Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Other Astrology > Research and Development

Research and Development This is a forum designed for applying scientific methods and understanding to all approaches of astrology, cooperative formulation and testing of new ideas, re-examination of known methods of delineation and interpretation, and the exploration of new astrological methods of all kinds (e.g. heliocentric models, planetary nodes and apogees, etc.).


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Unread 01-30-2018, 03:11 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
I would have to disagree with that notion. It is possible theoretically, to use two astrologies for two different things, but I have never seen one who does that. Pretty sure most Tropicalists think they cover both, and same for Siderealists.

Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.

However, in my opinion, there is a universe that allows both modern and traditional astrology, as one is focused on prediction, the other more on personality. Even if they use different zodiacs it is possible, provided they do not contradict each other in their delineation. If this is not possible and there will always be some contradiction, there must be one astrology to rule them all I suppose.
Should be a piece of cake for Traditional methods to predict a large increase in wealth due to a windfall, such as a winning lottery ticket. THAT would impress Materialistic Science! Plenty of examples to test Tropical versus Sidereal.


Last edited by david starling; 01-30-2018 at 03:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Unread 01-30-2018, 03:23 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solar Flare View Post
petosiris, what methods do you use? And why do you choose sidereal over tropical? I don't want a debate on which zodiac is better and which is worse, just genuinely curious, especially since you seem to be quite knowledgeable in astrology. Is it an attempt to follow the ancient authors more closely or have you had enough experience to claim confidently that sidereal works better? Also what ayanamsa do you use?
I am willing to share some of my methods and theorems privately, provided the person is interested in studying and keeps them secret.

Both to your last questions and Aldebaran 15. Afaik Konrad also used that zodiac, very astute.

Showing you one chart in sidereal and explaining everything that tropical misses or doing vice versa using whatever method is in my opinion futile. Come and see.

Last edited by petosiris; 01-30-2018 at 03:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-30-2018)
  #53  
Unread 01-30-2018, 03:40 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
I disagree concerning the Ages. That's because what's known as an "Age" is really just a result of Earth's affect on the nativity. What makes it so powerful is, 1) we live on the Earth; and 2) it changes position in each native's Chart so slowly, it influences each successive generation in the same Sign, for millennia. Why pretend the Earth has no Astrological effect on a Chart? That doesn't make sense to me.
As for compatibility, the Aspects remain nearly the same, from Sidereal to Tropical (with an exception for out-of-Sign Aspects and Conjunctions). I see it as two different angles of view. Suppose, as an analogy, there are two windows looking out into the same yard, but they're at opposite ends of a hallway. Neither gets the entire view of the yard, only what can be seen from its own vantage point. You can't look out of both windows at once, but you can gain information about the yard from each. And, there would naturally be both similarities and differences.
I've read the volumes of the Secret Doctrine, the source of the ''Ages''. While I respect Madame Blavatsky, she put too many blinds into the concept and at other times was too vague.
Now the Earth obviously has no astrological effect, because all astrological effect happens on Earth. If there were men on Mars, of course the Earth would have an astrological divinatory effect for them.

You are mixing approaches and workframes. Imagine you have one approach to astrology - calculating the length of life, as I said:
Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.
Tell me why you need two zodiacs and why they do not contradict each other.

Last edited by petosiris; 01-30-2018 at 03:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-30-2018)
  #54  
Unread 01-30-2018, 03:42 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Having lived around Materialistic-scientists for several years, and being pitied for my interest in Astrology, I have a pretty good sense of the prevailing attitude: The Sign-boundaries, whether Tropical or Sidereal, are a real deal-breaker for them. As materialists, they require an actual physical presence to justify Astrological influence. Their first line of attack is always against Tropical, using Precession as their weapon--straight to the Constellations no longer occupying the Tropical-signs bearing their names. Next, they go after equal-length Sidereal-Sign's, gleefully pointing out that the the Constellations are of unequal length. Interesting that both Zoller and Hand have decided to use unequal-length Constellational boundaries when it comes to predicting the beginning of a Sidereal Aquarian Age, which moves it even farther into the future than the 15 degree Aldebaran setting for the equal-length Sidereal-signs.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Unread 01-30-2018, 03:45 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
I've read the volumes of the Secret Doctrine, the source of the ''Ages''. While I respect Madame Blavatsky, she put too many blinds into the concept and at other times was too vague.
Now the Earth obviously has no astrological effect, because all astrological effect happens on Earth. If there were men on Mars, of course the Earth would have an astrological divinatory effect for them.

