Astrology: Setting the record straight

[Eagle Eye]

If I were you I think I'd watch out with the comments about science. Trust me on this one, so far you have shown an astounding lack of knowledge of science and scientific principles. So does my mom, but she doesn't run around claiming the opposite.

I am increasing my knowledge everyday. I happen to be in a job where I am so lucky that I can do that. Secondly, believe it or not, I have actaully also learned new things about Astrology while debating you (yes, I have read up on it). But unfortunately all I have learned so far has just strengthened my opinion, Astrology is not a science, but a fun toy.

I honestly don't think you are the one to preach about science and intellectual dishonesty here. You obviously don't even recognize your lack of skills in science, which only makes it even more obvious.

You apparently failed to see the analogy I was trying to draw, which I should have guessed as you completely dismissed Waspie's analogy as well. A pity, it would have served you well to take a step back and look at it for bit. Oh well. And as for spending time on this thread? I have no issue with Astrology and I do not mean to peel it apart or even look down at it. And you probably haven't noticed, but I stay far out of the Metaphysics area of UM. You can discuss Astrology all you want in there. But when you parade Astrology as a science, which is plainly and blatantly wrong, then I will enter the discussion. And I will politely continue said discussion, as I honestly find it a gross misconception calling Astrology a science and also a bit of an insult to science.

Yes, I think most people have made up their mind on this thread, and in your own way you have helped - I seriously doubt that anyone on this thread would even beging to consider Astrology a science by now.

By all means of respect, but you are the one with the predispositions. You have yet to counter a single one of the scientific references posted in this thread. That tells me that you obviously cannot, which in turn tells me that Astrology is not a science. That you keep insisting on Astrology being a science only weakens your case as it is very clear that you have nothing to back you up and that you keep claiming it despite of this fact only makes it worse. If I were you I'd backtrack a bit and do some science reading and then trying countering the science in the arguments that has been put forth.

Let me put it this way; I don't need to be a civil engineer to recognize that the foundation of a house is rotten. And even if the owner jumps up and down in front of me, claiming that it is not, that doesn't make it any less rotten. And, trust me, the scientific base of Astrology is beyond rotten.

Best,

Badeskov

I've been practicing and writing on science for a long time Badeskov. I also practice astrology as a science, which it is. It's ok that you don't agree, but that's your opinion. I forecast advance climate and weather using astrological methods, which is natural to classical astrologers. By forecasting the weather, that makes it a science, and in that case, a priori science, which does exist in the world. Astrology is the main priori science ~ meaning forecasting science. Even the practice of conventional meteorology is a priori science, so, I fail to note how you can use the word "science" in such a monolethic, and very narrow way. Science is much more than that.

There is nothing new about forecasting astrophysical causes to geophysical effects. Classical astrologers have been doing that for centuries and invented mathematics (algebra, geometry and trigonmetry) to account for all the variables of celestial motions relative to the Earth ~ a science. It's ok, there's nothing threatening about that.

Astrology is also the reason for medicine, where botany, chemistry and medicine orginated from. You need to get your facts straight because it is all true. All the twisting and turning in the world will not change these facts.

Again, I think you need to actually discover the difference between that newspaper pop culture astrology and the real thing. Also, you should take the time to understand that Astrology has been responsible for many of the conventional practices of sciences taken for granted today.

One of the problems you are having is that you appear to lack knowledge of the history of Astrology, which, if read and studied, clears this up quite nicely. There is no "backtracking to do" ~ what you need to do is to actually go back and read the truths of the matter concerning astrology and its true history, and practice as a science, and dump the pop-culture astrology mindset that is the real basis behind what you have been commenting on when it comes to classical astrology. The foundation of all the sciences you take for granted ~ classical astrology ~ is very far from "rotten" my friend. Cheers.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Theodore

[badeskov]

I've been practicing and writing on science for a long time Badeskov. I also practice astrology as a science, which it is. It's ok that you don't agree, but that's your opinion. I forecast advance climate and weather using astrological methods, which is natural to classical astrologers. By forecasting the weather, that makes it a science, and in that case, a priori science, which does exist in the world. Astrology is the main priorii science ~ meaning forecasting science. Even the practice of conventional meteorology is a priori science, so, I fail to note how you can use the word "science" in such a monolethic, and very narrow way. Science is much more than that.

That is just plain wrong. Science is a process of learning, based on an actually fairly simple set of rules. And if Astrology really was a science, you, or any other astrologer for that matter, would be able to do the following (yes, I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time, although I have no doubt it'll be in vain):

1) Make a prediction of the weather

2) Put forth all the calculations and data you base that prediction on

3) Tell us about the result, how well it fit and why there was a discrepancy, if such a one occurred

Until then, Astrology is the pseudoscience that scientists have found it to be. Secondly, I deal with science writers on a regular basis and you saying that you have been writing on science has no bearing whatsoever on your knowledge within the field. Science writers typically only have a very superficial knowledge of science and the once I know would never, ever start arguing from that base. And I suggest that you do the same. If I was the only poster here having a problem with your obvious lack of scientific knowledge, I'd understand that you you would counter it. But since quite a few posters, which are obviously well versed in science, are saying the same thing, I would honestly take a look in the mirror if I were you; and then at your arguments..or lack of same!

There is nothing new about forecasting astrophysical causes to geophysical effects. Classical astrologers have been doing that for centuries and invented mathematics to account for all the variables of celestial motions relative to the Earth ~ a science. It's ok, there's nothing threatening about that.

Astrology is also the reason for medicine, where botany, chemistry and medicine orginated from. You need to get your facts straight because it is all true. All the twisting and turning in the world will not change these facts.

A lot of sciences originated from under the same hat. There is a reason for why a PhD is a Doctorate in Philosophy; simply because scientists of those times were philosophers. And, in any case, it is completely and totally irrelevant, as science has recognized Astrology for the pseudoscience that it is and sidetracked it.

Again, I think you need to actually discover the difference between that newspaper pop culture astrology and the real thing. Also, you should take the time to understand that Astrology has been responsible for many of the conventional practices of sciences taken for granted today.

Completely and totally irrelevant! Has nothing to do with the debate at hand and it does not strengthen your case at all.

One of the problems you are having is that you appear to lack knowledge of the history of Astrology, which, if read and studied, clears this up quite nicely. There is no "backtracking to do" ~ what you need to do is to actually go back and read the truths of the matter concerning astrology and its true history, and practice as a science, and dump the pop-culture astrology mindset that is the real basis behind what you have been commenting on when it comes to classical astrology. The foundation of all the sciences you take for granted ~ classical astrology ~ is very far from "rotten" my friend. Cheers.

See, that was part of what I was taught in high school and I am pretty well versed in it. But I don't need any more knowledge to recognize Astrology as the pseudoscience that it is. Two reasons:

1) Astrology has yet to meet the scientific standards, as just exemplified above.

2) you claim that you base parts of your forecasting in comets sparking solar flares, even when science says that comets have no part in that.

Thus, you yourself have negated the scientific basis of Astrology and removed all doubt. True, the scientific basis of Astrology is not rotten; no, it is absolutely non-existent and until you scientifically prove otherwise, it will stay so.

Best,

Badeskov

[Eagle Eye]

That is just plain wrong. Science is a process of learning, based on an actually fairly simple set of rules. And if Astrology really was a science, you, or any other astrologer for that matter, would be able to do the following (yes, I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time, although I have no doubt it'll be in vain):

1) Make a prediction of the weather

2) Put forth all the calculations and data you base that prediction on

3) Tell us about the result, how well it fit and why there was a discrepancy, if such a one occurred

Until then, Astrology is the pseudoscience that scientists have found it to be. Secondly, I deal with science writers on a regular basis and you saying that you have been writing on science has no bearing whatsoever on your knowledge within the field. Science writers typically only have a very superficial knowledge of science and the once I know would never, ever start arguing from that base. And I suggest that you do the same. If I was the only poster here having a problem with your obvious lack of scientific knowledge, I'd understand that you you would counter it. But since quite a few posters, which are obviously well versed in science, are saying the same thing, I would honestly take a look in the mirror if I were you; and then at your arguments..or lack of same!

A lot of sciences originated from under the same hat. There is a reason for why a PhD is a Doctorate in Philosophy; simply because scientists of those times were philosophers. And, in any case, it is completely and totally irrelevant, as science has recognized Astrology for the pseudoscience that it is and sidetracked it.

Completely and totally irrelevant! Has nothing to do with the debate at hand and it does not strengthen your case at all.

See, that was part of what I was taught in high school and I am pretty well versed in it. But I don't need any more knowledge to recognize Astrology as the pseudoscience that it is. Two reasons:

1) Astrology has yet to meet the scientific standards, as just exemplified above.

2) you claim that you base parts of your forecasting in comets sparking solar flares, even when science says that comets have no part in that.

Thus, you yourself have negated the scientific basis of Astrology and removed all doubt. True, the scientific basis of Astrology is not rotten; no, it is absolutely non-existent and until you scientifically prove otherwise, it will stay so.

Best,

Badeskov

I, or anyone else, cannot "prove" anything to you, or anyone else on a forum. I don't represent all that Astrology is. Astrology is much larger than just me, and has been around for many centuries, with nearly every culture on the Earth practicing astrology it as a science. As for the weather, I forecast it all the time, but not here, why would I do that? What would that prove? That it is possible? Jeez, you can find that out by doing some research for yourself. It's work to me, not a game Badeskov. Astrology isn't a toy, although you say you like to play with it as one, it is not, it's work, and I get paid for doing forecasting work. I don't play with it. Children play. Adults work.

