Hello james_m,

We do seem to do this dance from time to time...

Re: "you appear to never miss a chance to promote rectification methods along a certain line!"

Well, of course. I am one of those people who believe in the axiom "don't mess with success." I have seen these methods lead directly to documented birthtimes, based only on the dated events in one's life. Once witnessed, it's hard to perpetuate disbelief. If I tell you that my auto will do 250 km/hr and you don't believe me, really just one trip on the autobahn witnessing it, makes it much more difficult to be a doubting Thomas in the future.

Re: "i continue to see rectification as an art as well"

Yes, it's an art in a sense, however, the true methodology should be firmly rooted and rely on the scientific. Lilly said that the best method of rectification is based on lining up appropriate Primary Directions to events in the life. Though I use a different method of Primary Directions, I absolutely could not agree with him more.

To most, "art in rectification" is just a license for total subjectivity on the part of the astrologer.

Re: "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."

When it (the algorithm) has been shown to work in documented, well-timed births, you can be as skeptical as you'd like. You can disbelieve gravity if you'd like...that's your call.

I really don't want to argue with you about it. (again) If you don't want to use it, don't want to believe it can work, more power to you. Find methods that you are comfortable with... Just please do realize that the "artful" approach, ie. rectification by delineation (ie. putting the planets in the houses that the astrologer is comfortable with them being in) is wrought with SUBJECTIVITY. It is biased. Software, at least, looks at ALL potential birth moments with no preconceived notions and seeks "merely" to find the best fit of appropriate Primary Directions for events and is therefore (like it or not) definitely more OBJECTIVE.

If you don't believe this is true, then consider that normally one could give the same birthtime range to 10 astrologers and get basically 10 different rectifications from it. On the other hand, if given the same initial data, Polaris will consistently spit out the same potential birth times whether I am using it or someone else is...

...and, as I have said, Polaris HAS BEEN demonstrated to find correct (ie. documented, well-timed births) birthtimes given only dated events from the life, the date of birth, and location.

Why Polaris hasn't (more universally) caught on is beyond me. I'm thinking that many don't like the "Black Box" element of it. Contrast that with Jigsaw, which many people have bought, but which makes NO DISCERNMENT between different types of events (ie. a wedding and automobile accident with death are EQUALLY treated (astrologically)) and which can quickly be demonstrated to lead one astray in well-documented birthtimes.

Though I speak highly of Polaris, (why wouldn't I?), I very much believe, to each his own...

Peace

James

Morpheus, I fully agree that we should not call astrology a science. Beyond that, some of your logic escapes me.

As informed citizens, we should all have a rudimentary working knowledge of what today's science is all about, because its effects are such a major part of our daily lives; and some of it has real policy implications. Science is also the engine for a lot of the economics that gives people jobs.

The objects of scientific study are so important to us: the human body and the environment that surrounds us, for starters.

It is helpful if astrologers have some elementary knowledge of astronomy (no pun intended.) Some argue we should know enough math to cast charts by hand.

If you typed your post on a computer using electricity, plastics, and the Internet, thank a scientist or engineer. (While this distinction is real, some people refer to "science" and "science applied.") If you are taking any life-saving or health-promoting medication-- or someone you love does-- thank a scientist.

Scientists attract grant money in part because of the potential economic, environmental, medical, or social benefits of their work. "Pure" or theoretical science gets funded on spec. Scientists have to work darn hard to write the grant proposals and then if they receive a grant, they have to conduct the research, write up reports, and publish the results of their findings. The ones I knew (and know) would be happy to put in a 40-hour week with two weeks' vacation simply to get more time off. Most of them put in 60-hour weeks. For the academics this includes teaching, research, and service.

Although science is mostly (not entirely) empirical, we should not confuse it with empiricism or observation. Non-scientific fields like history are often highly empirical.

In any field you will find people at the top of their form making major breakthroughs, and people doing ordinary less important work. This is true of astrology.

Where do you get the idea of a "closed" scientific community? The scientists I knew were happy to attract new students, explain their research to non-experts (like me;) and most had multiple outside interests ranging from their church to sports to classical music. Some of them got involved in summer science camps for kids.

