|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Andrew Bevan
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4250
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject: Dark Matter |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Aftenposten 24 Nov: The part of the universe that we humans can see and observe, such as galaxies, stars and planets, makes up only a small part of what must exist out there, according to an article at forskning.no. Most astrophysicists agree that most of the universe - around 96 percent - consists of so-called dark matter and dark energy. |
Are astronomers telling us that there is something out there that they can't see and don't understand, and that this makes up 96% of the universe? 
The Google-bar provides and acceptable translation of the source article at Aftenposten into English.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dione T
Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Dark Matter |
|
|
| Andrew Bevan wrote: | there is something out there that they can't see and don't understand, and that this makes up 96% of the universe?
|
hehehe 
It'd be good to site arguments on whether astrophysics is a...science, given the fact they 'guess' the existence and attributes of something essentially unknown (yet).
Would make a good cross-reference along with the times their guessing went wrong. <.<
_________________
Be kind, but be brave.
http://wroskopos.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roseadison
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Andrew Bevan.
You are right. The are trying to prove the thing for that they have no proof.
_________________
brennessel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Lewicki
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here. Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge.
Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Lewicki wrote: | I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here. Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge.
Martin |
I'm afraid that like adolescents, most astrologers react against those whom they depend the most on. Where would astrology be without astronomers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Bevan
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4250
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here. |
Yes, but if scientists can't see and don't understand 96% of the Universe they are doing an aweful lot of whacking with the remaining 4%.
| Quote: | | Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge. |
This is also true. Our model of reality seems to be changing all the time. Science continues to make discoveries that introduces an entire new set of rules. Could I, as an astrologer, get away with saying that I only had a limited understanding of 4% of the logos?
I will say "Thank you" to Martin Lewicki, though. These comments should make us think. I do not believe the challenge of science should be offered as an excuse for astrology. There is the need to keep a clear and open mind. Commercialism is a common culprit.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
###
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1384
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm afraid that like adolescents, most astrologers react against those whom they depend the most on. Where would astrology be without astronomers? |
That might apply up to the Renaissance. But now their endeavors are completely alien to ours and provide us with little, if anything, that is necessary. The atmospheric gases of Jupiter? It might be interesting to know, but I don't come across much astrological delineation using the information astronomers have given us. Black holes? Maybe there's one conjoined my Ascendant that could offer up some insight.
I would say that these days philosophers are more appropriate companions with much more to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Lewicki
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Bevan wrote: |
Yes, but if scientists can't see and don't understand 96% of the Universe they are doing an aweful lot of whacking with the remaining 4%.
|
But that 4% is where 96%(?) of the complexity resides. Ignorance of a single bulk parameter is not a good way to gauge level of overall ignorance.
| Quote: |
[...]
Could I, as an astrologer, get away with saying that I only had a limited understanding of 4% of the logos?
|
Hmmm  How would you know how much of logos you don't know or how much is incorrect? Astrologers don't seem to be interested in this question?
Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Lewicki
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eddy wrote: | | Martin Lewicki wrote: | I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here. Most of science is stumbling through making informed guesses then testing often repeatedly and failing many times before discoveries are made that build on knowledge.
Martin |
I'm afraid that like adolescents, most astrologers react against those whom they depend the most on. Where would astrology be without astronomers? |
True. Eddy we need to also recognize that astronomy progressed partly due to use of ancient astronomical tables compiled for the use of astrology.
Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Bevan
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4250
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Lewicki wrote: | | Hmmm How would you know how much of logos you don't know or how much is incorrect? Astrologers don't seem to be interested in this question? |
Many astrologers are not even given a chance. The reason to the initial 'smugness' (although it was not intended) was that the website forskning.no (English=research.no) (funded by the government, by the way) wrote off some of my best mundane earthquake predictions and stockmarket estimates as 'Hobbit talk'. That was without looking into the foundation of my predictions. I was was utterly dismayed and disgusted by their causerie and lack of scientific approach, hence the smugness. It is a wonder to behold when scientists admit to the limitations of their knowledge, yet tend take it to the credit of themselves as scientists.