Want proof? That, my friend, is for you to do for yourself. And it takes reading and study, which builds knowledge. No one can do that for you. It has to be done by you.

As a science writer myself, I know what you are saying, but you are in severe error about my scientific experience and background. And, when you use the term "scientific standards" you are talking about conventional science, and even within that realm, there are many things that are strongly debated that are accepted as "science" depending on whom, or what you are talking about. You've got "science" in a small box Badeskov. The universe is a very big place.

Even the conventional scientific community cannot agree on what is causing climate changes, as one example. Another would be physics, where many strongly-held beliefs have never been documented as actually existing, yet, I don't see you going on about physics being "negated" or being a "pseudoscience" Badskov. Why is that?

Astrology is very old, with volumious legacy data, and is an omni-science because it stretches across many scientific disciplines because they orginated from classical astrology.

Here is an excerpt that should help you to understand why knowledge of astrology is important before making such comments ~

Debunking the Debunkers:

Lessons to Be Learned

Views By Valerie Vaughan

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should fight it seriously as an enemy of truth. Why are astrologers not prosecuted for false representation and driven out of business? Why are professional astrologers not jailed for fraud?"[1]

"The interest in astrology may be dangerously distracting from rational solutions to social problems, corrosive to rationality, and ...inherently discrediting of science itself."[2]

"Some 200 people are known to have killed themselves as a result of believing an unfavorable horoscope."[3]

"Believers [in astrology] may have a pathological medical condition...maybe compatible with a diagnosis of schizophrenia."[4]

These quotes are just a few of the typical statements made by debunkers against astrology, printed every day in newspapers, magazines and books; voiced on the radio, the Internet, and in the classroom. Despite the widespread prejudice against astrology, most of us continue to practice our "forbidden" art. Within our own little community, isolated from the war being waged against us and our discipline by scientists, the media, and religious fundamentalists, we are content to mind our own business and preach to the choir. So long as we maintain our client-based profession or write articles for our limited audience, why should we be concerned about the relentless debunking of astrology that goes on in the real and much larger world?

The surprising answer is that it will make us better astrologers. Astrologers can profit from a critical view. It is valuable for us to understand the objections made by debunkers because they raise important questions that we should ask about ourselves, our practice, and astrology itself.

First, we must distinguish debunkers from the other types of critics and opponents of astrology. Debunkers are not the historians and philosophers of science who are open to considering astrology as an alternative paradigm and recognize its importance in past cultures, but who believe it has since deteriorated.[5] Debunkers are also different from the revisionists, who were discussed in a previous issue of TMA.6 Religious fundamentalists are another special category which will not be discussed here. It should be noted, however, that despite the general lack of intelligence in their weak arguments, fundamentalists constitute a growing threat to astrology.[7]

True debunkers are the diehard skeptics who claim to be scientists using rational arguments, asserting their authority in areas where they have little knowledge. If we carefully examine the debunkers' arguments, we find serious flaws in their "logic" which is ostensibly based on an "objectivity" which is supposed to be characteristic of science and the rational mind.[8] We find that their criticisms are based on misinformation and ignorance. Observing these flaws can lead us to a better understanding of both what is science and what is astrology.

Let's get down to the level of motive. Why do the scientist debunkers bother to disempower astrology? If they are so convinced it is obviously useless, why do scientists persist in running tests to disprove astrology?[9]

In today's world, science is upheld as the primary measuring rod, and any claim can be falsified or verified according to scientific criteria. According to this rather limited system of analysis, literally anything can be defined as either science or non-science. In most situations, unscientific claims are considered benign and are ignored (debunkers do not bother to "disprove" or "refute" music or the art of parenting, which are clearly non-scientific endeavors practiced daily throughout the world). So long as everybody minds their own business (i.e., scientists attend to science, musicians play their music, parents raise their children), there can be peaceful coexistence between the "two cultures."[10] But in certain cases, debunkers feel compelled to define a non-scientific endeavor such as astrology as "pseudoscience," a special category of non-science that carries the connotation of false, evil, and threatening to the goals of science.

Just exactly how one is supposed to distinguish between what constitutes science, benign non-science, or pseudoscience is a very debatable topic. Philosophers and social scientists have been arguing about this for at least fifty years, and the only consensus they really have is that "science is what scientists say it is." Yet debunkers have decided they can determine not only what is science and what isn't, but also what portions of non-science deserve to be attacked as pseudoscience.

What are some of their methods of attack? (1) One is the "Let Them Eat Cake" argument, and it goes like this: Astrology is criticized for failing to design research and run controlled tests to supply evidence for its concepts. But ever since scientists threw astrology out of the Academy in the 17th century, astrologers have been outside the intellectual mainstream with no access to academic funding. Research is an extremely time-consuming and expensive endeavor. If academic scientists didn't have corporate-supported funding and posh jobs (complete with tenure, sabbaticals, grad students to teach their classes, and all the rats or Macs they need to run their experiments), how many do you think would dip into their own pockets to finance the research that "justifies" their existence? Yet they demand that astrologers should somehow find the time and money required to prove the validity of astrology.

The catch-22 here is that even if you manage to get inside the academic establishment, astrology is generally considered a taboo subject for investigation, so who is supposed to be doing all the research demanded by the debunkers? Meanwhile, however, there is plenty of funding available for studying such matters as how goldfish behave under the influence of alcohol, or the effects of gravity on toilet paper.[11]

(2) The "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" argument: Astrologers are also criticized for doing precisely the same things that scientists do. Debunkers claim that astrology is invalid because there is disagreement among astrologers over basic ideas such as which celestial configurations are relevant and how these are to be interpreted.

Whereas, in science, a lack of mutual agreement over very basic premises is considered a healthy expression of intellectual debate and is called different "schools of thought."

Astrologers using geocentric or sidereal or Koch house systems are accused of inconsistency, while in physics, one can discuss whether light is a wave or light is a particle; and in behavioral genetics, one can formulate competing theories like "nature-versus-nurture," and in medical science, doctors can make a respectable income by giving second opinions.

Another way that Scientist debunkers project their own behavior is by accusing astrologers of using their art to control their clients' lives. You can see how absurd this is if you try to think of some part of modern life that is not depedent on (controlled by) science/technology. Contrast this with humanistic astrology, which is devoted to the process of self-awareness.

Science searches for order with the ultimate goal of dominating nature, while astrology searches for an order that connects man with nature. In this sense, astrology constitutes a much more environmentally-friendly discipline than {conventional}science.

Astrology is also criticized for attempting to sell itself by associating with the latest theories that have caught the public's imagination, such as mythology. Whereas, when scientists do the same thing, as E.C. Krupp does in his monthly astro-mythology column in Sky and Telescope, it is considered an admirable method of "bringing science to the masses."

And speaking of mythologies, another method of attack is based on the (3) "Myth of Objective Consciousness."[12] This is the idea that the scientific method or rationalism is the best way to gain knowledge about the world. There are just a few assumptions going on here. Debunkers have extended the meaning of best to indicate "only" and knowledge has been equated with Truth. The world is limited by scientific definition to mean the material, physical world, which in turn is assumed to mean "reality." Astrology functions in a much broader way like philosophy; it is an alternative form of perception that seeks knowledge of a reality that includes the metaphysical world, yet scientists insist on testing it with the scientific method. Analyzing astrology with the tools of science is as inappropriate as trying to measure consciousness with a spoon.

Here are a few reasons why the scientific method cannot be applied to astrology: First of all, astrology is not a science in the narrow, specific sense like biology or physics. It is only a science in the broad definition of "a study, a discipline, a portion of knowledge." At most, it might be considered a social science. But the other social sciences, such as history, are not regularly attacked for their failure to pass scientific tests, so why should astrology?

Another reason the scientific method will not work with astrology is that the rationalist view assumes that the whole equals the sum of the parts. When the scientist tries to break down a person's birth chart into separate components to test the individual parts (like whether sun signs can translate directly into specific, isolated, predictable behavior traits), the astrologer rightfully objects that this is ignoring the wholeness of a chart, and of the person. If psychology is allowed to acknowledge the complex unity of the Self, why can't astrology be granted the same right?

Scientists also insist on statistical analysis using random samples. But astrology cannot be "proven" or falsified by random statistics because astrology is based on the premise that conditions are never random. Take, for example, random conditions at the time of testing. Scientists might assume that any old time is just as good as another to perform a test of astrology, but what if you're testing whether Pisces is less aggressive than Aries and it so happens that Mars is rising during the time of the test? Or suppose that a certain test is performed that shows some validity to astrology, but in a later attempt at replication, the Moon is void-of-course during the test, or Neptune is rising, and the results are all vague.

Another complication with statistical analysis is that what scientists call "expected frequencies" can vary in astrology -- for example, because of certain facts about celestial mechanics, the Zodiacal signs can spend different amounts of time on the horizon. People born at the latitude of London are three times more likely to have Scorpio rising than Pisces rising.[13]

Astrology is incredibly complex and there are innumerable variables. Scientific proof is based on the premise that an individual factor can be isolated and tested separately from all the other realities of life. Practicioners of astrology know that no one factor, such as the Moon in Aquarius, can "mean" anything in an absolute sense. That Moon could be void-of-course, out-of-bounds, in a different house, opposed Saturn, or any number of other factors that can qualify the "meaning" of Moon-in-Aquarius.

