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:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
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 zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The Current Saturn/Uranus Opposition...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3506
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes of course it's very hard to be 'wrong'. But then this is the criticism of all astrology that it's non-falsifiable. A horary astrologer can say the 'signs' were mysteriously not contactable or the querent wasn’t serious. The predictive astrologer can say well on reflection it was this progression, direction, transit...........not this one and so on.


But those are just rationalizations or excuses by the astrologer for getting it wrong. If I make a prediction of a verifiable event or accurately describe an individual or his or her reaction to an event, I will be right or wrong and it will be obvious. If I get it wrong and blame the astrology, or the weather or anything else it is less of a reflection on the astrology than it is on the astrologer. That's no different than a carpenter blaming his tools when the boards aren't cut correctly.

If we come up with a way to use astrology that can never be verified one way or the other until after the events, it doesn't seem very useful, e.g. "Joe optimized his chart so he must have been conscious of it; Mary wasn't conscious of it and look what happened to her - just what the predictive astrologer would have said would happen to her."

I think all astrology has a problem here including traditional. Hindsight astrology is wonderful and relatively easy. After poring over a chart after an event to find out how it was shown in the chart (what we all do when we are studying), the question becomes "Is this predictable?" In other words, would a knowledgeable astrologer, given this information in advance be able to predict the event? If the answer is nearly always, "no," I think we're wasting our time.

Tom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gunhilde



Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 800

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can appreciate your quest for scientific verification of transits, Tom...but IMO this feels a bit like the head of my department telling us that our work is meaningless unless we can quantify it...our work being almost purely of a qualitative nature. Laughing

Take the Pluto transit we previously discussed. No, you can't predict *exactly* what will take place, when, for example, Pluto transits your ASC. For you, at age 8, it was events beyond your control, and at the age of 8 very few people have developed sufficiently in a cognitive sense to derive any sort of 'meaning' from the event, beyond the event itself.

For my oldest friend, whose ASC is in late Sagittarius (the same degree as my Sun; how's that for synastry) experienced Pluto crossing her ASC as a crisis period with her father, who has been both physically and verbally abusive in the past. My friend, during this transit, found the strength of will to finally stand firm against him and refused to participate in his particular 'play for today'. She also took up yoga and tai chi, both symbolic, perhaps, of her increasing internal strength and flexibility. Another friend, also with a late Sag ASC (again, the same degree as my Sun. Peculiar) experienced the transit in a completely different way. Both of these people were much older than 8 at the time of the transit, so of course their experience of the transit was different than yours, both objectively and subjectively. By nature, it would have to be.

Coincidence? Perhaps. If you are looking for purely quantitative data on a Pluto/ASC transit, for example, you'll be on a hiding to nothing, I totally agree. The problem is that so much of life is subjective and highly individual; so there is no way that a single transit across a certain sign/degree will be felt in exactly the same way by each and every person, which is what I think is bothering you about the whole thing. However, when asked (without any astrological suggestion whatsoever, merely a curious, "How were the years between 2006-8 for you?") both commented that those years a) had been very challenging and often difficult emotionally, and b) both had found a final resolution to a long-standing issue in their lives that had previously caused them to feel powerless. Both of these matters would fall under Pluto, if you are to believe the psychological astrologers. Likewise, another friend of mine whose Venus is in the same sign/degrees as mine, when asked (again, in terms of years, rather than astrologically) about the years when Pluto was conjuncting those degrees, relayed a tale that was, while not identical to my own experiences during those years, identical in *feel* as well as with the 'deeper' issues involved: mainly relationships and how one deals with them.

Were other things involved, notwithstanding the Pluto transit across those degrees? Probably. Life doesn't occur in a vacuum chamber, but I *think* that there IS merit to transits, and that people *do* feel them...not all, and not with the same degree of awareness that 'something is happening', but if you were to take people with similar aspects/angles in their charts, and ask them open questions about what happened during those years, you would find similarities, again, in the *expression* rather than in exactitude.

GH Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 396
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An interesting discussion, many thought-provoking points made.

Tom, you got dragged into this against your will... But you make some very good and common-sense points which I'm glad you took the time to add to the discussion. I nodded particularly vigorously when you pointed out that

Quote:
a lot of what is called 'internal transformation' today is what my grandmother would have called 'growing up'.


