-58+126+(Spectral+Transform).JPG){kind=spacer}
I stumbled upon a website for astronomy students: "Astronomy 10". In Lecture 4, after information about the history of astronomy, 11 questions are posed, following this statement :
"Ptolemy also codified the pseudoscience of astrology into the form which is still in use today. That just goes to show that great genius is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Using my own knowledge and experience of astrology, which is limited as compared to that of professional astrologers, I've attempted to test myself by answering these :
Skeptical Questions for Astrology:
1. What is the likelihood that 1/12th of the world's population is having the same kind of day?
There is no likelihood at all. This proposition is based purely on Sun sign astrology. Anyone who had bothered to obtain a bare minimum of astrological knowledge would never pose such a question.
2.Why is the moment of birth and not conception critical?
The moment of birth, the first moment that a human being breathes and encounters the Earth independent of his/her mother has been seen over many centuries to be the significant marker upon which a birth chart can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. The moment of conception, if it could ever be acccurately established (very unlikely) may also have some significance, but there is no way to obtain accurate date and time.
3.If the mother's womb can keep out astrological influences until birth, can we do the same with a cubicle of steak?
No. The baby grows, part of its mother, using the mother's system. A cubicle of steak is a cubicle of steak, nothing more. Silly question - this from a university!
4. If astrologers are as good as they claim, why aren't they richer?
Some are quite rich, some are poor, some practice astrology only as a second occupation. As in all walks of life, it depends how well they do their job, how well they promote themselves, where they live, etc. etc. No different from any other profession. This question hints at an idea that astrologers should be able to predict results in gambling or financial dealings - my personal opinion is that they cannot do so, most do not claim to be able to do so.
5.Are all the horoscopes done before the discovery of the three outermost planets incorrect?
No. The outer planets mainly affect generations rather than individuals, due to the planets' slow rate of movement. Including the outer planets in astrological interpretation adds extra information and depth, but does not render astrological work done without them incorrect.
6.Shouldn't we condemn astrology as a form of bigotry?
Bigotry!? No, but the condemning of astrology as useless superstition, without due investigation, might be categorised as bigotry. The definition of bigotry is "being blindly and obstinately devoted to a party or creed." Those who see astrology working are not blind. Those who refuse to learn more about the subject before expressing an opinion are both obstinate and blind, devoted to their creed of skepticism.
7. Why do different schools of astrology disagree so strongly with each other?
They do not "disagree strongly". They use different approaches, the destination of all approaches is the same, different roads are taken
8. If the astrological influence is carried by a known force, why do the planets dominate?
Astrologers do not claim any "known force". Astrologers do not know how and why astrology "works", there are theories. Astrology is a process, or tool which has been designed to try to disentangle and use a natural phenomenon. That phenomenon has been observed over many centuries, without its source being understood. Observation of planetary cycles, over time, has led to astrologers' theory that these movements and cycles are a predominant factor.
9. If astrological influence is carried by an unknown force, why is it independent of distance?
See previous answer.
10. If astrological influences don't depend on distance, why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.?
There is astrology of fixed stars, this is used by some astrologers. Maybe some day galaxies and quasars will be studied in relation to astrology. Not enough is known at present.
11.Why can twins have different fates?
For many reasons. Time of birth is always different, by several minutes. Some twins are fraternal rather than identical, and will therefore carry different gene structure. Astrological factors can manifest in subtly different ways. Astrological factors are not the only thing to consider. The way the twins were raised is an important factor, were they treated absolutely equally by parents and others? Were they both influenced by the same external factors throughout life? No two snowflakes are exactly the same - as with snowflakes, so with humans. The general pattern in the life of twins can often be seen to be similar, however.
*****************************
My own general opinion, for what it's worth: astrological factors are one tiny, but important, strand in the whole web of life. Astrologers make heroic attempts to disentangle astrological factors from the myriad of others. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. The phenomenon involved isn't even partly understood, it's not surprising that efforts of researchers to find indisputable proof can fail.
"Ptolemy also codified the pseudoscience of astrology into the form which is still in use today. That just goes to show that great genius is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Using my own knowledge and experience of astrology, which is limited as compared to that of professional astrologers, I've attempted to test myself by answering these :
Skeptical Questions for Astrology:
1. What is the likelihood that 1/12th of the world's population is having the same kind of day?
There is no likelihood at all. This proposition is based purely on Sun sign astrology. Anyone who had bothered to obtain a bare minimum of astrological knowledge would never pose such a question.
2.Why is the moment of birth and not conception critical?
The moment of birth, the first moment that a human being breathes and encounters the Earth independent of his/her mother has been seen over many centuries to be the significant marker upon which a birth chart can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. The moment of conception, if it could ever be acccurately established (very unlikely) may also have some significance, but there is no way to obtain accurate date and time.
3.If the mother's womb can keep out astrological influences until birth, can we do the same with a cubicle of steak?
No. The baby grows, part of its mother, using the mother's system. A cubicle of steak is a cubicle of steak, nothing more. Silly question - this from a university!
4. If astrologers are as good as they claim, why aren't they richer?
Some are quite rich, some are poor, some practice astrology only as a second occupation. As in all walks of life, it depends how well they do their job, how well they promote themselves, where they live, etc. etc. No different from any other profession. This question hints at an idea that astrologers should be able to predict results in gambling or financial dealings - my personal opinion is that they cannot do so, most do not claim to be able to do so.
5.Are all the horoscopes done before the discovery of the three outermost planets incorrect?
No. The outer planets mainly affect generations rather than individuals, due to the planets' slow rate of movement. Including the outer planets in astrological interpretation adds extra information and depth, but does not render astrological work done without them incorrect.
6.Shouldn't we condemn astrology as a form of bigotry?
Bigotry!? No, but the condemning of astrology as useless superstition, without due investigation, might be categorised as bigotry. The definition of bigotry is "being blindly and obstinately devoted to a party or creed." Those who see astrology working are not blind. Those who refuse to learn more about the subject before expressing an opinion are both obstinate and blind, devoted to their creed of skepticism.
7. Why do different schools of astrology disagree so strongly with each other?
They do not "disagree strongly". They use different approaches, the destination of all approaches is the same, different roads are taken
8. If the astrological influence is carried by a known force, why do the planets dominate?
Astrologers do not claim any "known force". Astrologers do not know how and why astrology "works", there are theories. Astrology is a process, or tool which has been designed to try to disentangle and use a natural phenomenon. That phenomenon has been observed over many centuries, without its source being understood. Observation of planetary cycles, over time, has led to astrologers' theory that these movements and cycles are a predominant factor.
9. If astrological influence is carried by an unknown force, why is it independent of distance?
See previous answer.
10. If astrological influences don't depend on distance, why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies, quasars, etc.?
There is astrology of fixed stars, this is used by some astrologers. Maybe some day galaxies and quasars will be studied in relation to astrology. Not enough is known at present.
11.Why can twins have different fates?
For many reasons. Time of birth is always different, by several minutes. Some twins are fraternal rather than identical, and will therefore carry different gene structure. Astrological factors can manifest in subtly different ways. Astrological factors are not the only thing to consider. The way the twins were raised is an important factor, were they treated absolutely equally by parents and others? Were they both influenced by the same external factors throughout life? No two snowflakes are exactly the same - as with snowflakes, so with humans. The general pattern in the life of twins can often be seen to be similar, however.
*****************************
My own general opinion, for what it's worth: astrological factors are one tiny, but important, strand in the whole web of life. Astrologers make heroic attempts to disentangle astrological factors from the myriad of others. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. The phenomenon involved isn't even partly understood, it's not surprising that efforts of researchers to find indisputable proof can fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment