Doesn't adding new planets and asteroids to astrology destroys its credibility?

I am reading Love Signs by Linda Goodman and she wrote that in the near future Vulcan will be the planet representing Virgo. Now no astrological federation had officially accepted Vulcan as Virgo's planet but reading this brings up an issue I have with astrology: every time a new celestial body is found, astrologers began to debate and even assign trait to that newly discovered planet or asteroid. I remember reading of how as soon as Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto was discovered, astrologers assigned those planets signs that originally shared a planet with another sign as domicile. Pluto became the domicile of Scorpio, Neptune Pisces, and Uranus Aquarius. Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter then were assigned the other domicile signs as the signs they ruled. Modern astrologers still emphasis how powerful influence those planets would be if one of those co-rulers now assigned new planets were to be find in such planets in a person's chart. But their influence is weaker than the currently assigned ruling sign is.

Honestly the fact astrology added Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto and began to add attributes after their acceptance as planets by scientist almost made me throw astrology out of the window. Even more so when astrologers added the excuse they are "generational planets" as a way to explain why people don't get affected by them unless these planets were to be heavily aspected or in the first house or in a stellium. It feels like astrologers just grabbed some random nonsense and put them together to describe the outer planets role.

Never mind newer asteroids which are constantly given their own influence in modern astrology (EG Eros affects love, Chiron affects childhood,etc.)..... Let alone assigning current signs that act as co-ruler for one planet their own new planet in the future such as Vulcan.

Really I can understand why scientists bash astrology as nonsense. It feels like every time scientists find new stuff astrologers immediately work to legitimize new celestial body's powers in the chart. This is not only so unscientific but even just making stuff up!

I'm actually fine with the outer planets existing in current astrology (as they described traits in a person spot on as in my case Pluto accurately describes the Plutonian I am). But come on astrologers are really full of nonsense as they keep adding new asteroids and proposing new planets into this field of study!!!

A good, interesting question.
I suspect there's quite a bit written on this by astrologers. I've just been reading Stephen Forrest's Book of Pluto and the newer editions have an essay in the appendix where Forrest discusses changing ideas about the solar system and why they don't de-validate astrologers' view of Pluto.

But I have an immediate thought or two as well.

When you say this

Really I can understand why scientists bash astrology as nonsense. It feels like every time scientists find new stuff astrologers immediately work to legitimize new celestial body's powers in the chart. This is not only so unscientific but even just making stuff up!

Click to expand...

you're hitting on what actually is one of the common arguments against astrology. It seems tautological. We call a thing tautological when it seems to have no counter argument. When we can't find an instance or occurrence that would disprove it. (Marxism is another example. For every argument against Marxism a Marxist can find a response within the theory - usually "false consciousness!")
Astrology often looks tautological because of this sort of thing:
Astrologer: "You're Sun is in Leo. That makes you self expressive and egotistical."
Me: "But I'm profoundly shy and have no sense of self?"
Astrologer: "Oh that's because your Asc. Is Virgo and half your planets are in Pisces."
Me: "So why am I so full of rage?"
Astrologer: "Oh, that's because Mars is transiting your IC..."
There's always some answer. The language of astrology is malleable enough that there's always something in a natal chart that might indicate whatever a person is saying they experience in life.
So when we find new planets, astrologers find some response, and this encourages the sense that astrology is tautological. There's always some response.
And we tend to be suspicious of tautology because we think if we're going to prove the truth of a thing there has to be the possibility that we might disprove it - and then when we disprove the disproof we feel more secure that we're on the right track. (In the philosophy of science is common and powerful idea is associated with Karl Popper and the notion of "falsifiability.")

Now, this is less of a problem for me than it might be for you or others because I don't think astrology can be proven and I don't care. I think it's intrinsically outside the bounds of provability.

