Astrology : faith or fiction ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or fiction? " . The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology "

I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable.

The case against astrology

The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver

benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not

contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its

principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no

hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in

effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers

are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim

they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is

simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is

actually its weakness (no controls).

 

The case for astrology

The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to

come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting

ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology

provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this

sort of thing these days?

In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something

that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in

psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology.

Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have

generally failed to recognise let alone resolvePlease see " Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers "

--> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdfTo start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.Indian scientists on Vedic astrology

Thirty comments from Current Science

Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India

decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at

Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in

the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of

thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments

or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a

pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the

rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the

majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the

authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor

P.Balaram:

 

2000, Volume 79, issue 9

Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11

Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.

Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.

Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.

Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.

2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3

Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.

Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.

Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.

Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.

Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.

Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.

Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.

Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.

Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?

Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.

Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.

Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.

Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?

Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!

Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later:

2004, Volume 87, issue 8

Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

[Guest guest]

--> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdfTime twins study debunks astrologyOn Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:

Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or fiction? " .

The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology "

I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable.

The case against astrology

The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver

benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not

contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its

principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no

hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in

effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers

are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim

they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is

simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is

actually its weakness (no controls).

 

The case for astrology

The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to

come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting

ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology

provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this

sort of thing these days?

In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something

that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in

psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology.

Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have

generally failed to recognise let alone resolvePlease see " Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers "

--> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.Indian scientists on Vedic astrology

Thirty comments from Current Science

Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India

decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at

Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in

the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of

thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments

or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a

pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the

rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the

majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the

authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor

P.Balaram:

 

2000, Volume 79, issue 9

Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11

Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.

Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.

Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.

Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.

2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3

Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.

Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.

Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.

Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.

Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.

Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.

Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.

Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.

Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?

Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.

Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.

Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.

Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?

Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!

Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later:

2004, Volume 87, issue 8

Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

[Guest guest]

Please read the Supreme Court judgement below, it quotes a year 1913 dictionary first in point 10 of judgement.Then it quotes a (hold your breath) year 1780 2nd edition of encyclopedia britannica!The same encyclopedia now does not mention word science in its recent definition i.e

" Divination that consists of interpreting the influence of stars and planets on earthly affairs and human destinies. "

10. Before dealing with the contentions raised it will be useful to understand the meaning of the word 'Astrology' as given in various dictionaries. " The science or doctrine of stars, and formerly often used

as equivalent to astronomy, but now restricted in meaning to the pseudo science which claims to foretell the future by studying the supposed influence of the relative positions of the moon, sun and stars on human affairs [Webster's New International

dictionary] Either a science or a pseudo science, astrology the forecasting of earthly and human events by means of observing and interpreting the fixed stars, the sun, the moon and the planets has exerted a sometimes extensive and a sometimes

peripheral influence in many civilizations, both ancient and modern. As a science, astrology has been utilized to predict or affect the destinies in individuals, groups or nations by means of what is believed to be a correct understanding of the

influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs. As a pseudo science, astrology is considered to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science.[Encyclopedia Britannica (2nd edition)] "

11. According to the above mentioned standard books Astrology is a science which claims to foretell the future or make predictions by studying the supposed influence of the relative positions of the moon, sun, planets and

other stars on human affairs. It, therefore, requires study of celestial bodies, of their positions, magnitudes, motions, and distances, etc. Astronomy is a pure science. It was studied as a subject in ancient India and India has

produced great astronomers, long before anyone in the western world studied it as a subject. Since Astrology is partly based upon study of movement of sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies, it is a study of

science at least to some extent.On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:

Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or fiction? " . The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology "

I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable.

The case against astrology

The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver

benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not

contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its

principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no

hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in

effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers

are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim

they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is

simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is

actually its weakness (no controls).

 

The case for astrology

The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to

come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting

ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology

provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this

sort of thing these days?

In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something

that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in

psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology.

Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have

generally failed to recognise let alone resolvePlease see " Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers "

--> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.Indian scientists on Vedic astrology

Thirty comments from Current Science

Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India

decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at

Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in

the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of

thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments

or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a

pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the

rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the

majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the

authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor

P.Balaram:

 

2000, Volume 79, issue 9

Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11

Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.

Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.

Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.

Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.

2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3

Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.

Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.

Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.

Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.

Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.

Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.

Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.

Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.

Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?

Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.

Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.

Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.

Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?

Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!

Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later:

2004, Volume 87, issue 8

Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

[Guest guest]

Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the " time twin study " has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science?On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:

Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or fiction? " .

The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology "

I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable.

The case against astrology

The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver

benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not

contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its

principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no

hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in

effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers

are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim

they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is

simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is

actually its weakness (no controls).

 

The case for astrology

The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to

come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting

ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology

provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this

sort of thing these days?

In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something

that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in

psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology.

Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have

generally failed to recognise let alone resolvePlease see " Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers "

--> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.Indian scientists on Vedic astrology

Thirty comments from Current Science

Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India

decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at

Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in

the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of

thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments

or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a

pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the

rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the

majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the

authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor

P.Balaram:

 

2000, Volume 79, issue 9

Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11

Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.

Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.

Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.

Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.

2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3

Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.

Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.

Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.

Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.

Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.

Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.

Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.

Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.

Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?

Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.

Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.

Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.

Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?

Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!

Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later:

2004, Volume 87, issue 8

Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

[Guest guest]

Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote: Does the silence

of the group to this earlier message mean that the "time twin study" has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science? On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or fiction?". The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology" I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable. The case against astrology The case against

astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there. Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls). The case for

astrology The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see "Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of

24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers" --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings from "Current Science" Journal on this topic. Indian scientists on Vedic astrologyThirty comments from Current Science Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian

universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:2000, Volume 79, issue 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- But tests not

decisive, more are needed to assess claims.Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it. 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a

chance.Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs

sciences.Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later: 2004, Volume 87, issue 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. Each individual has the right to imagination. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote: Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the "time twin study" has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science? On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or fiction?". The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology" I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable. The

case against astrology The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there. Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls). The case for astrology The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see

"Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers" --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings from "Current Science" Journal on this topic. Indian scientists on Vedic astrologyThirty comments from Current Science Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:2000, Volume 79, issue 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it. 2001, Volume 81, issues

1-3Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the

reverse.Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later: 2004, Volume 87, issue 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Astrology is faith or fiction

Resp. Dipika ji,

Namaskar,

Welcome in the forum and thanks for your first msg. I am relieved a

little bit as I find a friend with strong views and dedication. Hope

you will ask your other rational friends to join this forum to face

the arguments put forward by the astrologers, individuals and

learners with a view to know their stand and convince them if

possible. But of course without any personal ill-will.

You have raised a point as to whether Astrology is faith or fiction.

So far my stand is concerned I am of the firm opinion that it is

both. Astrology is alive on the shoulder of faith derived from

religion. Whereas it has nothing to do with religion. As predictive

astrology is offspring of astronomy, which was known as astrology.

Human psychology which was not known to our sages played an important

role in promoting it. Secondly, predictions concluded by the

astrologers are randomly true, hence it is fiction.

Have you noticed that every astrologer claims that it is science

(though no scientist ever say that any research is backed by any

religion). But when we put some questions then they try to hide them

in the lap of religion. For fear of God, people generally avoid this

scene. Hence astrologer continue to survive. Because there is lot of

business activity hence businessman (may be media or jewelers etc.)

support them. Innocent, ignorant general public neither has knowledge

nor time nor patience to dig it nor willing to accept that our sages

too were human-beings. Hence they become easy prey of astrologers due

to faith and fictitious luring prediction.

Regarding your second point as to whether " fake astrologers have

brought disrepute to astrology " . I will say No. Because basically

there is no repute of astrology hence there is no question of

disrepute too. By linking it with fake astrologers we are indirectly

admitting that basically astrology is correct and some fake

astrologers have disrepute it. But it is not the case because if

there is lot of fake astrologers then there must be some (say one)

best astrologers too. Where are they ? Everybody says that good

astrologer can correctly predict but where is he? That best

astrologer is only in the mind of an individual and nowhere. Because

when astrology (predictive) itself is not correct then what can be

done by a poor astrologer except beating the drum of tradition,

ancient, religion, sages, Ved and so on. You can read my first msg or

a file " Astrology a science or myth " , wherein you will find that

after raising so many questions not a single astrologer has turned up

with the explanation as to how all principles were formulated and so

on…..because predictive astrology is itself fake.

You can upload the article of Dean regarding Time Twins.

If you have no reservations then please intimate about yourself.

Yours truly,

Sanat

sanatkumar_jain

Members may please offer their comments on the points raised by Ms

Dipika Ji or on earlier points. New points are as follows.

1. Whether Astrology is faith or fiction.

2. Whether " fake astrologers have brought disrepute to astrology " .

Many members are just reading the msg. But I will like to request

them that they may offer their views on any side and may please offer

their comments pointwise so that summery of discussion may be taken

to file section under SOA______. Refer SOA for various points raised

in the forum.

Krishnamurthy Ji, where are you as Bala ji is busy in his domestic

problem and reply on pending point is awaited from SB Ji.

 

 

 

, " dipika blr "

<blr.aspirant wrote:

>

> Dear Readers,

> I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or

> fiction? " .

>

> The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought

> disrepute to astrology "

>

> I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's

> shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles

themselves

> are questionable.

>

> *The case against astrology*

>

> The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver

> benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has

not

> contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its

> principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no

hint of

> these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are

> exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

>

> Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which

> zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see

> astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly

nice

> people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they

repeatedly make

> (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken -

what

> they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no

> controls).

>

>

>

> *The case for astrology*

>

> The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides

> low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by.

You get

> emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to

stimulate

> self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego

support at

> a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these

days?

> In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note the

> dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that

is

> untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy

and even

> religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it

presents an

> ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise

let

> alone resolve

>

> Please see " *Journal of Consciousness Studies* 10 (6-7), 175-198, a

long

> scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of *time

twins* and

> of astrologers "

>

> --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

>

>

> To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

>

> from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.

>

> *Indian scientists on Vedic astrology*

> *Thirty comments from Current Science*

>

> *Abstract* -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

India decided

> to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian

> universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the

pages of

> the prestigious Indian science journal *Current Science*. Of thirty

> comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or

research

> institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science,

about half

> of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt

there was

> nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian

people

> believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments

are

> briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

> *2000, Volume 79, issue 9*

> Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

>

> *2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11*

> Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess

claims.

> Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks

credibility.

> Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

> Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

> Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

> Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

> Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

> Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

> Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

> Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be

challenged.

> Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore

it.

>

> *2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3*

> Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a

chance.

> Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of

science.

> Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so

honour it.

> Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame

public.

> Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

> Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not

affected.

> Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so *Vedic* is a

misnomer.

> Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

> Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is

futile.

> Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs

demystifying.

> Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be

science?

> Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more

difficult.

> Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the

reverse.

> Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs

sciences.

> Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be

fooled?

> Narlikar (review of *Astrology: Believe it or not?*) -- Not!

Recommended!

> Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

> At which point the debate was closed by the editor. *Three years

later:*

>

> *2004, Volume 87, issue 8*

> Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay

silent.

>

>

> Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends, I agree with Mr. J.Ravi.Science gives us knowledge.Technology helps us to convert that knowledge into things useful in our daily life. Philosophy endows us with wisdom. Spirituality inspires us to attain joy and peace inside, and, estabilish harmony with cosmos outside. Astronomy is physics of celestal bodies of universe. Astrology is the chemistry of astronomical knowledge to help us to convert that into information useful for our daily life and to carry on with philosophical spirituality. One

should agreeall the sscientific theories are based on certain axiams . If you start questioning such axiams basic science itself would appear as fiction. Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote: Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd

arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. Each individual has the right to imagination. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the "time twin study" has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science? On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or fiction?". The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology" I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable. The case against astrology The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are

exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there. Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls). The case for astrology The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego

support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see "Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers" --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf To start off the

debate, I am including the proceedings from "Current Science" Journal on this topic. Indian scientists on Vedic astrologyThirty comments from Current Science Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed,

and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:2000, Volume 79, issue 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.Chandrashekaran -- No defence is

needed when so many people believe.Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it. 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK

if other needs not affected.Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later: 2004, Volume 87, issue 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji) Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sanat ji, I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is ready to take it. I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated several charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having the combinations I have specified. After I published my article several people having diabetes sent their birth data to me to check if they do have such combination. My success rate so far is above 90%. I think this is good enough to consider that the approach is scientific and the basis of my work (astrology) is scientific. For anyone who wants to read my article, please reach the following link: http://astrokrishna.blogspot.com/2007/04/astrology-and-diabetes-by-astrokrishna.html Now, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments have specific combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is astrology a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence. What do you say? I am working on another project to identify someone's blood group using the natal chart. My aim is to publish this soon. Just because we have lost a way a bit in the way we practice astrology, it is not fake. It is not difficult to find our way back to the real truth. If a building collapses, you can not call Civil Engineering as fake! It is just incorrect application that caused the debacle. Astrology has seen many such

debacles due to non-standardization of the theory, many pseudo scientists. Another issue is inaccurate birth details that we work with. Once we work on this and find a good fix, this can be as good as any other modern science. Hope people realize this. Regards, Krishna sanat2221 <sanatkumar_jain wrote: Astrology is faith or fictionResp. Dipika ji,Namaskar, Welcome in the forum and thanks for your first

msg. I am relieved a little bit as I find a friend with strong views and dedication. Hope you will ask your other rational friends to join this forum to face the arguments put forward by the astrologers, individuals and learners with a view to know their stand and convince them if possible. But of course without any personal ill-will.You have raised a point as to whether Astrology is faith or fiction. So far my stand is concerned I am of the firm opinion that it is both. Astrology is alive on the shoulder of faith derived from religion. Whereas it has nothing to do with religion. As predictive astrology is offspring of astronomy, which was known as astrology. Human psychology which was not known to our sages played an important role in promoting it. Secondly, predictions concluded by the astrologers are randomly true, hence it is fiction.Have you noticed that every astrologer claims that it is science (though no

scientist ever say that any research is backed by any religion). But when we put some questions then they try to hide them in the lap of religion. For fear of God, people generally avoid this scene. Hence astrologer continue to survive. Because there is lot of business activity hence businessman (may be media or jewelers etc.) support them. Innocent, ignorant general public neither has knowledge nor time nor patience to dig it nor willing to accept that our sages too were human-beings. Hence they become easy prey of astrologers due to faith and fictitious luring prediction.Regarding your second point as to whether "fake astrologers have brought disrepute to astrology". I will say No. Because basically there is no repute of astrology hence there is no question of disrepute too. By linking it with fake astrologers we are indirectly admitting that basically astrology is correct and some fake astrologers have disrepute

it. But it is not the case because if there is lot of fake astrologers then there must be some (say one) best astrologers too. Where are they ? Everybody says that good astrologer can correctly predict but where is he? That best astrologer is only in the mind of an individual and nowhere. Because when astrology (predictive) itself is not correct then what can be done by a poor astrologer except beating the drum of tradition, ancient, religion, sages, Ved and so on. You can read my first msg or a file "Astrology a science or myth", wherein you will find that after raising so many questions not a single astrologer has turned up with the explanation as to how all principles were formulated and so on…..because predictive astrology is itself fake.You can upload the article of Dean regarding Time Twins.If you have no reservations then please intimate about yourself. Yours truly,Sanat sanatkumar_jain (AT) rediffmail (DOT) comMembers may please offer their comments on the points raised by Ms Dipika Ji or on earlier points. New points are as follows.1. Whether Astrology is faith or fiction.2. Whether "fake astrologers have brought disrepute to astrology".Many members are just reading the msg. But I will like to request them that they may offer their views on any side and may please offer their comments pointwise so that summery of discussion may be taken to file section under SOA______. Refer SOA for various points raised in the forum. Krishnamurthy Ji, where are you as Bala ji is busy in his domestic problem and reply on pending point is awaited from SB Ji. , "dipika blr" <blr.aspirant wrote:>> Dear

Readers,> I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or> fiction?".> > The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought> disrepute to astrology"> > I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's> shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves> are questionable.> > *The case against astrology*> > The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver> benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not> contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its> principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of> these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are> exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.> > Astrologers disagree on almost

everything, even on basics such as which> zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see> astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice> people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make> (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken -what> they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no> controls).> > > > *The case for astrology*> > The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides> low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get> emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate> self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at> a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these

days?> In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the> dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is> untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even> religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an> ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let> alone resolve> > Please see "*Journal of Consciousness Studies* 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long> scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of *time twins* and> of astrologers"> > --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf> > > To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings> > from "Current Science" Journal on this topic.> > *Indian scientists on Vedic

astrology*> *Thirty comments from Current Science*> > *Abstract* -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided> to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian> universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of> the prestigious Indian science journal *Current Science*. Of thirty> comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research> institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half> of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was> nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people> believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are> briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:> *2000, Volume 79, issue 9*> Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry

courses.> > *2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11*> Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.> Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.> Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.> Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.> Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.> Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.> Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.> Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.> Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.> Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.> Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.> > *2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3*> Narasimhan -- The

ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.> Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.> Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.> Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.> Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.> Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.> Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so *Vedic* is a misnomer.> Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.> Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.> Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.> Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?> Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.>

Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.> Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.> Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?> Narlikar (review of *Astrology: Believe it or not?*) -- Not! Recommended!> Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.> At which point the debate was closed by the editor. *Three years later:*> > *2004, Volume 87, issue 8*> Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.> > > Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)>

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Very well said Sir! Regards, KrishnaJagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote: Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by

involving in absurd arguements. Each individual has the right to imagination. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the "time twin study" has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science? On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or fiction?". The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to

astrology" I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable. The case against astrology The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there. Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly

nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls). The case for astrology The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply

elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see "Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers" --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings from "Current Science" Journal on this topic. Indian scientists on Vedic astrologyThirty comments from Current Science Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:2000, Volume 79, issue 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and

should be challenged.Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it. 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are

indecisive, it needs demystifying.Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later: 2004, Volume 87, issue 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji) Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sanat ji, One of my earlier posts on this subject is stuck. You may have to clear it as it contains on web-link. Regards, KrishnaKrishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 wrote: Very well said Sir! Regards, KrishnaJagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi > wrote: Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. Each individual has the right to imagination. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the "time twin study" has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science? On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant > wrote: Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or fiction?". The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology" I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable. The case against astrology The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it

has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there. Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls). The case for astrology The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort,

spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see "Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers" --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings from "Current Science" Journal on this topic. Indian scientists on Vedic astrologyThirty comments from Current Science Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from

scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:2000, Volume 79, issue 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's

offer.Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it. 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour

it.Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not!

