Forum member Zachariel mentions this post over in the Sidereal forum:

Zachariel wrote: Sun May 26, 2024 4:24 pm
'Jakob' asked the question in "Philosophy & Science": "How would you prove astrology?" I think this is an important and very valid question if you are not just interested in astrology as a superficial pastime. All those who regard astrology as a mere gimmick may consider the question of the provability of astrology to be unnecessary, even ridiculous. However, I do not belong to this group of people; for me the questions about the provability and validity of astrology are very justified. In order to come closer to answering these questions, it is necessary to consider which prerequisites astrological methods and the astrological object of research must fulfill. I really don't intend to offend anyone, but I am personally convinced that Uranian Astrology and especially Microastrology, as it's further development, are better suited than other astrological schools for empirical testing because they use symmetry equations and represent planetary pictures as formulas. This allows a greater degree of precision to be achieved and a noticeable smaller scope for interpretation. In my opinion, planetary symmetry equations make it much easier to check, verify and, if necessary, falsify astrological hypotheses. And it is also much easier to replicate results with the help of planetary symmetrie equations.
Zachariel

original post: Morgan Spurlock, study #42

Since they address me indirectly, "those who regard astrology as a mere gimmick may consider the question of the provability of astrology to be unnecessary," I'd like to respond by just clarifying that I don't think astrology is a mere gimmick. I do believe that "proving" astrology is unnecessary. Where Zachariel and I differ, I think, is that they seem to believe astrology can be "proven" through empirical testing; I do not.

Zachariel seems to lean heavily upon the "scientific" thinking. I'll admit, I am more interested in "art" or "an art." This is fine with me. I'm not offended by their stance. But I do want to leave a quote by famed physicist Richard Feynman for everyone to consider:

It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.

That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth. - The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (bold mine)

Science has 2 parts.
First, you doubt. This is called an 'hypothesis'. Science have this right regarding astrology.
Second, you must engage in experiments to prove your 'hypothesis', which science never did with astrology.
And that is 'counter-science' as far as I am concerned.

Ouranos wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 12:13 pm Science has 2 parts.
First, you doubt. This is called an 'hypothesis'. Science have this right regarding astrology.
Second, you must engage in experiments to prove your 'hypothesis', which science never did with astrology.
And that is 'counter-science' as far as I am concerned.

I hear you, Ouranos.

Just to be clear, I take no issue whatsoever with folks such as Zachariel and yourself using Uranian astrology to study what you consider more precise observations. I think I've made that pretty clear around here. I think it's great. As far as I am concerned: Have a blast! :)

My only intention here is to try and clarify my position in response to Zachariel's claim that only unserious, gimmicky astrologers are uninterested in proving astrology.

Ouranos wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 12:13 pm Science has 2 parts.
First, you doubt. This is called an 'hypothesis'. Science have this right regarding astrology.
Second, you must engage in experiments to prove your 'hypothesis', which science never did with astrology.
And that is 'counter-science' as far as I am concerned.

Thats wrong.

I thought this topic was in need of a little brevity:

Luke Skywalker: Master Yoda, how would you go about it if you wanted to prove astrology?

Yoda: Prove astrology, you wish? Amused, I am.

Luke Skywalker: Seriously, Master. How would you do it?

Yoda: Begin, you must, glitter and moonbeams you must gather. Essential, these are.

Luke Skywalker: Glitter and moonbeams? Are you joking?

Yoda: Joking, I am not. Crucial for the cosmic alignment, they are.

Luke Skywalker: Alright, so what's next after the glitter?

Yoda: Space cat, you must consult. Tarot cards, this feline reads.

Luke Skywalker: A space cat reading tarot cards? You're pulling my leg, Master.

Yoda: Sincere, I am. Insight from the feline oracle, you will need.

Luke Skywalker: Okay, suppose I do find this space cat. What do I do after that?

Yoda: Align your chakras to the Force, you must, using crystals most expensive. From a boutique shop, only. Cheap crystals, powerful not the Force is.

Luke Skywalker: Let me get this straight. Glitter, a tarot-reading cat, and boutique crystals?

Yoda: Correct, young Skywalker. Last step, consult your horoscope in the Daily Mail, you must. Vital, this is.

Luke Skywalker: The Daily Mail? Really, Master?

Yoda: Truly. Reliable, the stars are when in tabloid.

Luke Skywalker: And then I'll have my proof?

Yoda: Proof or cosmic wink, receive you shall. Mystical, the Force is.

