Guest guest Posted October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 Dear Therese and all The tricky word in the statement is " prove. " In astrology, we take a group of charts and make inferences from those we have experienced. They are often jaw-dropping dead on. Science uses the word " prove " in a different way. My sweetie of 9 years is a statistics professor. He told me what it would take to do a " valid " survey to study astrology. decided that what I saw working was good enough for me. I gave up trying to " prove " astrology and am happily content to infer based upon the data. I've been a full time astrologer for years. BTW, back when we first met, I eagerly haded him the Gauquelin research. He said that this " proves " nothing because the researcher already knew the careers when he pulled the charts. For the study to be " valid " it needs to be blind. So, if we have the charts of 500 lesbians, we are already looking for data that would suggest that. I don't know about y'all but I've seen several " patterns " but non that I would bet my credibility on. I'll just let the person tell me. <smiles> So, why should we care to " prove " anything? The wether forecast is inductive, it seems that we are using a form of induction. Market analysts use induction too. Perhaps it's just good enough to infer based upon induction and emperical data? Just musing, stopped banging my head against the rigid scientific wall. c Therese Hamilton [eastwest] Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:58 AM Re: Ingress charts/9-11 At 04:51 AM 10/14/04 -0700, Dark*Star wrote: >...I once sat through an astrologer's lecture on the charts of >500 lesbians and asked her at the end what the significators were. >She said she didn't know because, " we need more charts " . Well I >have bad news for everybody ~ There will never be enough charts to >prove anything... Dark*Star, Thanks for your convoluted (or is that poetic?) reply! 20-50 charts will do. No need for 500. Astrologers generally seem to have afflicted Mercuries (not able to pick out the specifics). They use either single chart examples or for the few 'researchers' so many charts they lose track of what they're looking for. Apologies...the day calls for my attention. Therese " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 , " cynthianovak " <cynthianovak@s...> wrote: > The tricky word in the statement is " prove. " In astrology, we take a group > of charts and make inferences from those we have experienced. They are > often jaw-dropping dead on. Science uses the word " prove " in a different > way. Exactly. Astrology is a valid 'way of knowing.' It is not a scientific 'way of knowing' but that does not invalidate its basic premises -- provided they are not put forward as forms of experimental science. http://www.astrology-and-science.com/pdf/phillintv-vsrhs.pdf The Phillipson interview linked to above provides an excellent overview. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Wow, Andrew That is quite a detailed interview and summary of research. I need to print it off and save it for a wintery night c kyuseiki [kyuseiki] Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:54 AM Re: to prove or not to prove... , " cynthianovak " <cynthianovak@s...> wrote: > The tricky word in the statement is " prove. " In astrology, we take a group > of charts and make inferences from those we have experienced. They are > often jaw-dropping dead on. Science uses the word " prove " in a different > way. Exactly. Astrology is a valid 'way of knowing.' It is not a scientific 'way of knowing' but that does not invalidate its basic premises -- provided they are not put forward as forms of experimental science. http://www.astrology-and-science.com/pdf/phillintv-vsrhs.pdf The Phillipson interview linked to above provides an excellent overview. Andrew " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Hi Cynthia, I'm not really into 'proving' astrology. I believe it's helpful to 'demonstrate' that certain astrological patterns tend to describe certain behavior patterns or events. It's fairly easy, or example, to see a tendency toward gay sexuality in the navamsa chart. It's also possible to see a tendency toward a long term monogomous relationship. It's possible to point out certain patterns (planetary relationships) for various types of careers. That sort of thing. The Gauquelins did help to isolate certain traits for the planets. Scientifically this doesn't 'prove' astrology. But it sure is helpful to know which traits go with Mars or which traits go with Saturn. Astrologers tended to miss on some of these before Gauquelin. Blessings, Therees At 11:08 AM 10/14/04 -0500, you wrote: > >Dear Therese and all > >The tricky word in the statement is " prove. " In astrology, we take a group >of charts and make inferences from those we have experienced. They are >often jaw-dropping dead on. Science uses the word " prove " in a different >way. > >My sweetie of 9 years is a statistics professor. He told me what it would >take to do a " valid " survey to study astrology. decided that what I saw >working was good enough for me. I gave up trying to " prove " astrology and >am happily content to infer based upon the data. I've been a full time >astrologer for years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Andrew, I haven't been able to get this link yet. I'll keep trying--it must be our overly busy little server here in the mountians. Therese At 04:53 PM 10/14/04 -0000, Andrew wrote: >Exactly. Astrology is a valid 'way of knowing.' It is not a scientific >'way of knowing' but that does not invalidate its basic premises -- >provided they are not put forward as forms of experimental science. > >http://www.astrology-and-science.com/pdf/phillintv-vsrhs.pdf > >The Phillipson interview linked to above provides an excellent overview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > Andrew, I haven't been able to get this link yet. I'll keep trying--it must > be our overly busy little server here in the mountians. It might be your server. But check out this link for related articles: http://www.astrozero.co.uk/ I have not read the book but the Phillipson site has a lot of info on it. Cheers, Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.