It doesn't really matter how tiny the results could be, what really matter is that the results BE.

It's more about quality than quantity in this case.

And BTW I already knew all these skeptics pages as the one you linked above

nothing really interesting to learn or to conclude from these.

Sonia

The article pointed out to me that the Gauquelin results may not BE... astrologically. But I'm not really bothered by it. Actually it enhances my doubts about semi-arcs, of which I'm not an advocate.

It took me two weeks to read the entire website. I believe I learnt a lot of interesting new things, I didn't know about the possible social artifacts in the findings of Gauquelin, that was new for me. What did you think of the possibility 'avoidance-times and -dates'?

I believe these people on that website are the most honest skeptics I've ever read. In the 2nd Gauquelin article for example they show how unfair Gauquelin was treated by the skeptic Comit? Para.

soniah wrote: As in Medicine, there is not a need of a causal or biological explanation for how medicine works (ie. Psychiatry) in order to accept scientific evidence (Psychiatry is a science).

Sorry, but this is absurd. Although it is possible to work on assumptions, noone deems these fields science in it's entirety, even the professionals of the area (that's why psycology is much more oriented to therapy than psychiatry, a field related to mind illness, but much more concerned with physical effects than not).

What they do universally accept is it's possible to administer substances in order to try and alter certain behaviors and reactions, and those medicines have enough research on them to prove their use through theory and practice (i.e, electrical impulses, secretions, body temperature, blood pump, all can be altered through drugs, and there is a reason for each of them, that if unknown, makes the substance questionable). Few doctors outside the field do respect Freud and what came after in the same path. If there is no causal link, there is no science, and that will not change. The rest is, as they call, bad science, that even if showing correlation, can not be proved and/or repeated in numerous ways above chance. And if it can, but have no causal link, then the explanation must be somewhere else. That's what science means.

Even among scientists there is fight over the validity of the entire body of psychiatry. That's the problem with the so called "human sciences", they are not really sciences, jut fields of knowledge trying to fit, like astrology.

Finally, there is no room for error or mistakes in science once proof is supposedly attained, all pertaining it's object should be known. What you are trying to do is redefine science. Good luck on that.

Chronobiology is not a branch of astrology but rather a subbranch of genetics -- finding the genetic formula for light and dark sensitivity -- if Ebertin hadn't taken the name "cosmobiology" for his branch of astrology, the Chronobiologists would have taken it ... the Chronobiologist studies the biological clock looking for genetic mechanism that support it -- as far as my survey of the material goes, they're just into solar and lunar phenomena

soniah wrote:As in Medicine, there is not a need of a causal or biological explanation for how medicine works (ie. Psychiatry) in order to accept scientific evidence (Psychiatry is a science).

Biological and "causal" are not the same. I never mentioned the word "causal", I used the word "model". Without a testable model based on sound natural science principles, there is no natural science.

A significant statistical correlation between 2 variables, without a model that explains how the 2 variables interact, does not constitute "scientific evidence". Evidence of what, if there is nothing "scientific" being tested in the first place?

There is nothing physical per se, nothing that belongs to the world of nature, in a planet's position at the moment of birth correlated to a choice of profession. The planet remains an abstract mathematical point on a graph, or a point of light in the sky (or not even that if it is below the horizon), UNTIL a testable (physical or natural science) model is proposed that explains the relationship between the planet and the choice of profession.

In the absence of such a physical model, the correlation belongs to the realm of numerical (mathematical) and social constructions, not to the world of natural phenomena.

and you clearly confuse Gauquelin's research on planetary heredity (independent and not related to the correlations birth/vocation he found) with his final rock-solid scientific evidence on astrological phenomena. Please, take a further study of the entire Michel Gauquelin papers, studies, books and work. This is about scientifically proven astrological correlations, it has nothing to do with the old superstition of causality (planetary influences and biology testing) and are rock-solid scientific FACTS, whether you like these or not.

The problem here is not my ignorance or confusion, but your assumptions. What is "astrological" for you? You are assuming that astrological phenomena belong in the world of nature, I think it is easily demonstrable and proved that they don't, so what you think is "rock solid" evidence of astrological phenomena I don't consider is Astrology at all.

BTW I don't understand why people tries and insists in keep astrology in the dark realm of superstition while ignoring science and facts. It's absolutely backward!. This makes me think that many people cames to astrology without the remote idea of what astrology truly is, and this seems to be in circle, they came to astrology with their old superstitions and they spread them back again widely outside astrology -this kind of people frankly doesn't help the profession at all.

Personally, I think what is amazingly superstitious and backwards is the belief that Astrology deals with natural phenomena. This is closing our eyes to the fact that there is very little in the mathematical and social constructs that today are called "Astrology" that can be found in the world of nature. Astrology is a technology, a set of tools, not a phenomenon of nature.