This really struck a chord with me. I'm in my 20s and I can't tell you how shocked I am on a daily basis by the behaviour and expectations of my peer group. We've somehow been conditioned to believe that nothing is our fault, that "hard work" equates to "boring" and that "having fun" is the only point of life. We've been conditioned never to grow up, never to just grit our teeth and get on with it. It's always someone else's fault.

This all has to do with this misguided notion of "internal transformation", that somehow the very basic task of growing up and maturing, dealing with disappointment, loss and trauma, is to be applauded as outstanding and unique. It's not.

Anyway, back to the topic. I have found that for actual external events to occur, one single transit, no matter what planet(s) is involved, will not produce any concrete result. A single transit can produce a change of mood, yes, but not a major concrete external event. For a concrete event to be produced, there must be progressions AND transits, happening within a month or two of each other. For something concrete to happen, it must be shown not once, but twice (progression plus transit).

Gunhilde, I'd bet a whole box of Quality Street that the events connected to Pluto's transit in your chart are also shown by the progressions at that time 'Leery'.

And finally, yes I have noticed that some people respond much more strongly to a particular planet than others (eg Pluto, Uranus). Some people can have a serious Pluto transit and absolutely nothing will happen. Others have the same transit and all kinds of things happen. I think this is down to the details of each person's chart (what is promised) - and of course, the progressions must add up for a transit to have any effect.

Keren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trevor
Guest





Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think all astrology has a problem here including traditional. Hindsight astrology is wonderful and relatively easy. After poring over a chart after an event to find out how it was shown in the chart (what we all do when we are studying), the question becomes "Is this predictable?" In other words, would a knowledgeable astrologer, given this information in advance be able to predict the event? If the answer is nearly always, "no," I think we're wasting our time.


If Hand is right about the emerald tablet then it may well be a lot of people who define themselves as astrologers, may not be wasting their time, but be on something of a fools errand. But maybe this is their fate?

Campions survey suggests around 40% of folks who define themselves as ''astrologers'' regard it as a means of predicting the future. So there's a lot of people around who perhaps have more to lose than is tolerable if they start thinking Hand is on or near the money here.
.
Quote:

But those are just rationalizations or excuses by the astrologer for getting it wrong. If I make a prediction of a verifiable event or accurately describe an individual or his or her reaction to an event, I will be right or wrong and it will be obvious. If I get it wrong and blame the astrology, or the weather or anything else it is less of a reflection on the astrology than it is on the astrologer. That's no different than a carpenter blaming his tools when the boards aren't cut correctly


Isn't this just faulty reasoning?

Here’s Popper:
“It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. . . . Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory’’

The sports board here is a good example. If someone gets 20 results right in a row does this suggest astrology is responsible? No, there could be a range of reasons. If they get most right, most of the time and consistently do better than a football pundit then it might be worth looking into. But do they?
Back to top
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although I feel reluctant to comment over here (I once was hanged drawn and quartered for not following the symbolic doctrine) I'd like to say I agree on most points of Tom.

In my beginning years of astrology I read Rudhyar's "Astrology of personality". I never suffer a headache but I did after that book for a few days. Then I decided that his kind of astrology was not the kind for me. As the only books I could find tended to theosophism, I felt very attracted to Kepler's ideas of rejecting the houses and signs and going in a more 'scientific' direction.

Perhaps a strange reason and a radical decision, but when I as reader was bombarded with cosmic eggs, tied up with snakes biting their own tails and had all my bones broken on the wheel of karma before getting to an explanation of the astrological symbols in an incomprehensable language, I believed most astrologybooks were set up according to the pattern: "Those who enter, leave all reason.".

Contrary to this, in the Tetrabiblos I find a lot of common sense, it is rational. I like the physical/natural explanation of astrology. Even though I have different ideas and may not agree with him on several points, on the whole I like the concept of Ptolemy's scientific approach.


In my opinion transits often do work though and I even believe they 'work' very close to the exact moments. However I don't agree with the 'transformation' stuff. Transits come and go, they have their effect like the weather has and after them I remain the same old me. They mainly seem to work on the emotional level as a change of feelings. However as emotions are chemical processes in the brains, I therefore consider their effects as 'physical'.

They sometimes do become more apparent. During transits of Venus over the Ascendant or Jupiter over Venus I get more (feminine) attention. So indirectly I think the stimulances in the brain work through to the looks and physical condition. And a few of my transits can even be related to 'real' events.


