16
spock wrote:
Paul wrote: On the other hand poor old Telsa had no science degrees and so presumably by the same token is not a scientist or is less of one that I would be?[
Actually, he wasn't. He was a technologist, which is not the same thing. Same with Edison, who was not a scientist, which didn't keep him from offering some naive, inane ideas that he thought should replace the science of his day.
That is a very good point!

Just because you can create a program on a computer using a programming language like Java, for example, does not mean you understand how a computer works, or make you an expert in computer design. So, you would not appreciate that Java was developed the way it was due to the architecture of the CPU chips in which it has to operate.

I would argue that if you really want to understand the philosophical underpinning of science and the scientific method, then you need to have studied physics in particular to postgrad level. That does not mean you need to have a postgrad degree, but it is very difficult to acquire that kind of knowledge outside the structured environment of a postgrad course in a university setting.

Too, that does not mean that anybody not so versed in the mathematical/philosphical foundations of science cannot understand the principles. But if challenged to offer a proof of the assertions they espouse, rather than just wave their arms around, they would not be able to do so.

If you are an arm waver then you have to take the word of somebody who claims they truly do understand. Then you are essentially back to being one of the peasant masses who believes in the One True God because the priest - who can read the Bible - tells him it is so.

17
spock wrote:
Paul wrote: On the other hand poor old Telsa had no science degrees and so presumably by the same token is not a scientist or is less of one that I would be?[
Actually, he wasn't. He was a technologist, which is not the same thing. Same with Edison, who was not a scientist, which didn't keep him from offering some naive, inane ideas that he thought should replace the science of his day. That science and technology are the same thing, or that technology is a product of (i.e., issues from) science Is a common misconception, even among some historians, because science and technology are both progressive in ways that most other enterprises are not. The intertwining of science and technology we see today is a recent development. Technology and science have interacted closely only since the late nineteenth century, beginning in Germany in the chemical industry. Much of the relationship before then involved scientists explaining what technologists had already done. When Johannes Kepler, for instance, calculated the ideal shape for kegs it turned out they were already being made that way.
Spock

But are the two mutually exclusive? I always considered Telsa a technologist, yes, but also a physicist no - even if this wasn't his major focus?

18
Paul wrote:
spock wrote:
Paul wrote: On the other hand poor old Telsa had no science degrees and so presumably by the same token is not a scientist or is less of one that I would be?[
Actually, he wasn't. He was a technologist, which is not the same thing. Same with Edison, who was not a scientist, which didn't keep him from offering some naive, inane ideas that he thought should replace the science of his day. That science and technology are the same thing, or that technology is a product of (i.e., issues from) science Is a common misconception, even among some historians, because science and technology are both progressive in ways that most other enterprises are not. The intertwining of science and technology we see today is a recent development. Technology and science have interacted closely only since the late nineteenth century, beginning in Germany in the chemical industry. Much of the relationship before then involved scientists explaining what technologists had already done. When Johannes Kepler, for instance, calculated the ideal shape for kegs it turned out they were already being made that way.
Spock

But are the two mutually exclusive? I always considered Telsa a technologist, yes, but also a physicist no - even if this wasn't his major focus?
No. (It's Tesla, not Telsa, by the way.) To be a research physicist requires mastery of a body of knowledge plus mastery of the essentially craft knowledge (i.e., training) involved in doing physics research, the latter of which is gained primarily in graduate school under the aegis of one's advisor or mentor. Even if we ignore the fact that without a PhD he wouldn't have been able to function as a physicist (e.g., by obtaining positions, by getting research published in peer reviewed journals, by being cited by other researchers, etc.), Tesla clearly lacked knowledge of the content of physics and the training required to do physics research. He was an inventor, not a scientist.

Waybread mentioned earlier in this thread that some fields "are based more on talent and practice." That's true not only for musicians but also for inventors. The inventor is not creating knowledge about the nature of the world. He's creating an artifact that does something, usually something useful. An exposure to things that work and a sense of how to make things that work does not require and is normally not accompanied by an understanding of underlying principles. Trial and error is frequently involved.

Now a scientist with the necessary academic background and training might in addition have the talent and nonacademic experience of an inventor, and using his scientific knowledge as well as his feel for machines be able to invent machines used for scientific research or other contrivances that are beyond the capabilities of the nonscientist inventor, such as much of computer and space exploration technology. A number of genetics researchers are both scientists and inventors. A scientist can also be an technologist by also having the relevant talent and experience. And a technologist can also be a scientist by also having the necessary knowledge base and training. Tesla had neither of the latter and I'm pretty certain you will see no findings anywhere (in physics related publications) attributed to him.
Last edited by spock on Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Article: After Symbolism

19
Super post, Geoffrey!

Dunno about requiring a specific focus in physics (those guys always are the purists and elites of the science world, aren't they?) but even advanced training in a natural science conveys some depth of understanding as to how science works and what it does-- and does not do.

