Morpheus, I don't know where you are getting your information about scientists, but it doesn't jive with my personal experience. I worked in a university for many years, where I rubbed shoulders with a lot of them. My ex husband was a scientist. My brother is a scientist. I sat on committees with scientists and sometimes discussed their research with them. Some of these scientists are members of visible minorities. I certainly didn't detect any racism from the ones who are white.

Some of them have big egos, but you find that amongst any crowd of well-educated ambitious people. Others are pretty self-effacing. I sure didn't see any "sour as they age" unless they had some personal extenuating circumstances (like not getting along with co-workers)-- and not many of those.

You find a lot of scientists in non-academic settings such as government-sponsored research laboratories. I worked at a graduate degree-granting institution where the scientists were expected to maintain a vigorous research program. Part of their teaching involved lab and field work with scientists-in-training.

Are scientists only human? Sure. They are subject to biases, likes and dislikes, opinions, &c. Consequently it is important to distinguish between science as an endeavour, scientists as human beings, and scientism as the belief in the primacy of science.

Philosophy is not the only field that sharpens critical thinking! How do you build a better bridge and what went wrong with the one that collapsed? How can you best save the whales? Did Richard III really kill the princes in the tower? What are the legal precedents for a particular case?

Are many scientists prejudiced again astrology? Sure. But too few astrologers truly help our cause. I am prejudiced against pop-schlock astrology, as I imagine most traditional astrologers are, as well. I give a lot of credit to Nicholas Campion, whose books on the history of astrology are top-drawer and show that yes, astrologers can cut it in the academy if they are willing and able.

waybread wrote:
How many people here have a B. S. (B. Sc.), M. S. (M. Sc.), let alone Ph. D. in a scientific field from an accredited university? If not, what is the depth of their scientific education?

Well I do. I have a Ph.D. in physics from the University of London and spent 10 year doing research in physics at Imperial College and Lawrence Livermore Labs in the United States, where the Americans develop and test their nuclear bombs.

And I can say that very few working scientists actually think about the scientific principle very much - if at all.

The philosophical basis for "science" is Logical Positivism and simply stated, it has two fundamental pillars upon which the scientific method rests.

The first is that any theory or principle in science is only an approximation, which will work well within a certain set of boundaries. But beyond the limits of that "phase-space", the theory or principle will be found not to work or not to work as well as it should.

The validity of a scientific theory or principle is tested by experiment to see what the limits of the boundaries or "phase-space" is for that theory or principle. This is what experimental physicists spend their time doing. In consequence the second pillar is that if experiment disagrees with theory, it is deemed that theory is wrong and experiment is correct. Theory and principle must then be adjusted to accord with experiment.

It follows that it is unscientific to say that astrology does not work because its principles are contrary to the laws of any of the hard sciences, which is what many scientists like Professor Brian Cox proclaim. That is arguing from the wrong end and denies the second 'pillar' as mentioned above.

The point is that if astrology 'works' in a practical sense, then a true scientist has to accept that and 'science' has to be recast to include astrology - regardless of the fact that all the other laws of science say it should not work. That is a very big step and it is not surprising that few scientists are willing to contemplate that.

The problem is that when we say that astrology 'works', we are not being totally scientifically objective in that assertion. Scientific tests demand that those tests should be objective and not dependent on the time, place or person conducting the test and that simply is not true for astrology - especially horary astrology.

This impasse between science and astrology will persist until some way is found to measure subjective value judgements in a way that scientifically valid. That is a very interesting field of research which has been barely touched on as yet.

How super to see a card-carrying scientist here, vs. the all-too-frequent science-bashing, Geoffrey. Are you still doing physics?

You are probably familiar with the work of Paul Feyerabend on astrology.

http://thekindlyones.org/2011/02/14/ast ... eyerabend/ (good commentary from D. Houlding!)

He argued that most definitions of science don't actually hold up, because astrology actually meets many of the criteria.

