Thanks for this string, Andrew, and others.

Astrology attempts to understand appearances, while Science tries to understand absolutes. Also, scientists deal with a systematic accumulation of observations, yet when the focus shifts to the practice of such knowledge - the person still becomes an artist. I.e. medicine is a science, yet the practice of medicine is an art.

(I didn't read how to quote text here. Blame it on my ascendant. I hope it works.)

I think we're being duped. What is science? The word "science" is from the Latin scientia whose verb form is sc?re, ?to know by the mind.? Traditionally, scienter arises from skilled practice of the arts. We know cosmos by practicing the art of astrology. Astrology is not science; it a means to realize scientia--science.

Modern physical science (which, along with other modern sciences, has arrogated the good old word "science") is knowledge of the structure of the corpus of cosmos. Science (unmodified) is knowledge of the structure of cosmos. Cosmos is an intelligent, communicative being--Adam Kadmon in Western tradition and K?la Purusha in India. Through modern physical science, we know cosmos like a physician interested in only our vital signs measured by accepted instruments as a stand in for the body knows us. My physician has never looked through the window to my soul at me.

Modern physical scientists seek to know cosmos' body. Astrologers seek to know cosmos as an intelligent, communicative being. Both disciplines require a methodical approach that is stable enough to permit prediction that is based on the knowledge of the workings of cosmos (or its body) gleaned through devoted practice and well-developed, skillful use of the discipline's methods.

Traditionally, the physical world, or nature, is cosmos. When in the 17th century Galileo and others got very excited about being able to precisely measure cosmos' body and a lot of technological advances ensued (not the least important of which were machines of war--and Galileo was finally able to take care of some of his personal financial problems), people began to think that cosmos' body and methods used to know it were the whole show. Then, especially in the 18th century, they got pretty arrogant about it. Witness Bickerstaff and Poor Richard for the humorous tip of the iceberg. A very large iceberg sunk the Titanic. Nothing will sink astrology. It is the fundamental confirmation of the sacred and intelligent nature of cosmos, and explains so much about our human part in it all.

Astrologers know science. Modern scientists know modern science. Modern science has considerably narrowed its interests.

penny seator

Excellent post, Penny! I come from a hermetic philosophical point of view and I appreciate what you say in your post (I also agree with Andrew Bevan and with much of what Eddy had to say in this thread) Those of us involved in alternative medicine are also subject to ridicule and repudiation by the "leadership" (educational and institutional) of the "modern" conventional medical establishment. All of us (astrologers and alternative health practitioners) are in the same "boat" vis-a-vis the scientific establishment, and believe me, it comes down to social, economic and even political considerations-not honest and genuinely scientific issues-relative to the attitudes and prejudices held against us. This is why the work we do, the researches we make, should be for our OWN edification, and should not be undertaken in the vain hope of convincing or converting the establishment.

Welcome to Skyscript, Penny!

There is something about the Artist having to show Skill, and Skill coming down to Technique, and Technique being based on Knowledge. I suppose there is an Art of Deception, but this would come down to manipulating Appearances. Maybe Science does represent something Absolute and Secure, but even then Science may be used to ventures of pollution and destruction, rather than to the better and good of Mankind and Mother Earth. What is the purpose of Science if it doesn't make the World a better place? Does Science solve problems, or is this an Art?

I am trying to figure out whether the discovery of Dark matter weakens the authoritive stand of Science or whether it is an occasion used to attempt and market the importance of the scientific mission. If the Unknown does leave the door open for astrology, this does not mean we can rush in without following certain rules. Maybe Science even will discover that large portions of Creation does not make sense? There is Random, Natural selection and Cyclic Behaviour.

Martin Lewicki wrote:I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here.

Science is often known through the centuries to try and act religion-like, "we know all or at least we have the way of know it all".
In cases that science is clueless they cloud it. In cases they do mistakes is always a "well next time we will do it perfectly". In the - many - cases they do it right is "told'ya".