Perhaps this still sounds quite psychological but I'd rather see this in the traditional sense of the humours and perhaps with a modern sense of humour Smile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PFN



Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 393
Location: Ouro Preto, Brasil

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One Bull's eye predition is generally enough to validate astrology in my opinion. The random chance of a mundane/particular event being predicted with accuracy of time and location along rich details are very small, and random chance can not stand it's ground, since it would have to be accounted for each and every detail on the prediction. Astrology is about getting it real right one single time.

Now, about this transit discussion, I feel somewhat of a drive seeking utopia when we try to align them with life events. It's an unperfect universe. The effects and their rules are not universal, There's no uniformity. But there are patterns. Sometimes they work, sometimes not. You have to use them in a enviroment that you know they will work most of the time or at all times if possible. As far as a predictive tool, transits are an aid, but they just pave the way. For instance, among other reasons, if everything is interconnected, who can say that a transit is not an event taking place out of our bodies and perception, preparing itself to lead to another one? I've seen a transit to my 12th house as the culmination of a series of events that lead to a car crash once. Everytime I suffered an agression on the street, two planets had entered my 6th or 8th house and when the third enters and form a sttelium I get a punch, kick and things like that in the face.

The same way, the only time of my life I get to be approached by girls is in the beggining of every year, when Jupiter goes over my natal Saturn. Obviously there are important transits.

What most of us forget is that our natal charts is not only ours. At the same time the Moon represent's a bodily function through a sanguine relation to Jupiter, it may also represent a woman preparing herself to leave her house that night and meeting us for a short time. Or even meeting a friend of us, that later will comment how much of a beauty she was. And that relate to us, only but in not a so direct way. Our chart is not only ours, our events is not only ours. The representation system of astrology is unperfect in the sense that it does not serve to it's hoped for purpose in a complete way (if perfectly prediting is your purpose). Still, that's what we have to work with. And sometimes, we may be able to use it to predict fairly well. And by knowing, to act accordingly. But them again, this ability is nothing more than something that was already accounted for. If we can predict, that means that there is a reason for it. Some people gets by without it, we do not. Why can we predict? That I do not know. But I could care less.

Also, the psychological approach only leads to confusion IMO, as if everything on the chart belongs to us, as if we are the center of the universe. Our emotional changes are related to reality, nothing changes without a reason. For you to feel grief, there must have to be something going on, you can not feel it out of nothingness, something lead to that. And that something is verifiable. Instead of caring about transits that seems to mean "nothing", we should look at those that mean. Those that have any importance as a trigger or culmination. After all, we have only 7 planets, and they are in charge of the sunny day as much as the day of our deaths. We cannot call for the Super Special Miracle Planet everytime an important event happens, Jupiter will be in charge both of the rain that falls on our yard and that fantastic lottery prize you were destined for. And our emotions and inner transformation are the result of something real, something that happened or that was denied to us by not happening at all. Moods change can be very informative when you see a transit that means sadness and depression or joy and exaltation and can track what lead to that, if not like this, they have little value, even for transformation. Nothing happens in isolation, time is always on the move, and emotions are subjective reactions to reality. In that sense, they are real and usefull.


Last edited by PFN on Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3506
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't actually get dragged into this against my will. I let it happen. I know is responsible for this: me.

One reason I was reluctant is that these discussions do what this discussion is doing - wandering all over the lot. A couple of quick points:


Quote:
I can appreciate your quest for scientific verification of transits, Tom...but IMO this feels a bit like the head of my department telling us that our work is meaningless unless we can quantify it...our work being almost purely of a qualitative nature.


Although I appreciate the overall gesture of support in your post, I'm not looking for scientific verification of transits. My original point is that transits, by themselves, are not enough. They sometimes work because they sometimes are connected to other things. I think the astrologer who uses little else but transits and particularly who uses transits without reference to the nativity (and I'm only talking about natal astrology) is trying to catch the wind.

I also think they have a social function: "Ewwwwww Saturn is transiting my natal Pluto I'm really in for it." No you're not; you're drawing attention to yourself and for little reason. Everyone on earth born within a year of so of you is undergoing the same transit. We rarely hear, "Oh Jupiter is trining my natal Venus maybe Joe and I will get engaged." This is just as valid and far less likely to be voiced. It's still not enough. Joe has a chart, too.

I concede I probably made a mistake by citing my own experience in this matter and not mentioning anything else, but I really didn't want to go there, mostly because I didn't feel like looking things up. These discussions are rarely worth that much effort It's not my only experience, and I won't bring up my own chart again.