Some scientists have taken astrology seriously because they are historians of science, specifically of astronomy; and they understand how much astronomical knowledge was collected for astrological purposes (notably Otto Neugebauer.)

I don't think logical positivism is still current in the philosophy of science; mostly because of its extreme claims that scientific testability was really the only criterion for knowledge: a proposition that fails by its own definition. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/
I think you've got a good, solid explanation of scientific thought (and even of common sense,) but I wouldn't call it logical positivism.

You wrote, "It follows that it is unscientific to say that astrology does not work because its principles are contrary to the laws of any of the hard sciences... " I agree totally. I think the hard science/astrology comparison is wrong-headed in the first place.

You wrote, "... if astrology 'works' in a practical sense, then a true scientist has to accept that and 'science' has to be recast to include astrology - regardless of the fact that all the other laws of science say it should not work. That is a very big step and it is not surprising that few scientists are willing to contemplate that."

Again, I don't think hard science is the comparable. It might be one of the social or behavioural sciences (which in their qualitative branches, would not actually qualify as science.) Some sociologists and anthropologists, for example, study New Age groups or cultural astronomy (ethnoastronomy) and I think they would not only be somewhat more sympathetic, but actually better fitted to the task.

But I agree with your main point. Many scientists are not being scientific enough, in the sense of keeping an open mind about a subject with little unbiased serious scrutiny.

There is a large body of legitimate qualitative work in the social sciences. There is a large body of empirical work in the humanities. As I noted above, historians and legal scholars gather and interpret facts, but nobody calls them scientists.

I think we need to move beyond the hard science/astrology binary. Most unhelpful.

I would say that most approach it as a science, though it seems obviously more of an art.

If this were not the case (ie. if it actually was more science than art), then computer programs would make the best astrologers and that is obviously false.

If Astrology was subject to "truth in advertising" laws, then I'd probably say it is an art based firmly on science. Without the science part, we wouldn't know exactly where the planets are and measuring angles is firmly in the realm of science. Without the art part, we would merely be spitting out little "factoids" that, though interesting, fall incredibly short of what a competent astrologer is capable of evoking in the mind/consciousness of the client.

I would say that an astrologer is being artful, depending on just how adept he is at making creative connections between the client's life and the astrological factors.

Curiously, several have referred to "the art of rectification" when this is the one area in Astrology, above all, where science can come to the rescue!

James

Good post, Atlantean!

I would describe astrologers as consumers of scientific information, but not as scientists.

You see all kinds of non-scientific disciplines where this consumption of scientific information happens, for example: environmental law, environmental economics (and additional hybrid environmental fields), history of science, "science (or technology) in society," science journalism, and a lot of archaeology. (Some archaeologists really are scientists, but some are really humanities, even fine arts scholars who nevertheless make use of radiocarbon dating results, &c.)

Then what do we make of the few astrologers (today, with a majority in the past) who are or were mathematicians? Today there is applied math, optimization, combinatorics, and/or statistics, &c, which would be part of a scientific study. Yet pure math isn't really classified as a science.

Some astrologers really are into developing software for horoscope calculations and ephemeris timetables, but the overwhelming majority of astrologers do not do this sort of work. Few astrologers have any university degrees in scientific fields, let alone the Ph. D. and post-doc that are required for most research scientists. (Technicians get hired with lower educational requirements, but generally do not head up research terms.)

We could make a strong argument in the past (before 1700) for a marriage of science and astrology, but this divorce was final.

Psychology is an interesting conundrum. The "modern psychological astrology" of the 1970s was based upon its least scientific practitioners. Psychologists today, depending upon their specialty, may prefer terms like behavioural science and even neuroscience. But you won't find their work in astrology books (she qualifies, "so far as I know.")

