Astrology: Setting the record straight

[UM-Bot]

Astrology is not a belief or a religion, but an academic study, an astrologer at a National Council for Geocosmic Research conference said Thursday. “Belief has nothing to do with this; this is a reality,” said Leigh Westin, a council board member and conference speaker.

The group converged at the Tremont Grand Hotel in downtown Baltimore this week for a six-day conference on geocosmic alchemy to expose students of astrology to new research on the subject.

View: Full Article | Source: The Examiner

[Lilly]

So, exactly how does Astrology *work*? There are four forces known in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and two forces called the strong and weak force. How do these forces affect the lives of humans on Earth? We know quite a bit about how these forces work and none offer an explanation for exactly how Astrology works. Take for example gravity, it depends upon how much mass an object has and how far away it is. The more massive an object, the stronger its gravity. The closer an object is, the more its gravity affects you. However, the distance and mass factors don't appear to apply in Astrology. Electromagnetism and the strong and weak force are also influenced by distance. What's the *force* that Astrology claims to be using then?

Also, Astrologers claim that all the planets have comparable affects on humans. So, close planets like Mars and Venus have equally comparable affects to far away planets like Pluto and Neptune. This must mean that distance isn't a factor with this unknown force? I guess mass must not matter either, because Jupiter would dominate all the other planets hands down! So, if mass and distance simply don't matter...what about planets around other stars in our galaxy? Why don't the other planets in our galaxy affect us as well?

I really think we need to know exactly how Astrology is supposed to work before we put the label of "scientifically valid" on it.

[the_UNKNOWN_DEAD]

The group converged at the Tremont Grand Hotel in downtown Baltimore this week for a six-day conference...

WOW! There's nothing to astrology...it simply doesn't work.

So they talked about nothing for 6 days???

Amazing!

[Shuriken]

Astrology is a misunderstanding that should have died out a long time ago (together with religion)...

Edited March 11, 2007 by Shuriken

[badeskov]

<snip>

I really think we need to know exactly how Astrology is supposed to work before we put the label of "scientifically valid" on it.

Mjaah, I am afraid we'll have to wait for quite a while before that happens

Best,

Badeskov

[Alara]

I've been studying astrology for years. So far the best UM thread on it has been Theodore's initial post on this topic of his:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry1468657

Most people don't know what astrology is and confuse it with pop astrology which is a severely mutilated and twisted version of what astrology actually is.

[bathory]

the fact of the matter its still superstition, dressing it as pseudoscience doesn't help the cause

there is NO scientific backing for astrology, similarly, there is ZERO psychological evidence supporting astrological claims regarding human behaviour, personality etc

[Shuriken]

I've been studying astrology for years.

So you should be able to explain it to us, how does it work ?

[Alara]

So you should be able to explain it to us, how does it work ?

I'll share 2 links with articles written by people far more competent than me.

I don't think that by reading this information any skeptic will change his or her mind and start regarding astrology as a science. And that's perfectly alright. People have the right to believe what they want and chose to.

I just wish so many weren't so quick to judge astrology without previously reading AT LEAST 2 to 3 books on the topics with an open and unbiased mind.

Here are the links:

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm

http://www.astrosoftware.com/astrolog.htm

The truth is, NOBODY can tell you how astrology works. There was research based on magnetism but I'm not sure it would be accepted by many people so I won't post links here.

And I advise you to read Theodore's initial post in this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry1468657

It's beautifully written. And if you consider yourself a skeptic I presume you'll take the time to read it and then decide if it influences your way of perceiving astrology or not.

Hope these help shed some light on the subject.

edit: typonitis got the best of me again

Edited March 12, 2007 by Alara

[Ashley-Star*Child]

All those who disbelieve in astrology have you ever had a REAL chart done? Because if you haven't you really are in no position to be telling everyone it's bunk. I've studied REAL astrology as a hobby since I was 14 and I can tell you people DO act in the manner of the positions of the planets in the signs intheir chart. I've seen it time and time again. Astrology SHOULD be a science.

