david starling
Well-known member
I think it does. It only encompasses a relatively small portion of perceivable reality.
It is one of its tenets, unlike unlimited and divine astrologers.
So, it cannot rule out Astrology as a real science, because it's own basic tenets admit it lacks the capability for doing so?
Yes, it is possible. Then define astrology in a way that is acceptable to science. Btw fyi some scientists are materialists, others are not.
(Personally, I would disagree with your last statement, as I practice traditional astrology that is prediction based. I like absolute certainty. But I know modern and psychological astrologers who disagree with me. This is also relevant.)
If the time of birth is "off" for any reasonNon-materialistic scientists would make the best candidates for defining Astrology as you suggest. Most Astrologers don't really care what the materialists think about their practice, but it would benefit us if some hard and fast results could be obtained with careful and unbiased use of the scientific method. The tests are designed to show Astrologers up, and then gloat "see, I told you it's a pseudo science!"
So, hypothetically, could you
use Traditional methods to predict someone's chosen profession
with a high degree of certainty?
In a cold reading?
Materialistic Science is itself uncertain
I think we can use Astrology to predict tendencies, but
not with the certainty of outcome that Materialistic-scientists are demanding
--even with a precise birthtime.
Environmental factors are involved, which are extraneous to the Chart.
Materialistic Science is itself uncertain
Hypocritical then, for it to demand certainty from Astrology.
So, hypothetically, could you use Traditional methods to predict someone's chosen profession with a high degree of certainty? In a cold reading?
advice given by four astrologersYes, birth times are another factor, but mostly irrelevant to most types of astrology I have seen - ofc if the birth times are not rounded and certain. The twin problem is a real problem in astrology. Yes, signs change on average every 2 hours. That means a 5 minute difference out of 120 covers 1/24 of cases, not that relevant when you think that proving astrology needs to cover 13 out 24 charts , with preferably more.
Science does not demand anything of astrology. Astrologers demand to be recognised as a science.
I would avoid tests that involve of matching professions like a plague as in this case - http://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/pseudoscience/astrology-test.html , first of all this is too ambiguous for me. For example one can be a marketing manager with a small business, while the Hotel Owner can own 10000$ a day hotel in the Maldives. A Meditation Trainer can be some popular lama or your local yoga teacher. I understand they were allowed quite a few questions, but if the difference is not noticeable, this are not the best conditions to prove astrology.
I think the best test for a traditional astrologer would be two or more charts, one of a pauper and the other of a king, tested a lot of times. Note that would be testing an anti-cold reading hypothesis. Cold reading and confirmation bias is the current explanation of all astrology. My point is to change that.
Diverse approaches to astrology is fine - I am ok with modern astrologers doing their thing. However, there is no universe in which sidereal and tropical and the different house systems are all true.
By the way, I am aware of some statistical tests, like the famous Mars effect done by Gauquelin, which although disputed by some, I find plausible.
[Deleted attacking comment. - Moderator]