Indeed science (in any form) is a superb tool but at the same time scientists reserve the right to be wrong solely for their art. This entitles me to be smug I believe. I judge from the inside due to my physics studies.

Astrology is another superb tool that works. Sometimes it works like quantum physicists:
Q: Why are quantum physicists so poor at sex?
A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Andrew Bevan wrote:I am trying to figure out whether the discovery of Dark matter weakens the authoritive stand of Science or whether it is an occasion used to attempt and market the importance of the scientific mission.

This is like asking whether the failure of astrologers to prove that astrology is not illusion at work weakens the authoritative stance of Astrology. In fact it seems the opposite!

In the case of dark matter there is actually the measurable evidence that something is happening. Astrology has yet to provide measurements (rather than belief and opinion) that there is something to it. So far there is the Gauquelin "measurements" - but these are largely ignored and even denigrated by astrologers and skeptics alike.

Martin

Martin Lewicki wrote:In the case of dark matter there is actually the measurable evidence that something is happening. Astrology has yet to provide measurements (rather than belief and opinion) that there is something to it. So far there is the Gauquelin "measurements" - but these are largely ignored and even denigrated by astrologers and skeptics alike.

Astrologers continually measure the quality, quantity and direction of planetary influences. Modern physicial scientists measure using the functional equivalents of clocks and yardsticks. Astrologers measure using the terms of astrology. We say the angular houses are strongest. Strongest is a measure. We can measure the influence of planets in angular houses by saying they express 100% of their virtue, those in succedent houses 50% and those in cadent houses 25%. We say that a powerfully placed planet that disposes other key planets is highly influential and very powerful. We measure how successful or unsuccessful, lasting or temporary, ethical or unethical, difficult or easy, refined or unrefined realization of particular house matters will be. With forecasting techniques, we meaure periods of time. And so on. We are big measurers.

I think the Gauquelin studies are very important. They are incontrovertible evidence of the precise numerical kind of astral influence on human affairs--tied, moreover, to the principal determining points of the chart, the angles, especially ascendant and midheaven. That people's jaws aren't dropping over those results, especially the jaws of those most set on the idea that astrology is false, shows how tenaciously we human beings cling to our preconceptions and how really difficult it can be to get through to us with the simple and apparent truth. Galileo knew about that problem. Not only the members of the Office of the Inquisition had a hard time understanding. Some peripatetic philosophers refused to look through Galileo's new spyglass to simply see what he was pointing at. It's a little harder to see astrology at work--something that takes some instruction, study and practice--than to see the craters of the Moon, phases of Venus or Jupiter's moons through a telescope, but it could be done with even a crack of open-mindedness and a dollop of willingness.

penny seator

Penny wrote:

Modern physical scientists seek to know cosmos' body. Astrologers seek to know cosmos as an intelligent, communicative being.

Some short and sweet and undoubtedly simplistic statements:

Scientists seek descriptive fact through intended personal separation and distance. Astrologers seek meaning and guidance through intended personal involvement with and interpretation of that descriptive fact.

Scientists step aside and then observe and relate their findings to others. Astrologers step within and then observe and relate their findings to others.

Astrologers are philosophers. (Whether they realize it or not. It sure would be refreshing to see fewer statistical attempts.) Scientists are errant philosophers (In the laboratory, anyway. They tend to leave their musings at home in front of the fireplace.)

Kirk wrote:Astrologers are philosophers.

Perfect!

I am still hampered by the fact that I sent NORSAR (seismic institute Norway) a telefax on 16 June 1990 warning an Earthquake in Iraq,and 2 days later 47.000 people died in such an Earthquake. Link

The seismic institute had an internal debate and decided against picking up the phone to ask me how I had done it. I never heard anything from them. What went on waas reported to me from third parties who did not know I was the astrologer who had performed the work.

The seismologs/scientists were granted resources. I hadn't got a penny. This sort of work can certainly not deepened without funding. Not everything I did in this field gave the same results - and I also wavered my approach. However, the results should have been significant enough for examination. Neither do astrologers have the possibility to work according to the elimination method in the same way as scientists.

