I think this might be the right place to post this, not certain, but thought regardless of its locality, it is an interesting subject to discuss!

this is from AFAN and concerns a City council meeting in St Petersberg Florida

St. Petersburg city council agenda

_http://www.stpete. org/LegisStream/ publishedmeeting s.htm_
(http://www.stpete. org/LegisStream/ publishedmeeting s.htm)

from main page, _http://www.stpete. org/council/ index.asp_
(http://www.stpete. org/council/ index.asp)

Agenda for 8:30 am council meeting on June 4 2009
..?.
7. _Ordinance 932-G amending Sections 17-226 through 17-255 of the
St. Petersburg City Code, related to fortunetelling. _
(http://www.stpete. org/LegisStream/ MG210099/ AS210100/ AS210106/ AS210107/ AI213460/ Documents. htm)

Click on the document on the right for a .pdf, "fortuntelling" . The
council appears to want to set a code requiring a business license of anyone
*conducting business* in astrology, fortunetelling, etc. Ministers are
exempted (something I find rather ridiculous).

G: with a follow up from another person

Urgent-Please pass on.
Tomorrow Thursday June 4th @ 8:30am meeting with City Council Members
If you live in ST Petersburg FL please show up at
175 5th St NE
Municipal Building
2ND Floor
Object to the limitations imposed on Astrologers (and other in the healing and divination modalities)
Pass this on to anyone who supports our cause! Pass this on so someone may know someone in FL who will support our cause.
Astrologers unite against unfair laws. Donna Page

G: My thoughts on this was... What laws should be applied to astrologers? we all know there are unethical con artists out there? How does one bring astrology out of the sewer and back to legitimacy?

anyway thought I'd post for those that might be interested? possibly it belongs in Philosophical section? not certain, but thought it worth discussing!

Granny

The URL is wonky - I took out the spaces and still got a page not found.

Can you post the URL 'as is' by copy/pasting it here, please?

http://www.stpete.org/LegisStream/publishedmeetings.htm

you have to scroll down to item 7 and there is a PDF of the ordinence in question.

the meeting happens tomorrow and can be viewed on the web at

http://stpete.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

they archive them afterwards so you can pullit up at a later time if you are busy at the time it occurs.

though my real interest is ... what kind of laws do you think should apply to Astrologers?

G

I couldn't find any info on the links.

It seems to me it's a bit dependent on what is going to enable someone to apply for this business licence.

Are they going to expect someone to be a 'trained' fortune teller? If so this will be tricky since the astrological community is a bit diverse and standards are so varied. Also there's little agreement as to what astrology is and how it should be manipulated.

Personally I like the idea of 'official' training and regulation but this will require astrology to get it's house in order first and I'm not holding my breath on this one. Did it ever have much legitimacy?

But on the face of it then as long as other 'fortune tellers', such as more mainstream religous groups, are required to do the same then it may have some fairness/logic to it.

Would this mean someone who gives 'free readings' could be prosecuted?

Trevor, astrology used to be taught at university, often in conjunction with medicine. It was a subject for the best and brightest.

William Lilly obtained a warrant against a thief on the basis of a horary chart.

Royals and wealthy families were the ones who mostly used natal astrologers, and horary astrologers, too, and it was how everything from marriages to wars to the founding of cities was planned, so yes, it was certainly legitimate at one time, though like every other profession, it's had its quacks - and fortune telling being what it is, probably more than our share.

You can get a degree in astrology at places like Kepler, and I think Lampeter now, which in one way is wonderful, but I wouldn't like to see us go down the road of certification and officialdom. Education I'm greatly in favour of, but - well, we've had the certification argument before.

HI OLIVIA,

Legitimate is all a bit time and place.

Astrology enjoys some legitimacy in terms of an entertainment product , some scientists are open to the idea that the time of year you are born could effect behaviour and even a minority of psychotherapists (who are not seen as the most legitimate of monkeys) think astrology may have a constructive role in the therapeutic exchange.

