31
waybread wrote:
I am sorry that you found your scientific education of so little value. But as a student, you were not a practising scientist. "Worthless" information to you as a student might be valuable to someone else, and to society. Society's vote on science vs. astrology has been cast, BTW.
I added a word 'decent living'. Accountants enjoy 6 figures salary.

'Worthless', in an astrological sense.

I never said that I have been a 'Scientist'.
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/

32
To make my point clear that in order to be a better astrologer one has to study astrology and forget rest of the supposed allied sciences. I quote from 'A Study in Scarlet' (Sherlock Holmes Series ) by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.


(emphasized by me)
....He was not studying medicine. He had himself, in reply to a question,
confirmed Stamford?s opinion upon that point. Neither did he appear to
have pursued any course of reading which might fit him for a degree in
science or any other recognized portal which would give him an entrance
into the learned world. Yet his zeal for certain studies was remarkable,
and within eccentric limits his knowledge was so extraordinarily ample
and minute that his observations have fairly astounded me. Surely no man
would work so hard or attain such precise information unless he had some
definite end in view. Desultory readers are seldom [21] remarkable for the
exactness of their learning
. No man burdens his mind with small matters
unless he has some very good reason for doing so.
His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary
literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing.
Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he
might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however,
when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory
and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human
being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth
travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact
that I could hardly realize it.
?You appear to be astonished,? he said, smiling at my expression of
surprise. ?Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.?
?To forget it!?
?You see,? he explained, ?I consider that a man?s brain originally is
like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you
choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across,
so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out
, or
at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty
in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful
indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but
the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a
large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think
that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent.
Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge
you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest
importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful
ones.?
?But the Solar System!? I protested.
?What the deuce is it to me?? he interrupted impatiently: ?you say that
we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a
pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.?

I was on the point of asking him what that work might be, but
something in his manner showed me that the question would be an
unwelcome one. I pondered over our short conversation, however, and
endeavoured to draw my deductions from it. He said that he would
acquire no knowledge which did not bear upon his object. Therefore all
the knowledge which he possessed was such as would be useful to him
. I
enumerated in my own mind all the various points upon which he had
shown me that he was exceptionally well informed. I even took a pencil
and jotted them down. I could not help smiling at the document when I
had completed it. It ran in this way:
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/

33
waybread wrote:
Morpheus, if you wish to criticize modern astrology or my knowledge of astrology, your target is misplaced. I have enough working knowledge of what traditional astrology does to realize that it has merit, yet that my talents (such as they are) lie elsewhere.
I do not want to criticize 'Modern Astrology'. One of my friend completed 'Noel Tyl''s Astrology course few years ago. Her prowess in delineation/prediction is astounding. She owes her success to 'Noel Tyl'. My preference for Traditional Astrology does not make me hate 'Modern Astrology' and my preference for 'Tropical Zodiac' does not stop me from reading astrological texts written for charts cast for 'Sidereal Zodiac'.
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/

34
Some people (or at least one person) study astrology with no interest or plan on ever becoming astrologers who read person's natal charts. At least one person studies astrology as an auxiliary subject and does so for other reasons. Therefore, the art portion of interpretation is meaningless to at least one person who studies astrology. Not that at least one person thinks that dichotomy is meaningless to those who interpret people's natal charts and act as counselors or advisers of sorts - I would tend to agree with James if I were them.

35
Sorry, Varuna2-- whom do you mean?

Today there is no longer the distinction between "astrologers" and "non-astrologers" the way there used to be. Many of us read horoscopes on Internet forums without claiming to be professionals. The knowledge levels of these on-line amateurs range from low to brilliant, in my observation.

James, to get back to your OP. I hope I've indicated that no, astrology is not a science. It does have empirical portions. So do non-scientific fields such as history and cultural anthropology.

I think there is also an "art" to astrology, in the sense of the astrologer's ability to synthesize a lot of disparate data-bytes, and to come up with a coherent narrative about an individual or an event. In a strict sense of "art" this is what a painter does in choosing different colours and brush strokes and applying them to a canvas to make a coherent visual image; or a novelist who must juggle various characters, story-lines, and contexts to come up with a book.

