Is there scientific evidence to support the claims of astrology?

[LeonhardEuler]

The only evidence I have seen personally of astrology is taking the time to learn, understand and study it with other people over the past 12 years. One who doesn't take the time to learn how it would work cannot verify it simply. And remember, we are not applying the scientific definition of theory to astrology because we aren't describing astrology as science, but as a tool into understanding basic tendencies. A tendency is what one is inclined to do, but not guaranteed to do. Scientific methods do not allow for this sometimes and sometimes not. Can human will and choice fit into a scientific method? No! Astrology is more of a philosophical topic to discuss, not a scientific one. How many times should I post that? Once you can understand this, we can debate no longer. You are debating apples, while I debate oranges.




If you read above, I already addressed the point that astrological interpretations are subjective, much like differing psychologists have various perspectives on why their patients make the choices they do.

Until a skeptic is willing to take a few months and learn how astrology works by reading and studying people in an objective manner, astrology will always appear "invalid" and the stigma it receives from people looking to make a quick dollar. It's like I said before-you cannot discuss division problems with a 3 year old because the child needs to learn the steps necessary in order to understand how it works. Without that progression of steps, it's silly to talk to them about it.

I feel that there is more of a will to be right of your part rather then to just take an honest and objective look at why it has been around for thousands of years and while it will continue to be studied by many. I can suggest to start out by having your own chart interpreted by a reputable astrologist, see what they have to say, you could very well be surprised. I have a basic sense of interpreting, and have surprised several skeptics without ever meeting them in person. Once I have done this, our debating usually stops.

Psychology can progress because it does not insulate itself from experiment. If someone creates a theory that makes predictions of human behavior, and those predictions are observed to be false in experiment, the theory is discredited. Science can work on tendencies. With statistics we can use data obtained in experiment to support or refute the validity of predictions. Can human will and choice fit into a scientific method? Yes!

You keep telling me to study astrology, but I really and truly believe it is not necessary. It's like there is a mistake in the first step of a mathematical proof and your telling me to read the rest of it because it gets really complicated and you can't appreciate it by looking at the first step. In reality, though, no matter how much work went into the rest of the proof, the whole thing is useless if the first step is wrong. I know you will say that you are not making a proof, but merely an argument, and I respond to that by saying that an argument with a hole in the wrong spot is entirely useless. If all the conclusions you draw are predicated on the hole, then you might as well state the conclusion without the argument because the argument is useless now. All I am asking before I give astrology consideration is a reason to believe the predictions. I just want a first step in the argument before I throw away my money to an astrologer. Honestly, I find the whole suggestion that I have to study astrology for 3 years to debate with you kind of evasive. Can you just give me an outline of the "astrological method"? How is astrological truth obtained? If it is wrong how can it be refuted? (Not all of astrology, but say one particular prediction needs to be modified. How would you know?)

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie, what form of astrology have you been referring to? You said that astrology does not predict. Yet I have been told by people that call themselves astrologers that there are some forms of astrology that claim to predict, up to precise moments. It just seems astrology as a field is inconsistent in its claims. I'm guessing your next words will probably be..."astrology does not make claims".

It does not predict because humans are not robots. If I told you that I saw in your chart that you have a tendency to look for relationships that give you security, does that mean you will choose to do so? If you had a history of heart disease in your family, does that doom you to it as well? Perhaps so if you CHOOSE to eat the right foods. Some astrologists I suppose use the terminology "predict", but I don't choose to use that word since astrology appreciates and acknowledges that we each have free will ultimately-the main reason why astrology cannot be considered scientific.

Can you just give me an outline of the "astrological method"? How is astrological truth obtained? If it is wrong how can it be refuted?