Recommended!Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later: 2004, Volume 87, issue 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji) Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Resp. Ravichandran Ji,

Namaskar,

Thanks for your msg after a very long time. You have admitted that

you are silently watching the absurd arguments. Whereas I am

repeatedly asking the members to take part in the interaction. So,

naturally it is your fault by not defending or explaining your stand.

In my earlier msg I cleared that it is the difference of opinion

which leads us to new horizon of knowledge and we can find the truth

after searching new logics etc. and I am giving due regards to every

opinion and incorporating them in my various SOA________ files, which

you may have seen. I have also suggested that members may invite

their other friends or astrologers to this forum to have some

exchange of views. Because what the use of a forum is, if every body

has same opinion or if there is no space for difference. What you can

learn from such forum. In view of my above explanation how you can

say that interaction is absurd.

 

The problem is this that everyone has his own ego and he is not

willing to change his stand fearing a sort of defeat. But actually it

is not so. We must learn through out of our life and we can only

learn if we have open mind. Discussion in the forum is not meant for

changing your views but aim is just to bring you on the brink of new

thought so that you may start a new thinking yourself with a

different opinion or if you want to continue your own thought, it is

still welcome, then it is your duty to teach others and reply various

queries. Actually we accept everything as correct which is being

followed by others. But you may have seen queue in front of wineshop

but no customer on the shop of fruit seller. So please don't be lured

with crowd.

 

So far experience is concerned, conclusion drawn after your

experience may be right or wrong. So you may have open mind every

time. I am studying astrology since last 40 years and with a view to

find a single foolproof prediction, I myself prepared an eskain

horoscope incorporating almost all principles (may be seen in file

section). But actually there is no truth in astrology.

 

It is your wrong conclusion that Members do not want to waste their

time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. If it is so then

you can teach us correct explanation and I can assure you that

atleast I am willing to know your stand and your teachings but not on

the shoulder of baseless faith. Either you say that Astrology is not

a science and it is a matter of faith then there is no question of

discussion; at this stand you have to challenge various astrologers

and forums that it is not science. But at one hand you want to take

benefit of popularity of science and on the other hand you want to

take it as a faith. How both statements may be taken together?

 

I will again like to request you to please see various points and

discussion in various SOA______files in file section or in file

astrology a science or myth, or may raise any point which you think

is beneficial for astrology. But with silence you are not going to

serve your purpose. You must take active part and strongly defend

your point. So far I remember you have only defended your point

regarding time of birth (refer file SOA time of birth), wherein you

have admitted that our sages do not have clock but forecasted on the

basis of intuition. Thus where is the need of correct time and

application of astrological principles or defending these

requirement. Certainly we must search some intuition master who can

correctly peep in future and forget all astrologer who are exercising

baseless tactics.

 

So please do not be a silent listener. Come out with fresh energy. As

we are not asking to explain the sweetness of sugar but we are asking

sugar itself and we will learn what is sweetness. But actually you

are providing bitter pills and claiming it as sugar.

 

Remember nothing is against you personally and I am ready to say

sorry for any hurting.

But pl. defend your stand logically and take any thread. Because you

see, actually we have wasted 2 msgs without any concrete arguments.

 

Waiting for your msg full with arguments and not just bypassing

remarks.

 

Thanks,

 

Yours

Sanat

 

Members may please share your stand on any point on any side either

in favour or against astrology but without personal ill-will.

Krishnamurty ji where are you, if you want then we can take up your

point. SB ji you have raised many points hence we are looking for new

points or your counter stand on various earlier points (refer

SOA_____ files). Some more files are still in the pipeline.

Ms. Dipika Ji, I am still not able to download timetwins of Dean. If

you can upload then pl do it and members will also be able to see it

afterwards. I will again try. Yes, one thing which I want to say that

I am slow but attend every msg. So you can say I am irregularly

regular. Hi.

 

 

 

 

 

, Jagadisan Ravichandran

<jnravi wrote:

>

> Pranams

>

> Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd

arguements on this thread.

>

> The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain

realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can

show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to

waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements.

>

> Each individual has the right to imagination.

>

> Ravichandran

>

> dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:

> Does the silence of the group to this earlier message

mean that the " time twin study " has effectively sounded the death of

astrology as a science?

>

> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant

wrote:

> Dear Readers,

> I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith

or fiction? " .

> The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have

brought disrepute to astrology "

> I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's

shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles

themselves are questionable.

>

> The case against astrology

> The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not

deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors,

it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable

mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of

tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology

books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end

there.

> Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact

astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others.

But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based

on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength

(experience) is actually its weakness (no controls).

>

> The case for astrology

> The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to

come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and

interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised

society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where

else can you get this sort of thing these days?

> In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in

something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in

psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology.

Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have

generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see " Journal

of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article

of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers "

> --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

>

>

> To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

>

> from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.

>

> Indian scientists on Vedic astrology

> Thirty comments from Current Science

> Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry

at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy

in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current

Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in

university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed

astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive

tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with

funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In

chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as

follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

> 2000, Volume 79, issue 9

> Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry

courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11

> Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess

claims.

> Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks

credibility.

> Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

> Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

> Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

> Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

> Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

> Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

> Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

> Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be

challenged.

> Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore

it.

> 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3

> Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a

chance.

> Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of

science.

> Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so

honour it.

> Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame

public.

> Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

> Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not

affected.

> Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a

misnomer.

> Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

> Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is

futile.

> Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs

demystifying.

> Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be

science?

> Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more

difficult.

> Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the

reverse.

> Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs

sciences.

> Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be

fooled?

> Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not!

Recommended!

> Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

> At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years

later:

> 2004, Volume 87, issue 8

> Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay

silent.

>

>

> Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat

ji)

>

 

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

Try it now.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear SanatjiPranamsI have clearly explained in my post that sweetness can not be explained only sugar can be explained. I have also said that in certain matters only personal experience will make you believe things not arguments or science. Astrology is also one such experience.Everything can not be explained by science. Because man has not mastered science, he is only a student in science.Wen we take the medicine prescribed by a doctor, we do not question his knowledge. We do not analyze it by scientific arguments. When we board a flight, we do not question the capability of the pilot to fly. Similarly, astrology can not be questioned. It is true that some doctors prescriptions and some flights give you a one way ticket. Similarly some astrologers also give you wrong predictions.One can not question axioms. Certain topics can be discussed and analyzed, certain topics can not be analyzed, because they are axioms. Axioms are like

beliefs.If one says there is God and the other says there is no God. How can there be a discussion in this subject? The two ends can not meet. Because God is a personal experience. A Nastik may point out 1000 arguments to support his belief. But an Astik need not and will not argue with him. He will only pray to God to give the Nastik some sanity.So there is no argument whether astrology is a fact or fiction. The fact is astrology is a faith above all.RegardsRavichandransanat2221 <sanatkumar_jain wrote: Resp. Ravichandran Ji, Namaskar, Thanks for your msg after a very long time. You have admitted that you are silently watching the absurd arguments. Whereas I am repeatedly asking the members to take part in the interaction. So, naturally it is your fault by not defending or explaining your stand. In my earlier msg I cleared that it is the difference of opinion which leads us to new horizon of knowledge and we can find the truth after searching new logics etc. and I am giving due regards to every opinion and incorporating them in my various SOA________ files, which you may have seen. I have also suggested that members may invite their other friends or astrologers to this forum to have some exchange of views. Because what the use of a forum is, if every body has same opinion or if there is no space for difference. What you can learn from such forum. In view of my above explanation how you can say

that interaction is absurd. The problem is this that everyone has his own ego and he is not willing to change his stand fearing a sort of defeat. But actually it is not so. We must learn through out of our life and we can only learn if we have open mind. Discussion in the forum is not meant for changing your views but aim is just to bring you on the brink of new thought so that you may start a new thinking yourself with a different opinion or if you want to continue your own thought, it is still welcome, then it is your duty to teach others and reply various queries. Actually we accept everything as correct which is being followed by others. But you may have seen queue in front of wineshop but no customer on the shop of fruit seller. So please don't be lured with crowd. So far experience is concerned, conclusion drawn after your experience may be right or wrong. So you may have open mind every

time. I am studying astrology since last 40 years and with a view to find a single foolproof prediction, I myself prepared an eskain horoscope incorporating almost all principles (may be seen in file section). But actually there is no truth in astrology. It is your wrong conclusion that Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. If it is so then you can teach us correct explanation and I can assure you that atleast I am willing to know your stand and your teachings but not on the shoulder of baseless faith. Either you say that Astrology is not a science and it is a matter of faith then there is no question of discussion; at this stand you have to challenge various astrologers and forums that it is not science. But at one hand you want to take benefit of popularity of science and on the other hand you want to take it as a faith. How both statements may be