[Alara]

All those who disbelieve in astrology have you ever had a REAL chart done? Because if you haven't you really are in no position to be telling everyone it's bunk. I've studied REAL astrology as a hobby since I was 14 and I can tell you people DO act in the manner of the positions of the planets in the signs intheir chart. I've seen it time and time again. Astrology SHOULD be a science.

Agreed.

But a natal chart should be done by a real astrologer, not a quack. Someone who actually knows how to do it without using computer generated explanations and such.

I'm aware of the fact that regardless of what astrologers say many people will underestimate astrology, look down on it and ridicule it. All that without previously studying it, reading books about it and then making an honest opinion on it.

edit: http://www.widgetsworld.co.uk/index.php?

You can register there and read the articles, experiment with some of the charts (even though THEY ARE computer generated) and play with the idea for a while.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Alara

[Lilly]

All those who disbelieve in astrology have you ever had a REAL chart done? Because if you haven't you really are in no position to be telling everyone it's bunk. I've studied REAL astrology as a hobby since I was 14 and I can tell you people DO act in the manner of the positions of the planets in the signs intheir chart. I've seen it time and time again. Astrology SHOULD be a science.

People probably do act in the manner described in their charts...after all we are all human beings with common hopes, dreams, fears etc. This doesn't equate with Astrology having the ability to divine specific details in the manner we are lead to believe by those promoting Astrology.

No, Astrology should not be considered as a science (and it is not considered as such by scientists). Why you may ask? Well, because there is no force (being emitted from planets or other celestial objects) that can be demonstrated to have the affect on human beings here on Earth that Astrology claims. Many, many scientific studies have shown that the claims of Astrology are no better than predictions made simply by chance. Such claims only seem valid due to the human tendency to remember those parts that are correct, but dismiss/forget those parts that are incorrect. Psychics frequently play into this aspect of human nature as well.

So, what's the real harm of believing in Astrology? Belief in such magical thinking can serve to erode a person's ability to look at things in a rational manner. I tend to see this as a negative, others may not. However, Astrology is in no way, shape, or form a Science of any sort.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

I didn't know widgetsworld was still around.

[Alara]

People probably do act in the manner described in their charts...after all we are all human beings with common hopes, dreams, fears etc. This doesn't equate with Astrology having the ability to divine specific details in the manner we are lead to believe by those promoting Astrology.

Charts are more specific than that. Of course we all have hope and dreams, fears, desires, it's natural. But charts are more detailed than that.

No, Astrology should not be considered as a science (and it is not considered as such by scientists). Why you may ask? Well, because there is no force (being emitted from planets or other celestial objects) that can be demonstrated to have the affect on human beings here on Earth that Astrology claims. Many, many scientific studies have shown that the claims of Astrology are no better than predictions made simply by chance. Such claims only seem valid due to the human tendency to remember those parts that are correct, but dismiss/forget those parts that are incorrect. Psychics frequently play into this aspect of human nature as well.

Astrology is greatly misunderstood by scientists. If you could give me some links to those studies I would gladly comment on them.

So, what's the real harm of believing in Astrology? Belief in such magical thinking can serve to erode a person's ability to look at things in a rational manner. I tend to see this as a negative, others may not. However, Astrology is in no way, shape, or form a Science of any sort.

Astrology doesn't erode my ability to think rationally nor am I in any way obsessed with it and 'consult the stars' for decision I have to make, lol. I think that would be terrible.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful Lilly cos I'm not. I respect and understand what you have to say and I've seen the exact opinion expressed many times. It's hard to give astrology the benefit of a doubt, especially cos it's been marginalized for so many decades and it's turned into a shadow of what it once was. I always looked at it as a form of ancient psychology and a very useful tool.

I just hope that real (vs. pop astrology) will become well known again. Then, at least, people would be judging it for what it is. Not looking at its deformed version and drawing conclusions.

[Lilly]

Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi? Geoffrey Dean and Ivan Kelly (pdf).