I never argued that astrologers are the "only consumers" of scientific information. Of course, scientists "consume" types of scientific information outside of their field of expertise and non-scientific information. Doesn't everybody?

Nobody is arguing that one needs a Ph. D. in a field in order to make use of its information. My point, rather, is that certain types of knowledge--at even a basic level-- should be part of everyone's education. One of these fields is science. Certainly my American high school and liberal arts college thought so. Moreover, to be an academic or government scientist in today's world generally does require a Ph. D. and a post-doc in the field of expertise. Obviously a science teacher could do fine with a B. S. (B. Sc.) and education credentials.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument seems to miss my point.

You seem to be prejudiced against scientists. This is too bad, because they are individual human beings, just as you and I are. As such, they can express uninformed opinions over matters they have not studied; just as too many astrologers appear to be woefully uninformed about science and scientists, yet put forth their opinions about it, anyway.

I don't know whom you are referring to in the last part of your post. As an amateur modern western astrologer, I read charts for people all the time, most frequently at the Astrologer's Community forum; and to some extent at Astrodienst. I would applaud more methodologically sound research in astrology.

Your ad hominem attacks against scientists leave me concerned that science is not an endeavour that you understand very well. And that's fine-- no time like the present for any of us-- including me-- to learn about new areas of knowledge that affect our daily lives.

james_m wrote: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.

Just curious, James-- how much time have you spent studying science? Have you made efforts to meet actual card-carrying scientists? I encourage you to go over to your local university and set up appointments with a couple of them; or ask them out for a beer at the pub.

It is truly time for astrologers to get over their science-bashing. The anti-scientist prejudice on this thread is completely counter-productive.

Pick up the average pop-schlock astrology booklet at your supermarket, and then tell me if it is anything a rational educated person should take seriously. We surely do not help our own cause.

hi waybread,

your intent appears to be to protect scientists who criticize astrology from criticism.. unfortunately for you or your husband, i can't go along with that!

the general purpose of my thread was not to create conflict along a divide between art verses science, but it appears you'd like to make it that! i was interested in sharing my own perspective on astrology as an art as opposed to a science.. if you continue to frame this conversation in the particular manner you do below, which i see as much more conflictual - that choice is yours, but i am not playing along with you on it..

and, i see your question as irrelevant. have the last comment if you insist!
cheers james

waybread wrote:
Just curious, James-- how much time have you spent studying science? Have you made efforts to meet actual card-carrying scientists? I encourage you to go over to your local university and set up appointments with a couple of them; or ask them out for a beer at the pub.

It is truly time for astrologers to get over their science-bashing. The anti-scientist prejudice on this thread is completely counter-productive.

Pick up the average pop-schlock astrology booklet at your supermarket, and then tell me if it is anything a rational educated person should take seriously. We surely do not help our own cause.

waybread,

There are 24 hours in a day. One would do better job if instead of accumulating useless scientific knowledge, an effort is made to study astrological texts, try to apply them in a real world, with real clients. But as you say that you are an amateur modern western astrologer. I see why you had all the wrong notions about astrology. You should have taken advice from an expert before embarking on your astrological studies. Contact 'Noel Tyl' and attend his course. There is another option ask those who pursue 'Modern Astrology' to list the most important books to study. There is always a guidance. No need to select astrology books on the basis of their 'covers'.

As I wrote, I only thank Inventors and Technicians for making this world a better place.

I always try my best not to let 'Science' or a Scientist' to assume the role of a prophet or a god.

Speaking for myself. I had 14 years of education in Scientific Studies with emphasis in Botany, Zoology & Accounting. later on I opted for additional 6 years of advanced accounting studies to earn a decent living. I still have an active interest in 'Zoology'.

At the age of 16/17 I was selected by a Guru (Teacher) to be initiated/instructed in Occult Astrological Studies.

When I attend astrological forums, I don't judge the posts or posters on the basis of their 'Education'. I judge the text or a post on the basis of its content.I don't preach the need for everybody to be a scientist or to study science in order to be a better astrologer.

