16
Image
I would say that most approach it as a science, though it seems obviously more of an art.

If this were not the case (ie. if it actually was more science than art), then computer programs would make the best astrologers and that is obviously false.

If Astrology was subject to "truth in advertising" laws, then I'd probably say it is an art based firmly on science. Without the science part, we wouldn't know exactly where the planets are and measuring angles is firmly in the realm of science. Without the art part, we would merely be spitting out little "factoids" that, though interesting, fall incredibly short of what a competent astrologer is capable of evoking in the mind/consciousness of the client.

I would say that an astrologer is being artful, depending on just how adept he is at making creative connections between the client's life and the astrological factors.

Curiously, several have referred to "the art of rectification" when this is the one area in Astrology, above all, where science can come to the rescue! ;)

James

17
Good post, Atlantean!

I would describe astrologers as consumers of scientific information, but not as scientists.

You see all kinds of non-scientific disciplines where this consumption of scientific information happens, for example: environmental law, environmental economics (and additional hybrid environmental fields), history of science, "science (or technology) in society," science journalism, and a lot of archaeology. (Some archaeologists really are scientists, but some are really humanities, even fine arts scholars who nevertheless make use of radiocarbon dating results, &c.)

Then what do we make of the few astrologers (today, with a majority in the past) who are or were mathematicians? Today there is applied math, optimization, combinatorics, and/or statistics, &c, which would be part of a scientific study. Yet pure math isn't really classified as a science.

Some astrologers really are into developing software for horoscope calculations and ephemeris timetables, but the overwhelming majority of astrologers do not do this sort of work. Few astrologers have any university degrees in scientific fields, let alone the Ph. D. and post-doc that are required for most research scientists. (Technicians get hired with lower educational requirements, but generally do not head up research terms.)

We could make a strong argument in the past (before 1700) for a marriage of science and astrology, but this divorce was final.

Psychology is an interesting conundrum. The "modern psychological astrology" of the 1970s was based upon its least scientific practitioners. Psychologists today, depending upon their specialty, may prefer terms like behavioural science and even neuroscience. But you won't find their work in astrology books (she qualifies, "so far as I know.")

It looks to me like somebody should get the word out to teachers and professors that most people do not know what science is like today, let alone the empirical liberal arts fields like sociology, anthropology, and counseling; which really might inform an astrologer's education and truth-claims.

18
waybread wrote:
It looks to me like somebody should get the word out to teachers and professors that most people do not know what science is like today, let alone the empirical liberal arts fields like sociology, anthropology, and counseling; which really might inform an astrologer's education and truth-claims.
hi waybread, after reading many of your comments on this thread i've come to the conclusion that i am not clearly understanding your intent here.. it seems you think astrologers need to know more about science in order they be better informed.. the same could be said for those who associate with the scientific community who know next to nothing about astrology but go so far as to comment on it as well!

hi atlantean, you appear to never miss a chance to promote rectification methods along a certain line! i continue to see rectification as an art as well. i'm am not opposed to software programs coming up with data that might suggest a better fit but i don't see any conclusion made via a software program as enough to classify rectification as 'science' as opposed to art. i continue to think the human potential for error or arrogance is an ongoing part of any conclusion made off a software program for rectification.

19
James, Actually I think you do understand my intent!

We are not dealing with a level playing-field in the (misplaced) science-astrology debate. Sure, it would be super if scientists understood astrology better before criticizing it. In all my years of working around scientists, however, I can't recall that I even heard any of them mention astrology. I have read publications where scientists' criticism of astrology is at issue, but I don't think it is on the radar of your typical biochemist.

So we cannot tar a few million scientists with one brush, on the basis of our hurt little feelings over a Richard Dawkins or a 1975 newspaper ad.

Scientists are only human, and as such, they criticize all kinds of things they haven't studied in depth, ranging from Catholicism to the New York Yankees. So do you. So does everyone.

But astrology vs. science isn't some kind of quid pro quo arrangement.

We all know that science is a mainstream field, with a huge educational, industrial, and and governmental aparatus behind it. Kids learn science in school, not astrology.