Astrological method to put simply: An astrologist uses an EPHEMERIS to calculate coordinate points of each planet for a given time and place. Those points are plotted on a 360 degree pie chart that is a representation of the Earth in relation to the position of the planets. Geometrical aspects are calculated between the planets. After studying and reading up on what others have studied, the astrologist can make a guess of tendencies of what these aspects might interpret about the person. As time goes on and more people are studied, the astrologist can see the same patterns of human tendencies with the same aspects. Of course, the astrologist doesn't guarantee that these tendencies will be prevalent when a certain aspect is found in the pie chart because again, human free will is ultimately our driving force. The pie chart is also split into 12 segments of 30 degree "houses" which also interpret to what area of life the aspect will most likely apply to. As for "astrological truth", I am not sure this is a term that is used, except for when we use an ephemeris to plot the points. An astronomer can easily verify that the points in an astrological chart are true. The aspects can be verified as truth. The interpretations of these placements are what is highly debated as truth, mostly because science doesn't allow room for human will, as it is not predictable or able to be controlled. Again, it goes back to the person with alcoholism in his family and his choice in becoming a heavy drinker or not. There is no scientific factor that will determine whether or not he will drink, it's a matter of what he chooses to do, but it will be much easier for him to fall into that pattern because of his genetic tendencies. Astrology will point out in the interpretations certain tendencies, will you choose to fall into those tendencies or learn to outgrow them? If your chart reflects you have a particular strength, will you utilize that strength?

You keep telling me to study astrology, but I really and truly believe it is not necessary.

Then our discussions are useless if you don't have a basic understanding of it. In order to understand the whys, you need to know the whats. If you believe it is not necessary, then you have already decided not to believe and would rather just debate the topic on an ignorant level.

 

[SGT]

You forget too that, although an endocrinologist may have a great amount of education in their field, it doesn't necessarily mean there is more to discover in general when it comes to how everything is connected.

So, you dismiss an endocrinologist knowledge about the functioning of the thyroid, because it contradicts the preconceived opinion of an astrology enthusiast and accuse skeptics of closedmindedness for dismissing the tenets of astrology for lack of evidence. Who is closedminded?

 

[Kerrie]

So, you dismiss an endocrinologist knowledge about the functioning of the thyroid, because it contradicts the preconceived opinion of an astrology enthusiast and accuse skeptics of closedmindedness for dismissing the tenets of astrology for lack of evidence. Who is closedminded?

re-read my post, i never dismissed any knowledge one would already hold, i stated there may be more to know. more selective reading...

 

[SGT]

re-read my post, i never dismissed any knowledge one would already hold, i stated there may be more to know. more selective reading...

Medical science is the product of research. Of course doctors don't know everything. Nobody does! But what makes you think that what they don't know is known by astrologers? What kind of evidence do astrologers have about the influence of the Sun on the thyroid that no medical research has revealed. More selective thinking.

 

[Kerrie]

Medical science is the product of research. Of course doctors don't know everything. Nobody does! But what makes you think that what they don't know is known by astrologers? What kind of evidence do astrologers have about the influence of the Sun on the thyroid that no medical research has revealed. More selective thinking.

well, since astrology is not a science and just taken in faith, evidence of what is claimed by astrologists isn't required. i keep repeating that astrology is not scientific, thus cannot fit into the scientific methods. are you trying to perceive it as a science?

 

[SpaceTiger]

It's scientifically feasible that the cycles of the moon could impact behavior, but not any of the other planets. Their influence on us is just too weak.

As for arguments claiming astrology can be lumped in with religion as just requiring "faith", one needs to be prepared to accept the philosophical implications of such a claim. Religion holds a nice place aside from science because most of its claims cannot be proven or disproven objectively (for example, the afterlife). Those that can be disproven, like the earth-centered universe, have long since been abandoned by the majority of religious folk. In astrology, unlike the sun-centered universe, the claims can only be proven or disproven statistically, and not on the individual level, but they can be disproven, provided you accept the following:

1. You are not special, in the sense that you don't defy the statistics.
2. You would measure the same thing if you did the same experiment.

If one denies the first thing, they're simply providing the scientific community with an alternative theory with an extra variable that allows astrology to apply to them. If one denies the second, then they're undercutting the basic assumptions that go into the scientific method (objectivity, universality, etc.). There are philosophical ways of doing this, but they would mostly involve some form of solipsism. If that's one's philosophy on life, that's fine, but there's really no point in trying to convince others of it, since there's no way to know whether or not they experience things in the same way. The same would apply to any argument that denies the validity of logic, since logic is essential for any form of communication to be meaningful.

