Astrologers' Community

Astrologers' Community (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php)
-   Research and Development (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations? (https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114475)

david starling 01-28-2018 01:20 PM

Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
I think it does. It only encompasses a relatively small portion of perceivable reality.

petosiris 01-28-2018 02:18 PM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
It is one of its tenets, unlike unlimited and divine astrologers.

david starling 01-29-2018 05:09 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by petosiris (Post 858384)
It is one of its tenets, unlike unlimited and divine astrologers.

So, it cannot rule out Astrology as a real science, because it's own basic tenets admit it lacks the capability for doing so?

petosiris 01-29-2018 08:31 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 858734)
So, it cannot rule out Astrology as a real science, because it's own basic tenets admit it lacks the capability for doing so?

INB4 attack on astrology....

Science gives tentative knowledge. It rules out astrology from being a science because of the scientific method not currently allowing it. Read scientific method and the demarcation problem.

There are other sciences that are many times labeled pseudoscience. Take for example psychoanalysis. I would give you an example of a not scientific statement.
''Someone who makes a freudian slip has an unconscious subdued wish. Someone who does not make a freudian slip also has it, but he or she is really trying to hide it.''
Therefore everyone has an unconscious subdued wish. You see the obvious problem with that thinking? It is not verifiable in any way, and it is always true.

That is why astrology can make very true statements, but they are not scientific in any way. Scientists and mentalists have proven that people can believe everything (see Forer effect, one horoscope for everyone, confirmation bias tests).

Astrology fails in tests that do not involve subjective experiences like the above mentioned biases. When astrologers have to connect a chart with a biography or personality information. Only in this way you can show that astrology is a science. Then we have the problem of too many astrologies. Similar to the psychoanalysis fallacy given - you can say this chart has the benefic in the II so will be likely richer than the previous one, while a Hellenistic astrologer can say ''no dude that house is bad''. One is right, the other is wrong, but if you constantly change your mind on your method, you obviously can't make verifiable statements.

Sidereal and tropical, house systems, too many techniques and etc. are also relevant, but not as much as inductive evidence of matching charts with people.

david starling 01-29-2018 09:00 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
If we define "science" simply as "knowledge", I have to say Astrology has provided me with what I consider valuable knowledge about myself, others, and the world in general. So, if the use of what's known as the "scientific method" as an analytical device labels Astrologically obtained knowledge as "pseudo", I have to question the current capability of that method to determine what's "real", and what's not. Meaning, an understanding of why and how Astrology works is not yet included within the limited range of Materialistic Modern Science, although it may one day expand its parameters and be able to do so.

david starling 01-29-2018 09:28 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Perhaps the disconnect between Modern Materialistic Science and Astrology, is caused by the intent of those employing the scientific method to use that one way to discover and apply knowledge with absolute certainty concerning the result. Whereas Astrological practitioners are content with a range of possible tendencies, as well as having various methods for ascertaining them.

petosiris 01-29-2018 09:45 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Yes, it is possible. Then define astrology in a way that is acceptable to science. Btw fyi some scientists are materialists, others are not.

(Personally, I would disagree with your last statement, as I practice traditional astrology that is prediction based. I like absolute certainty. But I know modern and psychological astrologers who disagree with me. This is also relevant.)

david starling 01-29-2018 10:11 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by petosiris (Post 858758)
Yes, it is possible. Then define astrology in a way that is acceptable to science. Btw fyi some scientists are materialists, others are not.

(Personally, I would disagree with your last statement, as I practice traditional astrology that is prediction based. I like absolute certainty. But I know modern and psychological astrologers who disagree with me. This is also relevant.)

Non-materialistic scientists would make the best candidates for defining Astrology as you suggest. Most Astrologers don't really care what the materialists think about their practice, but it would benefit us if some hard and fast results could be obtained with careful and unbiased use of the scientific method. The tests are designed to show Astrologers up, and then gloat "see, I told you it's a pseudo science!"
So, hypothetically, could you use Traditional methods to predict someone's chosen profession with a high degree of certainty? In a cold reading?

JUPITERASC 01-29-2018 11:28 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 858765)

Non-materialistic scientists would make the best candidates for defining Astrology as you suggest. Most Astrologers don't really care what the materialists think about their practice, but it would benefit us if some hard and fast results could be obtained with careful and unbiased use of the scientific method. The tests are designed to show Astrologers up, and then gloat "see, I told you it's a pseudo science!"

So, hypothetically, could you
use Traditional methods to predict someone's chosen profession
with a high degree of certainty?
In a cold reading?


