Skyscript Astrology Forum

Aftenposten 24 Nov: The part of the universe that we humans can see and observe, such as galaxies, stars and planets, makes up only a small part of what must exist out there, according to an article at forskning.no. Most astrophysicists agree that most of the universe - around 96 percent - consists of so-called dark matter and dark energy.

Are astronomers telling us that there is something out there that they can't see and don't understand, and that this makes up 96% of the universe?

The Google-bar provides and acceptable translation of the source article at Aftenposten into English.

Andrew Bevan wrote:there is something out there that they can't see and don't understand, and that this makes up 96% of the universe?

hehehe

It'd be good to site arguments on whether astrophysics is a...science, given the fact they 'guess' the existence and attributes of something essentially unknown (yet).
Would make a good cross-reference along with the times their guessing went wrong. <.<

Hi Andrew Bevan.
You are right. The are trying to prove the thing for that they have no proof.

I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here. Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge.

Martin

Martin Lewicki wrote:I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here. Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge.

Martin

I'm afraid that like adolescents, most astrologers react against those whom they depend the most on. Where would astrology be without astronomers?

I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here.

Yes, but if scientists can't see and don't understand 96% of the Universe they are doing an aweful lot of whacking with the remaining 4%.

Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge.

This is also true. Our model of reality seems to be changing all the time. Science continues to make discoveries that introduces an entire new set of rules. Could I, as an astrologer, get away with saying that I only had a limited understanding of 4% of the logos?

I will say "Thank you" to Martin Lewicki, though. These comments should make us think. I do not believe the challenge of science should be offered as an excuse for astrology. There is the need to keep a clear and open mind. Commercialism is a common culprit.

I'm afraid that like adolescents, most astrologers react against those whom they depend the most on. Where would astrology be without astronomers?

That might apply up to the Renaissance. But now their endeavors are completely alien to ours and provide us with little, if anything, that is necessary. The atmospheric gases of Jupiter? It might be interesting to know, but I don't come across much astrological delineation using the information astronomers have given us. Black holes? Maybe there's one conjoined my Ascendant that could offer up some insight.

I would say that these days philosophers are more appropriate companions with much more to offer.

Andrew Bevan wrote: Yes, but if scientists can't see and don't understand 96% of the Universe they are doing an aweful lot of whacking with the remaining 4%.

But that 4% is where 96%(?) of the complexity resides. Ignorance of a single bulk parameter is not a good way to gauge level of overall ignorance.

[...]
Could I, as an astrologer, get away with saying that I only had a limited understanding of 4% of the logos?

Hmmm How would you know how much of logos you don't know or how much is incorrect? Astrologers don't seem to be interested in this question?

Martin

Eddy wrote:

Martin Lewicki wrote:I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here. Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge.

Martin

I'm afraid that like adolescents, most astrologers react against those whom they depend the most on. Where would astrology be without astronomers?

True. Eddy we need to also recognize that astronomy progressed partly due to use of ancient astronomical tables compiled for the use of astrology.

Martin

Martin Lewicki wrote:Hmmm How would you know how much of logos you don't know or how much is incorrect? Astrologers don't seem to be interested in this question?

Many astrologers are not even given a chance. The reason to the initial 'smugness' (although it was not intended) was that the website forskning.no (English=research.no) (funded by the government, by the way) wrote off some of my best mundane earthquake predictions and stockmarket estimates as 'Hobbit talk'. That was without looking into the foundation of my predictions. I was was utterly dismayed and disgusted by their causerie and lack of scientific approach, hence the smugness. It is a wonder to behold when scientists admit to the limitations of their knowledge, yet tend take it to the credit of themselves as scientists.

Astrology may have a credibility problem, but it may also be seen how some scientists (probably not the most credible) were both 'not bothering to turn certain stones' and departing from their own rules of scientific credidence.

I think it is a challenge to approach human behaviour as an exact science. This is one of the problems associated with the most common or generally known practices of astrology. That is why I sought to find testimony in the mundane: However, many scientific circles are predisposed against astrology. This doesn't 'save' astrology from the need of testimony, but it doesn't help when the inspecting body won't differenciate between various diversities of astrology.

