skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
A Correct Prediction: the NYC buiding strike, 1991
by Robert E. Zoller
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven, by David W. Pankenier
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Dark Matter
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dione T



Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 39

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Lewicki wrote:
I detect a sense of antiscience smugness here.

Science is often known through the centuries to try and act religion-like, "we know all or at least we have the way of know it all".
In cases that science is clueless they cloud it. In cases they do mistakes is always a "well next time we will do it perfectly". In the - many - cases they do it right is "told'ya".

Indeed science (in any form) is a superb tool but at the same time scientists reserve the right to be wrong solely for their art. This entitles me to be smug I believe. I judge from the inside due to my physics studies.

Astrology is another superb tool that works. Sometimes it works like quantum physicists:
Q: Why are quantum physicists so poor at sex?
A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.
_________________
Be kind, but be brave.

http://wroskopos.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Lewicki



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Bevan wrote:
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.


This is like asking whether the failure of astrologers to prove that astrology is not illusion at work weakens the authoritative stance of Astrology. In fact it seems the opposite!

In the case of dark matter there is actually the measurable evidence that something is happening. Astrology has yet to provide measurements (rather than belief and opinion) that there is something to it. So far there is the Gauquelin "measurements" - but these are largely ignored and even denigrated by astrologers and skeptics alike.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
penny seator



Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 19
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Lewicki wrote:
In the case of dark matter there is actually the measurable evidence that something is happening. Astrology has yet to provide measurements (rather than belief and opinion) that there is something to it. So far there is the Gauquelin "measurements" - but these are largely ignored and even denigrated by astrologers and skeptics alike.


Astrologers continually measure the quality, quantity and direction of planetary influences. Modern physicial scientists measure using the functional equivalents of clocks and yardsticks. Astrologers measure using the terms of astrology. We say the angular houses are strongest. Strongest is a measure. We can measure the influence of planets in angular houses by saying they express 100% of their virtue, those in succedent houses 50% and those in cadent houses 25%. We say that a powerfully placed planet that disposes other key planets is highly influential and very powerful. We measure how successful or unsuccessful, lasting or temporary, ethical or unethical, difficult or easy, refined or unrefined realization of particular house matters will be. With forecasting techniques, we meaure periods of time. And so on. We are big measurers.

I think the Gauquelin studies are very important. They are incontrovertible evidence of the precise numerical kind of astral influence on human affairs--tied, moreover, to the principal determining points of the chart, the angles, especially ascendant and midheaven. That people's jaws aren't dropping over those results, especially the jaws of those most set on the idea that astrology is false, shows how tenaciously we human beings cling to our preconceptions and how really difficult it can be to get through to us with the simple and apparent truth. Galileo knew about that problem. Not only the members of the Office of the Inquisition had a hard time understanding. Some peripatetic philosophers refused to look through Galileo's new spyglass to simply see what he was pointing at. It's a little harder to see astrology at work--something that takes some instruction, study and practice--than to see the craters of the Moon, phases of Venus or Jupiter's moons through a telescope, but it could be done with even a crack of open-mindedness and a dollop of willingness.

penny seator
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Penny wrote:

Quote:
Modern physical scientists seek to know cosmos' body. Astrologers seek to know cosmos as an intelligent, communicative being.


Some short and sweet and undoubtedly simplistic statements:

Scientists seek descriptive fact through intended personal separation and distance. Astrologers seek meaning and guidance through intended personal involvement with and interpretation of that descriptive fact.

Scientists step aside and then observe and relate their findings to others. Astrologers step within and then observe and relate their findings to others.

Astrologers are philosophers. (Whether they realize it or not. It sure would be refreshing to see fewer statistical attempts.) Scientists are errant philosophers (In the laboratory, anyway. They tend to leave their musings at home in front of the fireplace.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4484
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
Astrologers are philosophers.

