Can we look at astrology from a scientific point of view?
- Thread starter HYHOANG
- Start date
CapAquaPis
Well-known member
Scientifically speaking, can one point to a certain planetary alignment or conjunction to predict a cyclical event like a pandemic? The late French astrologer Andre Barbault in 2011 foretold a pandemic in the 2019-21 period, based on his analysis on the ephemeris of 1890-91 ("Russian" Flu), 1917-19 ("Spanish" Flu), 1956-57 ("Asian" Flu), 1968-69 ("Hong Kong" Flu), 1981-82 (HIV/AIDS) and 2009-10 (Swine Flu). Interestingly, Barbault died in Oct 2019 not long before the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China to later become a pandemic like his prediction stated...in 2020. I can include SARS in 2003 and MERS in 2012 which are other coronaviruses but didn't become pandemics. Barbault pointed to the Jupiter/Saturn/Pluto trio in Capricorn (previously Jupiter in its ruler sign Sagittarius) then adding Neptune in Pisces and later this year Mars in Aries then to conjunct Uranus in Taurus indicate a new viral pandemic.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
In answer to the thread question, the answer is, yes you can....but, best keep it to yourself lest you get hooted out of your science class! 
Last edited:
Andrea_
Well-known member
One of the barriers to looking at astrology scientifically, at least to me, is the fact that it does not seem to always account for celestial dynamics, or the "updated" versions are sometimes considered fringe astrology.
What updating means is, the fact that our planet in the milky way as well as in the galaxy, along with other stars and star systems, have changed position over millennia. Objects in the galaxy move at great but different speeds, and sometimes they move away from each other. While this typically happens over very large periods of time, hardly observable to our young species who only recently started seeing further than Pluto, one would expect the Art of unseen celestial forces to take into account such astronomical dynamics and provide interpretations for them too, with their effects on individuals. Some sites list the different degrees fixed stars have today for example, compared to 2000 years ago, but not much else.
Hipparchus (BC greek astronomer/astrologist) noticed stars change position, although his observations were based on Earth's wobble or the 26.000 procession (earth kinda wobbles at more acute angles and then back up straight in its rotation cycles, due to the magnetic poles... and other reasons).
The second problem is perhaps the amount of generalisation and amateurism, through both are normal among people who start learning something for the first time, and both indicate the need for typologies for a sense of predictability or stability. Reddit for examples specified that they "do not allow topics that generalize or stereotype by sun sign, for example, posting about "Scorpios" or "a Capricorn woman", "signs you have dated," or "air signs" if you mean people.", which I find positive because it's over simplification. We as beings of this universe would probably not manifest such a need for habit if the universe did not have an in-built sort of symmetry, an axis, or would not be able to reach some sort of stability. Everything seems to have a sense of purpose, but there are enough who believe there isn't, and chaos or an infinity of possibilities at any given moment dominate.
One also lacks the explanation of how angles affect individuals specifically. Could it be through some sort of energy signature transmitted through visible light (or at least, through the one that managed to reach us finally), is it through bizarre radiation or sub-atomic particles, is it through what we should call some sort of electro-magnetic corridors that contain the aforementioned?
In Earth's history, supernovae explosions from stars very close to us have scrapped earth's atmosphere through massive radiation emissions (especially gamma) and therefore caused mass extinctions. One would want astrology to provide some tools to predict that, and perhaps this is where the schism with astronomy was created, where pure science picked up this side because otherwise it would get all too complicated. Perhaps, after centuries of trying to reconcile them, it was a good decision to separate and allow freedom of expansion, as astrology was and is quite traditionalist. At the moment, the candidate for a supernova is our "beloved" fixed star Betelgeuse.