Debunkers don't bother to learn about these complex factors; they make simplistic assumptions about astrology based on their kindergarten understanding of a post-graduate-level subject. They are totally unqualified to test astrology by any method. But speaking of educational qualifications, let us now turn to the most recent and most disturbing and insidious manifestation of debunking. With the ignorant bliss that characterizes our profession, many astrologers are blithely unaware that debunkers have now penetrated deep within the institution of public schooling. Perhaps more of us will wake up and pay attention upon hearing the following story.

After long and serious studies were made in the early 1990s regarding the low scientific competence of American high school graduates, the American Association for the Advancement of Science set the Benchmarks for Science Literacy in 1993, followed by a massive revision of the National Science Education Standards in 1996. What these Standards determine is a set of guidelines for what all students should know at various age levels, as well as the direction for curriculum reform; i. e., a plan for how science should be taught from kindergarten through high school. This national master plan has been created with the support, approval or blessing of various authoritative organizations (such as the National Science Teachers Association) and has trickle-down effects through the creation of curriculum frameworks on the state level. Textbook publishers have accordingly revised their products and proudly advertised them as conforming to these national/state standards and frameworks.

What should concern astrologers is that the new Standards promote something that has never been included in any previous educational guidelines: deliberate emphasis on science history and the scientific method. Boosted by lobbying and pressure from debunkers, current textbooks for every area of science (not just astronomy) now contain entire units or learning activities that are aggressively aimed at students learning to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

As the director of a science education library, part of my job is to stay current with guidelines and trends in science teaching and to review the latest curriculum materials available. Among the hundreds of professional education articles, textbooks, and activity materials which I have reviewed since the new Standards went into effect, I have found almost unanimous targeting of astrology as the primary example to use in demonstrating that pseudoscience is not only ineffectual, but "wrong" and even "dangerous." School textbooks published prior to 1995 contained at most a bland paragraph or two about pseudoscience, occasionally mentioning astrology. However, since debunking scientists geared up for an all-out attack on the "flight from science and reason,"[14] their influence and bias is clearly apparent in the development and textbook interpretation of the latest National Science Education Standards of 1996.

A typical example can be found in the "Predictions" unit of Active Physics, a secondary school level textbook.[15] This unit gives students the opportunity to pretend they are the head of an institution that will provide funding for science. In each activity, their assignment is to choose to fund one proposal based on scientific merit and to reject one that lacks it. At first glance, all the activities in this unit follow a strictly objective pattern: students explore magnets, measure light intensity and the speed of sound, model the solar system, study wave interference, etc. But then, stuck in among these activities that deal with the physical world (this is a physics book, after all), is the following: "Students analyze [newspaper] horoscopes and compare them to scientific predictions." The notes in the teacher's guide indicate that the concept this exercise is supposed to teach is that "Horoscopes are general, scientific predictions are not."

With this kind of set-up, can you guess who will be chosen to get the funding and who will be rejected? It doesn't take too much imagination to guess what those chosen will do with their funds -- publish more textbooks with exercises like these, inaccurately presenting astrology as consisting of newspaper horoscopes, indoctrinating future generations to reject astrology, and assuring themselves (scientists) of continual funding.

The fact that debunkers continue to use newspaper horoscope columns for targets is obvious evidence of a limited and faulty understanding of astrology, for no serious astrologer considers these columns a true expression of astrology. (In fact, many of these astrology columns are not even written by astrologers.)

It is rather like attacking Dear Abby or similar advice columns as an example of the entire field of psychology.

We seem to keep stumbling upon a reality that underlies all the debunking -- power through funding. When Astrology was driven from the ranks of the intellectual elite during the Scientific Revolution, pushed out by the rising class of professionals called scientists, the war against astrology was begun as a class war, and it continues today in the same form. When astrology lost status as an academic discipline, it was able to survive through the last few centuries mainly as a folk art, kept alive by self-taught practicioners and the popular almanacs which (unlike scientific journals) were affordable for the "common man." Today, Science with a capital S is the most highly endowed intellectual pursuit of the academic and corporate world. Money (funding) means power and control, whether it's economic or intellectual.

We repeat our original question of motive-- Why are scientists so hot and bothered about what astrologers are doing? -- It's not like astrology is trying to take over as an intellectual power to replace science, much less is it even capable of doing so.

So what's the problem?

The scientist-debunkers are intellectual control junkies who cannot bear the thought of a phenomenon which cannot be explained according to 'science' -- not so much because this would offend their near-religious belief that Science is the one Way to Salvation, but because they fear losing control of their power and status. And in order to remain in denial about their need for intellectual and financial control, they keep on expanding their territory, applying the scientific approach to areas which are just plain none of their business.

Traditional concepts which provided the foundation of human society since time immemorial have all consisted of imaginative structures, none of which remains tenable in the face of scientific enquiry.

Science has the capacity to debunk anything of a non-scientific nature, not just astrology but poetry, religion, mythology -- almost anything which we can term the "humanities." Modern culture has been reshaped by the domination of rationality and conformity to science. If taken to its ultimate conclusion, this means the eventual elimination of any of these mythical sources, including morals. Science as the ruling paradigm follows the "Law of the Instrument" (Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding).

Scientists are invading many new territories with their hammer. According to the new Standards, the history of science is a major component of science education, and it is stipulated to be taught by science instructors, not social studies teachers. Science, which is designed to measure the material world, has been extended to function as a way to interpret history. With a new product (the teaching of history), Science has now expanded its market and can exploit a wider consumer base (our children). Scientist debunkers have discovered they can expand their power to the realm of public school education -- but what else would you expect with Pluto currently in Sagittarius?

Historians, not scientists, should be the ones interpreting history. Social studies are meant to establish an understanding of human behavior, culture, and morals. Can such learning be properly achieved via the scientific method, which is touted as objective and value-neutral, yet which is valued by scientist-rationalists above all other viewpoints? With scientists directing the learning of history, there will be an inherent tendency to enforce prejudicial attitudes against astrology, especially because of its major role in the early history of science.

Is there anything that astrologers can do about this? For those who are willing to undermine the establishment, there are two principles outlined in the National Standards that may offer avenues for advocating an unbiased treatment of astrology. One is the stress on multicultural frameworks -- all educational subjects are now supposed to include the traditions of diverse cultures. Since every single culture in the world has developed a form of astrology, it is inherently diverse. This is why the Chinese Zodiac can be prominently displayed in an elementary school during Chinese New Year as part of the multicultural recognition of "other" ways that cultures formulate astronomical calendars. A possible tactic is to approach the school authorities about admitting Western Astrology as a valid cultural tradition and see what happens.

The other Standard which could open the door for astrology to enter the classroom concerns the latest educational method now being hyped which emphasizes student participation. Education, like science, is susceptible to fads and fashions, all dependent on which theory happens to be in vogue. It is currently all the rage in science education to include more student-led "inquiry" than factual instruction from teachers.

The idea here is that, if students show an interest in a particular problem (no matter how unrelated it is to the established curriculum), teachers are supposed to follow the direction of inquiry and incorporate it into the lesson, rather than denying it (for any reason) as not being what the students are "supposed" to be learning. In other words, if students in an astronomy class show an interest in astrology, the Standards stipulate that the teacher must follow that direction. It will be interesting to see how this kind of situation will be handled, because it is in direct confrontation with the Standards that allow science teachers to debunk astrology under the guise of instruction in science history, "critical thinking," and scientific method.

Turnabout's Fair Play

A debunker usually is a person who chooses to be critical of things they have not studied, and many of the "questions" below are the mark of a person with no clue as to what they say when it comes to Astrology.

1. What is the likelihood that one-twelfth of the world's population is having the same kind of day? Only someone whose "knowledge" of astrology is based on newspaper Sun-sign horoscopes would ask a stupid question like this.

2. Why is the moment of birth, rather than conception, crucial for astrology? Again, the question reflects the ignorance of debunkers. Conception charts exist and are used by many astrologers.

3. If the mother's womb can keep out astrological influences until birth, can we do the same with a cubicle of steak? Is this a rhetorical question or have you used your academic funding to run experiments to test this? How would you test this?

4. If astrologers are as good as they claim, why aren't they richer? It is natural for those who have prestige jobs with high pay to assume that others envy their power or share their goal to be rich. Fraknoi also notes that astrologers could amass billions by forecasting general stock market behavior, and thus not have to charge their clients high fees. You can't have it both ways, Andrew. (If they are charging high fees, they must be rich. If they are rich, they must be as good as they claim.) Also, I'd like to see some statistics on this, especially comparing astrologer's fees with the hourly rates of psychotherapists, or the fee you charge for a lecture.

5. Are all horoscopes done before the discovery of the three outermost planets correct? Does the acceptance of modern quantum physics make Newtonian physics incorrect?

6. Shouldn't we condemn astrology as a form of bigotry? Isn't refusing to date a Leo or hire a Virgo as bad as refusing to date a Catholic or hire a black person? If it is bigotry for astrologers to categorize people as Leo or Virgo, then it is bigotry for Fraknoi to categorize people as Catholic (or Protestant), black (or white). We categorize or "type" people by characteristics all the time. When we identify people as talkative and avoid this type when we want quiet....Is this bigotry?

7. If you have a reading done by ten different astrologers, you will probably get ten different interpretations. Why do different schools of astrology disagree so strongly with each other? For the same reasons that scientists do. If you go to ten different doctors or therapists, you will also get ten different opinions, but it's probably cheaper to go to ten astrologers.

8. If the astrological influence is carried by a known force (gravity, magnetism, tidal forces), why do the planets dominate? Who says it's a known force?