 

[Kerrie]

It's scientifically feasible that the cycles of the moon could impact behavior, but not any of the other planets. Their influence on us is just too weak.

Where have I stated that the planets influence us? This is the biggest misconception people have of astrology. Astrology is defined (among the serious astrologists) as a study of cycles between the celestial bodies and human tendencies. One reflects the other, one does not INFLUENCE the other. Astrology is based on the assumption that all of life in the universe is connected in one form or another. What that connection is, the greatest mystery to us all perhaps.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Where have I stated that the planets influence us? This is the biggest misconception people have of astrology. Astrology is defined (among the serious astrologists) as a study of cycles between the celestial bodies and human tendencies. One reflects the other, one does not INFLUENCE the other.

Again, from a scientific standpoint, it would be virtually impossible to correlate the planetary cycles with human cycles without them directly influencing us. Astronomers can study the motion of the planets to very high precision and know almost exactly where they'll be at any given time. In other words, we know the cause of the planetary cycles, and it's mostly the sun and other planets. In order to produce a correlation (as you're claiming) between the planetary and human cycles, one needs one of the following things to occur:

- They share the same cause (or chain of causes).
- One influences the other (directly or indirectly).

If the former were the case, then one would still conclude that the celestial bodies were influencing people, since the cause of the planetary cycles is the sun and other planets themselves. If the latter were the case, then the only other alternative is that we influence the planets. This is also not feasible from a scientific standpoint.

So, in terms of science, I think you're stuck. There are still some philosophical outs, but it would be very hard to produce this with science.

 

[Kerrie]

So, in terms of science, I think you're stuck. There are still some philosophical outs, but it would be very hard to produce this with science.

Where did I state that Astrology is a science? I said it was a counseling tool. I have admitted umpteen times in this thread that interpretation of astrology is subjective and cannot be pinned to a science because human will to choose is an unpredictable and inable to be controlled. I can tell you haven't read this thread all that closely.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Where did I state that Astrology is a science? I said it was a counseling tool. I have admitted umpteen times in this thread that interpretation of astrology is subjective and cannot be pinned to a science because human will to choose is an unpredictable and inable to be controlled. I can tell you haven't read this thread all that closely.

I'm not so sure you read my original post all that closely. The passage you quoted was referring only to the scientific interpretation of the influence of planets on our bodies, a word that I italicized so as to distinguish it from the philosophical/pseudo-religious interpretation that you've been presenting. The rest of my post addresses the philosophical implications of claiming that astrology is not a science.

I made a point to sift through this entire thread, so I would appreciate it if you would at least take the time to read my posts in full before responding.

 

[Kerrie]

I made a point to sift through this entire thread, so I would appreciate it if you would at least take the time to read my posts in full before responding.

And I did read your initial post. I keep having skeptics tell me that astrology cannot be scientifically proven, in which I agree. This is something I have never disputed. Over and over I say that astrologists use it for counseling purposes, not at all for scientific ones. So when you say I am "stuck" when it comes to proving astrology scientifically, there was never an argument for that point.

 

[SpaceTiger]

And I did read your initial post. I keep having skeptics tell me that astrology cannot be scientifically proven, in which I agree. This is something I have never disputed. Over and over I say that astrologists use it for counseling purposes, not at all for scientific ones. So when you say I am "stuck" when it comes to proving astrology scientifically, there was never an argument for that point.

It was for that reason that I was surprised that you argued the point, but I suppose we can just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

My feelings about astrology are mixed. I try to be open to everything, but I'm extremely skeptical about its veracity. That said, it has its good points. Much of the advice doled out by astrologers would be good for anyone to follow and the self-reflection it forces is probably healthy as well. I suppose it can be said to provide a sort of emotional cushion for people unsure about their direction in life, as well as an impetus for introspection. If everyone took the view of it that you do, I would probably have no problems with it.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as sophisticated as yourself -- it's really sad the number of times I've been referred to as an astrologer or asked to give a horoscope -- and the general public often ends up with the perception that it competes with science or, even worse, passes for science itself. Of course, this can undermine much of the work that I've devoted my life to, leading to decreased interest and funding for astronomy in the long run. If I seem to hold a wee bit of a grudge, that's why.