The concept of as above so below that astrology is based on still applies, where the same forces of physics, some known and many still unknown to us, create a sort of symmetry on all levels, big and small (hypergiants and atoms). Yet, rules change when sizes, temperatures and different pressures apply, so is there any symmetry at all? There both is and isn't, like the cat experiment, or they both act upon another better said, creating again "symmetry", and this multiplies over and over. If more forces of physics were known to us, we'd probably be able to use and contain inexhaustible or dangerous sources of energy and terraform other planets for example, through I'd like to think we'd use them to advance ourselves in terms of conduct, principles and morals too. Though it's a bit of a stretch, planets could be considered electrons in a way, sun-type stars the nucleus, etc. There are many theories about the nature of our universe still and invisible threads where star clusters and galaxies tend to form according to yet unknown criteria to us. Dark matter is probably not empty at all, but holding "information", and the same is probably true on an atomic level, though I have not read enough to know yet if any discoveries/observations of sub-atomic particles have been successfully applied to interpret and predict or calculate cosmological behaviors... Are there any recent instances in astrophysics where "as above so below" (or as below so above) has been successfully applied and used, and I mean in the last 50 years?
Rather than being siblings, astronomy now is more like a parent to astrology, and the latter updates itself according to astronomical discoveries.
A traditional astrology however is not necessarily bad, in fact, it's desirable to keep open a gate to knowledge from the past and their mannerism.
What updating means is, the fact that our planet in the milky way as well as in the galaxy, along with other stars and star systems, have changed position over millennia. Objects in the galaxy move at great but different speeds, and sometimes they move away from each other. While this typically happens over very large periods of time, hardly observable to our young species who only recently started seeing further than Pluto, one would expect the Art of unseen celestial forces to take into account such astronomical dynamics and provide interpretations for them too, with their effects on individuals. Some sites list the different degrees fixed stars have today for example, compared to 2000 years ago, but not much else.
Hipparchus (BC greek astronomer/astrologist) noticed stars change position, although his observations were based on Earth's wobble or the 26.000 procession (earth kinda wobbles at more acute angles and then back up straight in its rotation cycles, due to the magnetic poles... and other reasons).
The second problem is perhaps the amount of generalisation and amateurism, through both are normal among people who start learning something for the first time, and both indicate the need for typologies for a sense of predictability or stability. Reddit for examples specified that they "do not allow topics that generalize or stereotype by sun sign, for example, posting about "Scorpios" or "a Capricorn woman", "signs you have dated," or "air signs" if you mean people.", which I find positive because it's over simplification. We as beings of this universe would probably not manifest such a need for habit if the universe did not have an in-built sort of symmetry, an axis, or would not be able to reach some sort of stability. Everything seems to have a sense of purpose, but there are enough who believe there isn't, and chaos or an infinity of possibilities at any given moment dominate.
One also lacks the explanation of how angles affect individuals specifically. Could it be through some sort of energy signature transmitted through visible light (or at least, through the one that managed to reach us finally), is it through bizarre radiation or sub-atomic particles, is it through what we should call some sort of electro-magnetic corridors that contain the aforementioned?
In Earth's history, supernovae explosions from stars very close to us have scrapped earth's atmosphere through massive radiation emissions (especially gamma) and therefore caused mass extinctions. One would want astrology to provide some tools to predict that, and perhaps this is where the schism with astronomy was created, where pure science picked up this side because otherwise it would get all too complicated. Perhaps, after centuries of trying to reconcile them, it was a good decision to separate and allow freedom of expansion, as astrology was and is quite traditionalist. At the moment, the candidate for a supernova is our "beloved" fixed star Betelgeuse.
The concept of as above so below that astrology is based on still applies, where the same forces of physics, some known and many still unknown to us, create a sort of symmetry on all levels, big and small (hypergiants and atoms). Yet, rules change when sizes, temperatures and different pressures apply, so is there any symmetry at all? There both is and isn't, like the cat experiment, or they both act upon another better said, creating again "symmetry", and this multiplies over and over. If more forces of physics were known to us, we'd probably be able to use and contain inexhaustible or dangerous sources of energy and terraform other planets for example, through I'd like to think we'd use them to advance ourselves in terms of conduct, principles and morals too. Though it's a bit of a stretch, planets could be considered electrons in a way, sun-type stars the nucleus, etc. There are many theories about the nature of our universe still and invisible threads where star clusters and galaxies tend to form according to yet unknown criteria to us. Dark matter is probably not empty at all, but holding "information", and the same is probably true on an atomic level, though I have not read enough to know yet if any discoveries/observations of sub-atomic particles have been successfully applied to interpret and predict or calculate cosmological behaviors... Are there any recent instances in astrophysics where "as above so below" (or as below so above) has been successfully applied and used, and I mean in the last 50 years?