You are mixing approaches and workframes. Imagine you have one approach to astrology - calculating the length of life, as I said:
Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.
Tell me why you need two zodiacs and why they do not contradict each other.
Planets Act. The Earth is a Planet. Therefore it Acts upon us.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Unread 01-30-2018, 03:46 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Constellations and fixed stars are of the primary reasons I use a sidereal zodiac - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...d.php?t=113959 , you can see I note the influence of Leo at the end of Cancer, of Pisces at the beginning of Aries and so forth, showing that the ancients had a sidereal framework in mind when considering the signs and bounds, including early tropicalists (the difference was minimal). Those scientists had a point.

Last edited by petosiris; 01-30-2018 at 03:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-30-2018)
  #57  
Unread 01-30-2018, 04:03 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Do you believe the presence of actual celestial bodies is necessary to explain Astrological effects? If so, what is it about their physical makeup that produces that result?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Unread 01-30-2018, 04:06 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
Do you believe the presence of actual celestial bodies is necessary to explain Astrological effects? If so, what is it about their physical makeup that produces that result?
No, it is not necessary. Though it is easier and better to speak of influences, indications, omens and gods than unknown mechanism/occult forces/synchronicity. Or did I misunderstood your question?

If you meant whether you need stars for the zoidia, yes I believe so. The physical makeup produces pareidolia, biases and w/e chemical effect in a brain that causes ecstasy, divination, paraNormal phenomena etc. Astronomy also has an effect in all that - the orbits (of planets), heliacal and acronical risings etc.

There are many factors and influences, which is why I believe we do not have a good explanation for astrology... yet.

Last edited by petosiris; 01-30-2018 at 04:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-30-2018)
  #59  
Unread 01-30-2018, 04:22 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

I pay close attention to the interplay of gods and goddesses in the Ancient Greco-Roman pantheon. That's the main reason I believe the Earth does have an Astrological impact on our Charts: Gaia personified the Earth itself, and played a major role in determining the hierarchy of Rulership over people's lives. Although the Earth can't "wander" through the Zodiac, since she (or, "he", in the Ancient Egyptian cosmology) is centered in our Astrological coordinate-system(s), there are Terrestrial features relative to the Sun that can be be measured and tracked in the Chart. I don't view the Ages as coming from "out there", but from "down here", where we actually live.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Unread 01-30-2018, 04:25 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
No, it is not necessary. Though it is easier and better to speak of influences, indications, omens and gods than unknown mechanism/occult forces/synchronicity. Or did I misunderstood your question?

If you meant whether you need stars for the zoidia, yes I believe so. The physical makeup produces pareidolia, biases and w/e chemical effect in a brain that causes ecstasy, divination, paraNormal phenomena etc. Astronomy also has an effect in all that - the orbits (of planets), heliacal and acronical risings etc.

There are many factors and influences, which is why I believe we do not have a good explanation for astrology... yet.
I totally agree with your last statement.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to david starling For This Useful Post:
petosiris (01-30-2018)
  #61  
Unread 01-30-2018, 04:47 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Glad we agree on something.

Related to the topic of Geocentric-Heliocentric-Ages stuff I use topocentric coordinates. I find it ridiculous to measure the Moon from the center of the Earth. If I would investigate an initiation in space (a satellite or a space mission), I would use their coordinates. The place is what matters.

Last edited by petosiris; 01-30-2018 at 04:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-30-2018)
  #62  
Unread 01-30-2018, 07:45 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Glad we agree on something.