I think Lampeter is the way forward and if astrology reintegrates itself into academia then it may be some kind of serious regulatory body forms itself. But I don't see this happening for some time. Until some empirical evidence surfaces it will remain as a 'religion', although astrologers don't tend to like this description.

I can't see many courts embracing a horary chart these days, although i recall the Adams story where she persuaded a Judge not to penalise her for fortune telling impressed by her accuracy or integrity or legs or a combination. This wasn't that long ago in the scheme of things.

In India it still has some cultural 'legitimacy' ,although having spoken to a few folks from this country they do say it's treated with a pinch of salt a lot of the time and akin to us westerners getting a church blessing after a registry marriage, i.e to please grandma who has her eye on a place in heaven. But I don't know if it could be utilised 'legitimately' in the Indian legal system today?

Education without examination is all a bit subjective isn't it? It will ensure the current anyone can set up as an astrologer and say what ever comes into their heads, or is put into their heads from dubious sources, situation which is 'astrology world' today.

References to astrology's golden age(s), when it was seen as being a noble and essential subject to study, is perhaps not always sensible to remind people of. The usual response is not much was 'known' about many things back in those yesterdays so inevitably homosapiens seeked superstitious 'meanings' in all sorts of innocent ways.

Astrology is so inherently dangerous that one would hope that somehow people could be protected more from the 'this will happen' and the 'this could be everyone' charlatans. But how this can be legislated against would take some further analysis.

'education without examination', I chuckled a bit over this, mainly because the best scientists in the world do educate themselves as there are no books to go by in the realms they go. Astrology used to be "the education" the famous mathematicians you may know, such as plutarch, tycho brahe etc. created new mathematical theorems to figure out complex astrological issues. There are modern scientists who turn their noses up at astrology because it is the "politically correct" thing to do, as they generally dont know jack about astrology, they can't make an educated arguement either for or against it. Then there are those scientists who happen to enjoy astrology, me for example, or Bernadette Brady, etc... I find your arguement Flimsey.

There are astrological associations and there are places that teach astrology. I think the arguement to treat astrology like a religion is that people speak in terms of "do you believe in..." a religion is a belief system, ergo that is one reason to treat it in such a manner.

Humorously enough I think the same can be said for any educational subject. Science, History, math, etc... is all a point of view. it is surprising how many people dont know that Math is a philosophy.

once you get to graduate and post graduate work, there are NO examinations as such, because you are supposed to be working in unproven areas, there is only experimentation and theorems and proofs. at least theorhetically, most masters level stuff is examinable, and Phd level is generally persuasion and proofs.

G.

granny_skot wrote:'education without examination', I chuckled a bit over this, mainly because the best scientists in the world do educate themselves as there are no books to go by in the realms they go. Astrology used to be "the education" the famous mathematicians you may know, such as plutarch, tycho brahe etc. created new mathematical theorems to figure out complex astrological issues. There are modern scientists who turn their noses up at astrology because it is the "politically correct" thing to do, as they generally dont know jack about astrology, they can't make an educated arguement either for or against it. Then there are those scientists who happen to enjoy astrology, me for example, or Bernadette Brady, etc... I find your arguement Flimsey.

once you get to graduate and post graduate work, there are NO examinations as such, because you are supposed to be working in unproven areas, there is only experimentation and theorems and proofs. at least theorhetically, most masters level stuff is examinable, and Phd level is generally persuasion and proofs.

G.

Usually someone is awarded a PhD after a piece of 'work' is submitted and it's quality assessed against a certain criteria, so isn't it examined and a set of letters the result, or not?

But I know you can buy a Phd on the web, which is pretty much where astrology is overall. In the 'field', as it were, some schools or courses have more 'peer credibility' than others but it's all a bit 'word of mouth' and very subjective, isn't it?

I'm (technically) a scientist who finds astrology fascinating although in my area people are quite open to some astrological ''truth claims''. But allowing someone to officially operationalise this 'belief' is another ball game.

Which I think this thread was intended to address?