If the time of birth is "off" for any reason :smile:
then
to predict someone's chosen profession
with any degree of "certainty"
is an unrealistic expectation

david starling 01-29-2018 12:06 PM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
I think we can use Astrology to predict tendencies, but not with the certainty of outcome that Materialistic-scientists are demanding--even with a precise birthtime. There are some environmental factors involved, which are extraneous to the Chart.

JUPITERASC 01-29-2018 12:34 PM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 858778)

I think we can use Astrology to predict tendencies, but
not with the certainty of outcome that Materialistic-scientists are demanding
--even with a precise birthtime.
Environmental factors are involved, which are extraneous to the Chart.

Materialistic Science is itself uncertain :smile:

david starling 01-29-2018 12:36 PM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC (Post 858787)
Materialistic Science is itself uncertain :smile:

Hypocritical then, for it to demand certainty from Astrology. :biggrin:

petosiris 01-29-2018 04:11 PM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Yes, birth times are another factor, but mostly irrelevant to most types of astrology I have seen - ofc if the birth times are not rounded and certain. The twin problem is a real problem in astrology. Yes, signs change on average every 2 hours. That means a 5 minute difference out of 120 covers 1/24 of cases, not that relevant when you think that proving astrology needs to cover 13 out 24 charts , with preferably more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 858788)
Hypocritical then, for it to demand certainty from Astrology. :biggrin:

Science does not demand anything of astrology. Astrologers demand to be recognised as a science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by david starling (Post 858765)
So, hypothetically, could you use Traditional methods to predict someone's chosen profession with a high degree of certainty? In a cold reading?

I would avoid tests that involve of matching professions like a plague as in this case - http://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/ps...logy-test.html , first of all this is too ambiguous for me. For example one can be a marketing manager with a small business, while the Hotel Owner can own 10000$ a day hotel in the Maldives. A Meditation Trainer can be some popular lama or your local yoga teacher. I understand they were allowed quite a few questions, but if the difference is not noticeable, this are not the best conditions to prove astrology.

I think the best test for a traditional astrologer would be two or more charts, one of a pauper and the other of a king, tested a lot of times. Note that would be testing an anti-cold reading hypothesis. Cold reading and confirmation bias is the current explanation of all astrology. My point is to change that.

Diverse approaches to astrology is fine - I am ok with modern astrologers doing their thing. However, there is no universe in which sidereal and tropical and the different house systems are all true.

By the way, I am aware of some statistical tests, like the famous Mars effect done by Gauquelin, which although disputed by some, I find plausible.

[Deleted attacking comment. - Moderator]

JUPITERASC 01-29-2018 06:37 PM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by petosiris (Post 858862)
Yes, birth times are another factor, but mostly irrelevant to most types of astrology I have seen - ofc if the birth times are not rounded and certain. The twin problem is a real problem in astrology. Yes, signs change on average every 2 hours. That means a 5 minute difference out of 120 covers 1/24 of cases, not that relevant when you think that proving astrology needs to cover 13 out 24 charts , with preferably more.

Science does not demand anything of astrology. Astrologers demand to be recognised as a science.

I would avoid tests that involve of matching professions like a plague as in this case - http://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/ps...logy-test.html , first of all this is too ambiguous for me. For example one can be a marketing manager with a small business, while the Hotel Owner can own 10000$ a day hotel in the Maldives. A Meditation Trainer can be some popular lama or your local yoga teacher. I understand they were allowed quite a few questions, but if the difference is not noticeable, this are not the best conditions to prove astrology.

I think the best test for a traditional astrologer would be two or more charts, one of a pauper and the other of a king, tested a lot of times. Note that would be testing an anti-cold reading hypothesis. Cold reading and confirmation bias is the current explanation of all astrology. My point is to change that.

Diverse approaches to astrology is fine - I am ok with modern astrologers doing their thing. However, there is no universe in which sidereal and tropical and the different house systems are all true.

By the way, I am aware of some statistical tests, like the famous Mars effect done by Gauquelin, which although disputed by some, I find plausible.

[Deleted attacking comment. - Moderator]

advice given by four astrologers
to a substitute for John Wayne Gacy
was as follows

- each of the four astrologers is named in the study:


QUOTE:


“...John Sandbach, a nationally known astrologer who has authored six books
advised not to 'become weighed down with regrets
about how you could have done more in some past situation,'
describing a 'plasticity or lack of aggression' in the chart
encouraging him to work with young people
because he could 'bring out their best qualities.'


Randy Goodman told our substitute Gacy
that he was 'really born to serve people.'
He stated that 'In the past you have used your energies very well, so
therefore in this life you have a lot to contribute, and ...
your life will be very, very positive.'...”