But for anyone that feel more secure when astrology looks something like science - and I don't actually think this is an answer to the problem of potential tautology - it's important to realize that science also shifts and adjusts to new findings and realities - sometimes drastically shifting paradigms and utterly changing our understanding of the universe - without destroying the system of science, loosing credibility or sparking existential crises.
If you know about the history of science, for example, you know that how we understand the universe radically altered around the turn of the 20th century with relativity theory, atomic-level uncertainty and quantum mechanics. Those new understandings didn't just build on or fit with previous existing understandings - Newtonian physics. They actually shattered Newtonian physics. To this day we don't have a unifying theory that brings Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics together. Physicist only know that Newtonian physics works to describe the motions of things here on earth, relativity works to describe big things out there in the cosmos and quantum physics works to explains the very, very small (sub-atomic). But they are completely different paradigms that present different laws and different models of the universe.
The key point is that science did not shatter when presented with facts that shattered physicist's existing views of the world. The institution of science remains, and scientists have simply adjusted everything they knew and believed, reconfiguring their theories, to fit the new data.
(It's a misunderstanding to think the history of science has developed step by step, building one unified theory over centuries. The guy to read on this is Thomas Kuhn. He coined the word "paradigm," so even if you look into the word "paradigm" you'll start to be digging into his work.)
So too, astrology goes from traditional to modern to 21st century asteroid-laden.
Modern and traditional astrologers have a hard time talking and agreeing on concepts because they work in different paradigms. But the wide institution of astrology remains, as does the institution of science.

Does adding new galaxies and new information about the solar system destroy the credibility of astronomy? Do you have Jupiter in the Earth signs?

Zarathu said:

Does adding new galaxies and new information about the solar system destroy the credibility of astronomy?

Click to expand...

Or you can take what I said in 4,000 words and say it in 16.

Darth MI said:

But come on astrologers are really full of nonsense as they keep adding new asteroids and proposing new planets into this field of study!!!

Click to expand...

How long have you studied astrology? Have you read anything of real complexity like Esoteric Astrology by Alice A. Bailey, or Angles and Predictions by Martha Lang Wescott? If the only thing you are reading is Linda Goodman, then you are limiting your ability to understand astrology.

After you've conscientiously studied the subject for about 30 years, come back and see me(although you would still be 15 years short of my study time). I say 30 years because there is an outside chance that 30 years from now, I will still be alive at 95.

There is an awful lot of debate about what to add and what to use - most astrologers DO NOT just start adding new bodies to a chart every time one is discovered. The main asteroids such as Vesta or Ceres have been known since the early 19th century, before even Neptune was discovered. Few astrologers use asteroids, and of those that do only use a tiny handful (I use 5 and only the largest) out of the tens of thousands known. The far orbit objects like Sedna haven't even been really defined what they will mean, much less what they rule or how they are to be used. That could take several more centuries. Astrology has been around for thousands of years - this wasn't all "made up" in a BS session around a campfire last week.

Astrology has low credibility mainly due to the fact that anyone may call themselves an astrologer
there are no official exams nor official requirements
anyone - including anyone who has just discovered astrology
may declare themselves an astrologer
and 'read charts' for clients

mdinaz said:

There is an awful lot of debate about what to add and what to use - most astrologers DO NOT just start adding new bodies to a chart every time one is discovered. The main asteroids such as Vesta or Ceres have been known since the early 19th century, before even Neptune was discovered.

Few astrologers use asteroids,
and of those that do only use a tiny handful (I use 5 and only the largest) out of the tens of thousands known.

The far orbit objects like Sedna haven't even been really defined what they will mean,
much less what they rule or how they are to be used.
That could take several more centuries.

Astrology has been around for thousands of years - this wasn't all "made up" in a BS session around a campfire last week.

Click to expand...

Well said

Linda Goodman makes for very entertaining reading, but so far as an inner planet called "Vulcan" is concerned, this is utterly cuckoo. Unfortunately Vulcan was proposed by esoteric astrologers long before NASA and other space agencies world-wide developed powerful telescopes and unmanned space probes. Some astrolgers cannot believe that it isn't actually out there. Others of us are OK with the actual discovered solar system.

I do think that the actual discovered asteroids can have meaning, but we have to be very judicious and careful as to how we use them.

From the sound of your OP, you'd probably be happier studying traditional astrology than modern astrology.

Have you checked out the Skyscript website? It is dedicated to traditional astrology. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ A good introductory textbook on traditional astrology is Avelar and Rebeiro, On the Heavenly Spheres.

Good, sensible introductory books on modern astrology are Robert Hand, Planets in Youth; and Steven Forrest, The Inner Sky.

I think all are available through amazon.com.

I'm an astrologer.

I don't use any asteroid. Never have.

But when Columbus sailed the ocean blue and "discovered" America...
Or Farraday tinkered around and made electricity a useable source of power...
And some forgotten Bushman built a fire by rubbing two sticks together...

They didn't just ignore the discoveries.

That America introduced new diseases to Europe, or that fire can escape control
is no reason to condemn them.

Many of the world's astrologers continue to use only the seven visible bodies.