9. If astrological influence is carried by an unknown force, why is it independent of distance? A force not dependent on distance would be a revoluionary discovery for science, changing many of our fundamental notions. I guess this means that scientists must be unconscious, since science has evidently not yet discovered consciousness, a force not dependent on distance. Has this guy ever heard of relativity?

10. If astrological influences don't depend on distance, why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies and quasars? Here we go again. The debunker is ignorant of an important branch of astrology -- the study of fixed stars, which includes pulsars, quasars, black holes, nebulae, infrared energy sources, radio sources, and galaxies."

Try reading on astrological history before continuing to make such off-the-wall comments on it, as well as what does and does not constitute "science." And, if astrology were "absolutely non-existant" as you say, then why would you be commenting at length on it at all? How is that possible?

Edited March 22, 2007 by Theodore

[Lt_Ripley]

How do you prove anything on a forum, tell me? Do you love your mother Ripley? Prove it. See what I mean?

let's use my Grandmother shall we ?

I will prove I love my Grandmother. right here on the boards.

I can state I love her. Have cared for her well being since I was 15. Have made sacrifices for her as she had for me when I was a kid.

want proof ? I can give you our phone number and you can ask her yourself. she's 91 so you'll have to speak up. if you can speak Ukrainian it would help. That's proof. and it's straight from the horses mouth . I could take a pic of her and I or better yet if I had a video cam I could make a film and post it.

plenty of ways to prove my love. and her's for me.

Just like you can prove your ' science' here on the boards.

Make a prediction. it's that simple. use badeskov as a subject. if it's the weather then let someone pick a city. a country. but predict it for further than current weather systems can.

lists of current credible degree university holding scientists that agree it's a science and why. not based on philosophy or spirituality , but hard data. just like any other science has to bring forth.

yet you keep avoiding to prove it.

[Lt_Ripley]

this pretty much says it all -

Do astrologers ever claim that what they do is a science? Yes, they certainly do. As an easy example, astrologycom.com defines astrology as "The science of the stars." Books on astrology will regularly cite various statistical studies which they claim validate astrological work. All of this points to the fact that astrologers would like to be thought of as practicing something which is rigorous, scientific and objective.

The actual practice of astrology is also generally made to appear very scientific. When creating someone's chart, an astrologer first has to fix the exact time of the person's birth, then translate that time into Greenwich Mean Time, then translate that into sidereal time, then translate that back into local sidereal time. After all of this is finished, the astrologer needs to perform elaborate calculations to determine zodical and planetary positions for this exact time.

The problem is, however, that astrology is not supported by sound and verified scientific research, like statistical studies. Astrology is not based upon collected data and carefully controlled, objective observations. Astrology is not based up falsifiable predictions which are tested and re-tested by independent observers and researchers.

Astrologers will respond to this by arguing that such research is expensive and time-consuming, and they do not have access to either the time or money necessary. They might even argue that they are deliberately excluded from those resources by a disbelieving, not to mention hostile, academic and scientific establishment.

This, however, ignores that fact that quite a few scientific studies have been done on astrology, and in each case the claims and premises of the astrologers have failed. Furthermore, it also ignores the fact that most astrologers simply don't know anything about conducting or evaluating such research - something which underscores the lack of scientific training and knowledge which is characteristic of astrology.

Astrologers may further argue that astrology is too complex for standard scientific protocols to handle. For example, the astrological chart is supposed to have more information than scientists can factor for - a typical chart can include 30 to 40 major factors and another 60 to 70 minor factors, resulting in a bewildering array of permutations, combinations and possible interpretations. This does not, however, explain why astrologers are unable to match charts with people at a rate better than chance. After all, can it be argued that these charts are too complex for astrologers to handle?

It is at this point that astrologers will often start to argue that astrology is not so much a science (like physics) but more of an art, philosophy, or at best a social science.

The identification of astrology as an art is only to be expected, because once the math has been completed and all the charts are drawn up, there is nothing very obvious or necessary about any particular conclusions which an astrologer might infer. There are many possible interpretations which an "expert" might provide to a client and it is here that the "art" of astrology comes out.

Sometimes, the promotion of astrology as an art has to be done in conjunction with the denigration of science as a principle. The argument seems to be that scientists, being too logical, are unable to see astrology for what it really is. For example, J. West and J. Toonder have written in their book "The Case for Astrology":

...an astronomer knows no more about astrology than a radio mechanic knows about music. To ask an astronomer for his "expert" opinion on the subject is useless.

There are no hard and fast rules for interpretation, which means that there is no interpretation which is really "better" or more "objective" than any other. The astrologer improvises and plays things by ear. This is why astrological predictions are generally "better" when they are done with the client right there rather than "blind." This, of course, sounds an awful lot like the methods used for cold readings.

If the astrologer can speak to the client, it is possible to ask probing questions and see immediately any reactions to the developing interpretation. In this fashion, an individual predication can be tailored to the person at hand, taking into account their very real fears, hopes and history. When performing "blind," however, the astrologer has nothing to work on but the data itself and this never seems to provide quite enough for a really accurate or informative series of conclusions.

The wide variety of methods for interpreting astrological data - or even for gathering astrological data - creates a problem for the claim that astrology is genuine or accurate. Astrologer Prudence Jones admitted as much in the Astrological Journal in 1996:

Even within astrology, our various systems don't agree either. In horary astrology the Moon's north node is a point of ill-fortune, but in humanistic astrology it is the direction of personal growth. A planet may be in Cancer in sidereal astrology but in Leo in tropical astrology. Serious astrologers often decry Sun-sign forecasts as some sort of unfounded gibberish, but Sun-sign techniques (turning the chart, transits to "turned" house rulers, lunations in "turned" houses etc.) are in fact part and parcel of standard astrological method. The rules of traditional, modern (post-Theosophical), sidereal, and local space astrology (with its sidereal ancestor Vastu-Shastra) are quite different. Yet how many of us have decided that we would be tropi*spam filter*ts rather than siderealists, traditional rather than modern astrologers (or vice versa) after any process of sober reasoning?

One final note with regards to the distinction between art and science needs to be emphasized: whichever paradigm is chosen for astrology, that will determine the ways in which astrology is to be explained, justified and defended. If astrologers try to claim that their work is scientific, their work will have to be evaluated on strictly scientific terms; if it fails, then so does their program.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Lt_Ripley]

Not picking about anything. But it isn't much to ask that a person write clearly enough to read what they are saying without having to navigate through bad spelling and poor grammar, on top of everything else in their comments. If a person cannot spell and use proper grammer then what they are saying is a problem ~ it has nothing to do with disability, it is just pure laziness. I'd prefer that they at least take the time to write decent enough so what they say is intelliigible. There's enough bad writing, spelling and grammar on the Internet and that does make poor posts invalid since one shouldn't have to act like a detective to read the poor spelling and bad grammar. It has nothing to do with getting personal, although some would love to make it that way, it isn't. Jeez. I might not agree with a guy like Badeskov, and he might not agree with me, but at least the guy takes the time to write well, and I appreciate that. Asking that of Ripley is not a dig on her, and it shouldn't be too hard to do since it is her mother language.

wow !! you assume English is my mother language? You also assume disability has nothing to do with it and that I'm lazy?

well the stroke I had in 98 as a result of brain surgury begs to differ.

is my grammer bad and spelling wrong? probably. Do I wonder and worry that people will not be able to understand me? Not at all. This isn't up for review. This isn't a science paper I'm delivering. it's a post. get off your high horse already.

No one else on these boards has pointed out my poor grammer nor have I pointed out anyone elses' . I'm smart enough to understand what a person is trying to say even with bad grammer or spelling. Bad grammer or spelling also does not make posts invalid. Your need to attack my spelling and grammer only shows your attempt at a weak based attack on me asking you for proof which of course you avoid.

and yet you continued to dig even after your faux pas was illuminated. funny.

it's not personal you write - well how many other posts , here and on the other boards , have you took the time to flesh out?

also - a quote from you .

I would advise, for those looking toward the next decade of the 2010s, to prepare in advance economically, and to save money, considering the difficult world transits for the majority of years of that decade.

WOW ! no one would have ever of thought of that especially since we are under the largest debt ever. !! it's called common sense. hopefully no one had to pay you for that tidbit.

and your remark about global warming ? you may want to educate yourself and not swallow corporate propaganda looking for ways to save thier financial behinds.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[badeskov]

*****WARNING***** THIS IS A LONG POST AND SPANS 3 POSTS......

Theodore, that was a humongous post. I am at work, but will do my best to address your points 

I, or anyone else, cannot "prove" anything to you, or anyone else on a forum. I don't represent all that Astrology is.

No, you cannot. But you can present references to your claims. Especially as Astrology is claimed to be a science, there should be scientific studies to reference.

Astrology is much larger than just me, and has been around for many centuries, with nearly every culture on the Earth practicing astrology it as a science. As for the weather, I forecast it all the time, but not here, why would I do that? What would that prove? That it is possible? Jeez, you can find that out by doing some research for yourself. It's work to me, not a game Badeskov. Astrology isn't a toy, although you say you like to play with it as one, it is not, it's work, and I get paid for doing forecasting work. I don't play with it. Children play. Adults work.

Well, you say you do weather forecasting, but that is only your word. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I can’t use that for anything. As I mentioned earlier, I could say that I could throw bones and from how they land, I can predict the weather. They do that in West Africa, among other places, and have done so for thousands of years.

