Astrology Predicts Meanings, Not Events

EJ53

Banned
Lilly said:
.........I DO believe astrology can be used to predict actual *Events*.

Yes.......but Amzolt believes that too.......He only asserts that it cannot be done solely by looking at a chart (and/or progressions + transits to it).....It's achieved through a combination of the "meanings" derived from the latter and the consideration of other non-astrological factors......Whether we call the outcome of that process a prediction or a guess is more a question of semantics than astrology.

This does seem to me to be a case of "what Amzolt thinks he has written is not what Lilly thinks she has read"..........(which is the only point I'm trying to make here).......No-one appears to be disputing that astrology can be used to (accurately) predict actual events.....only whether or not additional non-astrological data is needed to do so.

[Note : Perhaps a more accurate thread title is "astrology reveals meanings, which can be used to predict events".]

Explaining my position.

EJ:smile:
 
Last edited:

lillyjgc

Senior Member, Educational board Editor
Astrology does not, will not, and never has predicted events.

This is Amzolt's opening line.

This is the sentence with which I diagree. (EJ)
I pretty much agree with everything you said above, Charmvirgo.
That what I was disputing with the *identical chart* idea and trying to suggest that a chart quite reasonably has to be viewed in the context of the person's life to which that chart belongs.

If Amzolt is saying : that we, as Astrologers, can't look at a chart and predict an actual event from our study of that chart, in the context of that person's life, then I disagree.
BUT
If Amzolt is saying we as Astrologers cannot say for example *a Mars hit to the 4th house cusp WILL produce a house move*, then I agree with him. For one person, a Mars hit to H4 cusp could signify loss of a Father. It would depend on the aspects and rulerships in that individual's chart.
But both Events ARE predictable.Theoretically at least.
There *can't* be two identical lives, even if two people are born at exactly the same time, two people cannot occupy the exact same point in space.It's just that *we* cant as yet measure such differences in the setting up of our charts.
Cheers
Lillyjgc
 
Last edited:

EJ53

Banned
Lilly said:
If Amzolt is saying : that we, as Astrologers, can't look at a chart and predict an actual event from our study of that chart, in the context of that person's life, then I disagree.
BUT
If Amzolt is saying we as Astrologers cannot say for example *a Mars hit to the 4th house cusp WILL produce a house move*, then I agree with him. For one person, a Mars hit to H4 cusp could signify loss of a Father. It would depend on the aspects and rulerships in that individual's chart.

Ok Amzolt, which of these are you saying? :-

1. Astrologers can make an *informed guess* about events in the context of a person's life.....or they cannot *predict* events in the context of a person's life?

2. Astrologers can conclude that a conjunction of transitting Mars to natal 4th house cusp signifies a house move (or other specific event)......or they cannot conclude that it signifies a specific event?

*Wikipedia* note for information :-

Outside the rigorous context of science, prediction is often confused with informed guess or opinion.
A prediction of this kind might be valid if the predictor is a knowledgeable person in the field and is employing sound reasoning and accurate data.

EJ:cool:
 
Last edited:

EJ53

Banned
amzolt said:
I have clearly disputed the claim that specific events can be predicted...

Sorry Amzolt, I thought you had disputed the claim that specific events can be predicted using only astrology.

If your assertion is that "specific events cannot be predicted".........I believe Lilly has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they can.

Apologies to both you and Lilly for misunderstanding the point you were making.
 

starlink

Well-known member
I have been reading all that is said here and I understand what you say Amzolt.
However, I dont think we can predict a meaning (as you say)of something and I do think that we can predict an event, BUT not what sort of an event it will be.

Personally I could "predict" an event which can cause pain, anguish or happiness, but never exactly can tell the person what it is going to be. It can be a death, an accident, a divorce, anything. So in a way you can predict a certain happening, but not exactly what sort of happening. Often we can get hints via the planets involved, like Uranus and divorce and 7th house involvement or an accident with Uranus and Mars and the 3rd house involved. Sometimes we get it right but can just as well go wrong, so it is better to just explain that something problematic or sad could happen, not what you think that could be. This only traumatises the person.

Now where I dont agree with you is this:

They were born in the same hospital at the same time (certified).

It is extremely unlikely that these two men came into this world at the exact same time. OK, maybe the same hour, but then we get into minutes and seconds and astrologically we get into dwads.