You raise a good point about the scientific "philosophy" (if I can call it that) and mathematical proficiency requirements. After studying a comparatively "soft" and eclectic environmental science, I realized that I was not cut out to be a scientist. However, the educational background I did get in it has been invaluable to me.

20
Varuna2.

I can certainly understand an astrologer getting his back up about a scientist's criticism. It's only human nature. But as rational people, we have to get beyond a Pavlovian reaction coupled with (all too often) a woeful misunderstanding of science, scientists, and their difference from scientism.

But to "despise" scientists? This only suggests an extreme emotional over-reaction, and ignorance about science and scientists. It is easy to hate people you have never met, I suppose.

It isn't rational to suggest "an equal and opposite counterforce."

We are the mouse in bed with the elephant. The mouse doesn't have " an equal and opposite counterforce" in a world populated by elephants.

Do you imagine that the general public, let alone scientists, truly care that a bunch of astrologers say nasty things about science? Really?

Moreover, the anti-science and anti-scientist rants that I have read on this board just make us look like a bunch of dummies. Surely we can have a thoughtful critique of the astrology/science divide without resorting to schoolyard name-calling. If name-calling and some sort of tit-for-tat argument is the best that astrologers can come up with, we are in deeper trouble than I thought.

What good is hating scientists as a body going to do? It isn't going to change the dynamic. It doesn't even confer some modicum of bruised self-respect upon astrologers. Seriously.

Resentment? Let's get over it, shall we? Resentment is an understandable human emotion, but it gets the reputation of astrology absolutely nowhere.

Less educated people resent more educated people? This has been going on forever. I've gotten over this one. I highly recommend that you do, as well.

Don't pit astrology against science. It is the wrong argument.

If you typed your message on a computer or mobile device, thanks to plastics, electricity, and the Internet, thank a few scientists and engineers. If you or someone you love is on medication or had surgery that enhances your health or saved your life, thank a scientist. Do you wear any synthetic clothing? Eat any packaged frozen foods? Want your supermarket food to be inspected for pathogens? I wonder if you are fully aware of how deeply the fruits of science are embedded in your daily life.

Oh, and if you care about the environment, thank the scientists who dedicate their lives to protect it. If you care about public health for little kids, thank scientists involved in nutrition and HIV/AIDS prevention.

The scientific endeavour does have problems, which I could easily enumerate, but they don't consist of being Old Meanies towards astrologers who seem disinterested in credibility by today's professional standards. (With a few noteworthy exceptions.)

21
I am not sure if it is a good idea to enter into the fray with this discussion, but my Ascendant is ruled by Mars in Aries, so sometimes I jump in "where angels fear to tread." I do not think that my views will be all that popular, but I think that maybe it might be good to put them forth.

I will start with the original question about education in astrology. I have rather mixed feelings about it. In a different world, I would accept as a general rule that it is better to learn through an organized program or teacher than through self-study.

There are many problems with self-study, not the least of which is not having an authority to "keep you honest." It is helpful to have mentors to guide and challenge you. I think that one has to be EXTREMELY disciplined, more disciplined than most people are, with self-study to not just read and study what she finds interesting, and ignore the rest. Even if one is that disciplined, without outside feedback, how does one know that she has not misunderstood or misinterpreted what she has studied?

On the other hand, I am not sure where one can get a true education, particularly in the West. The traditional purpose of an education was not to have credentials that could be put up on a wall, but so that knowledge could be passed on from teacher to student, perhaps as far back as the beginning of time. The tradition with astrology has been broken, probably as far back as the Ancient Greeks, and perhaps even further back. So, even with a teacher or a course of study, one must still engage in a fair amount of self-study.

With respect to science, I do not have a difficulty with science or scientists, as such. My difficulty is with the rationalist basis behind modern science, which has found its way into astrology, even Traditional Astrology.

On a blog I write for, I discuss all of this in detail in a four part series of articles, Astrology as a Traditional Science. Here is the link to the first part: http://appleseedtreeoflife.wordpress.co ... tionalism/

Of course, modern science has given us much in the way of technology, and of course, the scientific method is very useful and helpful for discovering things about the *material* world. The difficulty is that these discoveries about the *material* world are taken by Western society as authoritative on teachings that are beyond the material world.