Perfect! Thumbs up

I am still hampered by the fact that I sent NORSAR (seismic institute Norway) a telefax on 16 June 1990 warning an Earthquake in Iraq,and 2 days later 47.000 people died in such an Earthquake. Link

The seismic institute had an internal debate and decided against picking up the phone to ask me how I had done it. I never heard anything from them. What went on waas reported to me from third parties who did not know I was the astrologer who had performed the work. Sad

The seismologs/scientists were granted resources. I hadn't got a penny. This sort of work can certainly not deepened without funding. Not everything I did in this field gave the same results - and I also wavered my approach. However, the results should have been significant enough for examination. Neither do astrologers have the possibility to work according to the elimination method in the same way as scientists.

Credibility is still a problem and a challange.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
penny seator



Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 19
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
Scientists step aside and then observe and relate their findings to others. Astrologers step within and then observe and relate their findings to others.


That's the difference, I think, between looking at things as objects to be measured with yardsticks and clocks for primarily technological ends and entering into an intersubjective relationship with an intelligent and communicative being.

That is a dark matter you speak of, Andrew. (I'd quote, but I don't see yet how to quote from two different posts.) The obscurity of minds that will not look in order to see. By elimination method you mean falsification as philosophers of science talk about it, or is it something else? Have you been able to make your results and their rejection followed by tens of thousands of deaths public?

penny seator
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3127
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A while back it was black holes, invisible pot holes of space so dense they manage to suck light. Now it is dark matter. Both are necessary to exist in order to support previous hypotheses, so by God they will exist! With the recent climate scandal fresh in our minds, we are well aware of the extremes scientists will go to in order to protect pet theories. I'm no physicist, but when I read these things, John Frawley's description of the modern worldview as a "ramshackle edifice" is what first pops into mind. This view isn't so much anti science as it is anti scientist. The most off the wall astrologers are usually honest even if they are misguided. Can we say the same about scientists?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...John Frawley's description of the modern worldview as a "ramshackle edifice" is what first pops into mind. This view isn't so much anti science as it is anti scientist. The most off the wall astrologers are usually honest even if they are misguided. Can we say the same about scientists?
I don't agree with this. The strength of science that it is based upon proof after a theory/hypothesis has been made. The theory of the Earth's rotation was definitely proven by Foucault's pendulum. The Trans Neptunian Objects or Kuiper Belt Objects was based upon a theory of the astronomer Gerard Kuiper. The first TNO's/KBO's were discovered about 20 years after his death, so his theory was proven. Without Brahe, Kepler and Newton we would have no good ephemerides, calculating exact solar returns and primary directions would be impossible etc etc.

About a year ago I found a website of a Dutch ex-astrologer, Rudolf Smit, who cooperates with other researchers like Dean, Mather etc. They are quite reasonable. Instead of immediately dismissing astrology they see some values of astrology.

Garry Phillipson interviewed them, http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/phillintv.pdf (70 pages)
Interesting is that they point out that most of the disagreement between scientists and astrologers is that they look from a different point of view 'subjective' versus 'objective' (p.7). Scientists want proof and therefore have an objective proof. They will research astrology this way, testing astrological issues like for example the alleged connection between extraversion/introversion and positive/negative signs. The researchers' conclusions from an objective point of view have been negative allover. Another point of view, they say, still could make astrology very valuable. From the interview it follows that astrologers have the subjective view. Rather than scientific proof these emphasize the meaning of astrology for the life of clients. It follows that different systems that even contradict eachother are said to be useful anyhow. The comparison with religion is made. I think they have a point there.

However the problem is that the more negative findings day make the more astrology has to retreat in the subjective region. This is what we see with modern astrology. It has retreated in the subjective region by allowing many different meanings to similar issues. For example a Saturn square to Mars in the natal chart will be seen as 'bad' in more traditional astrology, modern astrology doesn't necessarily so and sees in this placement a 'challenge' by which the owner of the chart can 'grow'. Unfortunately this has lead to an 'anything goes' astrology in which the chart is adapted to the personality.

Especially since the 20th century by the writings of Rudhyar and Jones inspired by Jung and Theosophy the connection between planets and astrology have been dissolving. Any of the ancient views of physical effects are entirely dismissed. Also particular effects ascribed to certain planets are dismissed and meanings of planets are made personal and each time different.