Again for the record: I am not saying that transits have little or no value. I am saying that by themselves, without reference to other things such as directions, progressions, returns, etc, they often don't produce anything so why limit ourselves to using transits alone? So far the only response I've received to that is "You're wrong and predictive astrology sucks; read Dane Rudhyar."


Quote:
Isn't this just faulty reasoning?


For the life of me I cannot see how you come to that conclusion based on what I wrote. And the Popper remark begs the question entirely. One more time:

1) Astrologer predicts "X"
2) "X" doesn't happen "Y" does
3) Astrologer says, "The question wasn't sincere"
4) Tom: no the astrologer got it wrong. Maybe he missed something. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he isn't very good at it. Maybe the astrology is just fine and the answer is there, and the astrologer is blaming his tools. Maybe it just didn't work this time.
5)Tom's reasoning is faulty. ??????????????????????????

Maybe it isn't Tom's reasoning. Maybe it's the astrologer's. Maybe someone is setting up a straw man.


Quote:
The sports board here is a good example. If someone gets 20 results right in a row does this suggest astrology is responsible? No, there could be a range of reasons. If they get most right, most of the time and consistently do better than a football pundit then it might be worth looking into. But do they?


Sports astrology is a reasonably valid test of both the astrologer and the astrology given enough time and effort. You either get it right or you don't. But all is not as it seems. Things are rarely so simple. The key with all betting systems is to beat the odds. In sports betting the odds are rarely 50-50 and so flipping a coin is a losing proposition. I've read that favorites win about 70% of the time. So if you always go with the favorite, over enough time you'll be correct about 70% of the time, but you'll never make any money. The real money is correctly picking the underdog enough times to win much at little risk and that means you have to be right about the underdog a lot. If you want to make real money (sometimes underdogs are only underdogs by a little - in other words the teams are fairly evenly matched as they often are in championship games - you have to be right about 80% of the time. So in order to make money with sports astrology 80% is our goal. In order to validate the astrology maybe 70% is enough. That's background.

But then you need the system and the ability to read it and all its nuances correctly. You probably need more than one system. Astrology does not seem to lend it self to baseball very well even in the World Series or maybe especially so. The fact that no one is making huge amounts of money this way (that we know of) doesn't mean it can't be done. That's why they call it research. Perhaps someone has enough interest, time, and money to do it. I don't. I've achieved my goal of finally beating a woman who does Sports Astrology and is right far more often than I am. I'm now satisfied.

Now if this is all considered an excuse, fine, but what is there that is any more verifiable and therefore more valid (Popper notwithstanding) - not just for sports but for anything? Or does the Popper quote mean we don't have to validate - just assert? The unconscious? Please.

The problem with the position of the psychological astrologers (and calling one "depth" and the other "shallow" or whatever is just engaging in name calling) is that they are trying to prove their position by finding fault with the others. Prediction can't be done - so there - so now let's get serious and talk about Jung or Rudhyar or Greene. That's "depth" astrology and you got the Super Bowl wrong.

Why don't we all just concentrate on what we wish to concentrate on, and forget about everyone else. Who knows someone may actually accomplish something more than ego gratification.

I love repeating this story. It comes from one of John Frawley's books or magazine articles. A client had a "reading" done by a self described psychological astrologer. Nothing clicked. Whatever the astrologer said, the client didn't agree with it at all. Out of frustration the astrologer said, "Well this is what you would have been like if you're parents hadn't messed you up."

Maybe the astrologer should have predicted that the client would be torn apart by wild animals in a public square.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
trevor
Guest





Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For the life of me I cannot see how you come to that conclusion based on what I wrote. And the Popper remark begs the question entirely. One more time:

1) Astrologer predicts "X"
2) "X" doesn't happen "Y" does
3) Astrologer says, "The question wasn't sincere"
4) Tom: no the astrologer got it wrong. Maybe he missed something. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he isn't very good at it. Maybe the astrology is just fine and the answer is there, and the astrologer is blaming his tools. Maybe it just didn't work this time.
5)Tom's reasoning is faulty. ??????????????????????????

Maybe it isn't Tom's reasoning. Maybe it's the astrologer's. Maybe someone is setting up a straw man.



If astrologer predicts X and it happens is this ‘proof’. No, it simply means Astrologer X was able somehow, (probability, luck, confirmation bias, astrology? etc) to do this on this occasion.