If you choose to employ asteroids, you may
Or you may choose not to.

As for scientists...
Ask your friendly neighborhood scientist to prove the existence of an Idea, and devise the Universal Law of Ideas. That should keep him busy for a few decades.

Science is very useful as a tool. But it does not and cannot embrace the All. There is more to this world than meets the eye.

I keep Goodman's books in the outhouse. I have finally found a good use for them.

JUPITERASC said:

Astrology has low credibility mainly due to the fact that anyone may call themselves an astrologer
there are no official exams nor official requirements
anyone - including anyone who has just discovered astrology
may declare themselves an astrologer
and 'read charts' for clients

Click to expand...

This is a complete over simplification of the problem, and fortunately you, yourself, are a perfect example of why having more certificates and degrees won't impact more acceptance.

People don't accept astrology because it violates their world view. People with a materialistic world view, where if you can see it in the eye, a micro-or tele- scope or a particle collider, then it doesn't exist, will not accept a system where some unknown force causes something to happen---no matter how many PhD's or whatever the person has.

And even people with the world view that exists in the Spiritual Worldview, disagree because it suggests that there is a hidden system to explain the meaning of how God works in the world. This implies that these people know the "mind of God" and for them this is impossible except for their own sacred scriptures. In fact they fight with others of their own Spiritual world view because they believe that their prophet's view of the mind of God is more accurate than others.

Your own bias is a perfect example. No matter how many degrees I might have in modern astrology, your own version of the Spiritual World view won't accept the use of asteroids outer planets or much else that wasn't available when William Lilly died in 1681.

So degrees or certificates has nothing to do with it. Its the personal world view of the individual that has to change. In my opinion, of course.

Darth MI said:

I am reading Love Signs by Linda Goodman and she wrote that in the near future Vulcan will be the planet representing Virgo. Now no astrological federation had officially accepted Vulcan as Virgo's planet but reading this brings up an issue I have with astrology: every time a new celestial body is found, astrologers began to debate and even assign trait to that newly discovered planet or asteroid. I remember reading of how as soon as Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto was discovered, astrologers assigned those planets signs that originally shared a planet with another sign as domicile. Pluto became the domicile of Scorpio, Neptune Pisces, and Uranus Aquarius. Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter then were assigned the other domicile signs as the signs they ruled. Modern astrologers still emphasis how powerful influence those planets would be if one of those co-rulers now assigned new planets were to be find in such planets in a person's chart. But their influence is weaker than the currently assigned ruling sign is.

Honestly the fact astrology added Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto and began to add attributes after their acceptance as planets by scientist almost made me throw astrology out of the window. Even more so when astrologers added the excuse they are "generational planets" as a way to explain why people don't get affected by them unless these planets were to be heavily aspected or in the first house or in a stellium. It feels like astrologers just grabbed some random nonsense and put them together to describe the outer planets role.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much of what I'm going to say you already know, so please don't think I'm trying to patronise.

In times gone by, before telescopes, astrologers could only see those planets that were visible to the naked eye as stars - that is the planets up to saturn.

They assigned rulership of leo to the sun, rulership of cancer to the moon, then looking at the zodiac as a circle (as in a birth chart) the nearest planet to the sun, mercury, ruled the 2 signs on either side of this - gemini and virgo, the next planet out venus ruled the two signs either side of this - taurus and libra, the next planet, mars, was assigned to the two signs either side of this - aries and scorpio, then jupiter the two signs either side of this - sagittarius and pisces, and finally saturn the two signs either side of these - capricorn and aquarius. It would be easier to show with a picture, I have seen one but I am not sure where to find one on the internet. The rulerships given to each sign reflected their distance from the sun and their distance from leo/cancer. They were not just assigned randomly.

As I was not alive in he time of early astrologers I don't know how they came about their early discoveries of the traits of the signs or the rulerships of the planets, but however they did it, over centuries, what has come down to us now works.

The outer planets are beyond the asteroid belt and not visible with the naked eye.

They are called 'generational' because they move slowly around the zodiac, and people born in the same year will have those planets at roughly the same point.

They are also called generational because they do not rule personal emotions in the way that the inner planets do.

When uranus was discovered it was given rulership of aquarius as being at the outer limit of the planets, then neptune was discovered and given rulership of pisces, pluto was discovered and given rulership of scorpio - so we are going back up the circle towards leo. If another planet is discovered it may be assigned to virgo, but following the sequence that things are going in it seems more likely to me that the next planet discovered will be assigned to libra or taurus.