We all know astrological publications that just make us cringe. Astrology is its own worst enemy so far as the media are concerned (with thanks to Deborah Houlding and a couple of others for their yeoman efforts.) I do astrology because I love it. I certainly don't expect scientists to somehow be nice to us when we have done such a poor PR job for ourselves ourselves as a discipline.

We need to know something about science and technology simply to function as literate citizens in today's world. Do you want GMOs in your food? How do you feel about fracking regarding your ground water? Does it matter if endangered species go extinct? (Hey, their preservation means your tax dollars.) What do you know about the latest prescription drug your doctor ordered for you?

In fact, the whole argument of "Why should we be nice to scientists if they won't be nice to us?" just leaves me bewildered.

20
Hello Waybread,

Re: "Good post, Atlantean!"

Thank you very much!

Re: Science

The scientific parts of Astrology are (imo) easier to learn. We all know what a trine means... we can figure the math behind Solar Returns, precessed or not, etc. What is more difficult is the learning of making creative connections and of producing insights that are meaningful/useful for the client.

Additionally, I think the less artful (more scientific) someone is at astrology, the less likely they are to be circumspect and self-limiting in terms of saying things that could be potentially damaging.

Once the astrologer has said several things that the client accepts as Truth, the inclination is for the client to accept the other comments as also being true. I have had clients tell me that other astrologers had told them "your 7th House is in bad shape, you'll probably never have a successful relationship in this lifetime", and other forms of client-abuse that just makes one CRINGE upon hearing of it.

Take care,

James

21
The original argument was not to call Astrology as a 'Science', because once you call it such, it invites those scientists (or pseudo-scientists) which can not make an inch of progress in their own fields but start demanding 'Proof, proof, thus acting as champions of enlightenment and waging a crusade against all those who in their opinion have exploited the humanity for the past 2 or 3 thousand years.

It gives a lot of publicity, media attention, TV programs, bushels of money and recognition beyond the closed Scientific community. Not a bad deal.


In my opinion, of all the things which have exploited the humanity, Astrology is at the bottom of list.

It is wrong to assume that only astrologers are the consumers of 'scientific knowledge. Scientists use microscopes, telescopes, clothes, food, speech, Lab equipment but they are not required to obtain separate Ph.D's in all of these things.

Ph.D in Telescope manufacturing
Ph.D in Microscope manufacturing
Ph.D in Diets
Ph.D in Textile Engineering
Ph.D in Literature


So, I use a computer and have few words of comforts for clients. It means I should obtain higher degrees separately in Computer Science and Behavioural Psychology. I wonder when did my mother or wife obtain
higher degrees in Behavioral Psychology.

Point to be noted is by putting all the stress on softwares, micro-computing nobody is saying that 'Astrologer should be perfecting their own astrological techniques. Which I assure you is the most boring work. An ability to read the chart on a consistent basis is difficult. It is easy to hide behind 'Knowledge of History of Astrology'. Because nobody can challenge you on your ability to read the charts.

It is also wrong to assume that one can not think or critically analyze things if S/he has no scientific training.

It is also wrong to assume that there is further research to be done in 'Astrology'. The problem we have is to digest and be able to apply the knowledge which already exists.

I think I need to burn my copy of 'Christian Astrology', Planets in Transit by Robert Hand, Deborah Houlding's Book on Houses and her paper on 'Ptolemy Terms'. I have doubts whether these people had Ph.D's at the time of writing their books/papers.

The funding for Scientific Research comes from Tax Payers monies, which could be accountants or musicians.

It is time to critically question the role of scientists and their pronouncements from the pulpits of supposed superiority. In the times of crumbling of established religions, Gods of Science can not be tolerated.
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/

22
Morpheus wrote:james_m,

I would call 'Astrology' as an 'Art' for a simple reason. :)

By calling it an 'Art' we would not be bothered by 'pseudo-scientists' who are not competent to make an 'inch' of progress in their own selected fields, however, they think that it is their prerogative to comment, discuss and pronounce judgments against the minority and helpless sections of society.

