Why Western Astrology?

I have been reading some articles on how Western astrology is flawed, and that there is a 13th zodiac sign that is present in the Ecliptic but omitted in this branch. So, knowing all this, how can we put faith in Western astrology?
Is sidereal astrology more accurate then? In Western astrology I am an Aries while in the sidereal I am a Pisces, I find that to be a big deal.

Because Western astrology is no more accurate than anything else, so there's really no reason to switch to something else citing "accuracy" and "reality" as reasons why.

all sorts of astronomical information out there, to Odium

Odium,

You asked:

Odium said:

I have been reading some articles on how Western astrology is flawed, and that there is a 13th zodiac sign that is present in the Ecliptic but omitted in this branch. So, knowing all this, how can we put faith in Western astrology?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things out there in the universe, some of them astrology uses, and some of it astrology doesn't use. For example, there are galaxies and supernovas and blackholes that astrology also doesn't use. Do astrologers use every object in the universe? No. Do astrologers pick and choose which objects and zodiac information to use in their astrology? Yes. Saying that astrology doesn't include everything is true, but it is not a defect of astrology. This is another example of astronomers trying to prove astrology untrue by throwing in random astronomical information that has nothing to do with astrology.

First learn the astrological system as it is. Then make up your mind about it.

Astrologically focused,

Tim

Re: all sorts of astronomical information out there, to Odium

wilsontc said:

Odium,

You asked:


There are a lot of things out there in the universe, some of them astrology uses, and some of it astrology doesn't use. For example, there are galaxies and supernovas and blackholes that astrology also doesn't use. Do astrologers use every object in the universe? No. Do astrologers pick and choose which objects and zodiac information to use in their astrology? Yes. Saying that astrology doesn't include everything is true, but it is not a defect of astrology. This is another example of astronomers trying to prove astrology untrue by throwing in random astronomical information that has nothing to do with astrology.

First learn the astrological system as it is. Then make up your mind about it.

Astrologically focused,

Tim

Click to expand...

My point is referring specifically to Ophiuchus; I understand that for a constellation to be considered a sign it must intersect the ecliptic and Ophiuchus does, but it's not considered a sign in Tropical astrology. This means Tropical ephemeris’s are off by about 24.5 degrees, doesn't not? And you are telling me this doesn't affect the readings?

Re: all sorts of astronomical information out there, to Odium

Odium said:

My point is referring specifically to Ophiuchus; I understand that for a constellation to be considered a sign it must intersect the ecliptic and Ophiuchus does, but it's not considered a sign in Tropical astrology. This means Tropical ephemeris’s are off by about 24.5 degrees, doesn't not? And you are telling me this doesn't affect the readings?

Click to expand...

I think that the 12 signs of the zodiac is partly based upon Keplers urge for geometric perfection. There was the need for the 360 degree circle to have an EQUAL number of divisions so the geometry could work, and the aspects and house divisions could all fit 'perfectly.' Thus 13 signs would not do.
If you think sidereal is a better fit for you, then by all means try it on for size. I know several people who swear by it's accuracy for them and for their clients. I think there are lots of different ways to reach astrological conclusions. Vedic, Western, Chinese, all of them offer vital information to anyone seeking to discover more about themself through their birthchart. Just because one technique works, it does not mean the alternate way does not.

Re: all sorts of astronomical information out there, to Odium

If you think sidereal is a better fit for you, then by all means try it on for size.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the suggestion there also encounters the same problem. Sidereal is really no better at the whole "accuracy" game since their zodiac gets off course after Aries, and they don't have Serpentarius either. So, it's really a lose/lose situation as far as that goes.

Here is a thread that deals with Western/Sidereal.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16690

The primary difference between the two is how the zodiac is demarcated. Tropical zodiac is measured starting at 0 Aries, aka spring equinox-a point in time. The sidereal zodiac is measured starting at a fixed star, either Spica, Aldeberan, or Antares-a point in space. There are some more mathematical fine points-but that is the main technical difference in a nutshell.