Discussion of the recent study by Dr. Peter Hartmann in Science News.

For a general discussion of studies see these sites: Great Moments in Science and Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

[Ghost Ship]

Astrology in its truest form should have some respect.

[Alara]

1. What is the likelihood that one-twelfth of the world's population is having the same kind of day?

Proponents of newspaper astrology columns (which appear in more than 1,200 dailies in the United States alone) claim you can learn something about your day by reading one of 12 paragraphs in the morning paper. Simple division shows that this means 400 million people around the world will all have the same kind of day, every single day. Given the need to fill so many bills at once, it is clear why astrological predictions are couched in the vaguest and most general language possible.

That is exactly the pop astrology I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with actual astrology. It's created just for fun and giggles and SHOULD NOT be taken seriously by a sane person capable of critical thinking.

2. Why is the moment of birth, rather than conception, crucial for astrology?

Astrology seems scientific to some people because the horoscope is based on an exact datum: the subject's time of birth. When astrology was set up long ago, the moment of birth was considered the magic creation point of life. But today we understand birth as the culmination of nine months of steady development inside the womb. Indeed, scientists now believe that many aspects of a child's personality are set long before birth.

I suspect the reason astrologers still adhere to the moment of birth has little to do with astrological theory. Almost every client knows when he or she was born, but it is difficult (and perhaps embarrassing) to identify a person's moment of conception. To make their predictions seem as personal as possible, astrologers stick with the more easily determined date.

Astrology is closely related to ancestors and often parents have the same planets in same signs/houses as their children. That part of astrology is called karmic astrology. The reason for using the time and date of birth is because our first breath when born is the moment when we first "enter" this world. The text marked red is very silly. How can one suspect it has little to do with astrological theory if he doesn't understand astrological theory?

3. If the mother's womb can keep out astrological influences until birth, can we do the same with a cubicle of steak?

If such powerful forces emanate from the heavens, why are they inhibited before birth by a thin shield of muscle, flesh, and skin? And if they really do and a baby's potential horoscope is unsatisfactory, could we delay the action of the astrological influences by immediately surrounding the newborn with a thin cubicle of steak until the celestial signs are more auspicious?

I think we can agree that a living, breathing mother is more than a flesh shield. She is connected with her child in many ways, they share the same blood, emotions, mood swings.

4. If astrologers are as good as they claim, why aren't they richer?

Some astrologers answer that they cannot predict specific events, only broad trends. Others claim to have the power to foresee large events, but not small ones. But either way astrologers could amass billions by forecasting general stock-market behavior or commodity futures, and thus not have to charge their clients high fees. In October, 1987, how many astrologers actually foresaw Black Monday when the stock market took such a large tumble and warned their clients about it?

Actually it can be predicted. There is a book called TAROT AND ASTROLOGY, The Pursuit of Destiny, by Muriel Bruce Hasbrouck. I don't use astrology for personal gain so I never tried it.

5. Are all horoscopes done before the discovery of the three outermost planets incorrect?

Some astrologers claim that the Sun sign (the location of the Sun in the zodiac at the moment of birth), which most newspaper horoscopes use exclusively, is an inadequate guide to the effects of the cosmos. These serious practitioners (generally those who have missed out on the lucrative business of syndicated columns) insist that the influence of all major bodies in the solar system must be taken into account - including the outmost planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, which were not discovered until 1781, 1846, and 1930, respectively.

If that's the case, what happens to the claim many astrologers make that their art has led to accurate predictions for many centuries? Weren't all horoscopes cast before 1930 wrong? And why didn't the inaccuracies in early horoscopes lead astrologers to deduce the presence of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto long before astronomers discovered them?

The 3 outer planets aren't crucial for understanding an individual chart. Each of them stays in a single element and sign for years and has little personal value to an individuals natal chart. Their influence, however, is important for understanding differences between generations and the psychology of the society (social communities) in general.