It looks to me like somebody should get the word out to teachers and professors that most people do not know what science is like today, let alone the empirical liberal arts fields like sociology, anthropology, and counseling; which really might inform an astrologer's education and truth-claims.

waybread wrote:
It looks to me like somebody should get the word out to teachers and professors that most people do not know what science is like today, let alone the empirical liberal arts fields like sociology, anthropology, and counseling; which really might inform an astrologer's education and truth-claims.

hi waybread, after reading many of your comments on this thread i've come to the conclusion that i am not clearly understanding your intent here.. it seems you think astrologers need to know more about science in order they be better informed.. the same could be said for those who associate with the scientific community who know next to nothing about astrology but go so far as to comment on it as well!

hi atlantean, you appear to never miss a chance to promote rectification methods along a certain line! i continue to see rectification as an art as well. i'm am not opposed to software programs coming up with data that might suggest a better fit but i don't see any conclusion made via a software program as enough to classify rectification as 'science' as opposed to art. i continue to think the human potential for error or arrogance is an ongoing part of any conclusion made off a software program for rectification.

James, Actually I think you do understand my intent!

We are not dealing with a level playing-field in the (misplaced) science-astrology debate. Sure, it would be super if scientists understood astrology better before criticizing it. In all my years of working around scientists, however, I can't recall that I even heard any of them mention astrology. I have read publications where scientists' criticism of astrology is at issue, but I don't think it is on the radar of your typical biochemist.

So we cannot tar a few million scientists with one brush, on the basis of our hurt little feelings over a Richard Dawkins or a 1975 newspaper ad.

Scientists are only human, and as such, they criticize all kinds of things they haven't studied in depth, ranging from Catholicism to the New York Yankees. So do you. So does everyone.

But astrology vs. science isn't some kind of quid pro quo arrangement.

We all know that science is a mainstream field, with a huge educational, industrial, and and governmental aparatus behind it. Kids learn science in school, not astrology.

We all know astrological publications that just make us cringe. Astrology is its own worst enemy so far as the media are concerned (with thanks to Deborah Houlding and a couple of others for their yeoman efforts.) I do astrology because I love it. I certainly don't expect scientists to somehow be nice to us when we have done such a poor PR job for ourselves ourselves as a discipline.

We need to know something about science and technology simply to function as literate citizens in today's world. Do you want GMOs in your food? How do you feel about fracking regarding your ground water? Does it matter if endangered species go extinct? (Hey, their preservation means your tax dollars.) What do you know about the latest prescription drug your doctor ordered for you?

In fact, the whole argument of "Why should we be nice to scientists if they won't be nice to us?" just leaves me bewildered.

Hello Waybread,

Re: "Good post, Atlantean!"

Thank you very much!

Re: Science

The scientific parts of Astrology are (imo) easier to learn. We all know what a trine means... we can figure the math behind Solar Returns, precessed or not, etc. What is more difficult is the learning of making creative connections and of producing insights that are meaningful/useful for the client.

Additionally, I think the less artful (more scientific) someone is at astrology, the less likely they are to be circumspect and self-limiting in terms of saying things that could be potentially damaging.

Once the astrologer has said several things that the client accepts as Truth, the inclination is for the client to accept the other comments as also being true. I have had clients tell me that other astrologers had told them "your 7th House is in bad shape, you'll probably never have a successful relationship in this lifetime", and other forms of client-abuse that just makes one CRINGE upon hearing of it.

Take care,

James

The original argument was not to call Astrology as a 'Science', because once you call it such, it invites those scientists (or pseudo-scientists) which can not make an inch of progress in their own fields but start demanding 'Proof, proof, thus acting as champions of enlightenment and waging a crusade against all those who in their opinion have exploited the humanity for the past 2 or 3 thousand years.

It gives a lot of publicity, media attention, TV programs, bushels of money and recognition beyond the closed Scientific community. Not a bad deal.


In my opinion, of all the things which have exploited the humanity, Astrology is at the bottom of list.

