View Single Post
Unread 12-29-2010, 04:58 AM
Mark's Avatar
Mark Mark is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Georgia, US
Posts: 1,428
Re: research guidelines?

It's true that social sciences and "humanities" are not founded in formal logic nor mathematics. Note also that neither social sciences nor "humanities" can be used as proof of concept for any functional system. While I do want to leave the door open for any kind of research, social sciences are called social for a reason. It's good that you want to be inclusive, waybread, and I appreciate that. I just don't see what benefit could come from "sciences" that have no concern for functionality.

I'm currently enrolled in a local university as a psychology student. Some people might call psychology a social science, but I would disagree. Development of the field of psychology is dominated by experimentation and rigorous applications of scientific methods, including double blind studies. Perhaps the application of psychology can be included in the social sciences, but not the development of it. These things are difficult to discuss because each psychologist has his/her own definition of psychology. No two people approach the same way and I find that psychology is actually a field which allows for that. Behavioural and congnitive approaches are both internally consistent. They may seem incompatible, but if both can provide useful insights, they must not be mutually exclusive.

This relates directly to our predicament in this forum. The fact that Egyptian, Chinese, and modern Western astrologies all work differently (and sometimes on different assumptions) does not make them mutually exclusive. For the logic student, that mistake would be a false dilemma. There is no reason to think that only one can be right. That would be an assumption and, considering that each one can work effectively in its own way, an incorrect assumption. This brings us to our main point.

There is one Truth and it is that which we seek to describe. How should we describe it? Who cares? I am concerned only with that functional Truth that is alive and at work even now. There can be said to be one perfect system that describes all functions of astrology fully and rightly. If we define astrology as such, however, we must also say that it is a hypothetical system, because no one is currently able to fully reveal it. I feel that this must be our focus. Regardless of our persuasions or how we may want to talk about them, each of us seeks to describe and use that real system that is alive and working. It is that real system, which every astrologer agrees exists, that must always be our concern.

Said many times in many ways and bears repeating:

"The truth, if the Truth, can stand a little knocking."

P.S. I appreciate your contributions, waybread, because of your respect for the pursuit of Truth and for other people's persuasions. Please continue to help this forum develop as long as you're here.
Free Astrological Tools, Calculators, and Ephemerides
Reply With Quote