James, you misunderstand me on several fronts.

My husband is not and has never been a scientist. My ex-husband was, my brother is, and I knew many personally prior to my retirement. (I moved away from my former employer's city and I've since lost touch with my former co-workers.) So, please do not personalize anything: none of these people criticized astrology in my hearing. Indeed, with the exception of my ex with whom I discussed my interest, the topic of astrology never even came up. I cited my acquaintance and relationship with scientists merely to show that I've seen them from the inside. Which many astrologers who criticize science and scientists have not.

I am hardly trying to "protect" scientists from criticism by astrologers! The whole idea is off the mark. They do not somehow need this protection. You have criticized scientists, along with some others on this thread, and I have merely attempted to set the record straight.

James, you wrote: "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."

Your OP proposed a binary of "art or science" and it was to this that I responded.

Again, I encourage you to learn more about science today and to meet some actual scientists. I think it would give you a better appreciation of your OP concerns.

Morpheus, if you wish to criticize modern astrology or my knowledge of astrology, your target is misplaced. I have enough working knowledge of what traditional astrology does to realize that it has merit, yet that my talents (such as they are) lie elsewhere.

When I first picked up astrology ca. 1990, there was hardly any traditional astrology in the English language to study. Aside from translations of Ptolemy and Manilius, and Lilly reprints, there wasn't a lot else; at least not in my locale. There was no Internet material on traditional astrology to speak of. When I studied traditional astrology later in the day, I was pleased to see how much of my "modern" knowledge readily transfered.

I am sorry that you found your scientific education of so little value. But as a student, you were not a practising scientist. "Worthless" information to you as a student might be valuable to someone else, and to society. Society's vote on science vs. astrology has been cast, BTW.

This is part of the reason why science-bashing makes no sense.

I never said that everyone needs a Ph. D. in a scientific discipline. I do think any informed citizen needs a rudimentary education in science. So do most high schools and American liberal arts programs.

I appreciate both fields. We need to build bridges, not barriers.

waybread wrote:

I am sorry that you found your scientific education of so little value. But as a student, you were not a practising scientist. "Worthless" information to you as a student might be valuable to someone else, and to society. Society's vote on science vs. astrology has been cast, BTW.

I added a word 'decent living'. Accountants enjoy 6 figures salary.

'Worthless', in an astrological sense.

I never said that I have been a 'Scientist'.

To make my point clear that in order to be a better astrologer one has to study astrology and forget rest of the supposed allied sciences. I quote from 'A Study in Scarlet' (Sherlock Holmes Series ) by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.


(emphasized by me)

....He was not studying medicine. He had himself, in reply to a question,
confirmed Stamford?s opinion upon that point. Neither did he appear to
have pursued any course of reading which might fit him for a degree in
science or any other recognized portal which would give him an entrance
into the learned world. Yet his zeal for certain studies was remarkable,
and within eccentric limits his knowledge was so extraordinarily ample
and minute that his observations have fairly astounded me. Surely no man
would work so hard or attain such precise information unless he had some
definite end in view. Desultory readers are seldom [21] remarkable for the
exactness of their learning. No man burdens his mind with small matters
unless he has some very good reason for doing so.
His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary
literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing.
Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he
might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however,
when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory
and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human
being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth
travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact
that I could hardly realize it.
?You appear to be astonished,? he said, smiling at my expression of
surprise. ?Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.?
?To forget it!?
?You see,? he explained, ?I consider that a man?s brain originally is
like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you
choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across,
so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or
at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty
in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful
indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but
the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a
large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think
that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent.
Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge
you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest
importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful
ones.?
?But the Solar System!? I protested.
?What the deuce is it to me?? he interrupted impatiently: ?you say that
we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a
pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.?
I was on the point of asking him what that work might be, but
something in his manner showed me that the question would be an
unwelcome one. I pondered over our short conversation, however, and
endeavoured to draw my deductions from it. He said that he would
acquire no knowledge which did not bear upon his object. Therefore all
the knowledge which he possessed was such as would be useful to him. I
enumerated in my own mind all the various points upon which he had
shown me that he was exceptionally well informed. I even took a pencil
and jotted them down. I could not help smiling at the document when I
had completed it. It ran in this way:

waybread wrote:

Morpheus, if you wish to criticize modern astrology or my knowledge of astrology, your target is misplaced. I have enough working knowledge of what traditional astrology does to realize that it has merit, yet that my talents (such as they are) lie elsewhere.