Yet, at the moment there's still this connection between an objective fact and subjective astrology, namely the need for a birthtime and -place. This still makes astrology connected to the physical planets, and therefore the scientific view will require a demonstrable proof of the connection between person and planets. If the development of the retreat into the subjective view in modern astrology pursues then I predict that one day there will be a therapeutical 'astrology' in which no birth chart is used. Instead, the client, after a short introduction to the meaning of the planets, houses, signs etc, will be given the opportunity to express his/her feelings on a personal problem through placing planets in the placements according to these feelings.

Feeling more attracted to the objective view, I don't really like the developement into the necessarily vague subjective area, disconnected from the physical planets. However I tend to believe in research and if any research continues to be negative for astrology, then I would find it difficult to reject this offhand. On the other side, the suggestion of an astrology without natal charts or anything connected to a certain moment and place would have the advantage of giving clients a more sense of control over their life. However, could this still be called astrology?


Last edited by Eddy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3127
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not the point. No one said science gets everything wrong. The point is that their worldview gets skewed by their falling in love with themselves, and they become borderline violent when someone challenges it. Try to disagree with Darwinism for example. Try to question it. If they believed their own PR, they would welcome intelligent discourse. Instead they try to bury it. If they are wrong about anything, we won't know it until the edifice crumbles as all ramshackle edifices do. They still hang on to their beliefs even after it has crumbled. The ongoing exposure of the global warming hoax hasn't changed many scientists' minds at all. They remain in denial. This is not a good example to set, if their goal is to tell the rest of us how to think and live. That they mange to do something right once in a while is less comforting to me than it is to others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, I had been adding something at the same time as your post
Tom. The library is closing now, I hope to join again soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe something like this was tried before, but a time wasn't elected to start it.

Andrew, your work being ignored verges on the criminal, it really does.

But - trying to be pragmatic here - is there some way to start some kind of astrological research institute - one that gives grants for studying things like earthquake predictions, and other things that we, theoretically, at least, should be able to do?

Again, I read of something like this once before, but it was stated that no time was elected for it.

Do we have any financial astrology wizards here? Because I don't think that this is going to come through by way of normal government funding, there's no longer a patronage system, and even most astrologers today proudly proclaim that ASTROLOGY ABSOLUTELY CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE! for their motto. Ugh.

All I can think of at the moment. Anyone else got any ideas?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4484
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivia wrote:
...even most astrologers today proudly proclaim that ASTROLOGY ABSOLUTELY CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE!

As astrologers we can predict the future - occasionally and sometimes only. In my opinion it is equally important that we create models for the future, try to express them in an intelligent language and weigh up the options. From this point we may contribute to discerning what might be the most favourable course of action for the future. As astrologers we may provide food for reasoning and thought.

As an astrologer I also enjoy to simply spend time with my eyes open, trying to track down phenomena that expresses the astrological language. In other settings I like to stick my head into the dark simply to see whether there may be disclosed some sort of sense or fashion. More often than not, there are more questions than answers, and that is the way it is supposed to be. It does not mean that astrology does not work or have any meaning.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Lewicki



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46

Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
That's not the point. No one said science gets everything wrong. The point is that their worldview gets skewed by their falling in love with themselves, and they become borderline violent when someone challenges it. Try to disagree with Darwinism for example. Try to question it. If they believed their own PR, they would welcome intelligent discourse. Instead they try to bury it. If they are wrong about anything, we won't know it until the edifice crumbles as all ramshackle edifices do. They still hang on to their beliefs even after it has crumbled. The ongoing exposure of the global warming hoax hasn't changed many scientists' minds at all. They remain in denial. This is not a good example to set, if their goal is to tell the rest of us how to think and live. That they mange to do something right once in a while is less comforting to me than it is to others.


Tom this also sounds just like many astrologers that I have met over the decades in astrology societies.

If I question that astrology has problems that some of it could be delusion the outcry has all of the vehemence you describe above.