taken together? I will again like to request you to please see various points and discussion in various SOA______files in file section or in file astrology a science or myth, or may raise any point which you think is beneficial for astrology. But with silence you are not going to serve your purpose. You must take active part and strongly defend your point. So far I remember you have only defended your point regarding time of birth (refer file SOA time of birth), wherein you have admitted that our sages do not have clock but forecasted on the basis of intuition. Thus where is the need of correct time and application of astrological principles or defending these requirement. Certainly we must search some intuition master who can correctly peep in future and forget all astrologer who are exercising baseless tactics. So please do not be a silent listener. Come out with fresh energy. As we are

not asking to explain the sweetness of sugar but we are asking sugar itself and we will learn what is sweetness. But actually you are providing bitter pills and claiming it as sugar. Remember nothing is against you personally and I am ready to say sorry for any hurting. But pl. defend your stand logically and take any thread. Because you see, actually we have wasted 2 msgs without any concrete arguments. Waiting for your msg full with arguments and not just bypassing remarks. Thanks, Yours Sanat Members may please share your stand on any point on any side either in favour or against astrology but without personal ill-will. Krishnamurty ji where are you, if you want then we can take up your point. SB ji you have raised many points hence we are looking for new points or your counter stand on various earlier points (refer SOA_____ files). Some more files are still in the

pipeline. Ms. Dipika Ji, I am still not able to download timetwins of Dean. If you can upload then pl do it and members will also be able to see it afterwards. I will again try. Yes, one thing which I want to say that I am slow but attend every msg. So you can say I am irregularly regular. Hi. , Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote: > > Pranams > > Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. > > The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. > > Each individual has

the right to imagination. > > Ravichandran > > dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote: > Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the "time twin study" has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science? > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote: > Dear Readers, > I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or fiction?". > The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology" > I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable. > > The case against astrology > The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced

by non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there. > Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls). > > The case for astrology > The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy

that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days? > In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see "Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers" > --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf > > > To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings > > from "Current Science" Journal on this topic. > > Indian scientists on Vedic astrology > Thirty comments from Current Science > Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian

people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram: > 2000, Volume 79, issue 9 > Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11 > Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims. > Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility. > Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer. > Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late. > Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science. > Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe. > Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science. > Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated. > Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

> Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged. > Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it. > 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3 > Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance. > Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science. > Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it. > Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public. > Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty. > Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected. > Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer. > Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science. > Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile. >

Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying. > Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science? > Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult. > Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse. > Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences. > Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled? > Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended! > Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other. > At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later: > 2004, Volume 87, issue 8 > Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. > > > Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat

ji) > > > > > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. >

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Astrology a faith or fiction

 

Resp. Krishna Ji,

Namaskar,

Thanks for your turning up (But is it necessary to remind for your

appearance? Hi Hi. I think you will continue to hook and teach us).

I think your planets are not working properly and there is some

technical problem with the planets, who always classify your msg. as

spam. You are a software Eng. So correct their programming (just

joking).

 

Yes, definitely I will clear your msg. I also find a msg on my email

which I am including, below my msg. Actual comment on your link will

follow. But it would have been better if you upload the blog in file

section for the benefit of the members in general and for the benefit

of future members. I have gone through your earlier link regarding

colour of planets. But I could not reply due to rush of points and

your absence from the screen and of course I am also slow and think

on every msg. So please continue and if you want then I am ready to

offer my comments on your earlier discovery regarding colours, which

is definitely not in your favour.

 

You have indicated your views abt the diabetes and blood group with

your observation that astrology can be as good as any other modern

science. Hope people realize this.

But first of all we must realize (and this forum is working on that

line in general) that any conclusion either it may be diabetes, blood

group or predictive principles included in lot of books or principles

created by astrologers themselves (including your would be principle)

are basically founded on sign lord, aspect, friendship, exalted and

dasha (beside some supporting principles). These are the basic

principles and from these principles you are free to derive any

conclusion as you like. Thus when this is the building block of

entire predictive astrology then is it not necessary and essential to

know their validity, how they were created and whether they are

supported by our sages / ved or it is just a manipulated form where

every body has created his own principles, just to fall

psychologically.

 

Yes, you are right that

" If a building collapses, you can not call Civil Engineering as fake!

It is just incorrect application that caused the debacle. Astrology

has seen many such debacles due to non-standardization of the

theory, many pseudo scientists. Another issue is inaccurate birth

details that we work with. Once we work on this and find a good fix,

this can be as good as any other modern science. "

 

But by this you are indirectly admitting that

1 since primitive time every astrologer is working with inaccurate

birth details and whatever he is concluding is not more then a

coincidence and astrologers are still befooling.

 

2 by the time you or say some one else will find a good fix till then

every astrologer is free to cheat others and innocent public may be

asked to live with weak building of predictive astrology and till

then everybody may continue to publicize from media to forum to

conference to ……. and so on that astrology is a science.

 

I think it is not a good tactics. First of all we must examine as to

whether there is some science in it and if you know that is wrong

then you may immediately alert the public and when in future you find

some thing worthwhile only then you must ask public to follow that

discovery. Not before that.

3 there is debacles due to non-standardization of the theory.

 

Still you are following and concluding some sort of illness

from non-standard theory.

 

4 astrologer are incorrectly applying the theory hence astrologers

are responsible and not the principle.

 

Even after 2000 years having so much modern complicated knowledge if

any astrologer is not able to correctly apply the principle then why

you are supporting such astrologers. Simply, educate the people that

astrological principles are correct but not a single astrologer is

able to correctly apply these principles hence forget it and wait for

some one who can correctly apply the principle. Because naturally you

will not ask lot of Engineers to waste your building material for

constructing a building which is going to be collapsed. Certainly you

will stop the work and either searches a good engineer or try to find

the defect in the material.

Though astrological principles are not difficult to apply refer SOA

6_______ in file section. Is it actually a tough principle.

 

If you and other learned astrologer are not able to defend and

explain their stand then this forum will continue to examine the

material (principle) for alerting the public to be away from

astrologers to save their lifetime earning of education, experience

etc. ……and money of-course.

 

I can at the most offer my good wishes to you to construct a building

(conclusion of diabetes, bloodgroup etc.) from worst material (sign

lord, aspect, friendship, exalted and dasha etc.), which is not

working since 2000 years.

 

I may like to inform you that nothing in the msg is against you

personally and it is totally academic.

 

I will like to say that no body is challenging any stand of any

member, Because we in the forum are not for fighting but we are just

exchanging our views on astrology; and there is nothing personal.

Even after interaction, everyone has liberty either to amend his

views or may continue with his old stand. I hope members will agree

with my views and try their best to maintain cordial relation even

after hot discussion.

 

Thanks and waiting for your more hooking.

 

Yours truly,

Sanat

 

 

Members may offer their comment and it will be more useful if they

examine the validity of basic principles. For this examination they

have to find out the circumstances, knowledge and procedure adopted

for formulation of the principles, analysis, changes required if any

in view of modern science and so on.

Sh. SB ji , why are you not offering your comments on various points

raised by you (refer SOA_________)

 

23-4-08

 

 

Re: Astrology : faith or fiction ?

Posted by: " Krishnamurthy Seetharama " krishna_1998

krishna_1998

 

 

Dear Sanat ji,

 

I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is ready to take

it.

 

I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with

either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated

several charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having

the combinations I have specified. After I published my article

several people having diabetes sent their birth data to me to check

if they do have such combination. My success rate so far is above

90%. I think this is good enough to consider that the approach is

scientific and the basis of my work (astrology) is scientific.

 

For anyone who wants to read my article, please reach the following

link:

 

http://astrokrishna.blogspot.com/2007/04/astrology-and-diabetes-by-

astrokrishna.html

 

Now, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments

have specific combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is

astrology a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence.

 

What do you say?

 

I am working on another project to identify someone's blood group

using the natal chart. My aim is to publish this soon.

 

Just because we have lost a way a bit in the way we practice

astrology, it is not fake. It is not difficult to find our way back

to the real truth.

 

If a building collapses, you can not call Civil Engineering as fake!

It is just incorrect application that caused the debacle. Astrology

has seen many such debacles due to non-standardization of the

theory, many pseudo scientists. Another issue is inaccurate birth

details that we work with. Once we work on this and find a good fix,

this can be as good as any other modern science. Hope people realize

this.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

 

 

 

, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear Sanat ji,

>

> One of my earlier posts on this subject is stuck. You may have to

clear it as it contains on web-link.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 wrote:

> Very well said Sir!

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote:

> Pranams

>

> Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd

arguements on this thread.

>

> The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain

realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can

show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to

waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements.

>

> Each individual has the right to imagination.

>

> Ravichandran

>

> dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:

> Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean

that the " time twin study " has effectively sounded the death of

astrology as a science?

>

> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant

wrote:

> Dear Readers,

> I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith

or fiction? " .

> The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have

brought disrepute to astrology "

> I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's

shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles

themselves are questionable.

>

> The case against astrology

> The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not

deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors,

it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable

mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of

tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology

books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end

there.

> Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact

astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others.

But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based

on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength

(experience) is actually its weakness (no controls).

>

> The case for astrology

> The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to

come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and

interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised

society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where

else can you get this sort of thing these days?

> In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in

something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in

psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology.

Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have

generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see " Journal

of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article

of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers "

> --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

>

>

> To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

>

> from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.

>

> Indian scientists on Vedic astrology

> Thirty comments from Current Science

> Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry

at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy

in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current

Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in

university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed

astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive

tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with

funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In

chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as

follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

> 2000, Volume 79, issue 9

> Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry

courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11

> Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess

claims.

> Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks

credibility.

> Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

> Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

> Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

> Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

> Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

> Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

> Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

> Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be

challenged.

> Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore

it.

> 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3

> Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a

chance.

> Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of

science.

> Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so

honour it.

> Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame

public.

> Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

> Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not

affected.

> Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a

misnomer.

> Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

> Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is

futile.

> Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs

demystifying.

> Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be

science?

> Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more

difficult.

> Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the

reverse.

> Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs

sciences.

> Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be

fooled?

> Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not!

Recommended!

> Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

> At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years

later:

> 2004, Volume 87, issue 8

> Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay

silent.

>

>

> Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat

ji)

>

 

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

Mobile. Try it now.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

Mobile. Try it now.

>

>

>

>

>

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

Try it now.

>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

 

> I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is ready to take it.

>

> I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with

> either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated several

> charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having the combinations

> I have specified. After I published my article several people having diabetes

> sent their birth data to me to check if they do have such combination. My

> success rate so far is above 90%. I think this is good enough to consider

> that the approach is scientific and the basis of my work (astrology) is

> scientific.

 

I looked at your article. I'm not familiar with vedic but I am familiar with

western would-be scientific astrologers who make claims of this sort, and

who similarly list positions with lots of " or " s. That is, it's predicted

that a person will have the condition if Mars (or whichever planet) is here,

or here, or in mutual reception to this or that, or in aspect to such and

such. Naturally, one or more of those conditions can be found in just about

anybody's chart. What I'm wondering is, if your signature predicts diabetes

in 90% of the people who actually have diabetes, what about people who

don't have diabetes? Are those configurations absent for the majority of

people who don't have it? If your method is like the vast majority that

I've seen, it probably predicts diabetes for most people, in which case it

ALSO predicts it for those who actually have it. For your approach to even

begin to approach science you need to have independently administered

blind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in which

they DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your criteria

to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to people

with diabetes.

 

> . . .

>

> Now, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments

> have specific combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is astrology

> a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence.

 

You can't meaningfully claim anything until you can show that ONLY people

with those specific ailments have those specific combinations. Otherwise

you're just playing poker with 52 jokers.

 

Dale Huckeby

 

--

 

" In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes--new

things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands,

the outlaw territory. " - Sam Keen

Articles:

http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.html

http://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

[Guest guest]

>>For your approach to even

begin to approach science you need to have independently administered

blind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in which

they DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your

criteria

to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to people

with diabetes.<<

 

Even after conducting blind trials and duly certified by agencies,there

are " n " number of drugs being recalled.Even an expert surgeon after

performing surgery takes due recourse by saying,operation successful now

let gods grace be upon be patient.

 

Astrology emanates from different era altogether,and to hold it

responsible to modern scientific enquiry is absurd.Primarily,santhan

dharma uses to further the faith by using astrology as one of its

tools.Each and every palnet has a overlord,just like the nakshatrams.Its

a fond belief by atma vishvasam,one to a large extent nullifies the

distress causing grahas as per ones chart.If faith itself is

fiction,then what am i doing here?

 

sb

 

 

 

, Dale Huckeby <spock

wrote:

>

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

>

> > I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is ready to

take it.

> >

> > I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with

> > either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated

several

> > charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having the

combinations

> > I have specified. After I published my article several people having

diabetes

> > sent their birth data to me to check if they do have such

combination. My

> > success rate so far is above 90%. I think this is good enough to

consider

> > that the approach is scientific and the basis of my work (astrology)

is

> > scientific.

>

> I looked at your article. I'm not familiar with vedic but I am

familiar with

> western would-be scientific astrologers who make claims of this sort,

and

> who similarly list positions with lots of " or " s. That is, it's

predicted

> that a person will have the condition if Mars (or whichever planet) is

here,

> or here, or in mutual reception to this or that, or in aspect to such

and

> such. Naturally, one or more of those conditions can be found in just

about

> anybody's chart. What I'm wondering is, if your signature predicts

diabetes

> in 90% of the people who actually have diabetes, what about people who

> don't have diabetes? Are those configurations absent for the majority

of

> people who don't have it? If your method is like the vast majority

that

> I've seen, it probably predicts diabetes for most people, in which

case it

> ALSO predicts it for those who actually have it. For your approach to

even

> begin to approach science you need to have independently administered

> blind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in which

> they DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your

criteria

> to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to people

> with diabetes.

>

> > . . .

> >

> > Now, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments

> > have specific combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is

astrology

> > a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence.

>

> You can't meaningfully claim anything until you can show that ONLY

people

> with those specific ailments have those specific combinations.

Otherwise

> you're just playing poker with 52 jokers.

>

> Dale Huckeby

>

> --

>

> " In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black

holes--new

> things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the

badlands,

> the outlaw territory. " - Sam Keen

> Articles:

> http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.html

> http://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dale, Thanks for going through my article and writing your comments on the same. I would like to address some of the points you have raised: <<<<I looked at your article. I'm not familiar with vedic but I am familiar with western would-be scientific astrologers who make claims of this sort, and who similarly list positions with lots of "or"s. That is, it's predicted that a person will have the condition if Mars (or whichever planet) is here, or here, or in mutual reception to this or that, or in aspect to such and such. Naturally, one or more of those conditions can be found in just about anybody's chart. What I'm wondering is, if your signature predicts diabetes in 90% of the people who actually have diabetes, what about people who don't have diabetes? >>> 1. Please note that if there are some ORs, they all indicate different ways a planet

gets afflicted or weakened. Hence, one of those conditions is required and not all of them. 2. You may not have read my article fully. If you have read, you would have noticed that I have also given examples of charts where the the conditions specified by me are mostly not satisfied and the natives don't have diabetes. 3. It is not that I have looked at charts of people only having diabetes not looked at others. The confirmation of my combination comes from the fact that people who don't have the combination also did not have diabetes. I specifically picked people who are aged above 60 years and don't have diabetes to check this out. <<<If your method is like the vast majority that I've seen, it probably predicts diabetes for most people, in which case it ALSO predicts it for those who actually have it. For your approach to even begin to approach

science you need to have independently administeredblind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in which they DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your criteria to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to people with diabetes.>>> 1. Your statements are natural doubts of people who have read some theory and not tested it and yet doubt it because of various reasons. I would like you to test my theory and then comment. Otherwise what you write makes no sense and would be pure imagination. 2. I have alos tried a few blind charts and then checked with the natives about their diabetic condition. <<<You can't meaningfully claim anything until you can show that ONLY people with those specific ailments have those specific combinations. Otherwise you're just playing poker with 52 jokers.>>> That is a very good word of caution. I appreciate it. In fact, that is what I have tried to take innto account in testing my theory. And, it is for all of you to validate it. I have the confidence that the theory will pass the test of times. I am very thankful to you for your comments and advice. Only a meaningful dialog can bring out any improvements in what I am trying to put forward. I am convinced that astrology when practiced right gives correct results. The question is to find the right path. It is my earnest effort to seek that path. I look forward to any support/help coming from any corner in achieving this. Regards, Krishna Dale Huckeby <spock wrote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:> I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is ready to take it.>> I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with> either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated several > charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having the combinations > I have specified. After I published my article several people having diabetes > sent their birth data to me to check if they do have such combination. My > success rate so far is above 90%. I think this is good enough to consider> that the

approach is scientific and the basis of my work (astrology) is> scientific.I looked at your article. I'm not familiar with vedic but I am familiar withwestern would-be scientific astrologers who make claims of this sort, andwho similarly list positions with lots of "or"s. That is, it's predictedthat a person will have the condition if Mars (or whichever planet) is here,or here, or in mutual reception to this or that, or in aspect to such andsuch. Naturally, one or more of those conditions can be found in just aboutanybody's chart. What I'm wondering is, if your signature predicts diabetesin 90% of the people who actually have diabetes, what about people whodon't have diabetes? Are those configurations absent for the majority ofpeople who don't have it? If your method is like the vast majority thatI've seen, it probably predicts diabetes for most people, in which case itALSO predicts it for those who actually have

it. For your approach to evenbegin to approach science you need to have independently administeredblind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in whichthey DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your criteriato correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to peoplewith diabetes.> . . .>> Now, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments> have specific combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is astrology> a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence.You can't meaningfully claim anything until you can show that ONLY peoplewith those specific ailments have those specific combinations. Otherwiseyou're just playing poker with 52 jokers.Dale Huckeby-- "In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes--newthings begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands,the

outlaw territory." - Sam KeenArticles:http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.htmlhttp://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sanat ji, I am not here to fully dedicate my time at your beck and call. I respond only when I am free. Looks like you have some very wrong notions. I am not here to support or oppose any astrologer or any community whether they are are astrologers or the ones who are questioning astrologers. I am not interested in that. I am only trying to present my experience. I am not here to take responsibility for what the whole astrologer community does. I was a curious observer of Astrogy until a few years back. I started reading and understanding it only since 3-4 years back. In my limited experience, what I have discovered is the principles wrongly applied are the cause for the debacles. Hence, in my conclusion, the raw materials are not defective. It is the application that is defective. This is contrary to your conclusion that my theory is based on defective raw