A lot of consfusion arises when we don't pay attention to the nature of the tools we use. We can define "Astrology" a priori any way we want, and the result will be as many definitions as there are astrologers. But if we examine what an astrologer does, or has been doing since the time of the Greeks (horoscopics), this problem disappears and we would have a pretty clear idea of what Astrology is on which we could all agree.

Juan

PFN wrote:Even among scientists there is fight over the validity of the entire body of psychiatry. That's the problem with the so called "human sciences", they are not really sciences, jut fields of knowledge trying to fit, like astrology.

There is --sadly-- a very consistent trend among astrologers to dismiss the methods of validation developed in the social sciences. There is a long, refined tradition there that could help astrologers a lot to define the characteristics of their field, but it is largely ignored.

Qualitative research methodology is almost never discussed by astrologers. I think this results from a lack of understanding of (or interest in) astrological practice and tools as a social or cultural phenomenon, rather than a phenomenon of nature.

The sad thing is that astrologers are using qualitative research methods all the time (e.g. analytic induction and theoretical sampling), but in a disorganized, unconscious, non-methodical way, and unjustly and unnecessarily underestimate the "scientific" and academic value of their work, and keep comparing Astrology to natural science, which in my personal opinion is fruitless.

Juan

Juan wrote:There is --sadly-- a very consistent trend among astrologers to dismiss the methods of validation developed in the social sciences. There is a long, refined tradition there that could help astrologers a lot to define the characteristics of their field, but it is largely ignored.

Hello Juan.

I agree with you, but there are some implications to astrology, regarding the approach taken when one thinks of it as closer to what a social science is. Mainly, it's oracular proposition. So, it becomes complicated to fit it even in the realm of these fields, imho. But I concur that a lot can be learnt from the eviroment. We are actually closer to linguists, philosophers and translators some times, than to astronomers and mathematicians, and that escapes us.

PFN wrote:Hello Juan. I agree with you, but there are some implications to astrology, regarding the approach taken when one thinks of it as closer to what a social science is. Mainly, it's oracular proposition. So, it becomes complicated to fit it even in the realm of these fields, imho. But I concur that a lot can be learned from this eviroment.

Paulo,

I personally don't think it is more complicated than religion, beliefs, etc., to which oracles as a cultural practice can be related, so one can find a lot of literature, theories, methodologies for approaching oracles developed by anthropologists, sociologists, etc... and they all can be applied right away to Astrology as a cultural practice.

Why are they so consistently ignored?

If astrology is essentially an oracle when seen in terms of its practice, we see astrology partaking of the characteristics of all oracles, but we would still be in the dark about what makes Astrology different from other oracles.

What makes it different in my opinion is the nature of the tools astrologers use (charts, transits, etc.). My view is that it is these tools, not our pre-conceptions of what astrology is or should be, what defines Astrology as a field. We are "astrologers" because we use these tools. So understanding how the tools are made and how they work is necessary to understand what Astrology is and how it works, and what is NOT Astrology.

From here, it is easy to demonstrate that 90% or more of these tools have nothing to do with natural science, but are social and mathematical constructs used as models through which astrologers analyze and (try to) predict any objective or subjective reality which is represented in the model.

Juan

PFN wrote: What they (psychiatrists) do universally accept is it's possible to administer substances in order to try and alter certain behaviors and reactions, and those medicines have enough research on them to prove their use through theory and practice (i.e, electrical impulses, secretions, body temperature, blood pump, all can be altered through drugs, and there is a reason for each of them, that if unknown, makes the substance questionable).

Please inform yourself better:

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/marketing- ... troduction


Sonia

soniah wrote:
Please inform yourself better:

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/marketing- ... troduction


Sonia

Hi Sonia,

That's a Scientology front, by the way; I wouldn't take what they say as gospel ...

soniah wrote: Please inform yourself better:

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/marketing- ... troduction

Sonia

So, you mean to use psychiatry as an example of a science that is accepted by society, and that this validates the inclusion of astrology under the label 'scientific', when you yourself do not agree that psychiatry is a functional/proved/workable [natural] science. Very honest of you.

I have no patience for this anymore, any point you might have doubts are covered in Bill's post, it's your call to understand/accept or not. Farewell and have a good life.

No, I don't mean to compare psychiatry with astrology, I was just giving you more information about what you thought that is a "science" (psychiatry).

To me psychiatry is politics, not science. Most medical doctors see psychiatry in the same way as astronomers see astrology, in the case of psychiatry is even worst because they don't have scientific evidence for their "science", however in astrology we have rock-solid scientific evidence of its fundamentals, psychiatry lacks of it.

However they are two completely different disciplines. No interest in comparison here.

I have not doubts, I have everything clear, I have not fear to see the facts. Everybody is strong-opiniated here and each one has their own right to be.

Unfortunately most people who came to astrology they have not idea of what astrology is, and the misinformation that they spread harms serious astrology and the whole understanding of the science by society.

That's why I said that many patience is required for to improve this, hopefully new generations of young students will improve this and challenge the current chaos into the profession and practice of astrology.

That's it.