 

[Kerrie]

It's completely understandable why so many who appreciate astronomy have a negative outlook on astrology. There have been many people who exploit it, use it for a way to make money off of those who are desperate about issues in their life, and just casually toss silly ideas around without ever getting to understand what it could be.

From my participation in this thread (and countless others on the subject over the past 4 years in this forum), you might think I am this person that makes every decision in my life with astrology in mind. Actually, it's not the case at all. When certain issues come up with my family/friends, I will examine their natal chart and try to see if I can find a correlation in their chart. Same thing with major events that happen in our everyday world. When September 11 happened, the planetary placements were quite interesting to one who understands the traditional interpretations of aspects and these placements. All in all, I defend astrology mostly because after 12 years of studying, I can honestly say there have been many times when correlations between human behavior and celestial placements have been in sync, and many times they have not been. It's enough to keep me interested in studying it.

I can certainly agree that the general public tends to see it as a science. You may read a lot that astrology and astronomy went hand in hand for generations, and this is true until we had gained enough knowledge to separate the two. Hundreds of years ago, not only were the planetary placements studied, but were followed when it came to making decisions and choices.

NCGR is a reputable foundation that promotes truth in the study of astrology. By no means can one assume astrology is a complete study and one can know all there is, but there are levels of certification that are given when one has acquired so much knowledge, and most importantly practice with ethical intentions. They are a foundation devoted to research and true education of the subject.

 

[SGT]

Where did I state that Astrology is a science? I said it was a counseling tool. I have admitted umpteen times in this thread that interpretation of astrology is subjective and cannot be pinned to a science because human will to choose is an unpredictable and inable to be controlled. I can tell you haven't read this thread all that closely.

Psychology and religion are counseling tools too.
Psychology makes assumptions that can somewhat be tested. Many of those assumptions have been discarded by serious psychologists, some didn't.
Religion makes non testable assumptions, but at least attributes them to an intelligent being.
Astrology makes non testable assumptions, primarily the one that human beings are subjected to cycles, which no astrologer can cite and that those cycles correlate with the existing planetary cycles. How can you correlate some real phenomenon with an imaginary one?

 

[Kerrie]

Hmm, I would have to say you are resorting to a strawman argument here, and just want to be right rather then objective about a subject that has some potential for more exploration. It's funny you mention religion makes assumptions that can be tied to an intelligent being, however the 3 wise men in the new testament were considered astrologers. The "Star of Bethlehem" was actually an astrological event.

If astrological cycles were somehow "proven" to be a real thing, would it scare you?

 

[SGT]

Hmm, I would have to say you are resorting to a strawman argument here, and just want to be right rather then objective about a subject that has some potential for more exploration. It's funny you mention religion makes assumptions that can be tied to an intelligent being, however the 3 wise men in the new testament were considered astrologers. The "Star of Bethlehem" was actually an astrological event.

If astrological cycles were somehow "proven" to be a real thing, would it scare you?

The wise men were astrologers. So what? Everybody believed in astrology and other magic disciplines 2000 years ago. They did not understand Nature, so used supernatural explanations. What is strange is that in the 21st century there are still people that believe all this, when science has found natural explanations for things that were mysterious to our ancestors.
What do you call astrological cycles? I have no doubt that the planets have very regular cycles and, contrarily to what you said, the primary cause of those cycles is very well understood by science. It is called gravity.
If you refer to human cycles,that could in any way be tied to the planetary cycles, you failed to mention at least one. All the examples you gave were Post Hoc interpretations of the correlation from natural phenomena and planetary configurations, but there are no cycles involved. The one cyclical phenomenon you mentioned, the retrograde motion of Mercury affecting communications, is not tied to human beings and I doubt the allegedly failing equipments were born under a particular astral pattern.
About your question, the answer is no. I would not be scared if those cycles were true. I would be intrigued, but not scared.