I think that astrology falls flat if we try to explain it in a manner that is consistent with modern science. Modern science can be seen as authoritative on matters that have to do with the physical world, but I think that it is important to recognize modern science's limits. Modern science, by its own rules, only concerns itself with what can be observed by the senses (including the use of technology to enhance the data received by the senses), and what can be rationally derived from sense data. The difficulty comes when the West, using modern science, generates the dogma that this is all that exists, because this is all that modern science can measure.

22
Myriam Hildotter wrote: The difficulty is that these discoveries about the *material* world are taken by Western society as authoritative on teachings that are beyond the material world.
I think Myriam Hildotter has expressed the problem very well. Science and the scientific method has been extremely successful in enabling us to change our environment, and to gain an understanding of the world around us.

But is does not follow that the scientific method will give us all the knowledge we need to know about the world around us, or that the scientific method (as we now know it) is the only way to gain knowledge about the world around us.

The scientific method helped mankind to create global warming. But the scientific method has nothing to say about what to do about it in a way that is equitable, fair and is in the best interests for all the people on this planet, for example. That requires subjective judgements and, as I have constantly said, science has nothing to say about subjective judgements.

It follows that a highly qualified scientist is probably not the person to turn to for solving the problems of global warming - not purely his or her scientific credentials, at any rate. Other skills will be needed which one does not necessarily find in the hallowed halls of institutionalised education.... which I hope bring me back on topic :wink:

Astrology is about people. People are about more than just science. It follows that astrology should be about more than just science - it must be richer than that.

23
Gosh-- scientists are very much involved in global warming issues, from monitoring sea ice, sea level rise, ocean temperatures, &c to occasionally becoming more activist in the face of an energy company smear campagin against them. Some are policy advisors. Surely some exploration geologists, sedimentologists, chemists, and engineers contributed to the global warming problem; just as others have worked to address it.

Then there is a whole raft of academics in the social sciences who deal more explicitly with environmental policy, economics, &c.

Science as a discipline does not address moral issues, but scientists as individuals certainly do.

But why do we keep leaving out the humanities and social sciences? For some reason, the binary of science-vs. astrology seems to blind us to other academic disciplines with which astrology has more in common.

Myriam, I take your point, but I don't think scientism is so pervasive in society today as it might have been in mid-20th century. Certainly not in places with deep religious traditions (such as the Bible Belt of the American South;) and frankly, the level of science education in most of the US is so poor that it is hard to see it functioning as a social ideology much beyond the latest high-tech news about mobile devices.

24
I do not really think I am talking about scientism, but rationalism, or the belief that the material world is what is "real," rather than a reflection of the "real" in the higher planes. The reason I gave the reference to my blog articles was that it is a bit too much to explain in a forum thread.

Fundamentalist Christianity is just as rationalist as scientism is. They argue for a literal reading of the Judeo-Christian written tradition as if it was historical fact. In traditional thought (traditional meaning Eastern and pre-Enlightenment Western, or perhaps even pre-Aristotelian Western), historical and observable fact is the lowest form of truth. The material world is the world of flux and change. The next higher form of truth is Legend, which speaks to Universal Truth, but is set in space and time. The teachings of Legend are true, whether or not the material factual details are accurate. The highest form of Truth is Universal Truth, which is found in Mythos, and is beyond space and time.

Rationalism is the opposite. It treats factual, observable "truth" as highest, and other types of teachings as "only myth." This is why I say that those that argue for a literal, factual reading of their Scripture are doing so from a rationalist worldview. From a traditionalist or essentialist worldview to argue for a literal factual interpretation is to say that one's Scripture does not speak to Universal Truth and only belongs in the world of flux and change.

The social sciences are a bit tricky, and to be honest, I find them the least reliable. My reasoning for this is different than the usual "soft science/hard science" argument. The rationalist worldview is pervasive to all sciences and indeed in all modern Western society. I think, though, that there can be a value to a rationalist world view in the study of the physical sciences. One is studying the physical, observable, and measurable, so limiting one's scope to the physical, observable, and measurable is fine, so long as it is understood that this is the limit of the discipline.

With the social sciences, one is studying human beings, and I believe that humans are spiritual beings housed in a physical body. Without that understanding, social sciences and sometimes do treat humans as animals or worse, as being completely ruled by biological impulses and "conditioning." The reason I say "or worse," because from an essentialist worldview, animals are reflections of Divine Archetypes. They do not have Free Will, like humans, and can only act according to their nature, but they are still primarily spiritual, not physical beings.

