"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but...... "That's funny."Will there ever be a "Hmm....that's funny" moment for scientists with regard to astrology? I used to consider that would be a good thing, but do recall others expressing an opposite view with which I am now more inclined to agree. Would it be in the world's best interest for governments to put to some nefarious use any elements of astrological doctrine - or any other element of "New Age" beliefs - found to be 100% valid? That thought came to me again as we watched a DVD of the 2009 movie The Men Who Stare at Goats recently.
The movie's tone is strangely light-hearted, in spite of its serious militaristic setting. It was nice to see Jeff Bridges as a high ranking US military man, hair in a long braid hanging down his back, teaching all kinds of New Age disciplines to the troops, including remote viewing which was, truly, under serious experimentation by the US military in the 1970s. The film's story has a factual basis - see HERE for more detail on that, and an old post of my own on Russell Targ and remote viewing is HERE.
Back to astrology, my original thought, and some other ideas I had seven years ago from a post when this blog was in its infancy ~~
A word which appears frequently in scientists' arguments about astrology is "artifacts". Artifacts, in the context of cognitive reasoning, are so-called fake effects (in this case astrological effects) which could have ordinary explanations. Whilst I can see how artifacts might account for some seemingly good results in pieces of astrological research, I fail to see how we can continue to be misled by them in astrology generally. Too many brilliant minds, and too many ordinary folk like me can see SOME of astrology working day by day. I check the status of my own beliefs regularly - there's a latent skeptical streak in my nature. Astrology would have been given the heave-ho by me long ago, had I sensed that there was nothing at all in it.I'm no longer as keen as I was in 2007 for that to happen.
It seems to me that there's a parallel between what has happened regarding herbal medicine and what might happen in the future in relation to astrology. Herbs have been used as medicine, and for recreational purposes, as far back in history as it's possible to see, and almost certainly well beyond that. For example, cannabis is said to have been used in ancient middle-eastern countries, hemlock and belladonna were used as poisons in Greek and Roman times, and some believe that the holy drink of the ancient Aryans mentioned in the Vedas -- soma -- was a concoction involving ("magic"?) mushrooms.
The Foxglove plant had been used in folk medicines for centuries, some say as far back as the time of the Druids, before more recent pharmacists discovered that it contains digitalis, proven to be effective in treating some heart diseases. Similarly, the plant Feverfew, used in folk medicines, has been found to contain chemicals which do have ingredients which can produce effects observed by our ancestors, namely reducing fever or dealing with some kinds of headaches.
Whether our early ancestors came by their knowledge of the medicinal value of these plants by accident or by careful sampling, or whether specific knowledge had come to them from an unknown source, isn't recorded. We now know that there was validity in some of the ways they were using the plants. We are now able to understand the reasons why these plants proved effective, reasons which our ancestors would have been incapable of understanding or discovering.
A similar line of thought could be applied to astrology, its origins and its future. Scientists might yet discover an element, so far unknown, or which we are as yet incapable of understanding, and this could validate at least some part of astrological doctrine.
.JPG)
