ten minutes past my Mars.

I seem to have wandered a long way from Woodwater's question.

On the quantum physics findings, James; it's a good point, but I don't think it's the strangeness of astrology that causes them problems, it's the fact that it implies a degree of order in the universe that conflicts with the foundations of their world view. My impression is that Bohr grew up in a world where the Divine was largely taken for granted - and I suspect that the findings of quantum physics played quite an important role in changing that.

Hi Malcolm,

You said previously that you are saddened by the decline in the number of experiments. Could there be a connection between that and statements by leading astrologers that "astrology can't be proved scientifically'?

I think there is a synchronous connection rather than a causal one. But even though I don?t believe that a successful experiment will change anything about the relationship between astrology and science, for the benefit of the world at large and posterity, I want to see more attempts being made to test the ancient theories. And I will champion anyone who makes the effort and applaud them if they provide clear results, whatever those results are. It?s a nice idea to think that one successful experiment will demonstrate and prove the matter, but I wonder how Gauquelin felt after everything he did, to have to keep warding off the attacks and critics for years and years? I suppose any researcher expects to have their results challenged, but I imagine there are few other subjects where the research is challenged so endlessly and so mercilessly, by a scientific community that is so openly hostile and biased against the subject as a whole. I must be a strange mix to be so full of belief and yet so cynical and sceptical at the same time! But I do wish you well with your endeavour and hope you are successful. More so, considering how big a success I would consider it to be.

Hi James,

This thread could span a dozen new ones, and I don?t want to go off at another tangent, but I just want to put on record my objection to the idea that reading charts for clients is the definition of being an astrologer. The time when I feel MOST like an astrologer is when I am alone with my astrological thoughts and research. In fact, there have been times when the process of reading charts for clients has become exhausting, and has caused me to end my involvement with astrology for two lengthy periods, and it was the indulgence of being able to study and explore for my own mental pleasure that brought me back to it. We see similar statements made about Ptolemy, even though we have no idea how many charts he may have done which ? like most of his published work ? failed to be preserved. But I think that?s irrelevant anyway. These statements have been made by astrologers who themselves have never published a chart judgement, and by some who admit to rarely doing them. I personally think that astrologers are defined by the way they think, and by their demonstrated interest in the subject. So someone like say, Al Biruni, was an astrologer, regardless of whether he drew charts for clients, or even for himself. I do believe it is possible to love the philosophy of astrology more than the actual practice of it and that, to me, is a reliable signature of an astrologer. (Thinking this through a little deeper ? yes, I do think they need to have a love of the subject rather than just an interest in it, because I don?t think it is appropriate to call someone like Geoffrey Dean an astrologer at the current time )

Deb,
You have given me reason to pause for thought and admit that my definition would appear to be far too restrictive. I was more or less comparing Newton to the likes of Kepler or Galileo where we have evidence of them drawing charts. Actually, in practice, I would allow that anyone who considers themselves to be an astrologer to be one (that does not mean I would be in agreement with their views necessarily). This would extend to anyone who even had a connection to the night sky (and yes even G. Dean could be considered as somewhat of an astrologer, albeit a skeptical one). His long time involvement with the subject might be construed as such. After all, he did publish a book titled, "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology" which is more than I have done. I certainly don't pretend to set myself up as an authority on who is and who is not an astrologer; although I can see that my statements might be read that way. That was not my intention.
On the other hand, you have people like David Pingree who spend their entire academic and professional career studying astrology and yet would never think to have their own chart cast. Supposedly, Pingree was asked once if he had ever had his chart read by an astrologer and his response was, "Why should I want to do that?"

I can see that I need to think through these posts a bit more than my flying off the cuff so to speak. I will make an effort to be clearer and to consider my statements with greater care.

I will say to you again how much I appreciate this website and the ability to engage in lively, respectful debate. It sharpens the mind and forces one to evaluate their views more deeply. So thank you.