Want proof? That, my friend, is for you to do for yourself. And it takes reading and study, which builds knowledge. No one can do that for you. It has to be done by you.

Science says astrology is not a science and I, among others, have presented numerous links to back me up. It is your turn to back some of your claims up.

As a science writer myself, I know what you are saying, but you are in severe error about my scientific experience and background. And, when you use the term "scientific standards" you are talking about conventional science, and even within that realm, there are many things that are strongly debated that are accepted as "science" depending on whom, or what you are talking about. You've got "science" in a small box Badeskov. The universe is a very big place.

Talking about conventional and unconventional science is completely bogus. It’s either science or it’s not. Trying to sneak astrology under the science hat by labeling it unconventional science is not going to cut it. Science is a learning process with a very specific set of rules. By eliminating those rules, which Astrology does, eliminates the science part.

The universe is indeed a very big place; we have no quarrel there. But the Universe being so big, diverse and complex just emphasizes the need for a strict set of common rules to describe and catalog it, as otherwise we will end up talking different languages and we’d have no progress whatsoever. Thus, when astrology bends/disregards the rules, it is not member of the science club anymore. And astrology should, because of the complexity of astrology, be very strict indeed with the scientific rules. But it is not.

Even the conventional scientific community cannot agree on what is causing climate changes, as one example. Another would be physics, where many strongly-held beliefs have never been documented as actually existing, yet, I don't see you going on about physics being "negated" or being a "pseudoscience" Badskov. Why is that?

Because they follow the rules of science. There are many examples in science on something that hinges on different interpretations and hunches. That is progress, but it is based on the people having the hunches putting forth all data so people can tell why they believe what they do. The main problem with Astrology is that is goes against what the scientific community to the best of their knowledge call facts, and astrology cannot say why it is so. Exemplified, lets use your claim that comets spark solar flares and CMEs. The science community says no, you disagree, but you have nothing to back you up. See the problem?

One of my favorite examples of hunches and actually being wrong was that of Stephen Hawking. He laid out a lot of the ground work for the theories behind black holes and came up with, what is now widely accepted, that black holes can evaporate and disappear. However, the led him to the conclusion that the information about that black hole had to disappear as well, which is not possible given our current knowledge of the Universe. But he put his entire math forward, his analysis and all his data. While most thought him wrong, they could not figure out where he was wrong. He did not blatant ignore physics or the like. 30 years later he discovered where the error was himself and completely out of the blue asked for time to speak at a conference to present his error. This is science at it’s best, in my honest opinion!

(Link).

There have been examples like that in the scientific community as well. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the latest outstanding example of this was Hwang Woo-Suk, who was caught falsifying cloning data. He presented data and was awarded, but as a scientist he had to put forth all data and his experimental methodology. When other scientists couldn’t reproduce what he claimed, an investigation was initiated and they looked at the actually cloned specimens and it turned out that they were not what they claimed to be.

(Link).

There is also the famous Fleisch and Pons cold fusion, which was bogus. They claimed they had achieved cold fusion, which would be a major step forward for energy production. But nobody else could reproduce what they had done, despite huge effort. And when the physics behind what they did was really examined in depth, it didn’t really support it either (Link).

That is how science works and why it is so important to science that the scientific rules are followed. And if you cannot adhere to the scientific basic rules, you are not conducting science – plain and simple. And astrology cannot!

Astrology is very old, with volumious legacy data, and is an omni-science because it stretches across many scientific disciplines because they orginated from classical astrology.

Completely moot discussion point. A lot of sciences originated the same source. And I think it would be more appropriate to label that hat Philosophy.

Here is an excerpt that should help you to understand why knowledge of astrology is important before making such comments ~

Against better judgment I am going to spend time on going through what you posted here. See inline please.

Debunking the Debunkers:

Lessons to Be Learned

Views By Valerie Vaughan

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should fight it seriously as an enemy of truth. Why are astrologers not prosecuted for false representation and driven out of business? Why are professional astrologers not jailed for fraud?"[1]

"The interest in astrology may be dangerously distracting from rational solutions to social problems, corrosive to rationality, and ...inherently discrediting of science itself."[2]

"Some 200 people are known to have killed themselves as a result of believing an unfavorable horoscope."[3]

"Believers [in astrology] may have a pathological medical condition...maybe compatible with a diagnosis of schizophrenia."[4]

These quotes are just a few of the typical statements made by debunkers against astrology, printed every day in newspapers, magazines and books; voiced on the radio, the Internet, and in the classroom. Despite the widespread prejudice against astrology, most of us continue to practice our "forbidden" art. Within our own little community, isolated from the war being waged against us and our discipline by scientists, the media, and religious fundamentalists, we are content to mind our own business and preach to the choir. So long as we maintain our client-based profession or write articles for our limited audience, why should we be concerned about the relentless debunking of astrology that goes on in the real and much larger world?

Astrology as such is not dangerous. It is the notion that it is presented as scientific that is dangerous. The science label lends an authoritative credibility to Astrology that it shouldn’t have. I admittedly view it as I view creationism being taught in science class, where it most certainly does not belong!

The surprising answer is that it will make us better astrologers. Astrologers can profit from a critical view. It is valuable for us to understand the objections made by debunkers because they raise important questions that we should ask about ourselves, our practice, and astrology itself.

Indeed, that is a big part of science as well. Critic from various people is the only way to progress and not stagnate.

First, we must distinguish debunkers from the other types of critics and opponents of astrology. Debunkers are not the historians and philosophers of science who are open to considering astrology as an alternative paradigm and recognize its importance in past cultures, but who believe it has since deteriorated.[5] Debunkers are also different from the revisionists, who were discussed in a previous issue of TMA.6 Religious fundamentalists are another special category which will not be discussed here. It should be noted, however, that despite the general lack of intelligence in their weak arguments, fundamentalists constitute a growing threat to astrology.[7]

Not sure what is actually meant here. Looks like a reference to a previous article I know nothing of. Not relevant as pertaining to this discussion anyways.

True debunkers are the diehard skeptics who claim to be scientists using rational arguments, asserting their authority in areas where they have little knowledge. If we carefully examine the debunkers' arguments, we find serious flaws in their "logic" which is ostensibly based on an "objectivity" which is supposed to be characteristic of science and the rational mind.[8] We find that their criticisms are based on misinformation and ignorance. Observing these flaws can lead us to a better understanding of both what is science and what is astrology.

This is just completely bogus. The debunkers (I hate that word) debunk the science behind astrology and, thus, they do not need to know Astrology. If you want to claim Astrology as a science, you have to adhere by the rules of science. But more on that later.

Let's get down to the level of motive. Why do the scientist debunkers bother to disempower astrology? If they are so convinced it is obviously useless, why do scientists persist in running tests to disprove astrology?[9]

Again, it is not Astrology as such we are after; it is the notion that Astrology is a science. That is just simply wrong to say that we are after Astrology alone.

In today's world, science is upheld as the primary measuring rod, and any claim can be falsified or verified according to scientific criteria. According to this rather limited system of analysis, literally anything can be defined as either science or non-science. In most situations, unscientific claims are considered benign and are ignored (debunkers do not bother to "disprove" or "refute" music or the art of parenting, which are clearly non-scientific endeavors practiced daily throughout the world). So long as everybody minds their own business (i.e., scientists attend to science, musicians play their music, parents raise their children), there can be peaceful coexistence between the "two cultures."[10] But in certain cases, debunkers feel compelled to define a non-scientific endeavor such as astrology as "pseudoscience," a special category of non-science that carries the connotation of false, evil, and threatening to the goals of science.

Again, I have no problem with Astrology. I don’t believe in it myself, but I respect your beliefs and you can practice Astrology till you get green in your face for all I care. As long as it is recognized that it is not a scientific discipline. And I believe that Valerie Vaughan states pretty clearly above that Astrology is not a science when she says “..feel compelled to define a non-scientific endeavor such as astrology…”. That is what this whole thread is pivoting around, and with that sentence she negated Astrology as a science and I respect that. That has been my point in this whole discussion.

Just exactly how one is supposed to distinguish between what constitutes science, benign non-science, or pseudoscience is a very debatable topic. Philosophers and social scientists have been arguing about this for at least fifty years, and the only consensus they really have is that "science is what scientists say it is." Yet debunkers have decided they can determine not only what is science and what isn't, but also what portions of non-science deserve to be attacked as pseudoscience.

Science has a very clearly defined set of rules. Not much arguing there.

What are some of their methods of attack? (1) One is the "Let Them Eat Cake" argument, and it goes like this: Astrology is criticized for failing to design research and run controlled tests to supply evidence for its concepts. But ever since scientists threw astrology out of the Academy in the 17th century, astrologers have been outside the intellectual mainstream with no access to academic funding. Research is an extremely time-consuming and expensive endeavor. If academic scientists didn't have corporate-supported funding and posh jobs (complete with tenure, sabbaticals, grad students to teach their classes, and all the rats or Macs they need to run their experiments), how many do you think would dip into their own pockets to finance the research that "justifies" their existence? Yet they demand that astrologers should somehow find the time and money required to prove the validity of astrology.

We don’t demand anything unless claimed to be science. Otherwise, I for one, couldn’t care less.

Continued in the next post.....

Edited March 23, 2007 by badeskov

[badeskov]

From previous post....