Our life in 20th and 21st century has been made easy by 'Inventors/ Technicians' rather than 'Scientists'.
Not actually true. It's true that technology and science are distinct enterprises which, as T.S. Kuhn pointed out, has often been difficult for historians to see because both are progressive in ways other fields aren't. But since the last third of the nineteenth century the two have interacted closely to create the hypermodern world we live in today. Thumbing our nose at science because science doesn't love us is perhaps understandable but ultimately not very productive. Kuhn, incidentally, the leading historian and philosopher of science of the twentieth century, had some interesting and relatively undogmatic things to say about astrology, including this in an article titled "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" in his The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change:
Nevertheless, astrology was not a science. Instead it was a craft, one of the practical arts, with close resemblances to engineering, meteorology, and medicine as these fields were practised until little more than a century ago. The parallels to an older medicine and to contemporary psychoanalysis are, I think, particularly close. In each of these fields shared theory was adequate only to establish the plausibility of the discipline and to provide a rationale for the various craft rules which governed practice....A more articulated theory and more powerful rules were desired, but it would have been absurd to abandon a plausible and badly needed discipline with a tradition of limited success simply because these desiderata were not yet at hand.
Article: After Symbolism

24
it is interesting where the conversation has gone! my thinking is that astrology is a useful activity that doesn't have to be classified as scientific in order to have merit and value to people.. this is really my own way of staying on my own playing field - astrology - and not concerning myself with whether scientists can adopt the idea of astrologers playing on the 'scientific' field or not.. i do think astrology has some science to it, but to try to put it all in that context seems to deprive it of the art which i consider most important.. i suppose i am setting on a conflict here between art and science when they can be thought of as 2 separate areas of interest and study and don't have to be seen in conflict with one another.. i lay the blame for that are the doorstep of the small community of ''scientists'' who have commented on astrology without taking the time to study it.

for me - astrology is primarily an art, not a science.. i like the quote that spock offers at the end of his last post here and relate well to those comments as well.

25
Hello james_m,

We do seem to do this dance from time to time...

Re: "you appear to never miss a chance to promote rectification methods along a certain line!"

Well, of course. I am one of those people who believe in the axiom "don't mess with success." I have seen these methods lead directly to documented birthtimes, based only on the dated events in one's life. Once witnessed, it's hard to perpetuate disbelief. ;) If I tell you that my auto will do 250 km/hr and you don't believe me, really just one trip on the autobahn witnessing it, makes it much more difficult to be a doubting Thomas in the future. ;)

Re: "i continue to see rectification as an art as well"

Yes, it's an art in a sense, however, the true methodology should be firmly rooted and rely on the scientific. Lilly said that the best method of rectification is based on lining up appropriate Primary Directions to events in the life. Though I use a different method of Primary Directions, I absolutely could not agree with him more.

To most, "art in rectification" is just a license for total subjectivity on the part of the astrologer.

Re: "i continue to think the human potential for error or arrogance is an ongoing part of any conclusion made off a software program for rectification."

When it (the algorithm) has been shown to work in documented, well-timed births, you can be as skeptical as you'd like. You can disbelieve gravity if you'd like...that's your call.

I really don't want to argue with you about it. (again) If you don't want to use it, don't want to believe it can work, more power to you. Find methods that you are comfortable with... Just please do realize that the "artful" approach, ie. rectification by delineation (ie. putting the planets in the houses that the astrologer is comfortable with them being in) is wrought with SUBJECTIVITY. It is biased. Software, at least, looks at ALL potential birth moments with no preconceived notions and seeks "merely" to find the best fit of appropriate Primary Directions for events and is therefore (like it or not) definitely more OBJECTIVE.

If you don't believe this is true, then consider that normally one could give the same birthtime range to 10 astrologers and get basically 10 different rectifications from it. On the other hand, if given the same initial data, Polaris will consistently spit out the same potential birth times whether I am using it or someone else is...

...and, as I have said, Polaris HAS BEEN demonstrated to find correct (ie. documented, well-timed births) birthtimes given only dated events from the life, the date of birth, and location.

Why Polaris hasn't (more universally) caught on is beyond me. I'm thinking that many don't like the "Black Box" element of it. Contrast that with Jigsaw, which many people have bought, but which makes NO DISCERNMENT between different types of events (ie. a wedding and automobile accident with death are EQUALLY treated (astrologically)) and which can quickly be demonstrated to lead one astray in well-documented birthtimes.

Though I speak highly of Polaris, (why wouldn't I?), I very much believe, to each his own...