materials. I am wondering from where did you actually draw such conclusion from my post. You seem to be blessed with flawed logic! You have already declared that my building (theory) is flawed without even ehcking it out. This indicates your mindset and your disrespect to an unbiased dialog even though you claim that you are unbiased and only trying to explore things rationally. I am really surprised by your attitude. Ha, Ha, Hi, Hi. Hope you will not take my comments personally. Good bye, and all the best to your efforts. Regards, Krishna sanat2221 <sanatkumar_jain wrote: Astrology a faith or fictionResp. Krishna Ji,Namaskar,Thanks for your turning up (But is it necessary to remind for your appearance? Hi Hi. I think you will continue to hook and teach us).I think your planets are not working properly and there is some technical problem with the planets, who always classify your msg. as spam. You are a software Eng. So correct their programming (just joking).Yes, definitely I will clear your msg. I also find a msg on my email which I am including, below my msg. Actual comment on your link will follow. But it would have been better if you upload the blog in file

section for the benefit of the members in general and for the benefit of future members. I have gone through your earlier link regarding colour of planets. But I could not reply due to rush of points and your absence from the screen and of course I am also slow and think on every msg. So please continue and if you want then I am ready to offer my comments on your earlier discovery regarding colours, which is definitely not in your favour.You have indicated your views abt the diabetes and blood group with your observation that astrology can be as good as any other modern science. Hope people realize this.But first of all we must realize (and this forum is working on that line in general) that any conclusion either it may be diabetes, blood group or predictive principles included in lot of books or principles created by astrologers themselves (including your would be principle) are basically founded on sign

lord, aspect, friendship, exalted and dasha (beside some supporting principles). These are the basic principles and from these principles you are free to derive any conclusion as you like. Thus when this is the building block of entire predictive astrology then is it not necessary and essential to know their validity, how they were created and whether they are supported by our sages / ved or it is just a manipulated form where every body has created his own principles, just to fall psychologically.Yes, you are right that "If a building collapses, you can not call Civil Engineering as fake! It is just incorrect application that caused the debacle. Astrology has seen many such debacles due to non-standardization of the theory, many pseudo scientists. Another issue is inaccurate birth details that we work with. Once we work on this and find a good fix, this can be as good as any other modern science."But

by this you are indirectly admitting that 1 since primitive time every astrologer is working with inaccurate birth details and whatever he is concluding is not more then a coincidence and astrologers are still befooling.2 by the time you or say some one else will find a good fix till then every astrologer is free to cheat others and innocent public may be asked to live with weak building of predictive astrology and till then everybody may continue to publicize from media to forum to conference to ……. and so on that astrology is a science.I think it is not a good tactics. First of all we must examine as to whether there is some science in it and if you know that is wrong then you may immediately alert the public and when in future you find some thing worthwhile only then you must ask public to follow that discovery. Not before that.3 there is debacles due to non-standardization of the theory.Still you

are following and concluding some sort of illness from non-standard theory.4 astrologer are incorrectly applying the theory hence astrologers are responsible and not the principle. Even after 2000 years having so much modern complicated knowledge if any astrologer is not able to correctly apply the principle then why you are supporting such astrologers. Simply, educate the people that astrological principles are correct but not a single astrologer is able to correctly apply these principles hence forget it and wait for some one who can correctly apply the principle. Because naturally you will not ask lot of Engineers to waste your building material for constructing a building which is going to be collapsed. Certainly you will stop the work and either searches a good engineer or try to find the defect in the material. Though astrological principles are not difficult to apply refer SOA 6_______ in file

section. Is it actually a tough principle.If you and other learned astrologer are not able to defend and explain their stand then this forum will continue to examine the material (principle) for alerting the public to be away from astrologers to save their lifetime earning of education, experience etc. ……and money of-course.I can at the most offer my good wishes to you to construct a building (conclusion of diabetes, bloodgroup etc.) from worst material (sign lord, aspect, friendship, exalted and dasha etc.), which is not working since 2000 years.I may like to inform you that nothing in the msg is against you personally and it is totally academic. I will like to say that no body is challenging any stand of any member, Because we in the forum are not for fighting but we are just exchanging our views on astrology; and there is nothing personal. Even after interaction, everyone has liberty either to

amend his views or may continue with his old stand. I hope members will agree with my views and try their best to maintain cordial relation even after hot discussion. Thanks and waiting for your more hooking. Yours truly,SanatMembers may offer their comment and it will be more useful if they examine the validity of basic principles. For this examination they have to find out the circumstances, knowledge and procedure adopted for formulation of the principles, analysis, changes required if any in view of modern science and so on.Sh. SB ji , why are you not offering your comments on various points raised by you (refer SOA_________)23-4-08Re: Astrology : faith or fiction ? Posted by: "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" krishna_1998 krishna_1998 Dear Sanat ji,I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is

ready to take it.I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated several charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having the combinations I have specified. After I published my article several people having diabetes sent their birth data to me to check if they do have such combination. My success rate so far is above 90%. I think this is good enough to consider that the approach is scientific and the basis of my work (astrology) is scientific.For anyone who wants to read my article, please reach the following link:http://astrokrishna.blogspot.com/2007/04/astrology-and-diabetes-by-astrokrishna.htmlNow, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments have specific

combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is astrology a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence.What do you say?I am working on another project to identify someone's blood group using the natal chart. My aim is to publish this soon.Just because we have lost a way a bit in the way we practice astrology, it is not fake. It is not difficult to find our way back to the real truth. If a building collapses, you can not call Civil Engineering as fake! It is just incorrect application that caused the debacle. Astrology has seen many such debacles due to non-standardization of the theory, many pseudo scientists. Another issue is inaccurate birth details that we work with. Once we work on this and find a good fix, this can be as good as any other modern science. Hope people realize this.Regards,Krishna , Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 wrote:>> Dear Sanat ji,> > One of my earlier posts on this subject is stuck. You may have to clear it as it contains on web-link.> > Regards,> Krishna> > Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 wrote:> Very well said Sir!> > Regards,> Krishna> > Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote:> Pranams> > Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. > > The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd

arguements.> > Each individual has the right to imagination.> > Ravichandran> > dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:> Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the "time twin study" has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science?> > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:> Dear Readers,> I am starting a new thread to discuss whether "Astrology is faith or fiction?". > The old topic discussed whether "fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology"> I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable. > > The case against astrology> The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced by

non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.> Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls).> > The case for astrology> The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to

come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?> In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please see "Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers"> --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf> > > To start off the

debate, I am including the proceedings > > from "Current Science" Journal on this topic.> > Indian scientists on Vedic astrology> Thirty comments from Current Science> Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:> 2000, Volume 79, issue

9> Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11> Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.> Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.> Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.> Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.> Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.> Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.> Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.> Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.> Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.> Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.> Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.> 2001, Volume 81,

issues 1-3> Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.> Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.> Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.> Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.> Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.> Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.> Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.> Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.> Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.> Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.> Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?> Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like

knowledge but more difficult.> Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.> Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.> Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?> Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!> Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.> At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later:> 2004, Volume 87, issue 8> Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.> > > Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)> > > > > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. > > >

> > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. > > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.>

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, sureshbalaraman wrote:

 

>> For your approach to even

>> begin to approach science you need to have independently administered

>> blind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in which

>> they DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your

>> criteria

>> to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to people

>> with diabetes.

>

> Even after conducting blind trials and duly certified by agencies,there

> are " n " number of drugs being recalled.Even an expert surgeon after

> performing surgery takes due recourse by saying,operation successful now

> let gods grace be upon be patient.

>

> Astrology emanates from different era altogether,and to hold it

> responsible to modern scientific enquiry is absurd.Primarily,santhan

> dharma uses to further the faith by using astrology as one of its

> tools.Each and every palnet has a overlord,just like the nakshatrams.Its

> a fond belief by atma vishvasam,one to a large extent nullifies the

> distress causing grahas as per ones chart.If faith itself is

> fiction,then what am i doing here?

 

Sorry, but this sounds like a copout. If we avoid ways of holding astrology

accountable we also avoid the possibility of discovering sound knowledge.

Of course, most astrologers think we already have it, which is part of the

problem.

 

Dale Huckeby

 

--

 

" In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes--new

things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands,

the outlaw territory. " - Sam Keen

Articles:

http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.html

http://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

[Guest guest]

I think,what our sages ,seers told us is,by following a prescribed sets

of rules thru jyotisham,one can acheive moksha relatively easire

way.People like to believe,so jyotisham exists.Miracles keep happening

all the time.Jyotisham will prove its superiority as a science,i have

faith in its laws.This is my opinion.

 

sb

 

 

, Dale Huckeby <spock

wrote:

>

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, sureshbalaraman wrote:

>

> >> For your approach to even

> >> begin to approach science you need to have independently

administered

> >> blind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in

which

> >> they DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your

> >> criteria

> >> to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to

people

> >> with diabetes.

> >

> > Even after conducting blind trials and duly certified by

agencies,there

> > are " n " number of drugs being recalled.Even an expert surgeon after

> > performing surgery takes due recourse by saying,operation successful

now

> > let gods grace be upon be patient.