6. Shouldn't we condemn astrology as a form of bigotry?

In a civilized society we deplore all systems that judge individuals by sex, skin color, religion, national origin, or other accidents of birth. Yet astrologers boast that they can evaluate people based on another accident of birth - the positions of celestial objects. Isn't refusing to date a Leo or hire a Virgo as bad as refusing to date a Catholic or hire a black person?

Astrology points out our strengths and the areas that we can work on. The SQUARES in ones chart that are often misinterpreted as problems are actually areas of growth, where one can shine. Pointing out Leo or Virgo is, again, relying on the sun sign only, which is POP ASTROLOGY. Not actual, in depth analysis.

7. Why do different schools of astrology disagree so strongly with each other?

Astrologers seem to disagree on the most fundamental issues of their craft: whether to account for the precession of the Earth's axis (see the box below), how many planets and other celestial objects should be included, and - most importantly - which personality traits go with which cosmic phenomena. Read ten different astrology columns, or have a reading done by ten different astrologers, and you will probably get ten different interpretations.

If astrology is a science, as its proponents claim, why are its practitioners not converging on a consensus theory after thousands of years of gathering data and refining its interpretation? Scientific ideas generally converge over time as they are tested against laboratory or other evidence. In contrast, systems based on superstition or personal belief tend to diverge as their practitioners carve out separate niches while jockeying for power, income, or prestige.

People that use POP ASTROLOGY as reference will find a thousand different interpretations by a thousand different quack astrologists. If the researcher was interested enough to read a few books before making such claims he would of seen that personality traits linked to a specific aspect or house/planetary position would be very similar. And if he has read books I would like to know which books they were.

8. If the astrological influence is carried by a known force, why do the planets dominate?

If the effects of astrology can be attributed to gravity, tidal forces, or magnetism (each is invoked by a different astrological school), even a beginning physics student can make the calculations necessary to see what really affects a newborn baby. These are worked out for many different cases in Roger Culver and Philip Ianna's book Astrology: True or False (1988, Prometheus Books). For example, the obstetrician who delivers the child turns out to have about six times the gravitational pull of Mars and about two thousand billion times its tidal force. The doctor may have a lot less mass than the red planet, but he or she is a lot closer to the baby!

Like I said in a nearlier post, I think astrology can't yet be explained by what we know about physics but I have no doubt that it will be explained in the future. I think all things that are spiritual, mental, emotional and physical mirror eachother and can be explained from many perspectives. I am positive that science will come up with interesting theories in that field. As long as the research will be done by true scientists and explorers who keep an open mind and try to explain this wonderful world we live in.

Btw, a mere digital clock would have a greater magnetic influence on a newborn.

9. If astrological influence is carried by an unknown force, why is it independent of distance?

All the long-range forces we know in the universe get weaker as objects get farther apart. But, as you might expect in an Earth-centered system made thousands of years ago, astrological influences do not depend on distance at all. The importance of Mars in your horoscope is identical whether the planet is on the same side of the Sun as the Earth or seven times farther away on the other side. A force not dependent on distance would be a revolutionary discovery for science, changing many of our fundamental notions.

That is why Mars has a different effect depending on its position. Sign, house and aspects, position in a drawn out natal chart etc. But his prime role is always the same.

10. If astrological influences don't depend on distance, why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies, and quasars?

French astronomer Jean-Claude Pecker has pointed out that it seems very small-minded of astrologers to limit their craft to our solar system. Billions of stupendous bodies all over the universe should add their influence to that of our tiny little Sun, Moon, and planets. Has a client whose horoscope omits the effects of Rigel, the Crab pulsar, and the Andromeda Galaxy really had a complete reading?

Personally I think that we are connected with the universe as a whole in many ways. But I think I'm straining into personal philosophy and belief a bit too much now, lol. What I wanted to say is that astrology, though ancient, is still developing. Astrologists today are discovering new things. I'm sure that the more we study it, the more insights and knowledge we will find. And astrology doesn't include planets and their aspects "only".

