Astrology is a body of knowledge. It isn’t a “pseudo-science” or a “belief system” - these are subjective terms. Whether you think it is true or false, in essence it is an assembled understanding based on observation.
Astrology is the study and application of perceived correlations - between celestial phenomena, and their correspondence to events and people’s lives on earth. Astrology is founded on the basis that such correlations exist. Many argue that there is no such correlation at all. None. Astrologers disagree. But it is a fact - central to astrology is the symbolic correlations between the celestial and the terrestrial.
Astrology has been studied, applied and considered to be of value for thousands of years across many cultures.
Astrology has been valued by highly educated people throughout history. Newton, Jung, Kepler, Christopher Columbus, Paracelsus, Albertus Magnus, Marcello Ficino, et al.
Some people who trash astrology … often know very little about the topic. They dismiss based on false assumptions of what in-depth astrology actually is, how it is actually practiced, creating a Straw Man situation.
Healthy inquiry is welcome. Read this to understand what that might look like:
Suppressed Science on Skeptics » Skeptical About Skeptics
Astrology is not about “Sun sign columns” in the media. Sun sign “horoscopes” were invented in the 1930s, as entertainment. They have no relevance to the in-depth astrology of the past few thousand years. Practicing astrologers and contemporary astrology textbooks place no importance on Sun sign columns. They are considered meaningless and far outside the scope of serious study of the topic.
Contemporary science dismisses astrology. It says there is no evidence to support its “claims.” And it is therefore “no better than chance” at describing something meaningful about a person or event. And that astrologers deceive clients by using “cold reading” techniques, and the “Barnum effect.”
Astrology is not about “prediction.” In the West it is more focused on psychological forecasting. Most Western astrologers use this approach. It is not about specific, repeatable exact data. In that sense it is not a “hard science”, but more of a qualitative “soft science” like economics. Some branches of astrology do have a predictive component, such as horary.
Astrology is not about hidden, mysterious cause-and-effect forces. It is more similar to a clock or a road sign. These are markers. Astrology is not an extrapolation of, for instance, the gravitational effects the Moon has on the tides.
Western astrology uses the tropical zodiac. The tropical zodiac does not incorporate precession, and never has. Astrologers have known this for at least 1000 years. But some critics falsely assume that astrology is wrong or faulty for omitting precession. By asking an experienced astrologer or reading a contemporary textbook, the tropical zodiac would be better understood.
The tropical zodiac is season-based, not constellation-based. It takes the Vernal Equinox as 0 degrees of Aries. Always. And uses just the constellation names for the signs that divide the seasons. Vedic astrology uses the sidereal zodiac, which includes precession.
There are many branches of astrological knowledge. There is horary (aka “interrogations”), electional, mundane (world events), synastry (relationships), natal, medical, herbal/medicinal.
Astrology is not just about someone’s personality. In fact personality is related to just 1/12 of a person’s horoscope - the 1st house, of the 12 houses. Each house represents an area of the person’s life experience. The 1st house being personality, appearance.
It is rare to find an informed and well-reasoned argument against astrology. Well, at least on Quora. I have come across only one here since 2015. And his points were reasonable and thoughtful. This is rare. Most are hostile, dismissive, and cite a range of false assumptions about the topic (some cited in this answer) to justify their views. They cite scientific studies too. The ones I have seen make many of the same false assumptions and so lack validity. I am keen to see studies that approach astrology based on sound prior understanding informing well-constructed research.
This article provides insight and might lead to a better approach:
Suppressed Science on Skeptics » Skeptical About Skeptics
Most astrologers welcome genuine enquiry. And they are not anti-science. But anti- a poorly constructed inquiry based on prejudice and false assumptions about the topic being enquired about.
Astrologers are sometimes wrong. And that is understandable. Human error is everywhere. Astrologers have their own biases, opinions, skill levels. Just like dentists, mechanics, psychologists. Or any practitioner working from a body of knowledge. Human error does not negate the underlying knowledge. Particularly since astrology is a qualitative art.
No comments:
Post a Comment