“...Norma Knight described him as
'a very, very sensitive person.'
Asked whether youth ministry would provide suitable employment, she replied
'I think that you can be very good with kids
and that it might be a good medium for you to learn
to be more trusting in the giving and receiving.'


Beverly Farrel, 'internationally recognized author, lecturer
teacher of religion, metaphysics, astrology, psychic awareness'
with '30 years experience in field of (the) paranormal'
encouraged the man behind the chart to do youth work
because 'when you're working with young people
you're not gonna have a lot of heavy-duty problems.'...”


“...The results seemed to indicate
that astrologers cannot read a persons character
from the positions of the planets at the moment of birth
nor can they see into anyone's past or future
nor do they seem to possess any insights
other than the ability to impress their clientele...”


Those above four Modern Astrologers said Serial Killer John Wayne Gacy:
"…can be very good with kids..."
"...just your presence would be beneficial to other people..."
"...a fairly well-rounded personality...you can offer a good role model..."
"You have an instinctive awareness
and your uninhibited response to life
can refresh and gladden whomever you encounter."

Traditional Astrology Says: "...shows a strange mind and very wicked." :smile:

Gacy received 12 Death and 21 Life sentences for the murder of 33 boys.


Rosalynn Carter with serial killer John Wayne Gacy


https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qim...c223f441d7684d




http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51C8S7MNGFL.jpg



david starling 01-29-2018 11:35 PM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
"Traditional Astrology Says...." Who was the Traditional Astrologer, and when was the Chart-reading? Before or after Gacy's crimes became known? Makes a big difference.

conspiracy theorist 01-30-2018 12:48 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Let's be fair to the modern astrologers. He couldn't have gotten the access nor lasted as long as he did if he wasn't good at his job -- being a clown surrounded by little children. They nailed that one.

david starling 01-30-2018 02:38 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Sometimes hindsight is 20/20. But, using Conventional Modern, is there anything suggesting Gacy might become an "Agent of Death"?
And, what in Traditional would suggest it?
Using my own innovative techniques (according to my current understanding, since it's a "work in progress") all I've got is Pluto in Leo as a "Facilitator", and in the Eighth House, Placidus (which I begin with, and switch to Whole-sign if it doesn't click). That would be with H8 as the House involving death. Also, lack of Neptunian guidance (with Neptune as ruler of Pisces), making Spiritual connectivity difficult, since Neptune is in Virgo and unavailable to Sun and Moon in Pisces. I consider Mars in Gemini as an unguided, "anything goes" placement, but not necessarily bad in and of itself.
I realize these considerations are neither Conventional Modern nor Traditional.
C.t., can you see any warning signs in Traditional and/or Modern, since you're familiar with both?

david starling 01-30-2018 03:07 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Petosiris, I take the opinions of every serious, experienced Astrologer seriously, whether I end up agreeing with every opinion or not. You came down very hard on using more than one House system as valid, whereas I consider them as descriptive of different "Life Paths" one might choose along the way. Just wondering why you're so adamant about there being only one valid House system, and one valid coordinate-system regarding the Signs. Also, what you consider them to be--Sidereal or Tropical, and which is your confirmed House method? (If you don't mind saying).

conspiracy theorist 01-30-2018 03:22 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Well, I see how the traditional astrologer (whoever they are) might have gotten the strange mind and possibly the "very wicked".

Both the planets of the mind are afflicted - the moon is combust the Sun while Mercury is in fall, and cadent, afflicted by Mars by a square. Mars also rules the 12th house which turns him more malefic.

Mars is near the pleiades which is star constellation that is linked to homosexuality. The occurence of the square between the 3rd and 7th houses is also descriptive - through the mentality, relationships and his immediate environment. IIRC Ptolemy was the one who linked the mutable signs to mental instability/weakness.

Not to mention his ascendant ruler is in detriment and out-of-sect, also near Rigel I believe which is a violent fixed star.


Realize also that he was born on an eclipse and that his Sun/Moon conjunction falls on the south node - which makes the situation of his moon more dire. There is literally no light from this moon. His chart is also characterized as "dark" because both luminaries are below the horizon. On top of all of that, Moon is ruler of the 8th house, a house known for "anguish of the mind".

The temperament of the chart is predominantly phlegmatic which is a temperament ruled primarily by the desire nature. It seems to have a similar connotation to the "shudra" in hinduism. It is claimed that it is harder for this temperament to redirect their bad habits into good channels, unless their is a strong malefic. Unfortunately, Gacy seemed to use his malefic to fulfill his base urges. Importantly, Mars also rules the 5th house of sexual flings. The combination of Mars, the Pleiades, and Gemini influences in the 7th seems to have been responsible for his penchant for males - and with the ruler of the 5th in the 7th he didn't have a problem with attracting sexual partners.