I know alot of people tend to think about it in terms of right, wrong, black, white, but I really feel that both systems are valid and relevant. I think that each represents a different plane of experience and consciousness. IMO, the tropical represents a more psychological, material perspective, while the sidereal offers a more spiritual, karmic perspective.

Good question, Odium! Neither western sidereal, western tropical, or Vedic/Hindu (sideral) astrology have really been based upon the constellations for many centuries: probably for a few millenia, although I am unsure of my history of astrology. Basically all of these systems are based upon dividing the heavens into 12 pie-sections based upon signs and/or houses. In western astrology, the sign sectors are of equal size, but you could get unequal pie sections (with so-called unequal house methods) or equal pie sections (based upon the whole-sign house system or equal house system.) But none of these is based upon the actual constellations as they pass through the ecliptic. And the problem is somewhat complicated by the fact that some of the constellations spatially overlap from an earth-centred perspective, or else they leave "gaps" in the heavens with no zodiacal constellations on portions of the ecliptic.

Vedic/sidereal astrology do account for the precession of the equinoxes, and thus are somewhat closer to the constellations for which 30-degree signs were named. But the overlap isn't 100% because most constellations are either larger or smaller than 30 degrees along the ecliptic. Tropical western astrology's sign placements are way removed from the constellations today, but we do get 0 degrees Aries at the spring equinox, 0 degrees Cancer at the summer solstice, &c. I. e., the tropical zodiac stays true to solar seasons as they are experienced in temperate climates of the northern hemisphere.

Very few astrologers today seem to look at actual constellations, which should include Ophichus--and maybe even turf out Aries, which hardly touches the ecliptic.

If you can purchase a copy of it via an Internet book seller you might be interested in John Lash, Quest for the Zodiac, and his "star-based" approach, which includes Ophiuchus. Or this thread on another astro-forum which contains some links: the forum of www.astro.com . [Sorry, I just double-checked the thread link but it showed only showed the main boards, but this was under my name as OP on p. 9 of "other branches of astrology as of today: this number will change, of course.]

As you learn more astrology, you can determine which system just works best for you. In western tropical astrology, my chart is mostly air and fire, which rings true to my experience, even though the sideral or 'star based" approaches appeal to me more as astrological systems.

know alot of people tend to think about it in terms of right, wrong, black, white, but I really feel that both systems are valid and relevant. I think that each represents a different plane of experience and consciousness. IMO, the tropical represents a more psychological, material perspective, while the sidereal offers a more spiritual, karmic perspective.------

I completely agree, Estrella.
Well said. I have had readings with sidereal astrologers trying to 'turn' me, and they had very valid and fascinating points to make about my chart. But at the same time, I identify so strongly with being a Scorpio, with a Cap moon, and so being a Libra with a Sag Moon just does not feel right to me. But if I had started out studying sidereally, I would have probably learned that and become 'one' with it.

katydid said:

know alot of people tend to think about it in terms of right, wrong, black, white, but I really feel that both systems are valid and relevant. I think that each represents a different plane of experience and consciousness. IMO, the tropical represents a more psychological, material perspective, while the sidereal offers a more spiritual, karmic perspective.------

I completely agree, Estrella.
Well said. I have had readings with sidereal astrologers trying to 'turn' me, and they had very valid and fascinating points to make about my chart. But at the same time, I identify so strongly with being a Scorpio, with a Cap moon, and so being a Libra with a Sag Moon just does not feel right to me. But if I had started out studying sidereally, I would have probably learned that and become 'one' with it.

Click to expand...

Which points out the problem of the "Barnum Effect" in astrology, named for the 19th century circus owner and showman P. T. Barnum. He argued that if you really persuaded people that they would have a certain type of experience, they would have it, even if it was based on a hoax.

waybread said:

Which points out the problem of the "Barnum Effect" in astrology, named for the 19th century circus owner and showman P. T. Barnum. He argued that if you really persuaded people that they would have a certain type of experience, they would have it, even if it was based on a hoax.

Click to expand...