Martin Lewicki wrote:True. Eddy we need to also recognize that astronomy progressed partly due to use of ancient astronomical tables compiled for the use of astrology.

Martin

That's also true, there's a lot of reciprocity in the history of astrology/astronomy.

Andrew Bevan wrote:Many astrologers are not even given a chance. The reason to the initial 'smugness' (although it was not intended) was that the website forskning.no (English=research.no) (funded by the government, by the way) wrote off some of my best mundane earthquake predictions and stockmarket estimates as 'Hobbit talk'. That was without looking into the foundation of my predictions. I was was utterly dismayed and disgusted by their causerie and lack of scientific approach, hence the smugness. It is a wonder to behold when scientists admit to the limitations of their knowledge, yet tend take it to the credit of themselves as scientists.

Sorry to hear that Andrew, on the other side I can imagine the reluctance of researchers to examine the matter. Many times predictions caused unrest among the people in such a way that it might have been better that no prediction had been made. For example in Keith Thomas' book I mentioned in the Astrology&Astronomy thread the effect that weather predictions of the almanacs had on whole society. I hadn't realized that untill I read this and if I may allow myself to quote myself from the Mars-Saturn aspects thread:

That's also why I like weather predictions. I feel less reluctant in making concrete weather predictions for it's a rather innocent pass time. I don't think it will hurt people if the predictions prove incorrect unless people have bought skates for the allegedly cold December and it happens to be rainy and mild the whole month.

In pre-industrial ages weather predictions would cause a 'chain of reactions' K.Thomas explains. A predicted bad summer would be similar to predicting a crop failure and a following famine. Farmers following the almanac would then lay in stock the products, so that the prices would rise and indeed a famine would occur.

Likewise with the earthquake predictions I spent some time on, I came up with some dates (related with Mars transiting the 22 july 2009 eclipse point but nothing occured on the specific dates, nor at the places I mentioned (Mariana Trench region), but now I can imagine what the making of this prediction would have caused in another type or age of society.

Andrew Bevan wrote:I think it is a challenge to approach human behaviour as an exact science. This is one of the problems associated with the most common or generally known practices of astrology. That is why I sought to find testimony in the mundane: However, many scientific circles are predisposed against astrology. This doesn't 'save' astrology from the need of testimony, but it doesn't help when the inspecting body won't differenciate between various diversities of astrology.

Again, Keith Thomas' fascinating book comes into mind where he displays the distrust of church people to astrology. The church people weren't opposed to science as such, however in some periods it was even hazardous to study mathematics and geometry. The main opposition towards astrology was because of the alleged predetermination in it. Another point was that astrologers fulfilling a advisatory function were seen as competing with the church who fullfilled a similar function.

Keith Thomas wrote:The clergy and the satirists chased it to its grave but the scientists were unrepresented at the funeral.

p.418 (I once read this quote in a book opposed to astrology, it has always remained in my mind.)

Astrology was thus also seen as rather a social science which according to the clergy was also to be distrusted because it could lead to a similar sort of predeterminatedness. And indeed even nowadays an exact approach of the social sciences results in strong oppostion. Whether we see it in the cause of say crime because of the milieu people are raised in or whether we see such criminal behaviour as something genetical.

Thank you Eddy. Nice post.

I have something churning in the back of my mind that isn't fully developed but I want to explore it anyhow:

Astrology attempts to understand appearances, while Science tries to understand absolutes. Also, scientists deal with a systematic accumulation of observations, yet when the focus shifts to the practice of such knowledge - the person still becomes an artist. I.e. medicine is a science, yet the practice of medicine is an art.

I must let the content of several posts sink in here and try to respond intelligenty further down the line. I do not think that every critisism of astrology is hostile, and astrologers should be asking questions regarding credibility. Both astronomers and scientists are responding more open-minded in the present than in the past. Astrology does need a sound sense of method. For there to be a mutual respect between astrophysics/science and astrology we have to understand the variables.