These are the things that schools teach "in the past they believed, but now we know...." Take the debate about teaching Intelligent Design in schools, for example. To me, Intelligent Design is a truism, and really, I think is the only way astrology can "work." I have heard that it is thought that this is a way to teach Fundamentalist Christian Creationism through the backdoor, as it were. I don't know, and I really don't want to enter into that full debate, because as I discussed above, a literal interpretation of any Scripture is just the other side of the coin, and is still a rationalist argument. To me, it seems that from a purely empirical standpoint, it is just as likely that there is an Intelligence that created the manifest universe as it is that it occurred randomly, and maybe even more likely. It is a matter of belief and dogma that it was random.

I KNOW there are individual scientists who are deeply spiritual and religious, and I also know that some scientists have "converted" or have had their spirituality and faith deepened in their studies. The manifest universe is amazing and awe-inspiring. On the other hand, if one were to be open with an essentialist or traditionalist worldview, one would not be allowed to BE a scientist, nor would one be taken seriously. Actually, one would not be taken seriously as an academic theologian with an essentialist worldview either.

Astrology, for all of its shortcomings, is really the only Western discipline that still retains essentialist metaphysical teachings, albeit in VERY fragmented remnants. This is the reason, I think it is misguided for astrology to try to become a modern science. The practice would lose far, far more than it would gain in the process. I think the work that is being done in translating Ancient and Traditional techniques and wisdom is a far more valuable endeavor. I think that astrology is one of the last remaining Traditional Sciences, and it is best practiced in that spirit.

This is why I am wary of a formalized education program in astrology, even though education is generally superior to self-teaching. I would fear that it would get swallowed by the rationalist worldview of the rest of academia, that views modern observation as superior to traditional wisdom, rather than the other way around.

25
Here is a concrete hypothetical that a friend of mine used to explain the difference between rationalism and essentialism.

Say all life on earth was wiped out, except cockroaches. After hundreds of thousands of years, a creature resembling a bird in looks and behavior developed from a cockroach. How did this happen, and is this creature a bird?

To a rationalist and evolutionist, this creature came about because the conditions made it such that it had a better chance of survival, and this creature is not a bird, but a birdlike cockroach.

To an essentialist, this creature came about to manifest the Divine Achetype of Bird out of the physical form that survived. This creature is as much a bird as the birds that were previously destroyed.

I hope that helped somewhat in clarifying my point.

26
Rationalism pre-dated modern science, as you know, and has always extended well beyond it.

Certainly rationalism has its merits. History points to many examples of societies where the king's word was law by divine right, the clergy burned heretics at the stake, or parents practiced child sacrifice as a way of appeasing the gods.

I think Ptolemy's project was to rationalize astrology.

I think that you are too harsh on science-- you seem to be speaking as though logical positivism were the last word in the philosophy of science. The scientists I've known don't dismiss what goes on in the English Department or over in the fine arts studio as myth! Rather, they distinguish science (as you have done) from non-scientific fields. They oftentimes appreciate their value, as when a scientist reads a novel or visits an art museum.

Interestingly, if you read the OT in Hebrew words indicating animal souls like "nefesh" and "ruach" are much in evidence. These got translated out by later interpreters.

More to the point of some scientists adhering to a particular religion, some of them teach science and do their research at church-sponsored colleges and universities. Yes, there are biologists at Brigham Young University! You can find theological writings reconciling science and beliefs about God and religion. (As in, what does Genesis mean by "six days of creation"?)

Today theology and religious studies are academic subjects. Some philosophers delve into Platonism and Neo-platonism; in which Hellenistic astrology has some roots. I am not sure where you would peg the fine and performing arts today.
Last edited by waybread on Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

27
Myriam Hildotter wrote:Here is a concrete hypothetical that a friend of mine used to explain the difference between rationalism and essentialism.

Say all life on earth was wiped out, except cockroaches. After hundreds of thousands of years, a creature resembling a bird in looks and behavior developed from a cockroach. How did this happen, and is this creature a bird?

To a rationalist and evolutionist, this creature came about because the conditions made it such that it had a better chance of survival, and this creature is not a bird, but a birdlike cockroach.

To an essentialist, this creature came about to manifest the Divine Achetype of Bird out of the physical form that survived. This creature is as much a bird as the birds that were previously destroyed.

I hope that helped somewhat in clarifying my point.
We better go with rationalism on this one. Nice fantasy on essentialism, though.