Astrologers need to be panoramic thinkers, and until computers replicate this ability, a lot rides on the individual practitioner. In science, not so. The hallmark of science is its duplicability of experiments, independently of the particular scientist who conducts them.

36
Waybread,

I was intentionally being oblique and giving double meaning puns to state something without becoming too involved in another discussion, since I am already involved in a different one and both can never be proven either way (i.e. without wiseacreing in too many threads at once), and reminding that the terms of the discussion are based on premises which are not relevant to everyone, and in particular, namely to myself.

I would be more interested in the ancient astrological meteorology, for example, than I am in the modern scientific meteorologists - whom have a success rate of perhaps 50%(?) in one week into the future forecasts.

How did modern so-called scientific medicine start? They 'stole' the ideas of the ancients and synthesized the chemicals and tried to patent them. Otherwise, the modern medicine is primarily butchers and poisoners experimenting on their patients and also with as narrow of a mind as those who dare to call themselves scientists and bash astrology without having studied the subject in-depth. This is obviously a categorical judgment but it is a general observation.

There is more to astrology than reading natal charts, that was one of my points. The "at least one person" was myself. One of the reasons I personally study astrology, that I will state in public, is to gain insight into the 'nature of reality,' since contemporary science was not satisfactory for me, for that purpose, and I say this after years of studying sciences - this does not mean that I am against science, nor am I for it. Nor do I have a degree in science, but that degree means nothing, except to those who think it signifies something above independent study. Science does not matter to me anymore, but I was certainly strongly influenced by the scientific method. It is perfectly understandable that so many astrologers despise scientists since a few bad apples give them all a bad name. But if scientists or lovers of scientists become offended, then they should reign in and shame the non-scientific scientists who are acting in a non-scientific way when they bash a subject they have zero knowledge of, rather than blaming astrologers when they understandably react to the completely unnecessary attacks from the self-appointed Gods of Contemporary World.

The priests were replaced by psychologists and economists and medical doctors and scientists, and none of them 'know' but they oftentimes are unintelligent enough or dishonest enough to to think they know or pretend they know. They are all stumbling around in the dark.

37
varuna2 wrote:Waybread,
.....
How did modern so-called scientific medicine start? They 'stole' the ideas of the ancients and synthesized the chemicals and tried to patent them. Otherwise, the modern medicine is primarily butchers and poisoners experimenting on their patients and also with as narrow of a mind as those who dare to call themselves scientists and bash astrology without having studied the subject in-depth. This is obviously a categorical judgment but it is a general observation.

....It is perfectly understandable that so many astrologers despise scientists since a few bad apples give them all a bad name. But if scientists or lovers of scientists become offended, then they should reign in and shame the non-scientific scientists who are acting in a non-scientific way when they bash a subject they have zero knowledge of, rather than blaming astrologers when they understandably react to the completely unnecessary attacks from the self-appointed Gods of Contemporary World.

The priests were replaced by psychologists and economists and medical doctors and scientists, and none of them 'know' but they oftentimes are unintelligent enough or dishonest enough to to think they know or pretend they know. They are all stumbling around in the dark.
Whew, Varuna! I don't know if you read my previous posts, but I think they addressed your main points.

But to recapitulate:

Where is the logic in hating all scientists (for most of whom astrology isn't even something they think about) with the extreme prejudices of a visible few? This is a logical fallacy of the highest order. This is the identical logic that would say, "All astrologers are charlatans," merely because some of them happen to be so.

It is actually the same type of thinking that leads to racism, homophobia, and misogyny. (I am not saying you are like this, merely that negative stereotyping comes from the same type of logical fallacy.)

Moreover, it is a big insult to the intelligence of astrologers who aren't so facile in their thinking as to argue that a " few bad apples give them [scientists] all a bad name." You actually make astrologers out to be uninformed bigots.

I've known dozens of scientists and not one of them considered him or herself to be "self-appointed Gods of Contemporary World. " Some were humble people by nature. Some were deeply religious and would find your concept blasphemous. Others were simply realistic about the benefits and limits of their work.

Do a few scientists have big egos? Sure. But show me one profession where this isn't so. I've seen some really big egos amongst astrologers. This parallel merely suggests a common humanity, with all of its failings.