I know. lol. I thought of that when i was writing it but it is in fact true imo. What I mean is that Sidereal astrology 'works' and so does tropical and so does vedic. Imo anyway. So what does that say? I don't think it says astrology doesn't work, but it is good ammo for the skeptics for sure. I think it just says that there are different techniques that can be used to look at and decipher one's moment of birth, and they are all valid, just different.

katydid said:

I know. lol. I thought of that when i was writing it but it is in fact true imo. What I mean is that Sidereal astrology 'works' and so does tropical and so does vedic. Imo anyway. So what does that say? I don't think it says astrology doesn't work, but it is good ammo for the skeptics for sure. I think it just says that there are different techniques that can be used to look at and decipher one's moment of birth, and they are all valid, just different.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Skeptics do enjoy finding ambiguities and "inconsistencies" in astrology to attack. To me, what is so amazing about that is they act as if there is no ambiguity and "inconsistency" in "legitimate science". Eulidean and Non-Euclidean geometries disagree on something so fundamental as the nature of parallel lines--yet both are accepted as valid systems of geometry. Also, many modern scientific theories, such as the String Theory of quantum mechanics, have less empirical evidence to back them up than astrology does, yet no one is calling quantum physics a "pseudo-science".
Maybe someday astrology will be granted the same leeway.

Estrella said:

Also, many modern scientific theories, such as the String Theory of quantum mechanics, have less empirical evidence to back them up than astrology does, yet no one is calling quantum physics a "pseudo-science".

Click to expand...

Now, that's not really fair. String theory is an attempted combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It's technically a quantum theory of gravity which is basically trying to effectively combine the old system of general relativity and the new system of quantum mechanics to make them complimentary and able to co-exist. They have string theory sort of all worked out, but it's just testing it would apparently require a lot of money and probably technology that we don't have. So, I mean, the subject of it's comparability could be debated.

Skeptics do enjoy finding ambiguities and "inconsistencies" in astrology to attack. To me, what is so amazing about that is they act as if there is no ambiguity and "inconsistency" in "legitimate science". Eulidean and Non-Euclidean geometries disagree on something so fundamental as the nature of parallel lines--yet both are accepted as valid systems of geometry.

Click to expand...

I think this is a bit apples/oranges too. What kind of science has the sheer amount and types of inconsistencies that astrology has? None. On the forum we can't even agree to a general rule as to what planet represents the father in a natal chart, and people who stick with precedent are often ignored while the ones who tote personal anecdote are praised, how unscientific. That's not just here, but it's really the entirety of the astrological community. So, I'm not sure astrology will ever be thought of as something scientific, especially if pop astrology continues.

Kaiousei no Senshi said:

I think this is a bit apples/oranges too. What kind of science has the sheer amount and types of inconsistencies that astrology has? None.

Click to expand...

What inconsistencies are you referring too?

Kaiousei no Senshi said:

On the forum we can't even agree to a general rule as to what planet represents the father in a natal chart, and people who stick with precedent are often ignored while the ones who tote personal anecdote are praised, how unscientific.

Click to expand...

We have different ideas about what planet represents the father because it can and does vary from chart to chart and from father to father. That's just the way astrology works. The natal chart speaks eloquently in its description of situations. One really can't slap down a standardized, cookbook style rule in a case like this and expect it to apply to every person's experience. Taking a too rigid approach to astrology could drive one absolutely nuts, and produce less than satisfactory results.

Also, if all anyone ever did was blindly and unquestioningly follow precedent-advancement, progress, and true learning would never happen. IMO Personal anecdote is a powerful tool to use to understand how astrology actually works in people's lives. I think of it in terms of empirical evidence. In fact, I'd bet lots of "personal anecdote" over the millenia has helped to build our understanding of astrological correspondences and meanings.

Kaiousei no Senshi said:

That's not just here, but it's really the entirety of the astrological community. So, I'm not sure astrology will ever be thought of as something scientific, especially if pop astrology continues.

Click to expand...

Personally, I really don't care if astrology is ever thought of as something absolutely scientific. However, I do hope that more people will see what incredible value it has as a tool to help us understand our individual journeys by melding science with spirituality.