As you said, hindsight astrology but it is pretty compelling to say about this chart that the owner has a strange mind.

This chart sort of reminds me of a study one astrologer did about those predisposed to criminal activity. Among other things, he counted a large amount of mutable sign placements in his sample.

david starling 01-30-2018 03:48 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Very nice! I missed the Sun/Moon Conjunction at the SN, which I could have used as well, although I consider the Moon as a ruler of emotional, rather than mental functionality. Thanks for your reply!
I'm reminded of the song lyric, "Total eclipse of the heart".
Also, Neptune, which I use as ruler of Pisces, is nearly in exact Opposition to the Moon in Pisces. I consider the Moon to be the "Motivational-ruler" of Pisces. Of all the Signs, Piscean placements are the most in need of guidance [IMO], and Gacy lacked that.

conspiracy theorist 01-30-2018 04:09 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
I noticed that Neptune, but I doubt that modern astrologers would look at this chart and guess anything of the nature which the supposed traditional astrologer came up with.



I'm wondering why petosiris thinks that the kind of tests he wants to run to validate astrology would do anything to prove astrology scientifically - couldn't the skeptics say that the astrologer is just explaining the lives of people after the fact and that this "hindsight astrology" doesn't prove anything but the creative imagination of "astrologers"? I'd be interested to hear how he'd get around that accusation.

david starling 01-30-2018 04:28 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conspiracy theorist (Post 859132)
I noticed that Neptune, but I doubt that modern astrologers would look at this chart and guess anything of the nature which the supposed traditional astrologer came up with.



I'm wondering why petosiris thinks that the kind of tests he wants to run to validate astrology would do anything to prove astrology scientifically - couldn't the skeptics say that the astrologer is just explaining the lives of people after the fact and that this "hindsight astrology" doesn't prove anything but the creative imagination of "astrologers"? I'd be interested to hear how he'd get around that accusation.

I mentioned the hypocrisy of Materialistic Science for demanding certainty from Astrology, when it has its own uncertainties. What I was referring to, is the unmitigated contempt Materialistic scientists have for Astrology. Instead of considering Astrology as a possible source of real knowledge (given the huge number of people worldwide, who believe it is), they sneer at it as a primitive superstition, that should be consigned to the dustbin of History. And their excuse is, that lack of certainty in test results.
As an Astrologer, all I ask of Materialistic Science is a neutral, jury's not in yet, stance--in place of the unjustified, entirely hostile verdict that appears to be the norm. I think that's the best that can be achieved, in light of the current state of the limitations of Modern Materialistic Science, itself.

david starling 01-30-2018 04:37 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
I should expect to be able to identify "wicked intent" in a Chart. I think Modern Astrologers, including myself, are loath to look at the "Dark Side". I could get into it, but I really don't want to go there. Btw, would you say a night-Chart would be more inclined toward keeping personal information secret than a day-Chart, based solely on the Sun being below the horizon?

conspiracy theorist 01-30-2018 04:54 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
I've actually always been interested in genuine dialogue between hard-core scientists (not disciples of scienticism) and competent astrologers, then hashing out of the differing viewpoints might actually lead to something useful - as opposed to bashing your head against a brick wall. That's why I stopped taking part in astrological "debates" that were hinged on the supremacy of modern vs. traditional. All exoteric knowledge is limited by the paramaters that it demarcates as its field of influence.

I do notice that tendency to shy away from the dark by a lot of modern astrologers. The whole cotton candy insult didn't come out of nowhere. Why wouldn't you want to get into it?

Just by personal experience, I don't think sect has anything to do with the tendency to withhold personal information. My own chart for instance. Sun above the horizon but Saturn in the 3rd and Mercury in the 12th and combust (hidden). I rarely volunteer information about myself and it tends to result in a lot of confused/incorrect assumptions about my character.

With the persons I've been able to get their personal details from, I don't see any strong tendency for cageyness solely by the position of the sun.

david starling 01-30-2018 05:00 AM

Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?
 
Still disturbed by what I could have seen using my version of Astrology. I wouldn't have have steered Gacy toward the care of children--I consider that to be the nature of the Sign, Cancer. Pisces actually has more affinity with animals, and the Sagittarian Ascendant would encourage that. I've read that most serial killers start with small animals. If Gacy was ever caught abusing animals, that would have been a non-Astrological indicator of his derangement which would have direct implications for his Chart--a definite red flag.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.