What is the thesis that you want to prove or disprove,
when you think about the question "astrology yes oder no"?

If one were to put forward the following two theses:

1. People with Mars on the Ascendant in Orb of less than 3 degrees have green eyes or
2. People with Mars on the Ascendant in Orb of less than 3 degrees are more likely to have green eyes than others.

If you refute thesis 1 or 2, you don't refute astrology. If you prove thesis 1 or 2, then you do not prove astrology.

AJ wrote: Mon May 27, 2024 3:07 pm Yoda: Proof or cosmic wink, receive you shall. Mystical, the Force is.

:)
Thanks AJ

Jason wrote

Just to be clear, I take no issue whatsoever with folks such as Zachariel and yourself using Uranian astrology to study what you consider more precise observations.

I feel more like a witness than a participant in this discussion.
And not sure how I got linked to Zachariel and what I consider more precise observations is appropriate. Uranian astrology is as powerful and inappropriate as Traditional astrology. It all depends of the astrologer behind his desk. Sometimes, I am observing things that Traditional astrology has no answer for. And sometimes, I am observing things that Uranian astrology has no answer for. For example, how does Uranian astrology identify a pet. Would you rely on Uranian house system? But what rulership would you give to the 6th House? I have seen many conflicting rulerships here. Not simple to say the least.
Uranian and Traditional have the same syndrome. Very good at explaining things... after the fact!
And Uranian astrology did not invent the hard aspects, they just decided to focus on this type of aspect. Maybe the next revolution will be an astrology focusing on the soft aspects only. That would be a nice departure from the fatalistic approach we have with our interpretations.

All I was saying in my post is that science has certain procedures when they say that something is right or wrong. They will engage in serious studies to prove or disprove what they are saying. And that is how science evolves. That's it!
But in the case of astrology, they refute everything without verifications. Which is not following what science claims to be.
There is an accident at the corner of the street. You can say it's right or wrong, but let's go verify to form a consensus.
And all the approaches are welcome! Traditional, Indian, Uranian, art or scientific approach.

Please let's try to keep it simple here and not put words into my mouth that I have not said. I have not reached the God-like complex yet. And do not intend to reach that level anytime soon.


Ouranos

jason

i share your perspective on how astrology is an art as much as anything else.. that is where i would put the emphasis .. everyone practices it differently too, using different means to shed light on theirs or others situation... in fact it was geoffrey cornielus in his book ' the moment of astrology' where he suggests there is something magical in the process... these are my words, but thinking one can be all scientific has it's limitations... jakob asked a very good question in the mundane forum which would be better suited to the philosophical section here... i am going to copy and paste my comment from that thread here, as it is more appropriate here...

Jakob wrote: Sat May 25, 2024 3:04 pm How did Uranus, Neptune and Pluto "work" before humans discovered them? Did they work at all?

this is an interesting question for the philosophical section.. it reminds me of a recent thread on feminism titled "Spica and Women's rights" which i read with interest.."

my response -

one could ask the same question on any number of astrological methods that are presently in use that weren't in use previously.. outer planets may or may not be incorporated by astrologers of today, just as trans neptune planets, or midpoints and - you name it... on the other hand, astrologers seem to have a real knack for explaining why something has happened astrologically, thru very different methodologies... this is interesting in itself and says something about astrology more generally, or perhaps about the practitioners of astrology...

it begs the question 'how much of this in the eye of the beholder'? are the use of various elements of astrology used to maintain a particular interpretation? is there an element of gullibility in human nature and if so, how would it display itself in astrologers?? entertaining the idea of 'doubt' is very critical to all of this too...

-------------------

aj

thanks for that.. it was a creative and fun bit of writing that i certainly enjoyed!

of course we are all left to ask these questions of ourselves directly and there is no answer to this question either, but as i said at the beginning - it's an interesting question for astrologers to consider..

Ouranos wrote: Please let's try to keep it simple here and not put words into my mouth that I have not said. I have not reached the God-like complex yet. And do not intend to reach that level anytime soon.

I'm sorry to hear that you felt I was putting words in your mouth, Ouranos. I meant no harm or to categorize you as having a God complex (In fact, I never said anyone had a God complex). I simply brought you up while I was making the point that I have no issue with Uranian Astrology - you share findings from it here all the time, and I interact with you in a friendly way concerning the topic.

Most astrology advocates and opponents treat the topic as a faith, a religion. Some are in favour, others against. There is a lack of passion for more depth into a such question?