Credibility is still a problem and a challange.

Kirk wrote:Scientists step aside and then observe and relate their findings to others. Astrologers step within and then observe and relate their findings to others.

That's the difference, I think, between looking at things as objects to be measured with yardsticks and clocks for primarily technological ends and entering into an intersubjective relationship with an intelligent and communicative being.

That is a dark matter you speak of, Andrew. (I'd quote, but I don't see yet how to quote from two different posts.) The obscurity of minds that will not look in order to see. By elimination method you mean falsification as philosophers of science talk about it, or is it something else? Have you been able to make your results and their rejection followed by tens of thousands of deaths public?

penny seator

...John Frawley's description of the modern worldview as a "ramshackle edifice" is what first pops into mind. This view isn't so much anti science as it is anti scientist. The most off the wall astrologers are usually honest even if they are misguided. Can we say the same about scientists?

I don't agree with this. The strength of science that it is based upon proof after a theory/hypothesis has been made. The theory of the Earth's rotation was definitely proven by Foucault's pendulum. The Trans Neptunian Objects or Kuiper Belt Objects was based upon a theory of the astronomer Gerard Kuiper. The first TNO's/KBO's were discovered about 20 years after his death, so his theory was proven. Without Brahe, Kepler and Newton we would have no good ephemerides, calculating exact solar returns and primary directions would be impossible etc etc.

About a year ago I found a website of a Dutch ex-astrologer, Rudolf Smit, who cooperates with other researchers like Dean, Mather etc. They are quite reasonable. Instead of immediately dismissing astrology they see some values of astrology.

Garry Phillipson interviewed them, http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/phillintv.pdf (70 pages)
Interesting is that they point out that most of the disagreement between scientists and astrologers is that they look from a different point of view 'subjective' versus 'objective' (p.7). Scientists want proof and therefore have an objective proof. They will research astrology this way, testing astrological issues like for example the alleged connection between extraversion/introversion and positive/negative signs. The researchers' conclusions from an objective point of view have been negative allover. Another point of view, they say, still could make astrology very valuable. From the interview it follows that astrologers have the subjective view. Rather than scientific proof these emphasize the meaning of astrology for the life of clients. It follows that different systems that even contradict eachother are said to be useful anyhow. The comparison with religion is made. I think they have a point there.

However the problem is that the more negative findings day make the more astrology has to retreat in the subjective region. This is what we see with modern astrology. It has retreated in the subjective region by allowing many different meanings to similar issues. For example a Saturn square to Mars in the natal chart will be seen as 'bad' in more traditional astrology, modern astrology doesn't necessarily so and sees in this placement a 'challenge' by which the owner of the chart can 'grow'. Unfortunately this has lead to an 'anything goes' astrology in which the chart is adapted to the personality.

Especially since the 20th century by the writings of Rudhyar and Jones inspired by Jung and Theosophy the connection between planets and astrology have been dissolving. Any of the ancient views of physical effects are entirely dismissed. Also particular effects ascribed to certain planets are dismissed and meanings of planets are made personal and each time different.

Yet, at the moment there's still this connection between an objective fact and subjective astrology, namely the need for a birthtime and -place. This still makes astrology connected to the physical planets, and therefore the scientific view will require a demonstrable proof of the connection between person and planets. If the development of the retreat into the subjective view in modern astrology pursues then I predict that one day there will be a therapeutical 'astrology' in which no birth chart is used. Instead, the client, after a short introduction to the meaning of the planets, houses, signs etc, will be given the opportunity to express his/her feelings on a personal problem through placing planets in the placements according to these feelings.

Feeling more attracted to the objective view, I don't really like the developement into the necessarily vague subjective area, disconnected from the physical planets. However I tend to believe in research and if any research continues to be negative for astrology, then I would find it difficult to reject this offhand. On the other side, the suggestion of an astrology without natal charts or anything connected to a certain moment and place would have the advantage of giving clients a more sense of control over their life. However, could this still be called astrology?