You've set up a "straw man" fallacy, because scientists and science are not so easily demolished in reality.

I am sorry that you think so poorly of modern medicine. Perhaps you had bad personal experiences with your doctor? But even if we accept that "some" doctors or medical researchers are as you say, it is a logical fallacy to condemn the entire medical profession in this broadside manner. (fallacy of over-generalization)

The idea of modern medicine "stealing" ideas of the ancients makes no sense. Medicine is a cumulative field in which each generation builds upon the findings of the previous ones; and hopefully discards its errors. There are current issues about gene and drug patenting, but this doesn't cast shadows on the entire medical profession.

Don't you have any doctors, nurses, researchers, or medical technicians as friends and/or family members? I do, and they are nothing like the monsters you stereotype. Most of them are or were (some deceased) dedicated people who worked long hours trying to cure their patients, or at least give them a better quality of life.

I have to stress that a totally unproductive debate is "astrology vs. science" and then to personalize it so. (You'd think we're all a bunch of sensitive Pisces or Cancer moons, wouldn't you?) You make use of scientific discoveries in your everyday life, from the food you eat, to the clothes you wear, to the computer on which you type your posts. Don't you therefore find science-bashing to be at best hypocritical?

Oh, great. And now we are going to condemn the clergy, psychologists, and economists, as well! Anyone else to add to your black-list?

Varuna2, this hatred is totally counter-productive, and certainly doesn't equip you or anyone else to live in the world as it is, not as hoped-for in some unobtainable state of perfection.

Astrology and science. Not astrology versus science. And let us not confuse science as a suite of disciplines with scientists as human beings or scientism as an unsustainable belief in the primacy of science.

38
hi waybread,

i don't think it is an either or with astrology and science either... it had mostly to do with the way that i see astrology as more of an art then a science, that's all.. i don't think it is fair to pick on scientists any more then it is fair to pick on astrologers or anyone for that matter.. we all have a different set of values, but hopefully we can be respectful of others who don't share our values.. i remember some religious type organization that had a simple philosophy which i will summarize in my own limited fashion.. the choice is always to respond with love or fear.. the choice is ours to make!

this reminds me of yet another quote from a cherokee indian that i am going to try to find right now and share with you as well..

here it is!

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between 2 "wolves" inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

39
waybread wrote: Whew, Varuna! I don't know if you read my previous posts, but I think they addressed your main points.
Are you accusing me of lack of reading comprehension skills?

waybread wrote: Where is the logic in hating all scientists (for most of whom astrology isn't even something they think about) with the extreme prejudices of a visible few? This is a logical fallacy of the highest order. This is the identical logic that would say, "All astrologers are charlatans," merely because some of them happen to be so.
When I wrote "few bad apples" it should have been "the bad apples," since it is more than a few. See the anti-astrology manifesto written by Bart J. Bok and Lawrence E. Jerome which starts with: "Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world..." This 'scripture' from the ruling priests of the 'church of science,' written by those who dare to call themselves scientists, was signed by 186 scientists including 19 Nobel Prize winners - which shows the value of the Nobel Prize.

Are you accusing me, or anyone here, of "hating all scientists"?
waybread wrote: It is actually the same type of thinking that leads to racism, homophobia, and misogyny. (I am not saying you are like this, merely that negative stereotyping comes from the same type of logical fallacy.)
Thank you for not accusing me of that too. However, there are oftentimes truths in stereotypes - otherwise stereotypes would not exist.
waybread wrote: Moreover, it is a big insult to the intelligence of astrologers who aren't so facile in their thinking as to argue that a " few bad apples give them [scientists] all a bad name." You actually make astrologers out to be uninformed bigots.
I meant "the bad apples" not "few bad apples." The anti-astrology manifesto signed by the priests of the science cult should have been vilified and those prominent signatories condemned by other scientists. Neither happened.
waybread wrote: I've known dozens of scientists and not one of them considered him or herself to be "self-appointed Gods of Contemporary World. " Some were humble people by nature. Some were deeply religious and would find your concept blasphemous. Others were simply realistic about the benefits and limits of their work.
I am referring to those like the scientist-priests who signed the anti-astrology manifesto, and the mainstream popular image promoted in the press.
waybread wrote: I am sorry that you think so poorly of modern medicine. Perhaps you had bad personal experiences with your doctor? But even if we accept that "some" doctors or medical researchers are as you say, it is a logical fallacy to condemn the entire medical profession in this broadside manner. (fallacy of over-generalization)
It was not a condemnation, it was a general observation, in which I already implied I know it is an overgeneralization, but generally true.
waybread wrote: The idea of modern medicine "stealing" ideas of the ancients makes no sense.
First study the origins of pharmaceutical medicines and then wiseacre on medicine. They collected the information of traditional healing from shaman types around the world (primarily of different medicinal plants), then they created synthetic chemicals of the active chemicals.