Also, as we all know, midwives and gynocologists, unless they are astrologers as well, do not stand there with a stopwatch in their hands to time the event, so a few minutes at least in time difference between the birth of these two men is highly likely. We also still don't know what the exact moment of birth should be. Is it the complete coming out of the birthcanal, the cutting of the umbilical cord or is it the first cry . So there is probably in 99° of the cases a difference in time. Identical twins are most likely to have the exact time of birth if born by cesarian section. We know about twins who, even though they live miles away from one another, marry the same day, have the same dog, gotten pregnant the same month etc. It is possible.

Still, the circumstances of two people born at the same time could have been the same. One man looses his father and feels "freed" and the other goes to the nude beach and feels "freed". This again shows me that the same feeling/emotion (not meaning as you say) is likely to happen, but not necessarily the same event, even though that might also be a possibility.
 
Last edited:

amzolt

Well-known member
So many people have missed so many points of what I originally posted that I thought it might help if I re-posted; then, I thought, no, it's right there for anyone who wants to understand...

Still, I'm concerned that so many have missed the most important statement I made:

"...all it takes is one contrary occurrence of something to disprove a theory..."
 

starlink

Well-known member
"...all it takes is one contrary occurrence of something to disprove a theory..."

Amzolt, I dont think we overlooked this statement. The point is, that you are the one who disapproves when you see contrary occurrences. You apparently expected both men to have the same experience, either both loosing their father or both going nude. Because this did not happen, and in your 25 years of research you also found that things did not always show the same result, you probably concluded that therefore we cannot make predictions of an event.

It seems you want things always to be exactly correct or otherwise it cannot be proven to be reliable. But this is astrology we are talking about, not mathematics, and I dont think that this rule can be applied here. I dont think we can talk about a theory in astrology, the same way we use it in physics or math. Astrology is an art and three painters (astrologers) can paint the same landscape (chart) in different ways but they will probably be able to give us all the same impression(event).
 

EJ53

Banned
Amzolt said:
So many people have missed so many points of what I originally posted that I thought it might help if I re-posted; then, I thought, no, it's right there for anyone who wants to understand...

Amzolt,........I really do want to understand and I've tried hard to do so.....However, it's hard when you make statements which appear to mean the same but in fact do not......like :-

Astrology does not, will not, and never has predicted events.

and

I have clearly disputed the claim that specific events can be predicted.

My problem here is that I agree wholeheartedly with the first statement and disagree wholeheartedly with the second.......So, how do you reconcile the two Amzolt?
_______________________________​
I then encounter further problems in understanding because you've consistently failed to address any of the comments on this thread that challenge your original assertion.......other than to restate the latter and claim your own point(s) had been missed.........For example, if you "dispute the claim that specific events can be predicted", what is your explanation for the specifically predicted events which Lillyjc has listed?​
________________________________​
Next, I have difficulty finding the "many points that so many people missed" in your original post........So, let's take that paragraph by paragraph below :-​

...Astrology does not, will not, and never has predicted events.

For me, this is a true statement which I believe is widely accepted by the astrological community.......and I certainly do not find it "really hard to believe".​

Yes. It's the absolute truth, even if some astrologer "predicted" something for you. If an astrologer tells you something is going to happen, don't you think that, if it does, there may just be a bit of self-fulfillment in that?

If it came true, the prediction was correct..........Why it came true is not relevant (in relation to your later statement disputing the claim that specific events can be predicted).​

What astrology does predict or reveal is Meaning.

Maybe.........but you have yet to enter into any discussion about this, so it's hard for me to form any conclusions about the validity of this statement.....I certainly do not accept it as true merely because someone states it to be.​

O.K. What if an astrologer says some event happened in your past, and, in fact, it did happen?"....Believe it or not, what happened is that the astrologer saw a meaning in the chart and made a very good guess at the exact event.

If it came true, the prediction was correct.......why it came true is not relevant (in relation to your later statement disputing the claim that specific events can be predicted).​

Here's some proof of that: (anecdote about two men)

My understanding of what you are saying here is that two people with identical charts do not experience identical events (when a transit or other astrological contact occurs)......but rather an event that has (for them) the same "meaning"........For me, this is a true statement but not earth-shattering.​

They (the two men) used exactly the same, and not so common, word to describe what two very different events meant...