When a new planet is discovered it is assigned rulership of a sign, but the old planetary ruler is not dismissed, it is still the secondary ruler of the sign. In fact in horary astrology it is still used as the primary ruler of the sign.

The discovery of uranus in 1781 coincided with the industrial revolution, the discovery of neptune in 1846 coincided with the beginning of our awareness of the subconscious and emotions (although admittedly it took the birth or Freud and another 40 years before we really understood that), and the discovery of pluto in 1930 coincided, roughly speaking, with the development of the atom bomb (from what I know American scientists were aware that German scientists were trying to develop such a bomb in 1939, so presumably those scientists on one side or other were aware of the possibilities in 1930 or shortly thereafter).

So the newly discovered planets were not just randomly assigned characteristics after they were discovered - they were given the characteristics that came into the general consciousness at the time they were discovered.

Never mind newer asteroids which are constantly given their own influence in modern astrology (EG Eros affects love, Chiron affects childhood,etc.)..... Let alone assigning current signs that act as co-ruler for one planet their own new planet in the future such as Vulcan.

Really I can understand why scientists bash astrology as nonsense. It feels like every time scientists find new stuff astrologers immediately work to legitimize new celestial body's powers in the chart. This is not only so unscientific but even just making stuff up!

I'm actually fine with the outer planets existing in current astrology (as they described traits in a person spot on as in my case Pluto accurately describes the Plutonian I am). But come on astrologers are really full of nonsense as they keep adding new asteroids and proposing new planets into this field of study!!!

Click to expand...

The asteroids are smaller and have a weaker influence.

Personally I have found that I began to understand the meaning of each of the asteroids I pay attention to when I was going through a significant transit of that asteroid. The transit forced the asteroid into my consciousness, and for some reason I became aware of that asteroid, and the mythology related to that asteroid, through books etc at the time of a significant transit of that asteroid.

junoisuppose said:

The asteroids are smaller and have a weaker influence.

Click to expand...

To be fair, several of the asteroids can be seen with the naked eye, and were known before Neptune. While Ceres is 3x smaller than Pluto, it is 10x closer. And really that isn't relevant anyway because astrology works on a different dimensional level, not in the 3rd dimension - the planets effects aren't physical on the body - if that were so nothing other than the Sun, Moon and maybe Venus would affect us.

Vulcan is not a physical planetary body so how can it be a ruler of anything. Astrology is based on physical stuff at base.
Linda Goodman? A romanticist at best! A fraud at worst.....best read for how to find your soul mate...NOT

Zarathu said:

....Your own bias is a perfect example.....

Click to expand...

Everyone has bias

and

everyone's bias is 'the perfect example'
for those who
due to their own particular bias
disagree with it

Nothing wrong with having an opinion
We all have our own opinion

Astrologers have since ancient times delineated accurately and successfully when using
Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Fixed Stars

No need to add hundreds of asteroids

Here goes a discussion based on personal opinion...

Which means everyone will disagree with anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I wonder what kind of synastry (or composite chart) those two have between them

On the question of bias, I am of the opinion, and I have been criticised for it for bringing astrology into disrepute, that people can come to the correct answer in a number of different ways...

junoisuppose said:

... I am of the opinion, ...that people can come to the correct answer in a number of different ways...

Click to expand...

You bet!
One of the resasons why I am an eclectic!

My gut impulse is to say "yes" but it's a little more complicated than that.

Reading traditional texts, you eventually come to discover that astrology was pretty complete. I mean everything is covered in the traditional seven planets, their dignities and their debilities.

I mean even the outer planets seem somewhat unnecessary when reading a chart;

Uranus representing rebellion and invention? Sounds like a mix between Mars and Mercury. Neptune being spirituality? Well Jupiter has that going for it too and Neptune has a splash of Venus thrown in as well. Pluto seems like a mix of Mars and Saturn.

Basically the outers in themselves are rather secondary, so why on earth do we need to thrown in countless asteroids/dwarf planets/centaurs?

I'm not saying that they're utterly useless, some of them, like Chiron, seem to have some interesting things going for them research wise. But Sedna? Eris? I'm not really sure.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to get the 7 traditional planets down as priorities, and then we can look at the outers as the outers tend to back up what the 7 traditional planets already say, adding another layer to things. The asteroids and other bodies are sort of the minor details that no one really wants to know.....also taking into consideration that no one really knows what any of the asteroids even mean, and I feel like people are confusing themselves by doing too much at one time.