waybread wrote: Don't you have any doctors, nurses, researchers, or medical technicians as friends and/or family members? I do, and they are nothing like the monsters you stereotype. Most of them are or were (some deceased) dedicated people who worked long hours trying to cure their patients, or at least give them a better quality of life.
What does my personal life have to do with anything? I was describing the phenomenon of that field, not the persons. Surgery oftentimes equaling unnecessary butchery that does not solve the problem. Pharmaceutical concoctions invented nowadays that are worse than the disease, etc. The lack of success in modern medicine is normally not publicized by the press whose only purpose is to control people's minds. Rather the medical doctors and their theories are portrayed as "leading edge and advanced."
waybread wrote: I have to stress that a totally unproductive debate is "astrology vs. science" and then to personalize it so. (You'd think we're all a bunch of sensitive Pisces or Cancer moons, wouldn't you?) You make use of scientific discoveries in your everyday life, from the food you eat, to the clothes you wear, to the computer on which you type your posts. Don't you therefore find science-bashing to be at best hypocritical?
Who said this is personal? The food we eat is poison. The clothes we wear are also harmful for the bio-electric organism. The computer is harmful to one's health and was not invented by scientists. Are you accusing me of science-bashing?
waybread wrote: Oh, great. And now we are going to condemn the clergy, psychologists, and economists, as well! Anyone else to add to your black-list?

Varuna2, this hatred is totally counter-productive, and certainly doesn't equip you or anyone else to live in the world as it is, not as hoped-for in some unobtainable state of perfection.
Now you are accusing me of hatred?
waybread wrote: Astrology and science. Not astrology versus science. And let us not confuse science as a suite of disciplines with scientists as human beings or scientism as an unsustainable belief in the primacy of science.
Who said I am against science?

40
Varuna2, I do not "accuse you" of lacking "reading comprehension skills." Rather, it was not clear that you read my preceding posts. Oftentimes people comment without reading an entire thread.

I quoted you directly, so I will let your own words stand.

No doubt you believe that you are simply telling the truth, but I think the average informed citizen would interpret your remarks as over-generalizing, full of negative hyperbole.

I believe you are referring to an ad published in 1975. Most of the people who would have signed it are either retired or dead. My point, however, is that astrologers need to get beyond their upset with it. Bashing science and scientists who signed the thing in 1975 isn't somehow going to elevate the status of astrology today. Big non sequitur.

Actually, there have been a few scientists and philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend who somewhat make your point. But why make such a meal out of a nearly-40 year old ad? Had astrologers done a better job of explaining their "art" at the time, probably the ad wouldn't have happened. Don't forget that 1975 was the heyday of "modern psychological astrology" and "spiritual astrology" which many traditional astrologers themselves criticize.

You wrote, "...This 'scripture' from the ruling priests of the 'church of science,' written by those who dare to call themselves scientists, was signed by 186 scientists including 19 Nobel Prize winners - which shows the value of the Nobel Prize.

"Are you accusing me, or anyone here, of "hating all scientists"?"

Ummm, erm, how would a reasonable person interpret your posts? They weren't qualified. Rather, you have used extreme generalizations.

We need to do a better PR job as astrologers (which Deborah Houlding and a few others are doing) and ramp up our level of horoscope readings, rather than imagining that criticizing scientists somehow makes a case for astrology.