Related to the topic of Geocentric-Heliocentric-Ages stuff I use topocentric coordinates. I find it ridiculous to measure the Moon from the center of the Earth. If I would investigate an initiation in space (a satellite or a space mission), I would use their coordinates. The place is what matters.
The (Lunar) Nodes run through the Earth's center. But, perhaps you don't use them. Topocentric is a measurement from EARTH'S surface, in any given location, where our Charts are concerned. A total eclipse is when the center-points of the Earth, Sun and Moon are aligned.

Last edited by david starling; 01-30-2018 at 08:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to david starling For This Useful Post:
petosiris (01-30-2018)
  #63  
Unread 02-01-2018, 03:07 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Now for the record, I can understand your argument about the fixed stars, constellations and the signs is true with modern siderealists. In fact:
''I don't know that, as Siderealists, we have any greater need or bear any greater responsibility regarding fixed star research than Tropicalists; but I'm pretty sure the rest of the astrological world thinks we do, based primarily on a mistaken idea that the Sidereal zodiac has something specific to do with particular fixed stars (it doesn't).'' - James Eshelman http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?t=381

''it doesn't''??? The modern Fagan school does not use the zodiac to any great extent. They say the sidereal zodiac is better because they find their solar and lunar returns work better with precession.

In fact, they label all Hellenistic astrology as ''tropical influenced'' (even if the author was using sidereal), apparently working with signs and places is tropical astrology. According to their logic and statements, I am doing tropical astrology with a sidereal zodiac, which is preposterous considering both the history and practice of the subject.

The modern Fagan school likes pointing that Hellenists were mostly siderealists, but conveniently ignore most of their methods. Instead they hail Babylonian astrology tales by Fagan, as if Babylonian omens had anything to do with the way they practice astrology either.

Furthermore, as a counter-argument to their absurd statement, I would note that the way they practice astrology has many similarities with modern tropical astrology, little if none with ancient traditional astrology. Using their logic, it would appear they are the ones doing tropical astrology with a sidereal zodiac.

And maybe, using the same logic, the traditional astrologers are doing mostly sidereal astrology with a tropical zodiac. Because, if Ptolemy or some other Hellenist (Greek astronomer) was the originator of the tropical VP=0 Aries zodiac, he was definitely building upon previous observations and data by siderealists. That is a controversial statement and with little value to be honest. There are differences between the four and observational data is bound to change. Both the approach and the workframe are very important.

Last edited by petosiris; 02-01-2018 at 03:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Unread 02-01-2018, 06:52 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

The confusion and disagreements seem to be due mainly to the Zodiacal constellations having been within Tropical Sign-parameters for about 500 years, from about 200 B.C. to about 300 A.D.
Ptolemy's rationale for Sign rulerships (apparently already in place) uses Tropical seasonality. Is there a way to explain the rulerships without ANY Northern hemispheric seasonal considerations?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Unread 02-01-2018, 07:35 PM
AppLeo's Avatar
AppLeo AppLeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,565
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Modern science doesn't have any limitations except regarding spirituality.

But it doesn't matter because we live on the Earth, which is a materialistic life.
__________________
Reality will be the final judge of our virtues and vices
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Unread 02-01-2018, 08:21 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
The confusion and disagreements seem to be due mainly to the Zodiacal constellations having been within Tropical Sign-parameters for about 500 years, from about 200 B.C. to about 300 A.D.
Ptolemy's rationale for Sign rulerships (apparently already in place) uses Tropical seasonality. Is there a way to explain the rulerships without ANY Northern hemispheric seasonal considerations?
Thank you for bringing that interesting topic. The reasons he gives for exaltations and depressions are horribly untrue for the Southern hemisphere (which does not exist for Tropical astrologers). Because if you follow Ptolemy, Australians have the Moon exalted in Scorpio. Reverse the zodiac, if you follow Ptolemy.

I reject these for other reasons. They do appear to be partially connected with seasons, even though, they are used by almost all traditional and modern astrologers, sidereal and tropical. Their origins is ambiguous, some say it is related to the ''secret houses'' of the Babylonians, which used a sidereal zodiac, but it could be the case that 19 was the presumed vernal point of the Sun, therefore exaltation degree*. I also reject the lunar and solar axis, of which I have not seen one practical example or usage.