I do not want to criticize 'Modern Astrology'. One of my friend completed 'Noel Tyl''s Astrology course few years ago. Her prowess in delineation/prediction is astounding. She owes her success to 'Noel Tyl'. My preference for Traditional Astrology does not make me hate 'Modern Astrology' and my preference for 'Tropical Zodiac' does not stop me from reading astrological texts written for charts cast for 'Sidereal Zodiac'.

Some people (or at least one person) study astrology with no interest or plan on ever becoming astrologers who read person's natal charts. At least one person studies astrology as an auxiliary subject and does so for other reasons. Therefore, the art portion of interpretation is meaningless to at least one person who studies astrology. Not that at least one person thinks that dichotomy is meaningless to those who interpret people's natal charts and act as counselors or advisers of sorts - I would tend to agree with James if I were them.

Sorry, Varuna2-- whom do you mean?

Today there is no longer the distinction between "astrologers" and "non-astrologers" the way there used to be. Many of us read horoscopes on Internet forums without claiming to be professionals. The knowledge levels of these on-line amateurs range from low to brilliant, in my observation.

James, to get back to your OP. I hope I've indicated that no, astrology is not a science. It does have empirical portions. So do non-scientific fields such as history and cultural anthropology.

I think there is also an "art" to astrology, in the sense of the astrologer's ability to synthesize a lot of disparate data-bytes, and to come up with a coherent narrative about an individual or an event. In a strict sense of "art" this is what a painter does in choosing different colours and brush strokes and applying them to a canvas to make a coherent visual image; or a novelist who must juggle various characters, story-lines, and contexts to come up with a book.

Astrologers need to be panoramic thinkers, and until computers replicate this ability, a lot rides on the individual practitioner. In science, not so. The hallmark of science is its duplicability of experiments, independently of the particular scientist who conducts them.

Waybread,

I was intentionally being oblique and giving double meaning puns to state something without becoming too involved in another discussion, since I am already involved in a different one and both can never be proven either way (i.e. without wiseacreing in too many threads at once), and reminding that the terms of the discussion are based on premises which are not relevant to everyone, and in particular, namely to myself.

I would be more interested in the ancient astrological meteorology, for example, than I am in the modern scientific meteorologists - whom have a success rate of perhaps 50%(?) in one week into the future forecasts.

How did modern so-called scientific medicine start? They 'stole' the ideas of the ancients and synthesized the chemicals and tried to patent them. Otherwise, the modern medicine is primarily butchers and poisoners experimenting on their patients and also with as narrow of a mind as those who dare to call themselves scientists and bash astrology without having studied the subject in-depth. This is obviously a categorical judgment but it is a general observation.

There is more to astrology than reading natal charts, that was one of my points. The "at least one person" was myself. One of the reasons I personally study astrology, that I will state in public, is to gain insight into the 'nature of reality,' since contemporary science was not satisfactory for me, for that purpose, and I say this after years of studying sciences - this does not mean that I am against science, nor am I for it. Nor do I have a degree in science, but that degree means nothing, except to those who think it signifies something above independent study. Science does not matter to me anymore, but I was certainly strongly influenced by the scientific method. It is perfectly understandable that so many astrologers despise scientists since a few bad apples give them all a bad name. But if scientists or lovers of scientists become offended, then they should reign in and shame the non-scientific scientists who are acting in a non-scientific way when they bash a subject they have zero knowledge of, rather than blaming astrologers when they understandably react to the completely unnecessary attacks from the self-appointed Gods of Contemporary World.

The priests were replaced by psychologists and economists and medical doctors and scientists, and none of them 'know' but they oftentimes are unintelligent enough or dishonest enough to to think they know or pretend they know. They are all stumbling around in the dark.