Ptolemy's reputation as a great scientist and astronomer was greatly damaged after the publication of the book : prof.Robert Newton, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, John Hopkins University Press, 1977.The book's author is Robert R. Newton of the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University who says flatly: "Ptolemy is not the greatest astronomer of antiquity, but he is something still more unusual: He is the most sucessful fraud in the history of science."

Other engagements have kept me away from the forum over the past week, and are likely to do so again over the week to come. Let me just make two general comments on posts directly or indirectly addressing/referencing my work:

1. I have no quarrel at all with the statements that 'sign' and 'place' (= 'house' in modern parlance) are often used synonymously in ancient sources, or that, in practice, signs were often used as houses by ancient astrologers. Those who think they are dealing death blows to my recent paper by adducing such examples either have not read the paper or have somehow managed to do so while completely missing the central argument. I am not sure which is more discouraging.

2. With regard to authorities and translations: of course we all need to use translations to a greater or lesser extent (I myself don't read Arabic or Hebrew). But it is important to understand that a translator is rarely a transparent medium, and comparing different translations (if available) can be a good idea. Using translations is not the same as an argument from authority, though (for which, see here). In a situation where people can't agree on who, if anyone, is an authority in the first place (and why), such arguments are particularly useless and tiresome.

Alll the extant Byzantine horoscopes that Thomas Gazis has in his hands are using the Porphyry (or some Porphyry variation) House System! If you wonder why this is meaningful, it is because Byzantine astrology is the direct descendant of the Hellenistic astrology and it precedes by entire centuries the Arabic astrology!


Carl wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:39 am
Deb wrote:Here is the original presentation (60 mins)

I gather CB's follow-up went on for nearly 7 hours. I won't be watching any of it or commenting on his comments, etc - not interested in where I have heard he took this. I'll just carry on with my own stuff.
Just check 01.38.00 Koch mentioned wsh in his book Horoskop und himmelshausern
Ah interesting


Deb wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 10:53 am I also like Tony's post, and commented on it last night to say so. Said I was happy with his summary, paraphrased account of my position (because I didn't want to spend too many hours pointing out how what he put on the page wasn't exactly what I said, in the right order, etc) :D

With regard to Morin - I'd just like to see that point removed from the discussion as not even worth considering. It is a negative point IMO - showing only how desperately astrologers try to find evidence of the use of Whole Sign in places where it doesn't exist, and to think that it does requires us to ignore almost everything the astrologer has ever said and done.

Margherita Fiorello did a good job of debunking this one on her Facebook page - worth reading
on this link.
Link broken