Psychologist Bernard Silverman of Michigan State University looked at the birth dates of 2,978 couples who were getting married and 478 who were getting divorced in the state of Michigan. Most astrologers claim they can at least predict which astrological signs will be compatible or incompatible when it comes to personal relationships. Silverman compared such predictions to the actual records and found no correlations. For example "incompatibly signed" men and women got married as frequently as "compatibly signed" ones.

After reading that I wonder if they had an astrologer present when they conducted this research.

Again, it is not based on SUN SIGN ALONE. I've seen many examples of people's synastry reports being spot on correct.

There are certain aspects to be looked for in a compatibility chart, basing it on sun sign alone is very silly, ignorant and I wouldn't call it scientific research if they didn't use the right terms and facts to get the results.

To overcome the objections of astrologers who feel that the Sun sign alone is not enough for a reading, physicist Shawn Carlson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory carried out an ingenious experiment. Groups of volunteers were asked to provide information necessary for casting a full horoscope and to fill out the California Personality Inventory, a standard psychologists' questionnaire that uses just the sorts of broad, general, descriptive terms astrologers use.

A "respected" astrological organization constructed horoscopes for the volunteers, and 28 professional astrologers who had approved the procedure in advance were each sent one horoscope and three personality profiles, one of which belonged to the subject of the horoscope. Their task was to interpret the horoscope and select which of the three profiles it matched.

Although the astrologers had predicted that they would score better than 50 percent correct, their actual score in 116 trials was only 34 percent correct - just what you would expect by guessing! Carlson published his results in the December 5, 1985, issue of Nature, much to the embarrassment of the astrological community.

I would like to know which "respected" astrological organization was in question and what methods they used. There are many self-proclaimed astrologers that are very ignorant and use their "knowledge" to con people.

Other source:

First, just when is a baby born? Is it when *the mother's waters break, or when the baby's head appears, or when the baby's feet come out, or when the cord is cut, or when the placenta is delivered? For that matter, if the stars are indeed so powerful, why should the thin layers of the mother's abdominal wall and uterus provide any barrier to these supernatural forces?

Second, **when reading the daily horoscope, how can one-twelfth of the world's population all fly down to Tasmania for a hot weekend with a tall handsome stranger? How would the airlines cope with the unexpected load?

***Third, why are all the people born on the same day of the same year so different? Surely, they should have similar appearance, lifestyle and behaviour?

*First inhaled breath.

**Pop astrology is rubbish.

***If they were born in the exact same time in the same place they will have similar lessons presented before them throughout their lives. In different packages of course. Twins are an excellent example of this. But astrology includes your ancestors and your link to them as well.

I hope my answers are understandable. It's often hard for me to express my exact views in English since it isn't my first language. I'm Croatian. Often my thoughts don't translate well so I apologize if I 'sound' confusing.

I don't consider myself an astrologer nor an expert in the field. I can only speak about my personal beliefs regarding it and my experiences. Astrology will remain controversial for decades to come. There will always be people who will believe it and people who won't.

I encourage further research in the field to be made with scientists and astrologers working side by side. And I hope that pop astrology will eventually fade and make room for real astrology.

I know that you will probably disagree with many of my comments and question them. I'm open to all questions and comments.

All the best,

Alara

[Lilly]

How can one suspect it has little to do with astrological theory if he doesn't understand astrological theory?

Alright, then please describe the exact mechanism that allows the planets and other celestial objects to influence the life of a human being on Earth?

The 3 outer planets aren't crucial for understanding an individual chart. Each of them stays in a single element and sign for years and has little personal value to an individuals natal chart. Their influence, however, is important for understanding differences between generations and the psychology of the society (social communities) in general.

Astrology points out our strengths and the areas that we can work on. The SQUARES in ones chart that are often misinterpreted as problems are actually areas of growth, where one can shine. Pointing out Leo or Virgo is, again, relying on the sun sign only, which is POP ASTROLOGY. Not actual, in depth analysis.

