@twist
I'm sorry if I sound so strict when expressing my ideas, I agree on your analysis too, but some points we make are really different, and I can see we get there from the same premises... we just get some different conclusions, which is totally fine, because we both explained why that is so...
@way
No way I'm gonna read skyscript! Ffffss
I don't wanna sound like a nazi, but seriously, I've read maaaany inaccuracies on that site, about things that people from this forum were defending like they were written on the Bible, because they found it on Skyscript. I'm especially talking about the history of astrology; if you get on skyscript it'll look as if there are answers to all of your questions, I don't know why they do that.. but I saw them making statements which are not explained if not by a vague "tradition says so". And they're wrong statements, because yes tradition could have said that (they don't tell what tradition though and I've seen them attributing systems to the wrong people..) , but it just didn't mean that thing in that way, for that purpose. Skyscript is all about horary predictions. That's a part of astrology I have many problems accepting, honestly.
To me astrology is a science whatever skyscript has to say about it. Even better, if it says it is not, it's to me another good reason to think it actually is.
Come on, skyscript doesn't even count Uranus and Neptune.. duh.
Edit: Ive just read that, and that's a hella thread you started on skyscirpt, waybread. I really liked reading it but unfortunately I don't see it in the same way at all... some points were enlightening because you say basically that empirical data have no weight in the scientific approach yet you accuse astrology of not following those rules... Hm.
Another petty tiny detail I'd like to clarify is that the distinctions between astrology and astronomy have always existed, in facts they analyze different things. The skepticism on astrology always existed too, and you can find so many ancient authors that would give very doubtful considerations about the astrological system. It's always been for a few people, that's for sure. The strictly scientific methodology that you talk about, stems out of a very precise period of human kind, Illuminism. Illuminism isn't that much back in time, and it can be seen as responsible for having changed our world perception too. But that doesn't mean it is the ultimate way of seeing things. Einstein, more recently, traced a big line on all that mind frame.. we evolved from the illuministic "scientific" approach, and thanks to it, to a more relative approach to everything. Post modernism here for you. It's not the end of our discoveries, and I think, when talking about astrology, the best contextualization for it must be drawn to the present, the contemporary times, for astrology is applied here and now, not for someone who lives in the 1700 and used to call "demon" everything he could not understand, that's the past, we evolved.. a bit.