quick comment here. first off - thanks for all the worthwhile comments being made.. i have to say i really like what morpheus said!

regarding the issue of formal education and astrology or science, i would like to keep this a separate conversation,. i am going to start another thread here in the philosophical section about just this.. if it is possible to keep that particular focus to another thread that i or someone else can start, i would really appreciate that to allow for the topic at hand to not get too diverse in nature. thanks!

Really interesting insights on statistics, Amelia!

The one qualification I would give is that disciplines tend to deal with unique instances as well as instances in the aggregate-- as we do in astrology. To use an analogy from biology, supposedly each individual organism is unique in some way; as is each species or ecosystem. But evolutionary biologists can discuss them in the aggregate. Just as astrologers do when talking about Mars in Aries, or Venus in the 4th house.

We anticipate that Mars in Aries or Venus in the 4th will share some similar properties or trends across horoscopes. Across many horoscopes; even though each horoscope may be unique.

In philosophical terms, we could discuss the ideographic (the unique instance) versus or in tandem with the nomothetic (generalizations, theories.)

Paul, please do not misunderstand my question about academic degrees in a scientific field. At some level in today's societies, these are the union cards for qualifying as a scientist, like it or not. I didn't invent this fact, I am merely reporting it. We might consider two types of understanding of science: the lay person's or someone who has explored it at a much deeper level. Getting a degree (and increasingly, an advanced degree for levels beyond technician or science teacher) is what it takes to have an insider's view of what a particular scientific discipline is all about.

This isn't to say that an outsider couldn't endeavor to be kept informed. There are a lot of science media out there. But disciplines generally define their own criteria for what it means to have that membership: not the layperson.

As we've discussed before, Paul, astrology is the "wild child" in the disciploinary spectrum. Perhaps it should be, perhaps not.

Morpheus, your scientist-bashing absolutely confirms my point that few astrologers (with some notably exceptions) appear to have either a solid layperson's or an insider's understanding of science or scientists. I mean, how many scientists do you know personally?

Spock, I really appreciate your latest post!

I think you answered the second part of Paul's comments to me better than I could have.

Sadly, sometimes scientists do know something about astrology, like newspaper sun-sign columns, or the Jeane Dixon effect. Indian scientists were outraged when the judge declared astrology in India to be a science; and they come from a position of knowing both sides well. If astrologers can't clean up in-house, they can hardly blame scientists for dismissing the most public face of astrology.

A few historians of science, like my hero Otto Neugebauer, have taken astrology seriously-- although as a mathematician and historian. It would be nice if we could emphasize this work, not rant against scientists for misunderstanding poor little astrology. It would help if we did a decent job of communicating, instead of drawing our wagons in a circle.

Let's face it, folks. There is a big, big power differential between science and astrology. Astrologers are the mouse in bed with the elephant. As such, it behooves the mouse to become very realistic about elephants. Criticizing the elephant only reinforces the mouse's inferior position in the dynamic. It doesn't change the elephant.

I think the commonality with astrology and the humanities is precisely what you termed personal development. Ideally this is the goal of reading great literature or studying philosophy. Public historians seek to recreate the past in museums just as traditional historians seek to recreate astrological methods of the past. It would be very interesting to see a dialogue between mundane astrologers and political scientists. So help me, if predictive astrologers could accurately forecast elections or financial trends, the nay-sayers would be silenced.

So far as the social sciences go, many of them today are heavily into qualitative methodologies, based on open-ended interviews, subject involvement in research design, and participant observation. Qualitative methods may be more fruitful than top-down quantitative research.

waybread wrote: Paul, please do not misunderstand my question about academic degrees in a scientific field. At some level in today's societies, these are the union cards for qualifying as a scientist, like it or not. I didn't invent this fact, I am merely reporting it.

Right, but I'm not asking about the truth of that, I'm asking if you need to have qualifications in science to know what the word science means, and if you need to have a qualification in art to know what the word art means?

I can't help but think that there's a sense of ignoring those views of the people who suggest astrology may be akin to a science based on a lack of university accreditation.

You seem to be suggesting that one needs University accreditation in a science subject in order to be able to identify what science means. I'm curious if you apply the same thinking to art, does one need the same qualifications in art to know what art is? I'm studying for an MSc at the moment, does this make me more capable of determining and identifying what science is? If not, when I complete the course and gain the MSc in paper will I then?

Getting a degree (and increasingly, an advanced degree for levels beyond technician or science teacher) is what it takes to have an insider's view of what a particular scientific discipline is all about.

I don't disagree, I'm only questioning whether that is needed in order to identify what science is or is not.

Paul, you do misunderstand me.

Let's take an analogy. I've seen you be authoritative and definitive about meanings in astrology. You do this on the basis of of your study and experience. So if I were to post that "domicile" means something contrary to your definition and explanation, you will think I don't know what I am talking about, and possibly post to correct me (in your own inimitable style.)

Why should my comments on "science" be treated differently?

Do you find my remarks elitist? If so, then why shouldn't I find your remarks on astrology definitions elitist? Hey, it's a "free to be you and me" world, isn't it? We're all post-modern, no?

You accept that the experts and practitioners in a field get to define what it means, and what credentials are needed to self-identify as an expert or practitioner of that field. Would a sensible person here accept that someone with little or no knowledge in astrology gets to define it? Probably not.