And how does this in depth analysis serve to get us any closer to answering exactly *how* planets that are supposedly affecting me personally do this?

Like I said in a nearlier post, I think astrology can't yet be explained by what we know about physics but I have no doubt that it will be explained in the future. I think all things that are spiritual, mental, emotional and physical mirror eachother and can be explained from many perspectives. I am positive that science will come up with interesting theories in that field. As long as the research will be done by true scientists and explorers who keep an open mind and try to explain this wonderful world we live in.

Excellent, and when this happens I will concede that I was incorrect and that Astrology is indeed a science. However, until that time I do not consider Astrology to be a science.

Personally I think that we are connected with the universe as a whole in many ways. But I think I'm straining into personal philosophy and belief a bit too much now, lol. What I wanted to say is that astrology, though ancient, is still developing. Astrologists today are discovering new things. I'm sure that the more we study it, the more insights and knowledge we will find.

Now, if you want to call Astrology a spiritual belief or a personal philosophy I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, none of this makes a case (even remotely) for Astrology being called a science.

There are certain aspects to be looked for in a compatibility chart, basing it on sun sign alone is very silly, ignorant and I wouldn't call it scientific research if they didn't use the right terms and facts to get the results.

None of this can be called scientific research.

I think what we have here is a problem with defining exactly what science really is. Science deals with assertions that can be proven using careful experimentation leading to detailed explanations of exactly what is taking place. Astrology simply does not fit the criteria. Science does not deal with metaphysical or supernatural explanations for anything, for this one needs religion and/or philosophy. People can go on and on about not understanding the archane knowledge and mathematical precision necessary to do *real* Astrology, but until the exact mechanism for this influence of the planets/celestial objects on human beings can be demonstrated under the parameters of the scientific method...Astrology is not likely to be considered a science.

[Eagle Eye]

People probably do act in the manner described in their charts...after all we are all human beings with common hopes, dreams, fears etc. This doesn't equate with Astrology having the ability to divine specific details in the manner we are lead to believe by those promoting Astrology.

No, Astrology should not be considered as a science (and it is not considered as such by scientists). Why you may ask? Well, because there is no force (being emitted from planets or other celestial objects) that can be demonstrated to have the affect on human beings here on Earth that Astrology claims. Many, many scientific studies have shown that the claims of Astrology are no better than predictions made simply by chance. Such claims only seem valid due to the human tendency to remember those parts that are correct, but dismiss/forget those parts that are incorrect. Psychics frequently play into this aspect of human nature as well.

So, what's the real harm of believing in Astrology? Belief in such magical thinking can serve to erode a person's ability to look at things in a rational manner. I tend to see this as a negative, others may not. However, Astrology is in no way, shape, or form a Science of any sort.

Completely wrong Lily. Learn about topics before commenting on them to the degree of stating ~ through your ignorance ~ what is "right" and "wrong." You are in no position to state either.

[Eagle Eye]

So, exactly how does Astrology *work*? There are four forces known in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and two forces called the strong and weak force. How do these forces affect the lives of humans on Earth? We know quite a bit about how these forces work and none offer an explanation for exactly how Astrology works. Take for example gravity, it depends upon how much mass an object has and how far away it is. The more massive an object, the stronger its gravity. The closer an object is, the more its gravity affects you. However, the distance and mass factors don't appear to apply in Astrology. Electromagnetism and the strong and weak force are also influenced by distance. What's the *force* that Astrology claims to be using then?

Also, Astrologers claim that all the planets have comparable affects on humans. So, close planets like Mars and Venus have equally comparable affects to far away planets like Pluto and Neptune. This must mean that distance isn't a factor with this unknown force? I guess mass must not matter either, because Jupiter would dominate all the other planets hands down! So, if mass and distance simply don't matter...what about planets around other stars in our galaxy? Why don't the other planets in our galaxy affect us as well?

I really think we need to know exactly how Astrology is supposed to work before we put the label of "scientifically valid" on it.