The catch-22 here is that even if you manage to get inside the academic establishment, astrology is generally considered a taboo subject for investigation, so who is supposed to be doing all the research demanded by the debunkers? Meanwhile, however, there is plenty of funding available for studying such matters as how goldfish behave under the influence of alcohol, or the effects of gravity on toilet paper.[11]

Well, when Astrology (or anybody else for that matter) claims something that everybody else knows is plain wrong or completely unsubstantiated, it is bound to meet resistance. If I sought funding for a study in my field that went against all hitherto known physics, I am sure I would have more than a hard time to find funding as well.

(2) The "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" argument: Astrologers are also criticized for doing precisely the same things that scientists do. Debunkers claim that astrology is invalid because there is disagreement among astrologers over basic ideas such as which celestial configurations are relevant and how these are to be interpreted.

Whereas, in science, a lack of mutual agreement over very basic premises is considered a healthy expression of intellectual debate and is called different "schools of thought."

Plain wrong. Physics tells us that no planet besides the moon has any impact on us here on Earth. Thus the whole debate is not the premises of celestial configurations, but why astrologers think that they have a premises at all.

Astrologers using geocentric or sidereal or Koch house systems are accused of inconsistency, while in physics, one can discuss whether light is a wave or light is a particle; and in behavioral genetics, one can formulate competing theories like "nature-versus-nurture," and in medical science, doctors can make a respectable income by giving second opinions.

Light is proven to have particle-wave duality. That is not something that is up for discussion. Depending on the circumstances, it can behave either way. It’s a comparison or oranges and apples; simply not valid.

Another way that Scientist debunkers project their own behavior is by accusing astrologers of using their art to control their clients' lives. You can see how absurd this is if you try to think of some part of modern life that is not depedent on (controlled by) science/technology. Contrast this with humanistic astrology, which is devoted to the process of self-awareness.

Again, I for one couldn’t care less. If people are gullible enough to believe Astrology and absolutely want to part with their money, who am I to stop them. I just get irked when Astrologers claim the backing of science to enhance credibility.

Science searches for order with the ultimate goal of dominating nature, while astrology searches for an order that connects man with nature. In this sense, astrology constitutes a much more environmentally-friendly discipline than {conventional}science.

Astrology is also criticized for attempting to sell itself by associating with the latest theories that have caught the public's imagination, such as mythology. Whereas, when scientists do the same thing, as E.C. Krupp does in his monthly astro-mythology column in Sky and Telescope, it is considered an admirable method of "bringing science to the masses."

And speaking of mythologies, another method of attack is based on the (3) "Myth of Objective Consciousness."[12] This is the idea that the scientific method or rationalism is the best way to gain knowledge about the world. There are just a few assumptions going on here. Debunkers have extended the meaning of best to indicate "only" and knowledge has been equated with Truth. The world is limited by scientific definition to mean the material, physical world, which in turn is assumed to mean "reality." Astrology functions in a much broader way like philosophy; it is an alternative form of perception that seeks knowledge of a reality that includes the metaphysical world, yet scientists insist on testing it with the scientific method. Analyzing astrology with the tools of science is as inappropriate as trying to measure consciousness with a spoon.

Well, in my honest opinion this is a lot of hot air talk mixed with a few misconceptions. But oh well. The interesting part follows.

Here are a few reasons why the scientific method cannot be applied to astrology: First of all, astrology is not a science in the narrow, specific sense like biology or physics. It is only a science in the broad definition of "a study, a discipline, a portion of knowledge." At most, it might be considered a social science. But the other social sciences, such as history, are not regularly attacked for their failure to pass scientific tests, so why should astrology?

Here we go again! Astrology is not a science in Valerie Vaughan’s point of view. And, again, I couldn’t agree more. Why aren’t history attacked for their failure to pass scientific tests? Because history evaluate known facts and try to stitch them all together to extrapolate and estimate what people were thinking. And all data is available. Astrology are making predictions based on the unknown and has yet to put all data forth. Thus, that comparison is not valid.

Another reason the scientific method will not work with astrology is that the rationalist view assumes that the whole equals the sum of the parts. When the scientist tries to break down a person's birth chart into separate components to test the individual parts (like whether sun signs can translate directly into specific, isolated, predictable behavior traits), the astrologer rightfully objects that this is ignoring the wholeness of a chart, and of the person. If psychology is allowed to acknowledge the complex unity of the Self, why can't astrology be granted the same right?

Of course Astrology can be allowed the complex unity of the Self, just as psychology. Go ahead and have all the fun you want with that. Not sure what the relevance is, though.

Scientists also insist on statistical analysis using random samples. But astrology cannot be "proven" or falsified by random statistics because astrology is based on the premise that conditions are never random. Take, for example, random conditions at the time of testing. Scientists might assume that any old time is just as good as another to perform a test of astrology, but what if you're testing whether Pisces is less aggressive than Aries and it so happens that Mars is rising during the time of the test? Or suppose that a certain test is performed that shows some validity to astrology, but in a later attempt at replication, the Moon is void-of-course during the test, or Neptune is rising, and the results are all vague.

Another complication with statistical analysis is that what scientists call "expected frequencies" can vary in astrology -- for example, because of certain facts about celestial mechanics, the Zodiacal signs can spend different amounts of time on the horizon. People born at the latitude of London are three times more likely to have Scorpio rising than Pisces rising.[13]

This is a gross representation of random sampling. There are many ways to do random sampling, e.g., we can take your weather forecasting abilities. We’ll take 10 different areas or something like that and see how well weather is predicted against random chance.

Astrology is incredibly complex and there are innumerable variables. Scientific proof is based on the premise that an individual factor can be isolated and tested separately from all the other realities of life. Practicioners of astrology know that no one factor, such as the Moon in Aquarius, can "mean" anything in an absolute sense. That Moon could be void-of-course, out-of-bounds, in a different house, opposed Saturn, or any number of other factors that can qualify the "meaning" of Moon-in-Aquarius.

Even more emphasis to the point that Astrology is not a science.

Debunkers don't bother to learn about these complex factors; they make simplistic assumptions about astrology based on their kindergarten understanding of a post-graduate-level subject. They are totally unqualified to test astrology by any method. But speaking of educational qualifications, let us now turn to the most recent and most disturbing and insidious manifestation of debunking. With the ignorant bliss that characterizes our profession, many astrologers are blithely unaware that debunkers have now penetrated deep within the institution of public schooling. Perhaps more of us will wake up and pay attention upon hearing the following story.

After long and serious studies were made in the early 1990s regarding the low scientific competence of American high school graduates, the American Association for the Advancement of Science set the Benchmarks for Science Literacy in 1993, followed by a massive revision of the National Science Education Standards in 1996. What these Standards determine is a set of guidelines for what all students should know at various age levels, as well as the direction for curriculum reform; i. e., a plan for how science should be taught from kindergarten through high school. This national master plan has been created with the support, approval or blessing of various authoritative organizations (such as the National Science Teachers Association) and has trickle-down effects through the creation of curriculum frameworks on the state level. Textbook publishers have accordingly revised their products and proudly advertised them as conforming to these national/state standards and frameworks.

What should concern astrologers is that the new Standards promote something that has never been included in any previous educational guidelines: deliberate emphasis on science history and the scientific method. Boosted by lobbying and pressure from debunkers, current textbooks for every area of science (not just astronomy) now contain entire units or learning activities that are aggressively aimed at students learning to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

And she doesn’t (or you, for that matter) find it important that students know how to differentiate between science and pseudoscience? I find that hard to believe.

We seem to keep stumbling upon a reality that underlies all the debunking -- power through funding. When Astrology was driven from the ranks of the intellectual elite during the Scientific Revolution, pushed out by the rising class of professionals called scientists, the war against astrology was begun as a class war, and it continues today in the same form. When astrology lost status as an academic discipline, it was able to survive through the last few centuries mainly as a folk art, kept alive by self-taught practicioners and the popular almanacs which (unlike scientific journals) were affordable for the "common man." Today, Science with a capital S is the most highly endowed intellectual pursuit of the academic and corporate world. Money (funding) means power and control, whether it's economic or intellectual.

It lost its academic status simply because it is not academic.

We repeat our original question of motive-- Why are scientists so hot and bothered about what astrologers are doing? -- It's not like astrology is trying to take over as an intellectual power to replace science, much less is it even capable of doing so.

I think she is inventing a problem. Again, most scientists couldn’t care less about Astrology unless seeking credibility in the scientific label.

So what's the problem?

The scientist-debunkers are intellectual control junkies who cannot bear the thought of a phenomenon which cannot be explained according to 'science' -- not so much because this would offend their near-religious belief that Science is the one Way to Salvation, but because they fear losing control of their power and status. And in order to remain in denial about their need for intellectual and financial control, they keep on expanding their territory, applying the scientific approach to areas which are just plain none of their business.

Argh, see above.

Traditional concepts which provided the foundation of human society since time immemorial have all consisted of imaginative structures, none of which remains tenable in the face of scientific enquiry.

Science has the capacity to debunk anything of a non-scientific nature, not just astrology but poetry, religion, mythology -- almost anything which we can term the "humanities." Modern culture has been reshaped by the domination of rationality and conformity to science. If taken to its ultimate conclusion, this means the eventual elimination of any of these mythical sources, including morals. Science as the ruling paradigm follows the "Law of the Instrument" (Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding).

Scientists are invading many new territories with their hammer. According to the new Standards, the history of science is a major component of science education, and it is stipulated to be taught by science instructors, not social studies teachers. Science, which is designed to measure the material world, has been extended to function as a way to interpret history. With a new product (the teaching of history), Science has now expanded its market and can exploit a wider consumer base (our children). Scientist debunkers have discovered they can expand their power to the realm of public school education -- but what else would you expect with Pluto currently in Sagittarius?