 

[Garth]

Of course, this can undermine much of the work that I've devoted my life to, leading to decreased interest and funding for astronomy in the long run. If I seem to hold a wee bit of a grudge, that's why.

Thank you SpaceTiger, for that comment. The problem is that a public lecture on serious astronomy will attract only a limited number of people whereas one on astrology will attract a full house, and in democratic societies funding tends to follow the numbers.

Some time ago I 'inherited' a planetarium in my institution, which had just closed down a school of navigation. The planetarium had been used to teach astro-navigation, I continued to use it to give extra-mural astronomy lectures. To the horror of the institution keen to maintain its gravitas and reputation I had to report that I had been asked by an outside astrology society if I was going to continue the astrology lectures. Apparently one of the astro-navigation lecturers had been running a unauthorised course on astrology because he could raise so many students! I declined, unfortunately the public astronomy courses were not quite so popular - but at least we survived.

Garth

 

[Kerrie]

The one cyclical phenomenon you mentioned, the retrograde motion of Mercury affecting communications, is not tied to human beings and I doubt the allegedly failing equipments were born under a particular astral pattern.

Again, I have stated numerous times in this thread, planetary cycles do not affect human behaviors, the cycles show correlations or reflections-much like a mirror-of events already occurring. The As Above, So Below phrase for astrology does not indicate whatsoever that there are causes and effects. It is a theme stating that we are a part of our universe. Do you really feel so separate from your environment? As for failing communication equipment, it's not about the equipment being "born under astral patterns"-it took a human being to create it, and it takes a human being to operate it. It has no will or mind of it's own, and without a human choice to turn it on and use it, it is a useless hunk of junk.

 

[SGT]

Again, I have stated numerous times in this thread, planetary cycles do not affect human behaviors, the cycles show correlations or reflections-much like a mirror-of events already occurring. The As Above, So Below phrase for astrology does not indicate whatsoever that there are causes and effects. It is a theme stating that we are a part of our universe. Do you really feel so separate from your environment? As for failing communication equipment, it's not about the equipment being "born under astral patterns"-it took a human being to create it, and it takes a human being to operate it. It has no will or mind of it's own, and without a human choice to turn it on and use it, it is a useless hunk of junk.

If planetary cycles only reflect already occurring events, what good is to study astrology? Human events will happen independent of astral patterns.
What evidence do you have for the truth of the As Above, So Below phrase? What has this to do with humans being part of the Universe? I certainly am part of the environment. I breath the air and I eat the food provided by the environment. My waste products are partly recycled by the environment and partly contribute to pollute it.
As for the asters, all life on Earth is dependent of sunlight and some biologists believe that without the tides provoked by the Moon perhaps life would never have started on Earth. As for the planets, they have less influence on us then a dust speck floating in the air.

 

[Kerrie]

If planetary cycles only reflect already occurring events, what good is to study astrology? Human events will happen independent of astral patterns.

Perhaps some just take an interest in the cycles, what is so wrong with that? I find engineering subjects to be absolutely boring, however, I also respect that some just have a mind and interest for it. And yes, human events do happen independent of astral patterns, but I find it particularly interesting to see what celestial cycles are happening at the same time human events are occurring too.

What evidence do you have for the truth of the As Above, So Below phrase? What has this to do with humans being part of the Universe? I certainly am part of the environment. I breath the air and I eat the food provided by the environment. My waste products are partly recycled by the environment and partly contribute to pollute it.

I get the sense you are not a very spiritual person-and I am not talking about the "religious" sense of spiritual either. Astrology is appreciated by those who have a sense of spirituality within them. Those who accept astrology as a method to understand themselves and others don't need human created scientific proof of the phrase As Above, So Below. Some of us just see it in our world around us, and that is good enough. Perhaps for you it is not, and that is not for me to judge or criticize you for either. Many who follow astrology most likely believe in some kind of creative intelligence that sparked the beginning of our universe-that had something to do with the creation of the whole celestial and biological systems. For some, this is not a concept they are able to grasp because in order for it to be real, they must be able to detect it with one of their 5 senses, or have it scientifically proven. Do remember, science is a human created method, and it is as perfect as we are.

