testing astrology

[Guest guest]

Excerpt from

 

http://www.memes.org.uk/meme-lab/DART96.HTM

 

Waking from the Meme Dream

 

Paper presented at The Psychology of Awakening: International Conference

on Buddhism, Science and Psychotherapy Dartington 7-10 November 1996

 

Susan Blackmore Department of Psychology University of the West of England

 

" Like religions, astrology is a successful meme-complex. The idea that

Leos get on well with Aquarians is unlikely to survive on its own, but

as part of astrology is easy to remember and pass on. Astrology has

obvious appeal that gets it into your brain in the first place; it

provides a nice (though spurious) explanation for human differences and

a comforting (though false) sense of predictability. It is easily

expandable (you can go on adding new ideas for ever!) and is highly

resistant to being overturned by evidence. In fact the results of

hundreds of experiments show that the claims of astrology are false but

this has apparently not reduced belief in astrology one bit (Dean,

Mather and Kelly, 1996). Clearly, once you believe in astrology it is

hard work to root out all the beliefs and find alternatives. It may not

be worth the effort. Thus we all become unwitting hosts to an enormous

baggage of useless and even harmful meme-complexes. "

 

(You have to read the entire article to find what a meme is)

 

This experiments are usually done by western scientists with tropical

astrology. My question is- was sidereal astrology ever officially

tested? (I mean both jyotish or western sidereal) The results may be

different.

[Guest guest]

, Mihai Rusu <mi@d...> wrote:

> (snip) My question is- was sidereal astrology ever officially

> tested? (I mean both jyotish or western sidereal)

>

REPLY: I do not know of any large scale testing of " western sidereal "

or jyotish astrology. Since this side of astrology, as compared to

the tropical zodiac side of astrology, is likely as broad and

all-encompassing, I'm not sure what part would be tested. Nor am I

sure that any " test " on tropicalists could be broad enough to cover

almost all areas of practice.

 

I do know that many thousands of astrologers, of all practices, have

devoted a lot of time, cast a lot of charts, helped a lot of people,

and have satisfied themselves that whatever they practice and whatever

they say is " accurate. " This doesn't mean that everything in

astrology is proven, is accurate, is of value. We have all explored

many areas and have found some of those areas to be limiting and

suspiciously devoid of accuracy (as defined in terms of dependability

and repeatibility).

 

We all practice portions of astrology differently than the others we

know and have contact with. Yes, we follow general guidelines and

often have somewhat similar results. But we get to our " answers " by

traveling varied paths. I could list for you all of those things in

astrology that I consider worthless or too varied to be of consistent

use and value -- but others would have different lists. Whose would

you believe?

 

All I can tell you is that I can glance at a birth chart and start

talking about your character, early family, preferences, major events

and development period in your life that have occured and which will

occur in the future. What I say and how I say it will be correct.

You will recognize it as being applicable. The methods I use will be

some that are generally used, while other types of charting will be

more unique to my practices.

 

I can use either tropical or sidereal zodiacs -- either is just a

measurement and placement tool. BUT, and its a big BUT, sidereal

calculation methods and charting methods are quite different in many

cases AND IT IS THIS DIFFERANCE THAT MAKE SIDEREAL ASTROLOGY THAT MUCH

MORE ACCURATE.

 

So, again, what has been tested? What can be tested? What would you

possible look for? How would you measure " accuracy? " Astrology seems

to be beyond an easy explanation. Dave

[Guest guest]

At 05:25 PM 1/20/06 +0200, Mihai Rusu wrote:

>

>(...)

>This experiments are usually done by western scientists with tropical

>astrology. My question is- was sidereal astrology ever officially

>tested? (I mean both jyotish or western sidereal) The results may be

>different.

 

Mihai,

 

Sidereal astrology or Jyotish have not been tested to the extent that

Tropical astrology has. I don't believe there will ever be results if the

approach is to count planets, signs or aspects or any other type of

counting singleton factors. Astrological research to date has been

performed in western countries where astrologers use the Tropical zodiac.

 

So far no one has been really interested in performing careful research

using the sidereal zodiac. There are claims by individual astrologers but

no controlled experiments to really convince anyone.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

I can heartily recommend Dr Percy Seymour, THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ASTROLOGY

[New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992]. Dr Percy is on the faculty of the Plymouth

Polytechnic Institute in England. He's also published ASTROLOGY: THE EVIDENCE OF

SCIENCE [Lennard Publishing, 1988].

 

" One of the most interesting aspects of my researches into the evidence for

and against astrology has been to discover how unscientific scientists can be

when addressing a problem outside their own particular field of expertise. Some

scientists can also display contempt for the history, philosophy, and the

methodology of science when constructing arguments about unfamiliar subjects,

and this is particularly true in the case of astrology. The so-called

scientific arguments with which many scholars clothe their objections to

astrology are rather like the claims of those who could " see " the emperor's new

cloths! And these people can resort to militancy and ridicule to hide the

nakedness of their arguments. " [p.259]

 

therese hamilton <eastwest wrote:

At 05:25 PM 1/20/06 +0200, Mihai Rusu wrote:

>

>(...)

>This experiments are usually done by western scientists with tropical

>astrology. My question is- was sidereal astrology ever officially

>tested? (I mean both jyotish or western sidereal) The results may be

>different.

 

Mihai,

 

Sidereal astrology or Jyotish have not been tested to the extent that

Tropical astrology has. I don't believe there will ever be results if the

approach is to count planets, signs or aspects or any other type of

counting singleton factors. Astrological research to date has been

performed in western countries where astrologers use the Tropical zodiac.

 

So far no one has been really interested in performing careful research

using the sidereal zodiac. There are claims by individual astrologers but

no controlled experiments to really convince anyone.

 

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:

/