I’ll quote Popper again as it’s so important:
“It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. . . . Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory’’.

So there is no ‘genuine test’ going on with subjective validations of astrological veracity. This applies to the way astrology is largely practiced today whether it’s of the predictive or psychological variety.

Quote:
Now if this is all considered an excuse, fine, but what is there that is any more verifiable and therefore more valid (Popper notwithstanding) - not just for sports but for anything? Or does the Popper quote mean we don't have to validate - just assert? The unconscious? Please.


I don’t think you and Popper would disagree as to how to operationalise a sports astrology experiment. Popper, and all scientists, would simply be able to say what the experiment (s) suggest. As regards sports it would require 1,000’s of predictions over a period of time to give enough data to speculate about. So no ‘straw man’. However a postive result for astrology here is stage one. Stage is to find out how it works, until then it remains dubious.

I can’t follow your validate, assert, unconscious?

.
Quote:
The problem with the position of the psychological astrologers (and calling one "depth" and the other "shallow" or whatever is just engaging in name calling) is that they are trying to prove their position by finding fault with the others. Prediction can't be done - so there - so now let's get serious and talk about Jung or Rudhyar or Greene.


It’s called ‘depth’ because the various models postulate the ‘existence’ of layers of the mind which academic psychologists regard as largely non-verifiable at the moment.. Plenty of psychologists are very open to psychodynamic ideas and use them, as are psychiatrists who are often formally trained in this area. ‘Depth’ isn’t about the other models being shallow just different.

My sense is Rudhyar and Greene take the view that ‘prediction’ can be done, but it’s unlikely it can be done in a ‘concrete or small’ way. Not least because Greene’s perspective at least towards the ‘signs/symbols’ regards them as more paradoxical, multivalent and unconscious. You ought to stop comparing Greene to Rudhyar it’s a profoundly different approach to Astrology. You won’t find Greene confusing Valens with Lilly, as the link I gave you demonstrates.

For example 9/11. Pluto is near the USA ascendant. We have on the face of it a ‘profound’ validation of Astrology here. However all that could be ‘expected’ from this transit is a ‘transformation’ in the way America sees itself and the way the world sees America. The dogma is Pluto is cathartic and raises issues of ‘survival’ but a range of ’events’ could have happened to support this notion. At the time a relatively unknown mid-western astrologer, I recall? predicted something like this on this day, however didn’t she also predict hundreds of other things that didn’t happen? Zoller had been raising concerns about this period, but so what? Most of the world half-expected America to be attacked at some point around this time.

Popper would say, ok here’s something to work with that looks promising lets look at a few hundred other countries and see what Pluto did when it went over their ascendants. Then it gets ‘subjective’ and relies on the persuasive quality of the astrological narrative(s) to demonstrate a ‘transformation’ in the country’s persona without any tangible events to support it. Popper may then start ‘believing’ in astrology but acknowledge that this belief isn’t ‘confirmed’.

Quote:
I love repeating this story. It comes from one of John Frawley's books or magazine articles. A client had a "reading" done by a self described psychological astrologer. Nothing clicked. Whatever the astrologer said, the client didn't agree with it at all. Out of frustration the astrologer said, "Well this is what you would have been like if you're parents hadn't messed you up."


Hopefully you’ll stop repeating it now because it's full of faulty thinking. There's very few 'psychological astrologers' in the world, perhaps 20?, and plenty of Tyl, Modern Western, types who use this label incorrectly, probably for want of another. Perhaps Frawley was referring to one of these, as a reputable 'psychological astrologer' would say no such thing!! Frawley's uninformed or misinformed prejudice is notorious but make no comment on this without any evidence, or a chart, although you may have provided some of the 2nd hand variety here.

Anyway back to the Emerald Tablet what do you think of Hand’s speech and do you think this raises real concerns that those who favour a form of ‘predictive astrology’, and use the label ‘Hermetic, have misunderstood the Esoteric roots?
Back to top
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why does anybody care whether astrology is verifiable within the current scientific paradigm? Serious question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geodorn



Joined: 04 Apr 2009
Posts: 23
Location: USA

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivia wrote:
Why does anybody care whether astrology is verifiable within the current scientific paradigm? Serious question.