> >

> > Astrology emanates from different era altogether,and to hold it

> > responsible to modern scientific enquiry is absurd.Primarily,santhan

> > dharma uses to further the faith by using astrology as one of its

> > tools.Each and every palnet has a overlord,just like the

nakshatrams.Its

> > a fond belief by atma vishvasam,one to a large extent nullifies the

> > distress causing grahas as per ones chart.If faith itself is

> > fiction,then what am i doing here?

>

> Sorry, but this sounds like a copout. If we avoid ways of holding

astrology

> accountable we also avoid the possibility of discovering sound

knowledge.

> Of course, most astrologers think we already have it, which is part of

the

> problem.

>

> Dale Huckeby

>

> --

>

> " In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black

holes--new

> things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the

badlands,

> the outlaw territory. " - Sam Keen

> Articles:

> http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.html

> http://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jagadisan ji Namaste,Kindly list the arguments you found absurd against astrology.Also, it will help if you can share those personal experiences which make you believe in astrology.Technically speaking, sweetness of sugar can be measured by Brix refractometry,owever, that is besides the point of discussion.

RegardsDipsOn Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jagadisan Ravichandran <jnravi wrote:

 

 

 

 

Pranams Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd arguements on this thread. The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements.

Each individual has the right to imagination. Ravichandrandipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:

Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the " time twin study " has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a science?

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant wrote:

Dear Readers,I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or fiction? " . The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought disrepute to astrology "

I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles themselves are questionable.

The

case against astrology The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls).

The case for astrology The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these days?

In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise let alone resolve

Please see

" Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of astrologers " --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.

Indian scientists on Vedic astrologyThirty comments from Current Science

Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

2000, Volume 79, issue 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.

Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.

Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it. 2001, Volume 81, issues

1-3Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.

Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.

Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.

Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.

Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the

reverse.Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not! Recommended!

Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later: 2004, Volume 87, issue 8

Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent. Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Brix Refractometry is also based on human assumptions and laws,accepted

by scientific community.But the taste of anything let alone sugar,is

still based on human beings..unless brix refractometr has an artificial

intelligence fitted to it based on datas provided by humans!!

 

 

 

sb

 

 

, " dipika blr "

<blr.aspirant wrote:

>

> Dear Jagadisan ji Namaste,

>

> Kindly list the arguments you found absurd against astrology.

> Also, it will help if you can share those personal experiences which

make

> you believe in astrology.

>

> Technically speaking, sweetness of sugar can be measured by Brix

> refractometry,owever, that is besides the point of discussion.

>

> Regards

> Dips

>

>

> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jagadisan Ravichandran jnravi

> wrote:

>

> > Pranams

> >

> > Almost all the members have been watching silently all the absurd

> > arguements on this thread.

> >

> > The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain

realizations

> > that have to come only by personal experience. We can show sugar but

we can

> > not explain sweetness. Members do not want to waste their time and

energy by

> > involving in absurd arguements.

> >

> > Each individual has the right to imagination.

> >

> > Ravichandran

> >

> >

> > *dipika blr blr.aspirant* wrote:

> >

> > Does the silence of the group to this earlier message mean that the

" *time

> > twin study* " has effectively sounded the death of astrology as a

science?

> >

> > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr blr.aspirant

> > wrote:

> >

> >> Dear Readers,

> >> I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith

or

> >> fiction? " .

> >> The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought

> >> disrepute to astrology "

> >> I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's

> >> shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles

themselves

> >> are questionable.

> >> *The case against astrology*

> >> The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not

deliver

> >> benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has

not

> >> contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its

> >> principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no

hint of

> >> these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect

are

> >> exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

> >> Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

which

> >> zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

scientists see

> >> astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly

nice

> >> people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they

repeatedly make

> >> (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken

- what

> >> they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no

> >> controls).

> >>

> >> *The case for astrology*

> >> The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

provides

> >> low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by.

You get

> >> emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to

stimulate

> >> self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego

support at

> >> a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these

days?

> >> In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

note

> >> the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something

that is

> >> untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy

and even

> >> religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it

presents an

> >> ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise

let

> >> alone resolve Please see " *Journal of Consciousness Studies* 10

(6-7),

> >> 175-198, a long scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references.

Tests of

> >> *time twins* and of astrologers "

> >> --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

> >>

> >> To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

> >> from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.

> >> *Indian scientists on Vedic astrology*

> >> *Thirty comments from Current Science*

> >> *Abstract* -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

India

> >> decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at

Indian

> >> universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the

pages of

> >> the prestigious Indian science journal *Current Science*. Of thirty

> >> comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or

research

> >> institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science,

about half

> >> of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt

there was

> >> nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian

people

> >> believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments

are

> >> briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

> >> *2000, Volume 79, issue 9*

> >> Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

*2001,

> >> Volume 80, issues 6-11*

> >> Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess

claims.

> >> Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks

credibility.

> >> Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

> >> Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

> >> Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

> >> Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people

believe.

> >> Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a

science.

> >> Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

> >> Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should

we.

> >> Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be

challenged.

> >> Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore

it.

> >> *2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3*

> >> Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a

chance.

> >> Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of

science.

> >> Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so

honour it.

> >> Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame

public.

> >> Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

> >> Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not

affected.

> >> Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so *Vedic* is a

misnomer.

> >> Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

> >> Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is

futile.

> >> Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs

demystifying.

> >> Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be

science?

> >> Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more

difficult.

> >> Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the

reverse.

> >> Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs

sciences.

> >> Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be

fooled?

> >> Narlikar (review of *Astrology: Believe it or not?*) -- Not!

Recommended!

> >> Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any

other.

> >> At which point the debate was closed by the editor. *Three years

later:*

> >> *2004, Volume 87, issue 8*

> >> Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay

silent.

> >>

> >> Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

> >>

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------

> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

Try it

> >

now.<http://us.rd./evt=51733/*http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu\

06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishnamurthy ji Namaste,I went through your blog. 1. I would appreciate it if your research base of both diabetic birth charts and non-diabetic control charts were increased to meet statistical requirements. However you have not mentioned the dashas in which the conditions are activated, which i found was out of traditional vedic astrology.

2. Regarding correlation between parental charts and offspring-charts your efforts to explain planetary " transformations " all but seem to be a random transformation and not a predictable trasnformation, if you intending to indicate the same.

2. I am waiting to see the results of your future work, blood groups and birth charts, to see what theories (And how many or conditions you come up with)RegardsDipikaOn Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dale, Thanks for going through my article and writing your comments on the same. I would like to address some of the points you have raised:

<<<<I looked at your article. I'm not familiar with vedic but I am familiar with western would-be scientific astrologers who make claims of this sort, and who similarly list positions with lots of " or " s. That is, it's predicted that a person will have the condition if Mars (or whichever planet) is here, or here, or in mutual reception to this or that, or in aspect to such and such. Naturally, one or more of those conditions can be found in just about anybody's chart. What I'm wondering is, if your signature predicts diabetes in 90% of the people who actually have diabetes, what about people who don't have diabetes? >>>

1. Please note that if there are some ORs, they all indicate different ways a planet

gets afflicted or weakened. Hence, one of those conditions is required and not all of them. 2. You may not have read my article fully. If you have read, you would have noticed that I have also given examples of charts where the the conditions specified by me are mostly not satisfied and the natives don't have diabetes.

3. It is not that I have looked at charts of people only having diabetes not looked at others. The confirmation of my combination comes from the fact that people who don't have the combination also did not have diabetes. I specifically picked people who are aged above 60 years and don't have diabetes to check this out.

<<<If your method is like the vast majority that I've seen, it probably predicts diabetes for most people, in which case it ALSO predicts it for those who actually have it. For your approach to even begin to approach

science you need to have independently administeredblind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in which they DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your criteria to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to people with diabetes.>>>

1. Your statements are natural doubts of people who have read some theory and not tested it and yet doubt it because of various reasons. I would like you to test my theory and then comment. Otherwise what you write makes no sense and would be pure imagination.

2. I have alos tried a few blind charts and then checked with the natives about their diabetic condition. <<<You can't meaningfully claim anything until you can show that ONLY people with those specific ailments have those specific combinations. Otherwise you're just playing poker with 52 jokers.>>>

That is a very good word of caution. I appreciate it. In fact, that is what I have tried to take innto account in testing my theory. And, it is for all of you to validate it. I have the confidence that the theory will pass the test of times.

I am very thankful to you for your comments and advice. Only a meaningful dialog can bring out any improvements in what I am trying to put forward. I am convinced that astrology when practiced right gives correct results. The question is to find the right path. It is my earnest effort to seek that path. I look forward to any support/help coming from any corner in achieving this.