Peace

James

26
Morpheus, I fully agree that we should not call astrology a science. Beyond that, some of your logic escapes me.

As informed citizens, we should all have a rudimentary working knowledge of what today's science is all about, because its effects are such a major part of our daily lives; and some of it has real policy implications. Science is also the engine for a lot of the economics that gives people jobs.

The objects of scientific study are so important to us: the human body and the environment that surrounds us, for starters.

It is helpful if astrologers have some elementary knowledge of astronomy (no pun intended.) Some argue we should know enough math to cast charts by hand.

If you typed your post on a computer using electricity, plastics, and the Internet, thank a scientist or engineer. (While this distinction is real, some people refer to "science" and "science applied.") If you are taking any life-saving or health-promoting medication-- or someone you love does-- thank a scientist.

Scientists attract grant money in part because of the potential economic, environmental, medical, or social benefits of their work. "Pure" or theoretical science gets funded on spec. Scientists have to work darn hard to write the grant proposals and then if they receive a grant, they have to conduct the research, write up reports, and publish the results of their findings. The ones I knew (and know) would be happy to put in a 40-hour week with two weeks' vacation simply to get more time off. Most of them put in 60-hour weeks. For the academics this includes teaching, research, and service.

Although science is mostly (not entirely) empirical, we should not confuse it with empiricism or observation. Non-scientific fields like history are often highly empirical.

In any field you will find people at the top of their form making major breakthroughs, and people doing ordinary less important work. This is true of astrology.

Where do you get the idea of a "closed" scientific community? The scientists I knew were happy to attract new students, explain their research to non-experts (like me;) and most had multiple outside interests ranging from their church to sports to classical music. Some of them got involved in summer science camps for kids.

I never argued that astrologers are the "only consumers" of scientific information. Of course, scientists "consume" types of scientific information outside of their field of expertise and non-scientific information. Doesn't everybody?

Nobody is arguing that one needs a Ph. D. in a field in order to make use of its information. My point, rather, is that certain types of knowledge--at even a basic level-- should be part of everyone's education. One of these fields is science. Certainly my American high school and liberal arts college thought so. Moreover, to be an academic or government scientist in today's world generally does require a Ph. D. and a post-doc in the field of expertise. Obviously a science teacher could do fine with a B. S. (B. Sc.) and education credentials.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument seems to miss my point.

You seem to be prejudiced against scientists. This is too bad, because they are individual human beings, just as you and I are. As such, they can express uninformed opinions over matters they have not studied; just as too many astrologers appear to be woefully uninformed about science and scientists, yet put forth their opinions about it, anyway.

I don't know whom you are referring to in the last part of your post. As an amateur modern western astrologer, I read charts for people all the time, most frequently at the Astrologer's Community forum; and to some extent at Astrodienst. I would applaud more methodologically sound research in astrology.

Your ad hominem attacks against scientists leave me concerned that science is not an endeavour that you understand very well. And that's fine-- no time like the present for any of us-- including me-- to learn about new areas of knowledge that affect our daily lives.

27
james_m wrote:it is interesting where the conversation has gone! my thinking is that astrology is a useful activity that doesn't have to be classified as scientific in order to have merit and value to people.. this is really my own way of staying on my own playing field - astrology - and not concerning myself with whether scientists can adopt the idea of astrologers playing on the 'scientific' field or not.. i do think astrology has some science to it, but to try to put it all in that context seems to deprive it of the art which i consider most important.. i suppose i am setting on a conflict here between art and science when they can be thought of as 2 separate areas of interest and study and don't have to be seen in conflict with one another.. i lay the blame for that are the doorstep of the small community of ''scientists'' who have commented on astrology without taking the time to study it. for me - astrology is primarily an art, not a science.. i like the quote that spock offers at the end of his last post here and relate well to those comments as well.
Just curious, James-- how much time have you spent studying science? Have you made efforts to meet actual card-carrying scientists? I encourage you to go over to your local university and set up appointments with a couple of them; or ask them out for a beer at the pub.

It is truly time for astrologers to get over their science-bashing. The anti-scientist prejudice on this thread is completely counter-productive.

Pick up the average pop-schlock astrology booklet at your supermarket, and then tell me if it is anything a rational educated person should take seriously. We surely do not help our own cause.