By all means of respect, but this is pure BS. Science is not “invading and conquering” new territories. There is no interest in the scientific community to do so. Again, as mentioned above, only when labeling Astrology as a science. If you want to be a member, you play by the rules.

And science has always been a big part of school education, public or not.

Historians, not scientists, should be the ones interpreting history. Social studies are meant to establish an understanding of human behavior, culture, and morals. Can such learning be properly achieved via the scientific method, which is touted as objective and value-neutral, yet which is valued by scientist-rationalists above all other viewpoints? With scientists directing the learning of history, there will be an inherent tendency to enforce prejudicial attitudes against astrology, especially because of its major role in the early history of science.

Again, she is assuming that science is on a conquering rampage, which is clearly wrong.

Continued in the next post....

[badeskov]

Continued from previous post...

Is there anything that astrologers can do about this? For those who are willing to undermine the establishment, there are two principles outlined in the National Standards that may offer avenues for advocating an unbiased treatment of astrology. One is the stress on multicultural frameworks -- all educational subjects are now supposed to include the traditions of diverse cultures. Since every single culture in the world has developed a form of astrology, it is inherently diverse. This is why the Chinese Zodiac can be prominently displayed in an elementary school during Chinese New Year as part of the multicultural recognition of "other" ways that cultures formulate astronomical calendars. A possible tactic is to approach the school authorities about admitting Western Astrology as a valid cultural tradition and see what happens.

The other Standard which could open the door for astrology to enter the classroom concerns the latest educational method now being hyped which emphasizes student participation. Education, like science, is susceptible to fads and fashions, all dependent on which theory happens to be in vogue. It is currently all the rage in science education to include more student-led "inquiry" than factual instruction from teachers.

The idea here is that, if students show an interest in a particular problem (no matter how unrelated it is to the established curriculum), teachers are supposed to follow the direction of inquiry and incorporate it into the lesson, rather than denying it (for any reason) as not being what the students are "supposed" to be learning. In other words, if students in an astronomy class show an interest in astrology, the Standards stipulate that the teacher must follow that direction. It will be interesting to see how this kind of situation will be handled, because it is in direct confrontation with the Standards that allow science teachers to debunk astrology under the guise of instruction in science history, "critical thinking," and scientific method.

It has been a long time since I have heard anything like this...no wait, Kansas and Creationism springs to mind!

Ok, now we enter the realm of confusion, misconceptions and (hopefully) unintentional deceit.

Turnabout's Fair Play

A debunker usually is a person who chooses to be critical of things they have not studied, and many of the "questions" below are the mark of a person with no clue as to what they say when it comes to Astrology.

She should try practicing that before she makes the list below.

1. What is the likelihood that one-twelfth of the world's population is having the same kind of day? Only someone whose "knowledge" of astrology is based on newspaper Sun-sign horoscopes would ask a stupid question like this.

No comment, that is actually not a valid question. I agree to that.

2. Why is the moment of birth, rather than conception, crucial for astrology? Again, the question reflects the ignorance of debunkers. Conception charts exist and are used by many astrologers.

No comment, that is actually not a valid question. I agree to that.

3. If the mother's womb can keep out astrological influences until birth, can we do the same with a cubicle of steak? Is this a rhetorical question or have you used your academic funding to run experiments to test this? How would you test this?

No comment, that is actually not a valid question. I agree to that. But now we get to the meat of it.

4. If astrologers are as good as they claim, why aren't they richer? It is natural for those who have prestige jobs with high pay to assume that others envy their power or share their goal to be rich. Fraknoi also notes that astrologers could amass billions by forecasting general stock market behavior, and thus not have to charge their clients high fees. You can't have it both ways, Andrew. (If they are charging high fees, they must be rich. If they are rich, they must be as good as they claim.) Also, I'd like to see some statistics on this, especially comparing astrologer's fees with the hourly rates of psychotherapists, or the fee you charge for a lecture.

This argument is completely turned around. If Astrologers were as good as they claim, e.g., with weather forecasting abilities months ahead, their salaries would certainly go through the roof and it would be taught at accredited universities. Simply put, they are not good enough to even beat the 10 days weather forecast made by meteorologists.

5. Are all horoscopes done before the discovery of the three outermost planets correct? Does the acceptance of modern quantum physics make Newtonian physics incorrect?

That is just absurd. Comparing quantum and Newtonian physics is like comparing oranges and apples again. Newtonian physics is for large bodies (planets, comets, etc) and quantum physics is for atomic and sub-atomic level particles. Completely moot.

6. Shouldn't we condemn astrology as a form of bigotry? Isn't refusing to date a Leo or hire a Virgo as bad as refusing to date a Catholic or hire a black person? If it is bigotry for astrologers to categorize people as Leo or Virgo, then it is bigotry for Fraknoi to categorize people as Catholic (or Protestant), black (or white). We categorize or "type" people by characteristics all the time. When we identify people as talkative and avoid this type when we want quiet....Is this bigotry?

This has nothing to do with debunking. She is referring to an ethical discussion which has no bearing on what she is describing in her article. Not sure why this is here.

7. If you have a reading done by ten different astrologers, you will probably get ten different interpretations. Why do different schools of astrology disagree so strongly with each other? For the same reasons that scientists do. If you go to ten different doctors or therapists, you will also get ten different opinions, but it's probably cheaper to go to ten astrologers.

Scientists rarely disagree on the facts and the results, only in nuances hereof or with respect to experiments not yet confirmed. Exemplified, ask an astronomer what is inside Jupiter’s moon Europa. He’ll most likely say “I don’t know, but I think liquid water”. There is a very clear distinction between fact and speculations. Would an Astrologer say “I think….”?

8. If the astrological influence is carried by a known force (gravity, magnetism, tidal forces), why do the planets dominate? Who says it's a known force?

Uhm, ok. Astrology is based on an unknown force. Predicting something from an unknown force that is immeasurable can’t be good; rather the opposite.

9. If astrological influence is carried by an unknown force, why is it independent of distance? A force not dependent on distance would be a revoluionary discovery for science, changing many of our fundamental notions. I guess this means that scientists must be unconscious, since science has evidently not yet discovered consciousness, a force not dependent on distance. Has this guy ever heard of relativity?

I have no idea what she is talking about? Relativity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. And where does consciousness come into play? Consciousness is not a force and has nothing to do with distance.

10. If astrological influences don't depend on distance, why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies and quasars? Here we go again. The debunker is ignorant of an important branch of astrology -- the study of fixed stars, which includes pulsars, quasars, black holes, nebulae, infrared energy sources, radio sources, and galaxies."

No, but it works both ways. If it is independent on distance, the main influence would be not from out tiny solar system, but from all the mass in the Universe, which obviously haven’t been mapped in its entirety. I cannot just be a branch, it would have to be the whole field of Astrology that would be dependent on it.

Try reading on astrological history before continuing to make such off-the-wall comments on it, as well as what does and does not constitute "science." And, if astrology were "absolutely non-existant" as you say, then why would you be commenting at length on it at all? How is that possible?

I think you will find my answer imbedded in the article above (which clearly states on several occasions that Astrology is not a scientific discipline).

Best,

Badeskov

PS: whew, that was a long one, sorry everybody...

[badeskov]

Make a prediction. it's that simple. use badeskov as a subject. if it's the weather then let someone pick a city. a country. but predict it for further than current weather systems can.

lists of current credible degree university holding scientists that agree it's a science and why. not based on philosophy or spirituality , but hard data. just like any other science has to bring forth.

I am always up for being the guinea pig

Best,

Badeskov

[SwampGator]

Using todays alignment of the solar system and my handy Windows calculator I have determined that in fact you are a clouded leopard today and you will have luck finding a nice dinner....beware of psuedoscience today.

You will be a guinea pig on August 3, 2031.

[Eagle Eye]

let's use my Grandmother shall we ?

I will prove I love my Grandmother. right here on the boards.

I can state I love her. Have cared for her well being since I was 15. Have made sacrifices for her as she had for me when I was a kid.

want proof ? I can give you our phone number and you can ask her yourself. she's 91 so you'll have to speak up. if you can speak Ukrainian it would help. That's proof. and it's straight from the horses mouth . I could take a pic of her and I or better yet if I had a video cam I could make a film and post it.

plenty of ways to prove my love. and her's for me.

Just like you can prove your ' science' here on the boards.

Make a prediction. it's that simple. use badeskov as a subject. if it's the weather then let someone pick a city. a country. but predict it for further than current weather systems can.

lists of current credible degree university holding scientists that agree it's a science and why. not based on philosophy or spirituality , but hard data. just like any other science has to bring forth.

yet you keep avoiding to prove it.

The point is that there is no scientific "proof" of love Ripley. As for the weather, I prove it all the time in my long-range forecasts and have been doing so for quite some time.

[Eagle Eye]

Continued from previous post...

It has been a long time since I have heard anything like this...no wait, Kansas and Creationism springs to mind!

Ok, now we enter the realm of confusion, misconceptions and (hopefully) unintentional deceit.

She should try practicing that before she makes the list below.

No comment, that is actually not a valid question. I agree to that.

No comment, that is actually not a valid question. I agree to that.

No comment, that is actually not a valid question. I agree to that. But now we get to the meat of it.

This argument is completely turned around. If Astrologers were as good as they claim, e.g., with weather forecasting abilities months ahead, their salaries would certainly go through the roof and it would be taught at accredited universities. Simply put, they are not good enough to even beat the 10 days weather forecast made by meteorologists.