 

[SGT]

Perhaps some just take an interest in the cycles, what is so wrong with that? I find engineering subjects to be absolutely boring, however, I also respect that some just have a mind and interest for it. And yes, human events do happen independent of astral patterns, but I find it particularly interesting to see what celestial cycles are happening at the same time human events are occurring too.

I get the sense you are not a very spiritual person-and I am not talking about the "religious" sense of spiritual either. Astrology is appreciated by those who have a sense of spirituality within them. Those who accept astrology as a method to understand themselves and others don't need human created scientific proof of the phrase As Above, So Below. Some of us just see it in our world around us, and that is good enough. Perhaps for you it is not, and that is not for me to judge or criticize you for either. Many who follow astrology most likely believe in some kind of creative intelligence that sparked the beginning of our universe-that had something to do with the creation of the whole celestial and biological systems. For some, this is not a concept they are able to grasp because in order for it to be real, they must be able to detect it with one of their 5 senses, or have it scientifically proven. Do remember, science is a human created method, and it is as perfect as we are.

Finally, after 111 posts we arrived somewhere. You are right in thinking I am a materialist. I am and I feel no insult if you call me that. If for you astrology is a kind of religion, the discussion is closed for me.Spiritual beliefs are not to be discussed. You have them or you have not. No rational thinking can persuade or dissuade anyone.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Do remember, science is a human created method, and it is as perfect as we are.

Insomuch as it lies in the space of "possible methods" or ideas, I would say that the scientific method itself is not answerable to the imperfections of humans.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Astrological method to put simply: An astrologist uses an EPHEMERIS to calculate coordinate points of each planet for a given time and place. Those points are plotted on a 360 degree pie chart that is a representation of the Earth in relation to the position of the planets. Geometrical aspects are calculated between the planets. After studying and reading up on what others have studied, the astrologist can make a guess of tendencies of what these aspects might interpret about the person. As time goes on and more people are studied, the astrologist can see the same patterns of human tendencies with the same aspects. Of course, the astrologist doesn't guarantee that these tendencies will be prevalent when a certain aspect is found in the pie chart because again, human free will is ultimately our driving force. The pie chart is also split into 12 segments of 30 degree "houses" which also interpret to what area of life the aspect will most likely apply to. As for "astrological truth", I am not sure this is a term that is used, except for when we use an ephemeris to plot the points. An astronomer can easily verify that the points in an astrological chart are true. The aspects can be verified as truth. The interpretations of these placements are what is highly debated as truth, mostly because science doesn't allow room for human will, as it is not predictable or able to be controlled. Again, it goes back to the person with alcoholism in his family and his choice in becoming a heavy drinker or not. There is no scientific factor that will determine whether or not he will drink, it's a matter of what he chooses to do, but it will be much easier for him to fall into that pattern because of his genetic tendencies. Astrology will point out in the interpretations certain tendencies, will you choose to fall into those tendencies or learn to outgrow them? If your chart reflects you have a particular strength, will you utilize that strength?

The basic question of how these "facts" are obtained is still unanswered. What makes one guess better than another? Why would traditional astrology be better than a new astrology made by making random guesses as to the correlations between human tendencies and astronomical events?

Insomuch as it lies in the space of "possible methods" or ideas, I would say that the scientific method itself is not answerable to the imperfections of humans.

Good point. If you reject the scientific method its impossible to have a discusion. All that it is saying is that if a theory makes predictions that are wrong, don't believe it. You could make a theory that says "rocks always fall up", and if you reject the scientific method, I will have no way of dissuading you of this opinion.No matter how many rocks you see fall down, you can just say that "falling is not a science" and keep believing the theory. The fact of the matter is that astrology makes real predictions that should be able to be detected in an experiment statistically and are not. I see no reason to believe it, and still no one has even attempted to answer the question of what makes astrology's predictions better than guesses.