First ~ look at a clock Lily. Astrology is not some subject that one can tuck into one's pocket, or "think" about only when commenting ~ it is the study of TIME & SPACE ~ and is the oldest science known to man.

Also, your comments on electromagnetism, as your comments on Astrology ~ are completely wrong, off-base, and your questions are not valid considering that you've got little knowledge, or understanding of what it is that you are talking about.

And, one more thing ~ who says that you have the right to put any kind of label on anything to determine if it is "scientifically valid?"

[Lilly]

Completely wrong Lily. Learn about topics before commenting on them to the degree of stating ~ through your ignorance ~ what is "right" and "wrong." You are in no position to state either.

Well, my *ignorance* includes a couple of degrees (one in science the other in education). I stand by my statement that Astrology is not a science.

[Eagle Eye]

Well, my *ignorance* includes a couple of degrees (one in science the other in education). I stand by my statement that Astrology is not a science.

I don't care how many "degrees" you may have, you obviously have no knowledge about Astrology, because, if you did, you would know what it is that you are talking about, and frankly, you do not.

Astrology is the orgin of many of the sciences you take for granted today, is the origin of mathematics, and many forms of science, including its branches of astronomy, and meteorology,which I use to forecast weather and climate conditions using the applications of Astrology in the real world.

So, while you may "stand" by your statement ~ you have nothing to stand by when it comes to knowing what is and is not a "science." And, since you say you have a degree in education ~ I suggest that you then get "educated" when it comes to Astrology and first learn what it is that you are talking about before stating your bias as fact. Not the same thing Lily. Not at all...

Edited March 12, 2007 by Theodore

[Eagle Eye]

Alright, then please describe the exact mechanism that allows the planets and other celestial objects to influence the life of a human being on Earth?

And how does this in depth analysis serve to get us any closer to answering exactly *how* planets that are supposedly affecting me personally do this?

Excellent, and when this happens I will concede that I was incorrect and that Astrology is indeed a science. However, until that time I do not consider Astrology to be a science.

Now, if you want to call Astrology a spiritual belief or a personal philosophy I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, none of this makes a case (even remotely) for Astrology being called a science.

None of this can be called scientific research.

I think what we have here is a problem with defining exactly what science really is. Science deals with assertions that can be proven using careful experimentation leading to detailed explanations of exactly what is taking place. Astrology simply does not fit the criteria. Science does not deal with metaphysical or supernatural explanations for anything, for this one needs religion and/or philosophy. People can go on and on about not understanding the archane knowledge and mathematical precision necessary to do *real* Astrology, but until the exact mechanism for this influence of the planets/celestial objects on human beings can be demonstrated under the parameters of the scientific method...Astrology is not likely to be considered a science.

Not by those who don't know what they are talking about ~ that's for sure ~ since people like that have no basis for their opinions, and they are "opinions" ~ when it comes to Astrology. The exact mechanism is astrophysical forces (known as electromagnetics) that directly influence geophysical life on Earth.

For one, Lily, Astrology is defined as the study of time & space from the correlation of events on Earth from the relative positions of the celestial bodies. Astrophysical to geophysical. There are five (5) Traditional divisions of Classical Astrology ~

1.) Widespread phenomena like floods, earthquakes, storms, tides, meteorology & geology

2.) Mundane events, or those that affect whole populations, famines, edpidemics, revolutions

3.) Genethliacal, or those concerning the environment of the individual, personal transits a person is born with

4.) Natavities, Scondary Progressions, has to do with forecasting human activities & occupations

5.) Horary, or Transit Astrology, this division of astrology seeks solutions to immediate concerns

The third & fourth divisions is what is called Natal, or Genethliacal astrology, what is called the Science of Nativities. It is quite old, and covers many centuries of practice by many of the most famous scientists the Earth has known.

The first division is covered by the practice of Geology & Meteorology (both sciences by the way Lily) and that of geophysics and astronomy, or what is known as stellar cartography, the identification and naming of celestial bodies.

