4
he is a modern astrologer that will tell you that the 11th house is ruled by aquarius...etc etc...

I dont know, i guess to traditional astrology these days....
Perseverantia omnia vincit

6
I don't think it's clear who the 'they' in the last post (i.e. the people who don't understand astrology) is. It could be: Critics of astrology generally; Dean and Mather in particular; or Modern astrologers for that matter.

It seems most likely, given that the post began with a link to an article about them, to be Dean and Mather. I'd be interested to know whether people think it's acceptable to dismiss *all* criticism of astrology out of hand, as due to a lack of understanding? Or perhaps all attempts to evaluate astrology statistically? And if so, why?

What are your grounds, Coffee?

7
It seems to me that if we can get over our sensitivity to criticism from skeptics that we might learn something. In other words, should we ask ourselves is there any truth to what they are saying before we reject them out of hand without much consideration of what they are saying, their objections to us, or why they may be attacking us? Now I admit that this is difficult. When one is being attacked the natural response to either run away or counter attack. But lest we fall into the trap that they have fallen into, namely rejecting everything we say and launching vitriolic attacks on even our sanity, should we not at least make an attempt to rise above that strategy and open upon a little and seriously examine what they have against us.
Now I am certainly not the first to propose that we do this, notable both Cornelius and Phillipson have argued this position and, in the case of Phillipson, he has actually gone the distance by dialoguing with some of our most vocal critics with an attitude of mutual respect which has opened the door to a developing discourse.
One of the fastest ways to get at our own shadow is to listen to the opposing views. Then perhaps we gain a little more insight into ourselves and if nothing else it gives us an opportunity to grow and even strengthen our arguments by thinking deeper about a defense. At times, it seems to me that the two camps are like warring magicians both inflated to the max and possessed with unconscious power complexes.
By the way, I am under no illusions that the critics of astrology will be won over to our position- that would not be the purpose of listening to them more closely. The purpose would be to see if there is anything in what they say that we need to be more conscious of and to examine our own dark side. The problem with polarization and demonization of the opposition is that no movement occurs because each side is stuck in a ?righteous? position against which almost no reason can dissuade.

8
James Frazier wrote:It seems to me that if we can get over our sensitivity to criticism from skeptics that we might learn something. In other words, should we ask ourselves is there any truth to what they are saying before we reject them out of hand without much consideration of what they are saying, their objections to us, or why they may be attacking us?
Couldn't agree more.

9
GarryP wrote:I don't think it's clear who the 'they' in the last post (i.e. the people who don't understand astrology) is. It could be: Critics of astrology generally; Dean and Mather in particular; or Modern astrologers for that matter.
Skeptics, Dean and Mather. It seemed pretty clear to me GarryP.
GarryP wrote: It seems most likely, given that the post began with a link to an article about them, to be Dean and Mather.


Got it :'
GarryP wrote: I'd be interested to know whether people think it's acceptable to dismiss *all* criticism of astrology out of hand, as due to a lack of understanding? Or perhaps all attempts to evaluate astrology statistically? And if so, why?

What are your grounds, Coffee?
Possible ignorance of the ignorant?

If you do astrology and understand that it does work, any skeptic claims must be taken with a pinch of salt as we know that it does work. If they dont think it so, who are we to persuade them?

Criticism of astrological technique within astrology is fine as both parties have an understanding of its inner workings.
Hope this answers your question.