One example was the common belief that when Mercury is retrograde there are more than average problems with transport and communications. After several years of documenting events both personally and in the media I found this to be untrue.

I suggested that when Mercury is retrograde we tend to cherry pick and see things going wrong, and when Mercury is direct we ignore everything that goes wrong.

I guess that was a mistake. I was given suspicious looks and admonished.

I did suggest that Mercury retrograde might still mean something subjectively - but no they would not have it.

Many astrologers are just like anyone else who is convinced of their "rightness". They tolerate no dissenters. Questioning astrology in this way is tantamount to heresy and can get you black-listed.

By contrast I have found many scientists that I work with are less hostile than you indicate. In fact I find many of them would possibly be open to something like astrology but would be certainly put off by some of the hard line astrologers that I have encountered.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fact is that dogmatism and emotional investment in beliefs and belief systems infect almost all those fields of human endeavor which cannot be reduced to pure mechanics.

Then there is the matter of finding "TRUTH" vs applying models which "work" in producing results on a practical, "blue collar" level. The philosopher, metaphysician and scientist seek "TRUTH"; others seek reliable practical results and will apply various models (organons) in order to obtain such results, regardless of the (absolute) "TRUTH" or (actual) absurdity of the model (organon) they use to obtain those practical results. Problems begin when dogmatism and emotional investment in a belief of the "TRUTH" of the working model occurs, or when the totally erroneous concepts of "it works therefore it must be true" OR "for something to work it has to be true" enter the mind. Many undertakings "work" (produce results, often consistent results) for reasons which are actually very different than the reasons the person doing the undertaking believes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3127
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Many astrologers are just like anyone else who is convinced of their "rightness". They tolerate no dissenters. Questioning astrology in this way is tantamount to heresy and can get you black-listed.


I agree and I think this has more to do with human nature than it does with any particular field. Thomas Jefferson once said "Error of opinion can be tolerated as long as freedom is allowed to combat it," or something like that. The freedom part is where we seem to get hung up.

Another phenomenon I've been noticing is the similarities between "Science" and the medieval church. In fact a case can be made that the medieval church was more tolerant than contemporary science - however the penalties for pushing things too far were a bit harsher in the middle ages. The global warming fiasco makes this case perfectly. We were told over and over again how many scientists bought into this and that the consensus sealed the deal. Consensus is the antithesis of real science, not to mention the overwhelming number of scientists that we now know didn't buy into man made global warming in the first place. There was once a consensus that germ theory was nonsense, not to mention the consensus of truly great minds that the Sun revolved around the earth. But there was money and prestige for scientists and politicians who knew how to manipulate this just right. East Anglia's e-mails are Richard Nixon's tapes.

Astrology, being made up of humans is no different, but the stakes are a lot smaller. A couple of years back we all dumped on Glenn Perry for his dumping on traditional astrology. Perhaps our behavior in this matter (mine included) was less than gracious. His was idiotic. He did everything but call us heretics. Yet those of us who have become enthralled with traditional astrology have been guilty of similar acts ourselves. OK so we're human, now what? This is the freedom part of Jefferson's observation. You and I may say or think and argue as we wish, and if we are a bit intolerant of one another, that doesn't matter as long as we have the freedom to pursue our beliefs. The truth will win out.

That's nice in theory, but in practice, the truth often needs money and other resources to win out and when two sides are competing for the same limited amount of money, it is somewhat natural to do what one can to eliminate the competition then dig in, if enough competition says "you're wrong." But we should never eliminate the freedom and we should combat the injustice. This is precisely the opposite of the global warming hoaxers. Once they started rigging some data and destroying other data they as much as admitted they knew they were wrong, but for money and power they kept it up. And they are scientists - the new priestly caste.

Astrology has a tough road to travel in the legitimacy game. We have tons of information about the practice of our art, but we lack organization because of what is mentioned above. People attracted to positions of leadership in astrology and I'm sure elsewhere, are less interested in promoting our art than they are in telling other people what to do. We aren't going to get anywhere that way.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated