Skyscript Astrology Forum

The test is repeatable.

That was chapter 1.
Who would like to write
chapter 2?

Jakob wrote: Sat May 25, 2024 12:14 pm Most people answer the question about the verifiability of astrology at a time when they have not yet seriously considered it. Except maybe me. But I have Sagittarius ascendant and therefore know everything better than the others.

Have you studied The astrological profile of 1867 ADB astrologers?
https://astrology-research.nl/mystiek/a ... ogers.html
And in between Falls the Shadow, wrote the poet T.S. Eliot in the Hollow Men:
Between the idea / And the reality / Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow
Without doubt statistical techniques have become troublesome for astrologers. Just like the fact checking of journalists can be annoying for politicians. Should astrologers get rid of the ADB? Should they provide alternative facts? Of course not. Astrologers initiated, maintained and are still the major contributors of Lois Rodden's groundbreaking project. But contributions from other parties (like svi) were also welcome. As all facts do matter.

Indeed: Words are just words. . A simple truth and for many something like a platitude. But that does not mean that the scientific approach is worthless.
Science is not a delusion. Only those who take their "eternal scientific" knowledge for granted stopped learning. But "eternal " concepts do change.
When is comes to argumentation and sound reasoning it starts with the definitions of a shared point of view.
What makes a Sagittarius? What is the definition of an astrologer? A believer in some version or astrology or an astrology researcher?
What are their proposed properties so that also the majority of not-Sag others can recognise and study them?
If you want to prove something in your community, you need to use clear and by your community approved concepts.
And if you want to show the value of your discipline or school also to other persons outside your universal community (just your milky way or particular bubble), you need to do ego-less statistics.
To tell others not just your particular opinion.

Striving to objectivity is not that easy as many scientists acknowledge. But it logically seen more honest than relying on truisms or without any sound argument believing in there must be something.

Just enjoy Bach:
https://astrology-research.nl/mystiek/a ... niging.mp4

The "proof" needed for the average sceptic will be quite higher and importantly, much more tightly defined, than the proof that would be needed for the average astrologer.

If I were attempting to prove astrology, I would likely attempt it through repetitions of correctly assigning charts to their respective biography/event-list owners. [This advantages the astrologer, as he can utilize several techniques in the process...both the natal analysis and the advantage of checking for appropriate astrology at events.]

In each repetition, if there are 4 charts/individuals, the chances are:

25% that we assign the 1st chart to the rightful owner...

33% that we assign the next chart to its rightful owner...

50% that we correctly assign the next to last chart...

And of course, if we've made it correctly this far, it's 100% likely we can give the last chart out correctly.

So, the chances of correctly assigning all the charts, in this iteration, would be 25% * 33% * 50% = 4.1667% probability.

Each time we successfully duplicate that, we are defeating another 4.1667% likelihood.

The odds approach mega-lottery levels pretty quickly...

The problem with this topic is that less than 1% of those interested in astrology have knowledge of higher mathematics and they view astrology in the same way as those who oppose astrology, namely as a form of religion and belief. Astrology is provable.

It can be proved when you have knowledge of astrology and your baby are born.

It will boil down to prediction as other forms of astrology are too fuzzy to convince sceptics (if that's what you want to do). It's unlikely to be specific and more along the lines of red alert periods when Mars, Uranus, Pluto etc are more prevalent and stressed aspect wise.

They will need to study LOTS of charts though & work in groups!

If you believe that you can use astrology to predict the future, then you must do so as if there are astrological laws on which these predictions are based. There is not a single concrete, useful thesis that finds consensus among astrologer associations. Therefore, this cannot be the way of proof.