So the question is, how much expertise is necessary for an "outsider" to understand science-- as scientists themselves understand and practice it?

Obviously there are different levels to get to of understanding.

At one level is the insider's view. Normally the word "scientist" indicates a researcher (vs. a lab technician or science teacher.) In today's world, it would be extremely difficult to get to that level without an advanced degree in a science discipline. (I can go into the structural reasons for this if you wish.) So to understand the meaning of "science" as a research endeavour from an insider's perspective, almost certainly you would need higher academic credentials.

At another level might be the science teacher's understanding of "science." He might have a M. S. (M. Sc.) degree, but can probably teach chemistry to 10th graders on the strength of a B. S., or even a B. Ed. plus science course work. Here we might also put truly dedicated amateurs. For example, bird-watching is a hobby that attracts highly knowledgeable people who are not trained ornithologists. We might put national park naturalists in this category: their job might be primarily interpretation to the general public.

At another level might be someone who simply takes an interest in science. She reads Scientific American, and maybe several websites devoted to science news. Maybe she volunteers at a natural history museum.

And so on down the line of knowledge, until we come to people whose science education stopped in the 9th or 10th grade, and they didn't like it and didn't retain much of what they learned. In this category belong some strident anti-scientists, ranging from evangelical Christians fighting evolution in the schools, to conspiracy theorists, to people who imagine that whatever Isaac Newton did with the apple more or less represents modern physics.

Same thing with "art". However, this word has more loose definitions than science, so it depends what you wish to discuss. The fine and performing arts? Liberal arts? Culinary arts? The art of seduction?

I don't know what field your M. Sc. is in, would you mind saying? Then I could discuss it more directly. But I think you're looking at that "piece of paper" differently than my meaning. If you pass the courses required for the M. Sc., presumably you will know more science in your particular field than you did before you started. Otherwise you could petition for exemption from these courses. Possibly you will write a thesis based on original research and have to defend it in front of a supervisory committee. Then almost certainly you will know more science than you did before you started. If you plan to attain one of the higher levels of scientific understanding that I outlined above, then your degree may qualify you to obtain a more "insider" understanding of science.

So what do you say astrology is, Paul? Art, science, or.....?

as i was saying yesterday, i was hoping the conversation about degrees and educational background and all that could get discussed on a different thread.. would really appreciate someone starting a separate thread on it if they insist on talking about it.. that is also what i did yesterday, but one can start one themselves if they don't want to add to mine. thanks.

James, I've responded on your other thread.

My point being, if someone wants to ask whether astrology is an art or science, one first has to understand what science is and is not.

Morpheus wrote:I wonder how would some one statistically prove love, hate, desire, depression, enthusiasm, enough to live and enjoy life.

This is known as a strawman argument. Look it up on Wikipedia for an educational experience. In addition, since this is neither a forum nor thread about how one can best live and enjoy life, it's also completely beside the point. As for what wouldn't be beside the point, it should in principle be possible to statistically ascertain, or even just observe carefully, when people tend to fall in love, perhaps for instance when Jupiter transits conjunct, square or opposite its natal place, or when people tend to enter into more formal and relatively permanent relationships, perhaps for instance as Saturn transits conjunct, square or opposite natal Venus. Or one might notice that people often experience mild depression as Saturn transits conjunct, square or opposite natal Mercury, because it's a period of mental sobriety and loss of certainty, but that for a few people these periods regularly coincide with insights because a loss of certainty regarding current beliefs leaves room for alternatives. But that means treating astrology as a form of knowledge susceptible to investigation and improvement, not as a set of mysterious, magical procedures handed down from the gods.

Life as we know exists outside the 'controlled' scientific laboratories.

One-celled life exists beyond the microscope slides through which biologists view such creatures, but we'd know precious little about them, less even than our 17th century predecessors, if we "viewed" them ? what creatures? ? with the naked eye in their natural settings. And laboratories, by the way, aren't where most science is done, except in the minds of those who know nothing about it.

Astrology deals with 'uncontrolled' life.

If by uncontrolled life you're implying that there are no ascertainable patterns regarding what people are like or what they do, that they're by their very nature unknowable, you've just consigned not only psychology and sociology but also astrology to the trash heap of worthless activities. If you merely mean life not controlled in a laboratory setting, it's neither necessary nor desirable to limit oneself to inflexible, handed down astrological doctrines. You can for instance, discover the nature of patterning in human lives by reading and juxtaposing biographies or asking questions; and/or you can read or pursue developmental psychology. The latter does of course sometimes employ 'laboratory' settings. Let's say you've noticed via longitudinal studies that children at a certain age, for instance during the "age 7 crisis", regularly experience a shift in their reasoning. You can then investigate more closely the nature of that shift by putting individual children of different ages in a room with, say, "Vygotsky blocks", ask them to put together the ones that are "the same", and infer from what they do and how they do it (at different ages) the nature of their reasoning and gain a more close-grained understanding of how their reasoning changes during this transition. If that detracts from the romantic mysteriousness of having no idea whatsoever, astrological or otherwise, of what to expect in people's lives, that's a risk I'm prepared to take.

Science or Scientists in their autistic frustration to cope with life itself, lash out at all people who turn to astrologers or religion to seek guidance instead of turning to socially incapable Scientists.

You really don't know much about science or scientists, or about the point of organized investigation and perception as opposed to simply believing what you want to believe by uncritically accepting the authority of ancient predecessors.