The bounds are of Babylonian and Egyptian sidereal origins - http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/1/ , and in my opinion are related to specific fixed stars and asterisms. Although everyone says ''there is no pattern'', for me there is a clear pattern - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...2&postcount=13

If there was no pattern, there is no connection to the seasons. I do not hate the seasons, they should be taken into account for the Sun, especially for mundane work, but do not say that the zodiac is based on that.

The zodiac is based on specific 12 constellations on the ecliptic. Their rulers are entirely explainable using the Seven-Zone system. Place Moon in Cancer, Sun in Leo (because they are Foundation and Beauty and should be together) and all other planets easily fall in the correct domicile - ''Thema Mundi'', which surprisingly has Cancer Asc, not Aries. Now there can be a few explanations for why the Lights fall in these places:
1. Seasons.
2. Sirius rising with Cancer in Egypt. Moon being the nearest ''planet'' makes sense for the first sign and Asc in the Thema Mundi.
3. Cancer being very faint and related to the water like the Moon and Leo being the symbol of the Sun.

I prefer 3, which is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for me. Do not pretend that is not a true archetype for all nations and cultures.

And even if the ancients thought it was 1., they were wrong because they did not take into account half of Earth. Ptolemy was wrong.

Therefore only 2. and 3. can be true.

* - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...&postcount=100 Because some people think that the ancient siderealists who erroneously used tropical imagery were tropicalists, I am now officially a tropicalist too. The vernal point is the start of 5 (6 ordinal) Pisces. Try it out.

Last edited by petosiris; 02-01-2018 at 08:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Unread 02-01-2018, 08:58 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppLeo View Post
Modern science doesn't have any limitations except regarding spirituality.

But it doesn't matter because we live on the Earth, which is a materialistic life.
If Modern Materialistic Science has no limitations, then why is it unable to explain why Astrology works?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Unread 02-01-2018, 08:59 PM
AppLeo's Avatar
AppLeo AppLeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,565
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
If Modern Materialistic Science has no limitations, then why is it unable to explain why Astrology works?
Maybe astrology is ********. Or, modern science is limited or just not developed enough yet.

Astrology seems spiritual based so...
__________________
Reality will be the final judge of our virtues and vices
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Unread 02-01-2018, 09:02 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppLeo View Post
Maybe astrology is ********. Or, modern science is limited or just not developed enough yet.

Astrology seems spiritual based so...
I would go with, "....modern science is limited or just not developed enough yet."
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Unread 02-01-2018, 09:05 PM
AppLeo's Avatar
AppLeo AppLeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,565
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
I would go with, "....modern science is limited or just not developed enough yet."
Yeahh same.
__________________
Reality will be the final judge of our virtues and vices
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Unread 02-01-2018, 09:21 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Thank you for bringing that interesting topic. The reasons he gives for exaltations and depressions are horribly untrue for the Southern hemisphere (which does not exist for Tropical astrologers). Because if you follow Ptolemy, Australians have the Moon exalted in Scorpio. Reverse the zodiac, if you follow Ptolemy.

I reject these for other reasons. They do appear to be partially connected with seasons, even though, they are used by almost all traditional and modern astrologers, sidereal and tropical. Their origins is ambiguous, some say it is related to the ''secret houses'' of the Babylonians, which used a sidereal zodiac, but it could be the case that 19 was the presumed vernal point of the Sun, therefore exaltation degree*. I also reject the lunar and solar axis, of which I have not seen one practical example or usage.

The bounds are of Babylonian and Egyptian sidereal origins - http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/1/ , and in my opinion are related to specific fixed stars and asterisms. Although everyone says ''there is no pattern'', for me there is a clear pattern - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...2&postcount=13

If there was no pattern, there is no connection to the seasons. I do not hate the seasons, they should be taken into account for the Sun, especially for mundane work, but do not say that the zodiac is based on that.