Astrology may have a credibility problem, but it may also be seen how some scientists (probably not the most credible) were both 'not bothering to turn certain stones' and departing from their own rules of scientific credidence.
I think it is a challenge to approach human behaviour as an exact science. This is one of the problems associated with the most common or generally known practices of astrology. That is why I sought to find testimony in the mundane: However, many scientific circles are predisposed against astrology. This doesn't 'save' astrology from the need of testimony, but it doesn't help when the inspecting body won't differenciate between various diversities of astrology.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Lewicki wrote: | True. Eddy we need to also recognize that astronomy progressed partly due to use of ancient astronomical tables compiled for the use of astrology.
Martin |
That's also true, there's a lot of reciprocity in the history of astrology/astronomy.
| Quote: | | Andrew Bevan wrote: | | Many astrologers are not even given a chance. The reason to the initial 'smugness' (although it was not intended) was that the website forskning.no (English=research.no) (funded by the government, by the way) wrote off some of my best mundane earthquake predictions and stockmarket estimates as 'Hobbit talk'. That was without looking into the foundation of my predictions. I was was utterly dismayed and disgusted by their causerie and lack of scientific approach, hence the smugness. It is a wonder to behold when scientists admit to the limitations of their knowledge, yet tend take it to the credit of themselves as scientists. |
|
Sorry to hear that Andrew, on the other side I can imagine the reluctance of researchers to examine the matter. Many times predictions caused unrest among the people in such a way that it might have been better that no prediction had been made. For example in Keith Thomas' book I mentioned in the Astrology&Astronomy thread the effect that weather predictions of the almanacs had on whole society. I hadn't realized that untill I read this and if I may allow myself to quote myself from the Mars-Saturn aspects thread: | Quote: | | That's also why I like weather predictions. I feel less reluctant in making concrete weather predictions for it's a rather innocent pass time. I don't think it will hurt people if the predictions prove incorrect unless people have bought skates for the allegedly cold December and it happens to be rainy and mild the whole month. |
In pre-industrial ages weather predictions would cause a 'chain of reactions' K.Thomas explains. A predicted bad summer would be similar to predicting a crop failure and a following famine. Farmers following the almanac would then lay in stock the products, so that the prices would rise and indeed a famine would occur.
Likewise with the earthquake predictions I spent some time on, I came up with some dates (related with Mars transiting the 22 july 2009 eclipse point but nothing occured on the specific dates, nor at the places I mentioned (Mariana Trench region), but now I can imagine what the making of this prediction would have caused in another type or age of society.
| Andrew Bevan wrote: | | I think it is a challenge to approach human behaviour as an exact science. This is one of the problems associated with the most common or generally known practices of astrology. That is why I sought to find testimony in the mundane: However, many scientific circles are predisposed against astrology. This doesn't 'save' astrology from the need of testimony, but it doesn't help when the inspecting body won't differenciate between various diversities of astrology. |
Again, Keith Thomas' fascinating book comes into mind where he displays the distrust of church people to astrology. The church people weren't opposed to science as such, however in some periods it was even hazardous to study mathematics and geometry. The main opposition towards astrology was because of the alleged predetermination in it. Another point was that astrologers fulfilling a advisatory function were seen as competing with the church who fullfilled a similar function.
| Keith Thomas wrote: | | The clergy and the satirists chased it to its grave but the scientists were unrepresented at the funeral. |
p.418 (I once read this quote in a book opposed to astrology, it has always remained in my mind.)
Astrology was thus also seen as rather a social science which according to the clergy was also to be distrusted because it could lead to a similar sort of predeterminatedness. And indeed even nowadays an exact approach of the social sciences results in strong oppostion. Whether we see it in the cause of say crime because of the milieu people are raised in or whether we see such criminal behaviour as something genetical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Bevan
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4250
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Eddy. Nice post. 
I have something churning in the back of my mind that isn't fully developed but I want to explore it anyhow:
Astrology attempts to understand appearances, while Science tries to understand absolutes. Also, scientists deal with a systematic accumulation of observations, yet when the focus shifts to the practice of such knowledge - the person still becomes an artist. I.e. medicine is a science, yet the practice of medicine is an art.