The "not so common word" is shackles.........Which is precisely the word I would normally use to describe an event that freed me from restraint.......What are the alternative words that they might have been expected to use?​


_______________________________​
Finally, let's consider the points you make later in the thread :-​

What's interesting to me, with all the debate of astrology's supposed ability to predict events, is the scientific principle that, with a ton of experiential agreements with any given theory, that theory is never proven, only more clearly validated in its potential usefulness.........Yet, all it takes is one experiential fact that disagrees with the theory to disprove it...

Scientific principles relate to the world of science......And I'm more than happy to view the priciples of astrology as still being beyond the limited understanding of the world of science.........Let's stick to astrology on the forum.

My experience with those two men happened well over 25 years ago and it's taken most of that time for me to train myself to perform as an astrologer who accepts the disproof of the theory of astrological prediction of events.....Strange how persistently the ego-mind can cling to falsehoods, eh?

Again, you are making here a general assumption based on your own limited experience.........Your ego-mind may indeed cling persistently to falsehoods, but that may not be the case for others.

I actually didn't say that predicting events was impossible, I said astrology doesn't predict events.

How do you reconcile this statement with the statement you make later that "I have clearly disputed the claim that specific events can be predicted..."​

Is it the word "specific" (which semantically reconciles the two otherwise conflicting statements)?​

"...all it takes is one contrary occurrence of something to disprove a theory..."

Yes.......in the scientific world........but isn't this an astrology forum?​

EJ​
 
Last edited:

amzolt

Well-known member
Amzolt,........I really do want to understand and I've tried hard to do so.....However, it's hard when you make statements which appear to mean the same but in fact do not......

.......................................................................................

Yes.......in the scientific world........but isn't this an astrology forum?​

EJ​

I posted my beliefs based on 40 years of experience. I didn't and don't want to get into a debate. Is it possible in this forum to share experience without hairsplitting debate?

One other question: Why is it assumed by some that astrology has no need of the application of scientific principle?
 

EJ53

Banned
amzolt; said:
I posted my beliefs based on 40 years of experience. I didn't and don't want to get into a debate. Is it possible in this forum to share experience without hairsplitting debate?

That's disappointing, Amzolt.......debating issues is what I enjoy most on this forum and I was looking forward to tapping into that 40 years of experience to enlighten me about the many points I missed in your original post.

However, it would help me considerably in the future if (when your aim is to share rather than debate) you framed your "thread opener" in a less thought-provoking way........as I see that as a direct invitation to debate......(So, sorry for my misunderstanding on this thread opener).


One other question: Why is it assumed by some that astrology has no need of the application of scientific principle?

Has anyone made that assumption?............My own view is simply that I have no desire to apply scientific principles to astrology.


EJ
 
Last edited:

Frank

Well-known member
My intended meaning is: Astrology itself is just a concept (or concepts) that without a practitioner can do absolutely nothing.

But a skilled practictioner of astrology can do many things - including predicting events using astrology.
 
Last edited:

wilsontc

Staff member
disproving a theory, to amzolt

amzolt,

You said:
all it takes is one contrary occurrence of something to disprove a theory...So, astrology doesn't predict events, it predicts meanings...Is it possible in this forum to share experience without hairsplitting debate?

It is not true that it takes "one contrary occurrence of something to disprove a theory". There is something in statistics called "random error", indicating that sometimes errors "creep" into the calculations (more here: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/random-error.html ). So simply because there is one occurrence in the negative of a theory, this does not disprove the theory. This means you have not necessarily disproven the theory "astrology predicts events": your results could have simply been a "random error". And, as Frank correctly points out, your example shows only that the astrologer could not predict events but gives no proof that the event could not have been predicted by a different astrologer using the same astrology system (rectifying the chart, double-checking the birth time, location, finding the differences between the charts, etc.).

In answer to your question about posting without a debate: since this is a discussion forum for astrology, any and all opinions put on this forum are open to civil debate (i.e., no attacking posts, please!). So if you post your idea and someone has something to add to it or to disagree about it, expect a debate! :lol: Personally, I like this sort of interaction since I can get a new perspective or idea about my point of view, and sometimes I decide to change my original opinion based on what I heard. Whether or not you choose to participate in the debate or change your opinion is, of course, entirely up to you! :)

Debating the point,

Tim
 
Last edited:

amzolt

Well-known member
Re: disproving a theory, to amzolt

It is not true that it takes "one contrary occurrence of something to disprove a theory". There is something in statistics called "random error", indicating that sometimes errors "creep" into the calculations...
Try this on for size...