The zodiac is based on specific 12 constellations on the ecliptic. Their rulers are entirely explainable using the Seven-Zone system. Place Moon in Cancer, Sun in Leo (because they are Foundation and Beauty and should be together) and all other planets easily fall in the correct domicile - ''Thema Mundi'', which surprisingly has Cancer Asc, not Aries. Now there can be a few explanations for why the Lights fall in these places:
1. Seasons.
2. Sirius rising with Cancer in Egypt. Moon being the nearest ''planet'' makes sense for the first sign and Asc in the Thema Mundi.
3. Cancer being very faint and related to the water like the Moon and Leo being the symbol of the Sun.

I prefer 3, which is a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for me. Do not pretend that is not a true archetype for all nations and cultures.

And even if the ancients thought it was 1., they were wrong because they did not take into account half of Earth. Ptolemy was wrong.

Therefore only 2. and 3. can be true.

* - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...&postcount=100 Because some people think that the ancient siderealists who erroneously used tropical imagery were tropicalists, I am now officially a tropicalist too. The vernal point is the start of 5 (6 ordinal) Pisces. Try it out.
One thing that's never mentioned, stands out for me--It's the simple fact that the Moon and Sun move through the Zodiac in ONE direction only, and rule only ONE Sign each. Whereas, the planets display both "Direct", as defined by the movement of the Moon and Sun, and "Retrograde-motion", defined as moving in the opposite direction, and therefore move in TWO directions and Traditionally rule TWO Signs each. Ptolemy's explanation was that the Sun is too masculine to rule a "feminine" Sign, and the Moon is too feminine to rule a "masculine" Sign. Unfortunately for that explanation, the earliest known (recorded) Moon deity was decidedly male, and remained so during the entirety of the Sumerian line of civilizations, including Ancient Babylonia.
Also, no reason why a masculine entity can't rule a feminine Sign.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Unread 02-01-2018, 10:14 PM
petosiris's Avatar
petosiris petosiris is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,493
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
Unfortunately for that explanation, the earliest known (recorded) Moon deity was decidedly male, and remained so during the entirety of the Sumerian line of civilizations, including Ancient Babylonia.
Also, no reason why a masculine entity can't rule a feminine Sign.
I believe all planets are masculine in relation to the next sphere and feminine in relation to the previous one. The Moon is the most feminine of all stars and indeed gives signs of nourishment, mothers and females, but also of kings and high priests, for He is entirely masculine in relation to the sublunar sphere.

Many ancients though of the Moon as masculine - Thoth, Iah, Khonsu, Chandra, Sin, also among the Hebrews and Germans. Truly, only the goddess Venus should be referred as She, for in her is the mystery of victory.

Last edited by petosiris; 02-01-2018 at 10:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Unread 02-01-2018, 10:19 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Inanna/Ishtar "Queen of the Heavens", associated with the brightest planet, now known as "Venus".
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Unread 02-01-2018, 10:27 PM
david starling david starling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Yes
Posts: 19,683
Smile Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Strange that Astrology (at least surviving Astrology) is a Northern Hemispheric creation. It's only natural that it would incorporate at least some Northern Hemispheric characteristics.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Unread 02-01-2018, 11:26 PM
rahu rahu is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5025 valley crest dr #135 concord ca 94521
Posts: 10,865
Re: Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david starling View Post
If we define "science" simply as "knowledge", I have to say Astrology has provided me with what I consider valuable knowledge about myself, others, and the world in general. So, if the use of what's known as the "scientific method" as an analytical device labels Astrologically obtained knowledge as "pseudo", I have to question the current capability of that method to determine what's "real", and what's not. Meaning, an understanding of why and how Astrology works is not yet included within the limited range of Materialistic Modern Science, although it may one day expand its parameters and be able to do so.
I think your definition of science is too broad. science is not just knowledge, but "science" specifically evaluates only things that can be measured. and metaphysics and astrology are thereby excluded and fall under the term of pseudo science but not necessarily in a pejorative sense .

rahu
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
limitations, materialistic, modern, science

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.