I must let the content of several posts sink in here and try to respond intelligenty further down the line. I do not think that every critisism of astrology is hostile, and astrologers should be asking questions regarding credibility. Both astronomers and scientists are responding more open-minded in the present than in the past. Astrology does need a sound sense of method. For there to be a mutual respect between astrophysics/science and astrology we have to understand the variables.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
penny seator
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 19
Location: California, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject: Dark Matter |
|
|
Thanks for this string, Andrew, and others.
| Quote: | | Astrology attempts to understand appearances, while Science tries to understand absolutes. Also, scientists deal with a systematic accumulation of observations, yet when the focus shifts to the practice of such knowledge - the person still becomes an artist. I.e. medicine is a science, yet the practice of medicine is an art. |
(I didn't read how to quote text here. Blame it on my ascendant.  I hope it works.)
I think we're being duped. What is science? The word "science" is from the Latin scientia whose verb form is scīre, “to know by the mind.” Traditionally, scienter arises from skilled practice of the arts. We know cosmos by practicing the art of astrology. Astrology is not science; it a means to realize scientia--science.
Modern physical science (which, along with other modern sciences, has arrogated the good old word "science") is knowledge of the structure of the corpus of cosmos. Science (unmodified) is knowledge of the structure of cosmos. Cosmos is an intelligent, communicative being--Adam Kadmon in Western tradition and Kāla Purusha in India. Through modern physical science, we know cosmos like a physician interested in only our vital signs measured by accepted instruments as a stand in for the body knows us. My physician has never looked through the window to my soul at me.
Modern physical scientists seek to know cosmos' body. Astrologers seek to know cosmos as an intelligent, communicative being. Both disciplines require a methodical approach that is stable enough to permit prediction that is based on the knowledge of the workings of cosmos (or its body) gleaned through devoted practice and well-developed, skillful use of the discipline's methods.
Traditionally, the physical world, or nature, is cosmos. When in the 17th century Galileo and others got very excited about being able to precisely measure cosmos' body and a lot of technological advances ensued (not the least important of which were machines of war--and Galileo was finally able to take care of some of his personal financial problems), people began to think that cosmos' body and methods used to know it were the whole show. Then, especially in the 18th century, they got pretty arrogant about it. Witness Bickerstaff and Poor Richard for the humorous tip of the iceberg. A very large iceberg sunk the Titanic. Nothing will sink astrology. It is the fundamental confirmation of the sacred and intelligent nature of cosmos, and explains so much about our human part in it all.
Astrologers know science. Modern scientists know modern science. Modern science has considerably narrowed its interests.
penny seator
Last edited by penny seator on Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr. farr
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent post, Penny! I come from a hermetic philosophical point of view and I appreciate what you say in your post (I also agree with Andrew Bevan and with much of what Eddy had to say in this thread) Those of us involved in alternative medicine are also subject to ridicule and repudiation by the "leadership" (educational and institutional) of the "modern" conventional medical establishment. All of us (astrologers and alternative health practitioners) are in the same "boat" vis-a-vis the scientific establishment, and believe me, it comes down to social, economic and even political considerations-not honest and genuinely scientific issues-relative to the attitudes and prejudices held against us. This is why the work we do, the researches we make, should be for our OWN edification, and should not be undertaken in the vain hope of convincing or converting the establishment.
Last edited by dr. farr on Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Bevan
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4250
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome to Skyscript, Penny!
There is something about the Artist having to show Skill, and Skill coming down to Technique, and Technique being based on Knowledge. I suppose there is an Art of Deception, but this would come down to manipulating Appearances. Maybe Science does represent something Absolute and Secure, but even then Science may be used to ventures of pollution and destruction, rather than to the better and good of Mankind and Mother Earth. What is the purpose of Science if it doesn't make the World a better place? Does Science solve problems, or is this an Art?
I am trying to figure out whether the discovery of Dark matter weakens the authoritive stand of Science or whether it is an occasion used to attempt and market the importance of the scientific mission. If the Unknown does leave the door open for astrology, this does not mean we can rush in without following certain rules. Maybe Science even will discover that large portions of Creation does not make sense? There is Random, Natural selection and Cyclic Behaviour.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
Skyscript on Facebook