It is wrong to assume that only astrologers are the consumers of 'scientific knowledge. Scientists use microscopes, telescopes, clothes, food, speech, Lab equipment but they are not required to obtain separate Ph.D's in all of these things.

Ph.D in Telescope manufacturing
Ph.D in Microscope manufacturing
Ph.D in Diets
Ph.D in Textile Engineering
Ph.D in Literature


So, I use a computer and have few words of comforts for clients. It means I should obtain higher degrees separately in Computer Science and Behavioural Psychology. I wonder when did my mother or wife obtain
higher degrees in Behavioral Psychology.

Point to be noted is by putting all the stress on softwares, micro-computing nobody is saying that 'Astrologer should be perfecting their own astrological techniques. Which I assure you is the most boring work. An ability to read the chart on a consistent basis is difficult. It is easy to hide behind 'Knowledge of History of Astrology'. Because nobody can challenge you on your ability to read the charts.

It is also wrong to assume that one can not think or critically analyze things if S/he has no scientific training.

It is also wrong to assume that there is further research to be done in 'Astrology'. The problem we have is to digest and be able to apply the knowledge which already exists.

I think I need to burn my copy of 'Christian Astrology', Planets in Transit by Robert Hand, Deborah Houlding's Book on Houses and her paper on 'Ptolemy Terms'. I have doubts whether these people had Ph.D's at the time of writing their books/papers.

The funding for Scientific Research comes from Tax Payers monies, which could be accountants or musicians.

It is time to critically question the role of scientists and their pronouncements from the pulpits of supposed superiority. In the times of crumbling of established religions, Gods of Science can not be tolerated.

Morpheus wrote:james_m,

I would call 'Astrology' as an 'Art' for a simple reason.

By calling it an 'Art' we would not be bothered by 'pseudo-scientists' who are not competent to make an 'inch' of progress in their own selected fields, however, they think that it is their prerogative to comment, discuss and pronounce judgments against the minority and helpless sections of society.

Our life in 20th and 21st century has been made easy by 'Inventors/ Technicians' rather than 'Scientists'.

Not actually true. It's true that technology and science are distinct enterprises which, as T.S. Kuhn pointed out, has often been difficult for historians to see because both are progressive in ways other fields aren't. But since the last third of the nineteenth century the two have interacted closely to create the hypermodern world we live in today. Thumbing our nose at science because science doesn't love us is perhaps understandable but ultimately not very productive. Kuhn, incidentally, the leading historian and philosopher of science of the twentieth century, had some interesting and relatively undogmatic things to say about astrology, including this in an article titled "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" in his The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change:

Nevertheless, astrology was not a science. Instead it was a craft, one of the practical arts, with close resemblances to engineering, meteorology, and medicine as these fields were practised until little more than a century ago. The parallels to an older medicine and to contemporary psychoanalysis are, I think, particularly close. In each of these fields shared theory was adequate only to establish the plausibility of the discipline and to provide a rationale for the various craft rules which governed practice....A more articulated theory and more powerful rules were desired, but it would have been absurd to abandon a plausible and badly needed discipline with a tradition of limited success simply because these desiderata were not yet at hand.

after symbolism is one of the best links ive read.
it certainly fits with my life and people i know(the saturn cycle)

it is interesting where the conversation has gone! my thinking is that astrology is a useful activity that doesn't have to be classified as scientific in order to have merit and value to people.. this is really my own way of staying on my own playing field - astrology - and not concerning myself with whether scientists can adopt the idea of astrologers playing on the 'scientific' field or not.. i do think astrology has some science to it, but to try to put it all in that context seems to deprive it of the art which i consider most important.. i suppose i am setting on a conflict here between art and science when they can be thought of as 2 separate areas of interest and study and don't have to be seen in conflict with one another.. i lay the blame for that are the doorstep of the small community of ''scientists'' who have commented on astrology without taking the time to study it.

for me - astrology is primarily an art, not a science.. i like the quote that spock offers at the end of his last post here and relate well to those comments as well.