...your example shows only that the astrologer could not predict events but gives no proof that the event could not have been predicted by a different astrologer using the same astrology system (rectifying the chart, double-checking the birth time, location, finding the differences between the charts, etc.).
When I said the birth times of those two fellows were "certified" I was saying that all the criteria you mention were accounted for. Plus, my contention doesn't rest on proof but on disproof, scientifically speaking...
 

wilsontc

Staff member
other variables, to amzolt

amzolt,

You said:
Try this on for size...When I said the birth times of those two fellows were "certified" I was saying that all the criteria you mention were accounted for. Plus, my contention doesn't rest on proof but on disproof, scientifically speaking

Hey! No fair! I gave you a few words and you gave me a philosophical treatise! :D Instead of linking to a philosophy page, please let me know in plain words what your point is. :)

And I still think you may be missing my point: you haven't "disproven" anything, scientifically speaking, since there are lots of other possible reasons that you couldn't predict an event astrologically, besides saying astrology itself was the reason. That is: the astrology might not have predicted the event because the person doing the astrology didn't know what to look for to distinguish between the two men, the astrology might not have predicted the event because one or both men didn't know their birth time and made a guess, the astrology might not have predicted the event because the astrological system used by the astrologer was not designed to be predictive, the astrology might not have predicted the event because...etc. Since there are so many variables in this "experiment", there are a lot of alternative answers to the one answer you have chosen.

That said, there is another issue with your argument, since astrology has very much been used in the past and in the present, to predict events, and sometimes with startling success. As lilly stated about Lilly ;) : the astrologer Lilly very much used astrology to predict an event, not a meaning. And he was very accurate about the event, according to all the records we have today.

Personally, I think astrology can be used to predict "probabilities" of events. And the more the astrologer knows about the person, the more accurate they can predict this "probability". However, once the person understands the energies that lead to the probable event, that person can take action in their life to use the energies to change the event, if they wish.

Looking at the astro-probabilities,

Tim
 
Last edited:

amzolt

Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt

Hey! No fair!

.......................................

Tim

Well, your most recent post ignores many things I've already said in this thread...

Like:

It doesn't matter, scientifically, how many pluses are scored for a theory; if there is one minus, the theory is in grave jeopardy...

Plus, you seem to keep forgetting that I used rigorous scientific interview procedures with those two men--I wasn't trying to predict anything; I was gathering their reactions to dates I set before them; so, any discussion about my "attempts at prediction" are entirely beside the point...
 

wilsontc

Staff member
agree to disagree, to amzolt

amzolt,

You said:
It doesn't matter, scientifically, how many pluses are scored for a theory; if there is one minus, the theory is in grave jeopardy...I used rigorous scientific interview procedures...I wasn't trying to predict anything

We'll have to agree to disagree, then! :lol: I think the scientific method has to do with proving theories, not with disproving theories. Since you weren't trying to prove anything, you weren't being scientific ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ). And (as mentioned) one "minus" does not eliminate an entire theory in science, because there are "random error" issues. The scientist, when they find that their theory is not proven by the test data, redoes the test to see whether or not there was some kind of "random error". If the theory is again proven they do the test a few more times just to be certain.

All this aside, maybe the issue is simply language. If we say that "meanings" and "events" are the same thing...the problem goes away!

Looking for balance,

Tim
 

gaer

Well-known member
Re: other variables, to amzolt

Well, your most recent post ignores many things I've already said in this thread...
Actually, I think several people have tried to listen very fairly to your points. Both EJ and Tim have been respectful, polite, and from where I sit both have listened carefully to you.

Not once have you addressed the point about exact birthtimes being all but impossible to prove.

You are expecting us to accept, on faith, that the two men you interviewed were born at exactly the same time, the same minute. Even if both men could prove identical recorded birthtimes, on birth certificates, this still assumes that those recorded time are 100% accurate, and that is something we will never know.

Please correct me if I am in error, but I believe the idea that events predicted will be the same, using two different charts, assumes that they are identical, meaning absolutely NO difference in Ascendant.

If there is even the tiniest difference in Ascendant, thus changing the cusps of all houses even the smallest amount, theoretically the charts are not the same.

I am not debating the prediction of events. I'll let other people decide whether or not it can be done.

I am debating your your assumption that your own data is completely reliable.
 
Top