What effect will Shani give in 7 th house ,in Capricon as

[Guest guest]

Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can never be a

science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

subject.

 

--Radha

[Guest guest]

On 1/5/07, Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>

> I would advise you go thru the website www.journalofastrology.com

> maintained by Sri KN Rao. Every one who considers astrology not a

> science, should go through his articles. What he advocates is to use

> classical astrological principles with confidence; that confidence

> comes only after we do statistical and scientific analysis as well as

> synthesis, and with appropriate birth data.

>

> I strongly opine that as astrologers, our inability to synthesize the

> parameters should not be attributed to astrology itself. The fault

> lies in us, the astrologers if we fail to give predictions.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya Sai Kolachina

>

 

Dear Sri Kolachina,

 

I wholly concur. I've for long now held that there couldn't have existed as

many texts on a body of knowledge, that don't for the most part contradict

one another, without there being testable veracity. It is true however that

99% of the practitioners have given the rest a bad name

 

By the way, I don't quite agree with your views on medicine. What you say is

again sadly true for ayurveda but certainly not for allopathy, where you'll

find an overwhelming majority of practitioners more or less in agreement on

diagnoses/treatments. Some branches of science like seismology - yes,

allopathy no!

 

Regards,

Ramapriya

[Guest guest]

Dear Radha,

 

Perhaps, it is only because it takes into consideration so many

variables, it is the only shastra which can rightly be called a science.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

aphoton47 wrote:

>

> Thank you for all your responses. Astrology, therefore, can never be a

> science--because there are too many variables involved. I am not

> saying anything new, nor am I marginalizing the importance of this

> subject.

>

> --Radha

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release 12/31/2006 12:47 PM

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/07, aphoton47 <aphoton (AT) wideopenwest (DOT) com> wrote:

>

> I think if one stopped calling astrology a science, there would be no

> problem. Some people have called it a super science. It all depends

> on what you mean by science.

>

 

 

Dear Radha,

 

To keep it simple, I'd say science is an organized, rational body of

knowledge that's at all times objectively testable and isn't either

perniciously absurd or intellectually dishonest - stories added as facts,

for example.

 

As long as we retain the nous and stomach to question ideas, those who

perforce want us to believe one way or another will have a job on their

hands.

 

Cheers,

Ramapriya