If I am not mistaken, the very first post was proposing that an outer planet transit provides an opportunity for a scientific test. The discussion went much further than that, of course, and I do not think it is a bad thing at all. Popper was mentioned. There is a saying (attributed to Richard Feynman, I think) which goes something like this: philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. So, with all due respect to Popper, the popularity of science nowadays is not due to some fancy philosophical theory (as far as I can tell most scientists don't even know or care about it). Science is so popular because of its predictive ability. Things are observed, conclusions and theories are made, tested, some fail and are forgotten, some become popular until something better comes along, etc. It’s mostly common sense, really. There is, of course, a lot of "paradigmosis", but even scientific paradigms change. The current scientific paradigm is extremely narrow, materialistic, etc., but the scientific “method “ is extremely effective in the area it applies to, most of the time it lives up to its claims. So, I guess, this is why people care about it.
I do not think the technical methods of contemporary science are appropriate to what astrology tries to do, but the strive to be consistent in grasping and explaining empirical facts is definitely something to learn from.
Unlike most people here, I do not have an impressive astrological CV. Actually, I am a dunce, I started looking into it more-or-less seriously only a couple of years ago, because I found too many “coincidences”. I am still trying to figure out what really works. I guess there is some value in “psychological” approach, maybe just the process of thinking about how and what works in a chart is good in itself. Who knows? But anything mainstream in that branch is so vague, as Tom and others pointed out, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see the triviality of their definitions and predictions. I am also cautious of anything that only a few people can do (yes, that’s my contemporary scientific approach talking).
Psychological explanations/predictions are great, of course, because they are so flexible, but who can tell better than yourself how you feel? Just as an experiment, who could tell me what happened to me / how I felt during a recent Uranus transit over my Moon, which is in opposition to Jupiter, to a couple of minutes, the closest aspect in the chart? If the transits are so important and are causative on their own, it should show up, right? Don’t bother: nothing special. The 1988 Saturn/Uranus? It’s been awhile ago, but it’s basically the same blank. I don’t know, maybe I am one of the few people who are deprived. I do not deny that other people feel transits, but the simple fact that there are exceptions means that either there are other factors involved or the whole thing is not what we think it is. That’s the common sense, call it “scientific”, if you like, method of reasoning, Popper or not.
Just my two cents from “the other side”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nah, I'm one of the dreaded predictive classical Persian types myself. But astrology and current day science are coming from very different places.

Then again, I can show you peer-reviewed studies in medical journals stating that if you're a British man who doesn't shave every day, you have a 30% higher chance of heart attack than one who does.

And worse.

Sadly, I'm serious about that. Even science ain't often what it's cracked up to be.

As for only a few people being able to do astrology, not so sure. It does take an awful lot of study, and I'll be studying my whole life. And I still won't have cracked the half of it.

Oddly, Pluto transits do hit me in most dramatic ways - possibly that natal square and antiscial conjunction between Sun + Pluto in 8. But it doesn't do that to most people, and if I didn't have a bunch of other chart factors pointing to it, it'd probably be a dumb note. Neptune usually is, even though by modern standards it's 'very prominent' in my chart.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gunhilde



Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 800

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oddly, Pluto transits do hit me in most dramatic ways - possibly that natal square and antiscial conjunction between Sun + Pluto in 8. But it doesn't do that to most people, and if I didn't have a bunch of other chart factors pointing to it, it'd probably be a dumb note. Neptune usually is, even though by modern standards it's 'very prominent' in my chart.


Mmm, mine too. While I don't doubt that other things have to happen to a chart to activate it (progressions, etc.), I think that certain types of charts feel the transits more than others. I just haven't figured out which types yet! Laughing

I also think that, unless you are one of those types who checks your chart every day (and some do; not me), a lot of transits are noticed in hindsight. I felt my Saturn Return VERY keenly, and was aware, of course, that it was happening; but it wasn't until after it had passed that I realised just how hard the previous 2-3 years had been. It was a doozy. Which is why I don't think that transits, especially of outer planets, perform an 'acute' function, more like a general zeitgeist which reflects more or less in an individual's life...depending, too, of course, on those progressions and whatnot.

GH Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trevor
Guest





Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivia wrote:
Why does anybody care whether astrology is verifiable within the current scientific paradigm? Serious question.


Isn't the clue in the chart itself? Gemini is disposed to collect information, Virgo seperates the wheat from the chaff, Sagittarius ask what it it 'means' and Aquarius assess it's intellectual validity. The water signs meanwhile are reflecting on it's 'value'.