 

[Kerrie]

The basic question of how these "facts" are obtained is still unanswered. What makes one guess better than another? Why would traditional astrology be better than a new astrology made by making random guesses as to the correlations between human tendencies and astronomical events?

Astrology continues to progress among those who study it. They are not "random" guesses, but a compilation of what many different folks continue to find in research. Perhaps you missed the link I posted to the NCGR. I provided a link to a foundation serious enough to do research, but you chose not to glance at it and yet still cast your opinion as fact.

The fact of the matter is that astrology makes real predictions that should be able to be detected in an experiment statistically and are not. I see no reason to believe it, and still no one has even attempted to answer the question of what makes astrology's predictions better than guesses.

Again, you are allowing your preconceived opinion of it interfere with looking at why people choose to study it. Astrology does not PREDICT-if it did, we could apply the scientific method to it. It does seek to find correlations of human tendencies that are a part of one's subconscious behaviors with the celestial cycles. When one visits an astrologist typically, they are seeking an understanding into themselves on a psychological level, to be counseled and to receive some insight into questions of why they make the choices they do. I really don't see how this crosses into the scientific method.

If for you astrology is a kind of religion, the discussion is closed for me

I don't pray to an astrology god, I don't follow a written doctrine with it, it is not a religion, but a tool into understanding humanity on a pschological and spiritual level. I also assumed you realized the spirituality behind it, but if you weren't aware of that, then I can assume for sure how little you know and understand of it.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Astrology continues to progress among those who study it. They are not "random" guesses, but a compilation of what many different folks continue to find in research. Perhaps you missed the link I posted to the NCGR. I provided a link to a foundation serious enough to do research, but you chose not to glance at it and yet still cast your opinion as fact.

What do they research - what other people guessed? What could they possibly research if statistical studies are considered invalid? I'm not sure what link your talking about, but if it actually provides an answer to the question of what astrologers base their claims on, other than other astrologer's claims, please post it again.

Again, you are allowing your preconceived opinion of it interfere with looking at why people choose to study it. Astrology does not PREDICT-if it did, we could apply the scientific method to it. It does seek to find correlations of human tendencies that are a part of one's subconscious behaviors with the celestial cycles. When one visits an astrologist typically, they are seeking an understanding into themselves on a psychological level, to be counseled and to receive some insight into questions of why they make the choices they do. I really don't see how this crosses into the scientific method.

What do you consider your own example of people being born with the moon in leo tending to be more stubborn to be? Clearly, you claim to be able to percieve this stubborness. I would conjecture, then, that you would grant that other people are capable of percieving it. Now, since other people can observe it, it becomes valid scientific data. One could then imagine an experiment in which people's behavior is observed by people who do not know whether the moon was in leo for this person's birth. These people can then percieve the subject's stubborness, and the results for a large sample of people can be compiled and a statistical correlation can be observed or not. Forget about the practical points of the expense and difficulty of this experiment which do not concern me at the moment. My point is that this claim is observable and refutable, and therefore astrology's claims are scientific.

 

[Kerrie]

NCGR is a reputable foundation that promotes truth in the study of astrology. By no means can one assume astrology is a complete study and one can know all there is, but there are levels of certification that are given when one has acquired so much knowledge, and most importantly practice with ethical intentions. They are a foundation devoted to research and true education of the subject.

What do you consider your own example of people being born with the moon in leo tending to be more stubborn to be? Clearly, you claim to be able to percieve this stubborness. I would conjecture, then, that you would grant that other people are capable of percieving it. Now, since other people can observe it, it becomes valid scientific data.

Only if human beings were robots. But, due to experiences and environment people are capable of overcoming the negative traits of the leo moon. They may have an experience that shows to them how their pride and arrogance in their emotions hurt another, as an example. Astrology recognizes that although the tendency is there, does not guarantee the person will display those qualities. Also, if the leo moon (same example) is in the 12 house of the natal chart, an astrologist could interpret that the person's tendency to be stubborn and full of pride is softened and not so pronounced. No natal chart is identical, no person's experience is identical, no person's environment is identical, therefore astrology becomes more of an art then science when it comes to interpretations. The planetary positions to one another also are always in a unique position, just as every human identity is unique. Can science pinpoint a prediction then? It becomes impossible due to the uniqueness of each individual, as environment and experience will influence the will even with given tendencies.