I am a Classical Scientific Astrologer. I studied as a child, and learned the first branches ~ Astronomy & Meteorology ~ and contiued to train in the other branches listed above. The Classicists believed that the celestial sphere is like a ball that revolves in its own place, and contains within it the objects whose movements are different from those of the sphere itself, and that the Earth (geocentrically speaking) is in the center of it. We "read" mathematical alignments of the planets and stars as they relate to the position of the Earth.

In Classical Astrology, there are eight spheres enclosed one within the other, much like that of the skins of onions, so to speak, and the smallest sphere closest to the Earth is the Moon, that travels alone, making mathematical alignments to the oother planets, rising, culminating, and setting, within its own limits. The second sphere above that of the Moon is that of Mercury, the third is Venus, the fourth, the Sun, the fifth, Mars, and the sixth to Jupiter, and the seventh to Saturn. The spheres belong to the planets and the ones above those belong to the fixed stars that make up the constellations. These are known as the Ptloemaic Spheres.

All the princips of Classical Astrology are SCIENTIFIC. Your statements that they are not is clearly wrong. Astrology is used to forecast many things, among them, the weather and climate, which can be tested, and has been, along with the other branches of astrology. You seem to be under the false impression that they have not been. They have been, and this is the reason why geocosmic science ~ Astrology ~ has been, and continues to be, highly valued by those who practice it and by those who seek out the advice of professionals to forecast for them.

The problem most people have when making silly comments on what "astrology" is or is not is that they often have a pop-culture view of Astrology that has nothing to do with the science itself. This is your problem as well Lily, and I suggest that you learn the difference between popular culture "astrology" and the real thing.

That would go a very long way towards you knowing what it is that you are talking about. You cannot apply the limited parameters of conventional science towwards your ignorance of Astrology, since conventional science is quite young, and still developing along the lines of very materialistic perspectives that cannot replicate even meteorological events within a lab. Now, because this cannot yet be done, under your terms, Meteorology would not be a science, and neither would astronomy, or quantum physics.

I think your problem Lily is that you attempt to "define" things BEFORE you have learned anything about what you are defining. This is NOT scientific, and calls into question your practice of science in general, and your statements on Astrology in particular. Try backing up, and learning more before slapping a label on Astrology with your narrow, and limited views of what "science" is and is not. You are talking about CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE ~ not Real Science ~ and especially when it comes to the geocosmic sciences, you've got a lot to learn.

I suggest you get to the learning first. Leave the slapping of "labels" for the time when you know what it is that you are talking about, ok?

Edited March 12, 2007 by Theodore

[badeskov]

I don't care how many "degrees" you may have, you obviously have no knowledge about Astrology, because, if you did, you would know what it is that you are talking about, and frankly, you do not.

Astrology is the orgin of many of the sciences you take for granted today, is the origin of mathematics, and many forms of science, including its branches of astronomy, and meteorology,which I use to forecast weather and climate conditions using the applications of Astrology in the real world.

So, while you may "stand" by your statement ~ you have nothing to stand by when it comes to knowing what is and is not a "science." And, since you say you have a degree in education ~ I suggest that you then get "educated" when it comes to Astrology and first learn what it is that you are talking about before stating your bias as fact. Not the same thing Lily. Not at all...

By all means of respect, but astrology is NOT science. And that is a fact! Astrology is not based on anything that can be proven/verified and even said to be based on observable event. It is folklore and based on imaginative rules for when celestial bodies are in given positions.

I do not want to step on any toes and I respect that you enjoy and use Astrology, however, science is one thing that it most certainly is not! And you can hardly say that Astrology is the origin of many sciences. Philosophy was and from the early Greeks it was a mishmash of theology, astrology, mathematics, chemistry, physics and so on. Neither which can claim to be the origin of any of the others as they were all interdependent and interwoven

Best,

Badeskov

[Alara]

Theodore I just have to say you explain it SO WELL! Hats off!

I have much to learn about astrology and your posts are always excellent. Much respect!