That is just absurd. Comparing quantum and Newtonian physics is like comparing oranges and apples again. Newtonian physics is for large bodies (planets, comets, etc) and quantum physics is for atomic and sub-atomic level particles. Completely moot.

This has nothing to do with debunking. She is referring to an ethical discussion which has no bearing on what she is describing in her article. Not sure why this is here.

Scientists rarely disagree on the facts and the results, only in nuances hereof or with respect to experiments not yet confirmed. Exemplified, ask an astronomer what is inside Jupiter’s moon Europa. He’ll most likely say “I don’t know, but I think liquid waterâ€. There is a very clear distinction between fact and speculations. Would an Astrologer say “I think….â€?

Uhm, ok. Astrology is based on an unknown force. Predicting something from an unknown force that is immeasurable can’t be good; rather the opposite.

I have no idea what she is talking about? Relativity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. And where does consciousness come into play? Consciousness is not a force and has nothing to do with distance.

No, but it works both ways. If it is independent on distance, the main influence would be not from out tiny solar system, but from all the mass in the Universe, which obviously haven’t been mapped in its entirety. I cannot just be a branch, it would have to be the whole field of Astrology that would be dependent on it.

I think you will find my answer imbedded in the article above (which clearly states on several occasions that Astrology is not a scientific discipline).

Best,

Badeskov

PS: whew, that was a long one, sorry everybody...

I'm sure you are quite aware what she is talking about. Well then, that's about says it all, doesn't it? For someone who says that Astrology is a toy, and not valid, you sure spend a ton of time on Astrology Badeskov, huh? Done now?

Edited March 24, 2007 by Theodore

[Eagle Eye]

this pretty much says it all -

Do astrologers ever claim that what they do is a science? Yes, they certainly do. As an easy example, astrologycom.com defines astrology as "The science of the stars." Books on astrology will regularly cite various statistical studies which they claim validate astrological work. All of this points to the fact that astrologers would like to be thought of as practicing something which is rigorous, scientific and objective.

The actual practice of astrology is also generally made to appear very scientific. When creating someone's chart, an astrologer first has to fix the exact time of the person's birth, then translate that time into Greenwich Mean Time, then translate that into sidereal time, then translate that back into local sidereal time. After all of this is finished, the astrologer needs to perform elaborate calculations to determine zodical and planetary positions for this exact time.

The problem is, however, that astrology is not supported by sound and verified scientific research, like statistical studies. Astrology is not based upon collected data and carefully controlled, objective observations. Astrology is not based up falsifiable predictions which are tested and re-tested by independent observers and researchers.

Astrologers will respond to this by arguing that such research is expensive and time-consuming, and they do not have access to either the time or money necessary. They might even argue that they are deliberately excluded from those resources by a disbelieving, not to mention hostile, academic and scientific establishment.

This, however, ignores that fact that quite a few scientific studies have been done on astrology, and in each case the claims and premises of the astrologers have failed. Furthermore, it also ignores the fact that most astrologers simply don't know anything about conducting or evaluating such research - something which underscores the lack of scientific training and knowledge which is characteristic of astrology.

Astrologers may further argue that astrology is too complex for standard scientific protocols to handle. For example, the astrological chart is supposed to have more information than scientists can factor for - a typical chart can include 30 to 40 major factors and another 60 to 70 minor factors, resulting in a bewildering array of permutations, combinations and possible interpretations. This does not, however, explain why astrologers are unable to match charts with people at a rate better than chance. After all, can it be argued that these charts are too complex for astrologers to handle?

It is at this point that astrologers will often start to argue that astrology is not so much a science (like physics) but more of an art, philosophy, or at best a social science.

The identification of astrology as an art is only to be expected, because once the math has been completed and all the charts are drawn up, there is nothing very obvious or necessary about any particular conclusions which an astrologer might infer. There are many possible interpretations which an "expert" might provide to a client and it is here that the "art" of astrology comes out.

Sometimes, the promotion of astrology as an art has to be done in conjunction with the denigration of science as a principle. The argument seems to be that scientists, being too logical, are unable to see astrology for what it really is. For example, J. West and J. Toonder have written in their book "The Case for Astrology":

...an astronomer knows no more about astrology than a radio mechanic knows about music. To ask an astronomer for his "expert" opinion on the subject is useless.

There are no hard and fast rules for interpretation, which means that there is no interpretation which is really "better" or more "objective" than any other. The astrologer improvises and plays things by ear. This is why astrological predictions are generally "better" when they are done with the client right there rather than "blind." This, of course, sounds an awful lot like the methods used for cold readings.

If the astrologer can speak to the client, it is possible to ask probing questions and see immediately any reactions to the developing interpretation. In this fashion, an individual predication can be tailored to the person at hand, taking into account their very real fears, hopes and history. When performing "blind," however, the astrologer has nothing to work on but the data itself and this never seems to provide quite enough for a really accurate or informative series of conclusions.

The wide variety of methods for interpreting astrological data - or even for gathering astrological data - creates a problem for the claim that astrology is genuine or accurate. Astrologer Prudence Jones admitted as much in the Astrological Journal in 1996:

Even within astrology, our various systems don't agree either. In horary astrology the Moon's north node is a point of ill-fortune, but in humanistic astrology it is the direction of personal growth. A planet may be in Cancer in sidereal astrology but in Leo in tropical astrology. Serious astrologers often decry Sun-sign forecasts as some sort of unfounded gibberish, but Sun-sign techniques (turning the chart, transits to "turned" house rulers, lunations in "turned" houses etc.) are in fact part and parcel of standard astrological method. The rules of traditional, modern (post-Theosophical), sidereal, and local space astrology (with its sidereal ancestor Vastu-Shastra) are quite different. Yet how many of us have decided that we would be tropi*spam filter*ts rather than siderealists, traditional rather than modern astrologers (or vice versa) after any process of sober reasoning?

One final note with regards to the distinction between art and science needs to be emphasized: whichever paradigm is chosen for astrology, that will determine the ways in which astrology is to be explained, justified and defended. If astrologers try to claim that their work is scientific, their work will have to be evaluated on strictly scientific terms; if it fails, then so does their program.

Your post continues to prove her point that ~ "Debunkers don't bother to learn about these complex factors; they make simplistic assumptions about astrology based on their kindergarten understanding of a post-graduate-level subject. They are totally unqualified to test astrology by any method."

Listen Ripley, until you learn the difference between pop culture astrology and the real thing, all your "questions" are invalid, based on your own ignorance of the subject, the arts and the sciences ~ especially when it comes to what you define as "scientific terms" ~ which you talk about in such a narrow way as to prove you don't know what that even means.

[Eagle Eye]

and your remark about global warming ? you may want to educate yourself and not swallow corporate propaganda looking for ways to save thier financial behinds.

I am quite educated on climate change and global warming, and have been since the late 1980s, when the topic was hardly known by the public-at-large, much less accepted as real by those now pushing the myth of man-made global warming.

There is no man-made global warming Ripley, and you continue to make false statements such as "corporate propaganda" based on how easy it is to blame others for something they are not doing at all while not knowing what it is that you are talking about in the first place.

Listen and learn ~ all climate change on the Earth is forced by the Sun, you know, that star in the skies you see in the daytime? The Sun controls all major climate change on this and other planets in our solar system, and has been the cause of global warming on Earth since 1980. We are now n the 27th year of the effects of solar forcing of the Earth's climate towards warming, and the Sun has now reached its minimum.

The Sun's massive magnetic field activity more than doubled in the 1990s and peaked in the year 1998, which is the reason for all climate change on our planet. There is no way that humankind can "warm" the earth with Co2 emissions. The oceans, mountains and animal and plant life put out more Co2 than we do. These are facts and has nothing at all to do with "corporate propaganda" and goes to show that you know as much about climate change science as you do Astrology ~ which is very little. The only "propaganda" I see is your own.

I use the transits of the Sun to forecast long-range weather all the time, and monitor the Sun's activity, and it is a known fact that the Sun is responsible for all climate changes on the Earth. Meteorology is a branch of classical astrology, and weather forecasting is natural to classical astrologers.

For more on the facts of climate change, and to see where the real propaganda comes from on global warming, see here ~ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Edited March 24, 2007 by Theodore

[Fluffybunny]

Your post continues to prove her point that ~ "Debunkers don't bother to learn about these complex factors; they make simplistic assumptions about astrology based on their kindergarten understanding of a post-graduate-level subject. They are totally unqualified to test astrology by any method."

Listen Ripley, until you learn the difference between pop culture astrology and the real thing, all your "questions" are invalid, based on your own ignorance of the subject, the arts and the sciences ~ especially when it comes to what you define as "scientific terms" ~ which you talk about in such a narrow way as to prove you don't know what that even means.

After reading through this thread I have noticed one thing; it appears not one single person here is qualified (at least in your mind) to question astrology. So far there have been a several reasonable responses and statements regarding your posts only to receive something similar to your response above.

The pompous replies got old after just your first few posts, but it appears that you have little else to add; A one trick astrological pony, so to say. For someone claiming to be an expert in your field you are doing a horrible job helping people understand what it is that YOU believe astrology is, how it works, why it should be taken seriously...the kinds of things that take place in a DISCUSSION forum.

The overbearing arrogance and lack of willingness to discuss this topic leads me to the conclusion that this is a thread best closed. My guess would be that you were able to predict this happening though...