Remember, we are talking about free will here, science cannot predict human will.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Only if human beings were robots. But, due to experiences and environment people are capable of overcoming the negative traits of the leo moon. They may have an experience that shows to them how their pride and arrogance in their emotions hurt another, as an example. Astrology recognizes that although the tendency is there, does not guarantee the person will display those qualities. Also, if the leo moon (same example) is in the 12 house of the natal chart, an astrologist could interpret that the person's tendency to be stubborn and full of pride is softened and not so pronounced. No natal chart is identical, no person's experience is identical, no person's environment is identical, therefore astrology becomes more of an art then science when it comes to interpretations. The planetary positions to one another also are always in a unique position, just as every human identity is unique. Can science pinpoint a prediction then? It becomes impossible due to the uniqueness of each individual, as environment and experience will influence the will even with given tendencies.

Men tend to be taller than women. Not all men are taller than all women because factors other than gender are involved in determining a person's height. This statement is justified by the fact that the hieghts of a large number of people have been recorded and there is a statistically significant difference between the hieghts of men and women. Why should nothing simmilar be expected for astrological predictions?

Remember, we are talking about free will here, science cannot predict human will.

Human choices can be observed and studied scientifically. If someone says that people with obsessive compulsive disorder tend to have a certain behavior (other than the behaviors that define OCD, to make the example non-trivial), then the behavior of people with the disorder can be compared to the behavior of people without the disorder and a statistical correlation can be tested.

I'll read the link in the morning.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Only if human beings were robots. But, due to experiences and environment people are capable of overcoming the negative traits of the leo moon. They may have an experience that shows to them how their pride and arrogance in their emotions hurt another, as an example. Astrology recognizes that although the tendency is there, does not guarantee the person will display those qualities.

I'm afraid that this would still lead to a statistical correlation in studies of people born in Leo. Every quasar is individual as well, but we still can look for trends in the data. I'm sure, however, that the trick lies in what you mean by "stubborn", since astrologers often use vague language to avoid direct falsifiability.

Remember, we are talking about free will here, science cannot predict human will.

Psychology routinely makes predictions that are subject to human will. Take, for example, this passage from Daniel Kahneman's autobiography:

"... I called a "psychology of single questions." My model for this kind of psychology was research reported by Walter Mischel (1961a, 1961b) in which he devised two questions that he posed to samples of children in Caribbean islands: "You can have this (small) lollipop today, or this (large) lollipop tomorrow," and "Now let's pretend that there is a magic man … who could change you into anything that you would want to be, what you would want to be?" The answer to the latter question was scored 1, if it referred to a profession or to an achievement-related trait, otherwise 0. The responses to these lovely questions turned out to be plausibly correlated with numerous characteristics of the child and the child's background.

 

[Vast]

As Above so Below

May I just step in here with an observation? I think the phrase “As Above so Below” can be contrast against what Carl Sagan called “The Great Demotions” – A universe not made for us.

And if the lights in the sky rise and set around us, isn't it evident that we're at the center of the Universe? These celestial bodies—so clearly suffused with unearthly powers, especially the Sun on which we depend for light and heat—circle us like courtiers fawning on a king. Even if we had not already guessed, the most elementary examination of the heavens reveals that we are special. The Universe seems designed for human beings. It's difficult to contemplate these circumstances without experiencing stirrings of pride and reassurance. The entire Universe, made for us! We must really be something.

This satisfying demonstration of our importance, buttressed by daily observations of the heavens,
made the geocentrist conceit a transcultural truth—taught in the schools, built into the language, part and parcel of great literature and sacred scripture. Dissenters were discouraged, sometimes with torture and death. It is no wonder that for the vast bulk of human history, no one questioned it. Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot

And the final demotion being that of Charles Darwin showing that we are not designed by a creator. But I think as Carl Sagan drew great inspiration from the heavens it was not to be mistaken with spirituality