I have to agree with Granny. I like science, have even worked in research pretty extensively (including neuropsychiatry, but that's an entirely different animal to psychotherapy), but astrology isn't a science by the current paradigm - it doesn't deal in repeatable events. It simply can't. Try to do that with it and you end up with sun-sign columns - which I grant are entertaining, but even psychological astrologers delve deeper into astrology than that.

I'd be loathe to see astrology become nothing but an adjunct to psychotherapy - psychotherapy isn't my religion, and it would diminish astrology to nothingness - it would be saying astrology has no merit on its own.

See how it works? You have pretty similar feelings about astrology as 'nothing but divination'.

You're going to have charlatans anyway. I think I already talked about how that happens in science. Often people aren't even aware of their biases. There's all kinds of scientific dogma out there that has not a shred of evidence behind it, and quite a lot of evidence against it. It's still dogma, no matter that scientists are the presenters, and not popes these days. See, even in scientific experimentation, people are going to filter their perceptions through their belief paradigms, and scientists are no exception. I grant some scientists try not to do that, but there's no guarantee. There really isn't. And processes like peer review have become a joke in many cases. Who's watching the guardians?

So we come back to that concept of critical thinking. It's the only way to get through the mess at all.

But fortunately for you and me, astrology isn't regulated. So you can learn it and use it as a therapeutic adjunct all you like, and I can learn it and use it as divination. And we don't have to start burning books. Or burning people. Or taking away the options of people who want to consult astrologers. If astrology had to be part of modern psychology, I'd give it up. Just like you'd probably throw it away if all you could do was divine with it.

Olivia wrote:I have to agree with Granny. I like science, have even worked in research pretty extensively (including neuropsych, but that's an entirely different animal to psychotherapy), but astrology isn't a science by the current paradigm - it doesn't deal in repeatable events. It simply can't. Try to do that with it and you end up with sun-sign columns - which I grant are entertaining, but even psychological astrologers delve deeper into astrology than that.
.

This may surprise you but the raison d' etre of Psychological Astrology is to delve deeper into astrology than has been the case up until now, although some of these theorists would say they are returning to the depths of the source.

Although it reminds me of that old chestnut ' is the kingdom of god within or without'.

However I'm inclined to agree with Bill, or my interpretation of his thoughts, who posted the other day that Astrology's 'workings' will be uncovered by Cognitive Neuro-Psychologists at some point since it's a human construct. Although what they might find is not necessarily going to be as 'reductive' as some folks might imagine, We will see, or probably not, as I imagine all of us will be very decomposed by this time.

I doubt that, somehow - the workings bit.

I think (maybe?) we can agree that astrology is not a science, nor is it verifiable as such in the current scientific paradigm. I just read Bill's post - so you're also agreeing that science deals in repeatable experiments and astrology does anything but?

Astrology is pretty fringe in mainstream society. Somewhere well beyond fringe in the hard sciences.

Why do you say astrology is currently so 'inherently dangerous' that its practitioners want certification and licencing, and who's qualified to certify and licence them? What substantial harms are currently happening to - the public? astrologers? the world? that this wants doing? Cos I'm missing the 'inherently dangerous' bit completely. I can't see any grave damage being done to people by the study or use of astrology, nor does it seem to have produced significant harm in the past.

I do not catagorize astrology as only science, it has parts of science in its make up, you couldn't really get deeply into astrology without AStronomy, nor its philosophical partner Mathamatics, nor without psychology, which I also dont think of as a science. but hey, that is why this things have their own titles istn' it? psychology is not physics, History is not literature... well okay sometimes history is literature but History has its own set of naysayers. etc...

but it is largely based on observation of when this occurs, (some astronomical event) then People tend to behave this way (mars conj merc would be ego involved in communications for example, that is observable behavior)

here is an article about the outcome of the council meeting
http://blogs.tampabay.com/baybuzz/2009/ ... nance.html

which I find interesting because you have astrologers thrown in with every other group. but it is interesting none the less.

Granny