If you want to approach it another way I'd say it's prima facie human nature. If your doctor prescribes a drug and then says we have no objective 'evidence', glossing over Philosophy of Science and/ or Mind deviations, it works then you would be less confident taking it. Young children are motivated to find out how things work, this is seemingly ‘hard-wired’.

Jung felt a horoscope gave him a head start in identifying what was happening in the mind of the client. If 'true' then this tool or language should improve the ''human condition''. Gary Phillipson addresses some of this 'what would happen if Astrology became seen as something other than a complex blend of superstition and cognitive errors’ in his Year Zero book.

I shave once a week, but i'm pretty sure the fags not the stubble will hasten the decomposing and this ‘knowledge’ comes from science. Although I do have the chart of a smoker, or do I?
Back to top
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And most of the drugs you take, when you look them up, will have: 'pharmacological action unknown' written in their profiles. A lot of them will be withdrawn from the market within a few years because they simply don't work, or because they do too much harm.

Sometimes observational evidence is useful. Sometimes it's not. And some of the least helpful scientific studies we rely on came about because people in general perceived certain behaviours as politically correct. Which is one of the reasons we had so many highly skewed studies about why saturated fat is bad and carbohydrates are good.

Only it doesn't seem to be true the more we look and from the biggest follow up studies that have been done (much as it's been drummed into public consciousness, it actually seems to be harmful, only gee, the years-long studies designed to prove it, when they contradict it, even when they're bigger, longer-term and have a better methodology don't have press releases sent out beforehand), but it was predicated on the same prejudiced ideas that the shaving study was predicated on. If you're health conscious and of the right social class, you'll do more of the 'do' things and less of the 'don't' things.

Not necessarily. Especially when we don't really know what the right things to do are. If you think this is no biggie, then do realise that when it comes to nutrition, governments follow guidelines, so everyone from schoolchildren to diabetics have been being given bad advice and bad food since around 1970. And it's killed people. A LOT of people.

I can only tell you observationally that during the current 'obesity and diabetes epidemic' that the consumption of fructose has gone up on average from half a pound per person per year to about 60 pounds per person per year since 1970. And that dietary carbohydrate intake has quadrupled, while sat-fat intake has dropped off to very little. In other words, during the time that heart disease, diabetes, and serious overweight has been rising to near-endemic proportions, our diets have changed to more 'healthy' ones by the preponderance of current scientific evidence. If you believe it's really healthy. Only the more we really look, the more it seems that saturated fats don't hurt most people. But sugars and starches sure do.

One big clue, maybe not so strangely, how we've been finding out whether this stuff is true, is by studying the past, and the far past. And there's still some pretty compelling evidence that in that particular regard we've taken a very wrong turn.

I was a research assistant to a neuropsychiatrist once. Brilliant man. Who told me for all we know, clincal depression, another one of the big diseases of our time, could be contagious. Again - this is for all we actually scientifically know about it. I'm guessing this doesn't get mentioned a lot in psychiatric training.

Not that observational evidence is worthless. I want to say it was in 1583 (could be a little off) when Richard Saunders was writing about a non-contagious plague - but everyone who caught it and died had eaten herrings. Other people in the same house as those people who didn't get sick - hadn't eaten the herrings. It was a pretty big deal, about 1800 people per week were dying.

I'd have stayed away from the herrings, myself. But if you've worked in science, you know what a minefield many, many studies can be, whether they're observational or causative. Not all of them - but even scientists have agendas. And the people who pay scientists to study things CERTAINLY have agendas.

Yet, astrology has been around since well before the current scientific paradigm and it continues to work.

Critical thinking skills will serve you far better than relying solely on the scientific evidence in many fields. Science isn't worthless, but you have to go over the study methods and results, and even your own prejudices, with a fine-tooth comb, even in fields like disease research. And that's a pretty central one to most people's lives.

As to science with astrology? Remember the Starbaby debacle? You really think people are going to start carrying out well-designed (and Starbaby wasn't) fairly non-biased astro-scientific studies anytime soon? Who'd pay for that? What would the astrological criteria even be? I don't think we even know enough yet to do it. So, no, I don't think it's going to happen. And that's even without the paradigm problem.

I really don't believe science is worthless. If I did, I wouldn't have studied it myself, spent some years working in it. But, like all human endeavours, it's got limitations.

Sorry - I'll get off the soapbox and leave quietly now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Labalance



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 122

Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great post Olivia!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 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