Varuna2, the pharmacopeia of westerners in the 19th century was based largely on centuries of herbalism in their own societies. (See, for example, Culpepper.) They didn't steal it from shamans. Many cures used by First Nations people in North America were readily shared, as they were simply common herbal remedies.

I noted above that cultural appropriation is going on today; yet as you know, there are indigenous rights activists as well as indigenous people themselves who are working to protect themselves against pharmaceutical company patents. But most of the drugs on the pharmacist's shelf today are synthesized in the laboratory.

I think the logical problem is that you have a few negative anecdotes, or perhaps a few articles on abuses, so then you tar entire professions and professionals with the same brush, using inflamed rhetoric. I've had knee replacement surgery which made a hugely positive difference in my quality of life. My surgeon is no "butcher." So I might equally marshall anecdotes that counter yours, but where does this get us?

Not to an intelligent discussion of the nature of astrology, that's for sure.

Given your rhetoric about your food (which you voluntarily select,) your clothes (which nobody forces you to buy,) and your computer (which you voluntarily use;) I would say yes-- your posts do amount to science-bashing. Personally, I grow a lot of my own food organically and know that I can shut off my computer at any time. Your posts do not sound considerate and appreciative to me, but hateful.

So Varuna2, what is it that you actually like about science or scientists?

41
Morpheus wrote: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.
Where did this already finished, nothing more to add astrology come from? Was it a divine revelation? Did an astrological prophet descend from a mountaintop with tablets of stone? Did it spring whole from the forehead of Zeus? If none of the above at what point, by what means, and at whose hands was astrology perfected? Our ancient forebearers' knowledge of the skies above, of the earth below, of the way things move and of the substances of which matter is constituted was primitive compared to ours, yet we are to believe that their astrology, in contradistinction to everything we know historically about the evolution of knowledge, wasn't likewise an early and crude attempt to comprehend a complex reality? The men who developed astrology were the same ones who developed astronomy. They were two facets of the same subject, a knowledge of the planets and their effects on human beings. The ancients' knowledge of astrology, which in my opinion is inherently a more complex, subtle and difficult subject than astronomy, was surely no less primitive than their knowledge of the latter.

The ubiquity of originalism, the notion that a finished, unsurpassable astrology existed in some past golden age, that we need only rediscover and/or assimilate it, is itself an indication of how backward our field is in its development. Any given field exists and is carried forward by those who believe in it, therefore by implication by those who are able to reason in such a way as to experience it as valid. Our knowledge of which "effects" predictably go with which "configurations" is actually pretty meager, so believability is made possible by having a multitude of factors, by having a metaphor-based way not just of communicating connections but of "seeing" them in the first place, by doing this after the fact and not seeing that before the fact we would have been unable to differentiate amongst the multitude of things our methods could have justified, by making specific sounding but actually quite general predictions before the fact, and then seeing the specific events after the fact as 'what I meant', by neither consulting astrologer or client seeing that the substance of the reading is supplied by the client, not the astrologer, by not seeing these and other unconscious 'strategies', and most of all by not seeing that an astrology so constituted in essence predicts all things at all times including the event or condition at issue, which appears to have been "singled out" by astrology only so long as we don't see these things. Every discipline or proto-discipline has its necessary blind spots, which change as the discipline advances. Seeing deeper into the nature of things requires/enables us to see through our previous blind spots (which will of course be replaced by new, more subtle ones which will similarly be seen through at a later stage).
Article: After Symbolism

42
Where did this already finished, nothing more to add astrology come from?
Aliens or Gods
Was it a divine revelation?
See above
Did an astrological prophet descend from a mountaintop with tablets of stone?
City of Babylonia
Did it spring whole from the forehead of Zeus?
Babylonia and not Greece

The ubiquity of originalism, the notion that a finished, unsurpassable astrology existed in some past golden age, that we need only rediscover and/or assimilate it, is itself an indication of how backward our field is in its development
Finished and unsurpassable astrology already exists. But you are not aware of it. Lets stop discussion about this finished astrology.



The point was that existing written (open to public eyes) sources have not been studied as yet.

Let me quote myself again


Morpheus wrote:
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.
(emphasized)
Last edited by Morpheus on Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/