Rather than being siblings, astronomy now is more like a parent to astrology, and the latter updates itself according to astronomical discoveries.
A traditional astrology however is not necessarily bad, in fact, it's desirable to keep open a gate to knowledge from the past and their mannerism.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Both astrology and astronomy were accorded the same Muse, Urania, back when the goddess of the Heavens was actually believed to exist. According to modern-day science, such beliefs are the stuff of fairytales.
Last edited:
piercethevale
Well-known member
Hi, I noticed that you tried to send me a p.m. three times. My mailbox is full and I prefer to keep it that way.
You may send me an email at piercethevale@yahoo.com
As to the subject matter of this thread of yours, have you read my thread titled, "A Runic Explanation of the Zodiac"?
Here's the link: https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13700&highlight=Runic+Explanation
You may send me an email at piercethevale@yahoo.com
As to the subject matter of this thread of yours, have you read my thread titled, "A Runic Explanation of the Zodiac"?
Here's the link: https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13700&highlight=Runic+Explanation
piercethevale
Well-known member
Oh yes we can, but first you have to have people willing to look at it like scientists.
If someone presents any alleged model of proof any scientist worthy of the title would at least take the time to check out that theorem before dismissing it and then at least give some indication of where they find it to be flawed.
That's the problem with this ''science" anybody that reads a basic handbook on traditional astrology believes them self to be an astrologer ...yet ask anyone of them to provide a demonstrative proof of the technique they expound is verace and infallible.
That's Science... to be able to provide demonstrable proof.
...otherwise it ain't sheeeeit.
If someone presents any alleged model of proof any scientist worthy of the title would at least take the time to check out that theorem before dismissing it and then at least give some indication of where they find it to be flawed.
That's the problem with this ''science" anybody that reads a basic handbook on traditional astrology believes them self to be an astrologer ...yet ask anyone of them to provide a demonstrative proof of the technique they expound is verace and infallible.
That's Science... to be able to provide demonstrable proof.
...otherwise it ain't sheeeeit.
david starling
Well-known member
Modern Science has pretty much co-opted the word "science", which originally meant "knowledge", claiming that it applies only to its own "scientfic-method" school of thought.
As a body of knowledge, astrology has its own type of science, within its own school of thought.
As a body of knowledge, astrology has its own type of science, within its own school of thought.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
The real question is:
Can we look at Modern Science from an astrological point of view?
Can we look at Modern Science from an astrological point of view?
piercethevale
Well-known member
I disagree. I believe the question is whether Astrology is a science or not.
...and I believe, as Dane Rudhyar once wrote that [it will eventually be proven] Astrology is not only a science, it is the mother of all science.
david starling
Well-known member
"Modern Science" as it's come to be known, is a temporal and temporary phenomenon.
Astrology is eternal.
Astrology is eternal.
piercethevale
Well-known member
Right on
Bunraku
Well-known member
This “temporal modern science" has contributed to the betterment of society in profound ways. Food, music, entertainment, technology, infrastructure, communications, and health. And without it we’d probably still be stuck in the stone ages trying not to die of starvation.
How has astrology done anything relevant for the past 2000 years?
Can you all even stomach making easy to access charts and discuss it without these so called temporal modern pageantries?
How has astrology done anything relevant for the past 2000 years?
Can you all even stomach making easy to access charts and discuss it without these so called temporal modern pageantries?
david starling
Well-known member
This “temporal modern science" has contributed to the betterment of society in profound ways. Food, music, entertainment, technology, infrastructure, communications, and health. And without it we’d probably still be stuck in the stone ages trying not to die of starvation.
How has astrology done anything relevant for the past 2000 years?
Can you all even stomach making easy to access charts and discuss it without these so called temporal modern pageantries?
So, Modern Science has created the best of all possible worlds? And all of ancient history was nothing but drudgery and toil?
david starling
Well-known member
Correct
Any more questions?
Lots of illnesses, injuries, drudge and toil now, in today's world, with Modern Science ruling the roost.
Bunraku
Well-known member
And ?
david starling
Well-known member
Seems like following the mind-set of Modern Science hasn't really improved anything. And, it's bringing us to the brink of disaster.
Bunraku
Well-known member
Are you sure ?