View Single Post
Unread 07-06-2009, 05:58 AM
gaer gaer is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,272
Re: Astrology Predicts Meanings, Not Events

Originally Posted by amzolt View Post
Perhaps you haven't seen this comment I posted further down 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...
I did read that. However, I do think we are on shaky ground the moment we use scientific principles or the "scientific method" to investigate astrology.

Astrology remains elusive, slippery, mysterious. Because of my own belief in the idea that "things should make sense if they are believed", I have to assume that many things that appear "non-scientific" or "superstitious" or "unsupported" do so because of limititations in what we know.

In other words, if astrology actually can predict events, I expect that eventually science will "grow" enough to find ways to prove it.

So far it has not done so.

But it has not proved astrology's ability to give insights into character either. This *IS* the hitch:
Yet, all it takes is one experiential fact that disagrees with the theory to disprove it...
In my view if there are many examples of events having been predicted correctly, one that misfires is not going to convince me that the whole idea is false. However, now we have the problem of investigating all predictions made by astrologer A or B in a controlled experiment, then evaluating the results based on some measuring stick. What percentage of hits would be considered significant? Or what hit rate would fall into the range of "chance hits"?

I would love to find a set of experiments validating EITHER prediction OR character analysis that would finally be accepted by scientists.

I have yet to see one.
Strange how persistently the ego-mind can cling to falsehoods, eh?
Yes, it is. We would be in a perpetual state of observing with few if any conclusions were we to reach a true level of open-mindedness. Or at least our conclusions would be very, very different. It's a rather Buddhist way of looking at "reality", isn't it?
View my chart:

Voltaire: "Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes."
Reply With Quote