Regards, Krishna Dale Huckeby <spock wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:> I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is ready to take it.>

> I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with> either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated several > charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having the combinations

> I have specified. After I published my article several people having diabetes > sent their birth data to me to check if they do have such combination. My > success rate so far is above 90%. I think this is good enough to consider

> that the

approach is scientific and the basis of my work (astrology) is> scientific.I looked at your article. I'm not familiar with vedic but I am familiar withwestern would-be scientific astrologers who make claims of this sort, and

who similarly list positions with lots of " or " s. That is, it's predictedthat a person will have the condition if Mars (or whichever planet) is here,or here, or in mutual reception to this or that, or in aspect to such and

such. Naturally, one or more of those conditions can be found in just aboutanybody's chart. What I'm wondering is, if your signature predicts diabetesin 90% of the people who actually have diabetes, what about people who

don't have diabetes? Are those configurations absent for the majority ofpeople who don't have it? If your method is like the vast majority thatI've seen, it probably predicts diabetes for most people, in which case it

ALSO predicts it for those who actually have

it. For your approach to evenbegin to approach science you need to have independently administeredblind trials in which people have a set of charts of people, in whichthey DON'T know which ones have diabetes, and are able to use your criteria

to correctly choose those, and ONLY those, that correspond to peoplewith diabetes.> . . .>> Now, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments> have specific combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is astrology

> a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence.You can't meaningfully claim anything until you can show that ONLY peoplewith those specific ailments have those specific combinations. Otherwise

you're just playing poker with 52 jokers.Dale Huckeby-- " In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes--newthings begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands,

the

outlaw territory. " - Sam KeenArticles:http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.htmlhttp://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

krishnaji,

 

i am trying to understand how you are able to correlate diabetes,blood

pressure,high cholesterol thru astrology.I am sort of convinced that the

food that we prepare is based on ayurvedic principles,which our

sages,seers formulated for a balanced diet based on tri-doshas.can i

contact you privately thru email to discuss this personal issue,really

very interesting.

 

 

 

sb

 

 

, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear Sanat ji,

>

> I can also throw a challenge. Let us see if some one is ready to take

it.

>

> I have identified specific combinations in the charts of people with

either Type-1 or Type-2 diabetes. In my write-up I have demonstrated

several charts of people suffering from both types of diabetes having

the combinations I have specified. After I published my article several

people having diabetes sent their birth data to me to check if they do

have such combination. My success rate so far is above 90%. I think this

is good enough to consider that the approach is scientific and the basis

of my work (astrology) is scientific.

>

> For anyone who wants to read my article, please reach the following

link:

>

>

http://astrokrishna.blogspot.com/2007/04/astrology-and-diabetes-by-astro\

krishna.html

>

> Now, if Astrology is fiction, how come people with specific ailments

have specific combinations in their birth charts? Therefore is astrology

a fiction? I guess this is too good be just coincidence.

>

> What do you say?

>

> I am working on another project to identify someone's blood group

using the natal chart. My aim is to publish this soon.

>

> Just because we have lost a way a bit in the way we practice

astrology, it is not fake. It is not difficult to find our way back to

the real truth.

>

> If a building collapses, you can not call Civil Engineering as fake!

It is just incorrect application that caused the debacle. Astrology has

seen many such debacles due to non-standardization of the theory, many

pseudo scientists. Another issue is inaccurate birth details that we

work with. Once we work on this and find a good fix, this can be as good

as any other modern science. Hope people realize this.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

>

>

>

> sanat2221 sanatkumar_jain wrote:

> Astrology is faith or fiction

> Resp. Dipika ji,

> Namaskar,

> Welcome in the forum and thanks for your first msg. I am relieved a

> little bit as I find a friend with strong views and dedication. Hope

> you will ask your other rational friends to join this forum to face

> the arguments put forward by the astrologers, individuals and

> learners with a view to know their stand and convince them if

> possible. But of course without any personal ill-will.

> You have raised a point as to whether Astrology is faith or fiction.

> So far my stand is concerned I am of the firm opinion that it is

> both. Astrology is alive on the shoulder of faith derived from

> religion. Whereas it has nothing to do with religion. As predictive

> astrology is offspring of astronomy, which was known as astrology.

> Human psychology which was not known to our sages played an important

> role in promoting it. Secondly, predictions concluded by the

> astrologers are randomly true, hence it is fiction.

> Have you noticed that every astrologer claims that it is science

> (though no scientist ever say that any research is backed by any

> religion). But when we put some questions then they try to hide them

> in the lap of religion. For fear of God, people generally avoid this

> scene. Hence astrologer continue to survive. Because there is lot of

> business activity hence businessman (may be media or jewelers etc.)

> support them. Innocent, ignorant general public neither has knowledge

> nor time nor patience to dig it nor willing to accept that our sages

> too were human-beings. Hence they become easy prey of astrologers due

> to faith and fictitious luring prediction.

> Regarding your second point as to whether " fake astrologers have

> brought disrepute to astrology " . I will say No. Because basically

> there is no repute of astrology hence there is no question of

> disrepute too. By linking it with fake astrologers we are indirectly

> admitting that basically astrology is correct and some fake

> astrologers have disrepute it. But it is not the case because if

> there is lot of fake astrologers then there must be some (say one)

> best astrologers too. Where are they ? Everybody says that good

> astrologer can correctly predict but where is he? That best

> astrologer is only in the mind of an individual and nowhere. Because

> when astrology (predictive) itself is not correct then what can be

> done by a poor astrologer except beating the drum of tradition,

> ancient, religion, sages, Ved and so on. You can read my first msg or

> a file " Astrology a science or myth " , wherein you will find that

> after raising so many questions not a single astrologer has turned up

> with the explanation as to how all principles were formulated and so

> on…..because predictive astrology is itself fake.

> You can upload the article of Dean regarding Time Twins.

> If you have no reservations then please intimate about yourself.

> Yours truly,

> Sanat

> sanatkumar_jain

> Members may please offer their comments on the points raised by Ms

> Dipika Ji or on earlier points. New points are as follows.

> 1. Whether Astrology is faith or fiction.

> 2. Whether " fake astrologers have brought disrepute to astrology " .

> Many members are just reading the msg. But I will like to request

> them that they may offer their views on any side and may please offer

> their comments pointwise so that summery of discussion may be taken

> to file section under SOA______. Refer SOA for various points raised

> in the forum.

> Krishnamurthy Ji, where are you as Bala ji is busy in his domestic

> problem and reply on pending point is awaited from SB Ji.

>

> , " dipika blr "

> blr.aspirant@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Readers,

> > I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is faith or

> > fiction? " .

> >

> > The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have brought

> > disrepute to astrology "

> >

> > I think this is just a convenient excuse to address astrology's

> > shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles

> themselves

> > are questionable.

> >

> > *The case against astrology*

> >

> > The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not deliver

> > benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological factors, it has

> not

> > contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable mechanism, its

> > principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no

> hint of

> > these problems will be found in astrology books, which in effect are

> > exercises in deception. But it doesn't end there.

> >

> > Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such as

> which

> > zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

> scientists see

> > astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact astrologers are mostly

> nice

> > people who genuinely wish to help others. But the claim they

> repeatedly make

> > (astrology is true because based on experience) is simply mistaken -

> what

> > they see as its strength (experience) is actually its weakness (no

> > controls).

> >

> >

> >

> > *The case for astrology*

> >

> > The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer

> provides

> > low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by.

> You get

> > emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to

> stimulate

> > self-examination. In a dehumanised society astrology provides ego

> support at

> > a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these

> days?

> > In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false. But

> note the

> > dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in something that

> is

> > untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as in psychotherapy

> and even

> > religion, so it is not unique to astrology. Nevertheless it

> presents an

> > ethical problem that astrologers have generally failed to recognise

> let

> > alone resolve

> >

> > Please see " *Journal of Consciousness Studies* 10 (6-7), 175-198, a

> long

> > scholarly article of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of *time

> twins* and

> > of astrologers "

> >

> > --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

> >

> >

> > To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

> >

> > from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.

> >

> > *Indian scientists on Vedic astrology*

> > *Thirty comments from Current Science*

> >

> > *Abstract* -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

> India decided

> > to provide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian

> > universities. The decision provoked outrage and controversy in the

> pages of

> > the prestigious Indian science journal *Current Science*. Of thirty

> > comments, most of them from scientists in university departments or

> research

> > institutes, about half dismissed astrology as a pseudo-science,

> about half

> > of the rest felt decisive tests were needed, and the rest felt

> there was

> > nothing wrong with funding something that the majority of Indian

> people

> > believed in. In chronological order, the authors and their comments

> are

> > briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

> > *2000, Volume 79, issue 9*

> > Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

> >

> > *2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11*

> > Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess

> claims.

> > Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks

> credibility.

> > Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

> > Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.

> > Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

> > Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.

> > Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.

> > Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

> > Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.

> > Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be

> challenged.

> > Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore

> it.

> >

> > *2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3*

> > Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a

> chance.

> > Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of

> science.

> > Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so

> honour it.

> > Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame

> public.

> > Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.

> > Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not

> affected.

> > Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so *Vedic* is a

> misnomer.

> > Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

> > Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is

> futile.

> > Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs

> demystifying.

> > Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be

> science?

> > Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more

> difficult.

> > Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the

> reverse.

> > Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs

> sciences.

> > Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be

> fooled?

> > Narlikar (review of *Astrology: Believe it or not?*) -- Not!

> Recommended!

> > Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.

> > At which point the debate was closed by the editor. *Three years

> later:*

> >

> > *2004, Volume 87, issue 8*

> > Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay

> silent.

> >

> >

> > Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy Sanat ji)

> >

 

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try

it now.

>

[Guest guest]

Resp Ravi ji,

Namaskar,

You have admitted that " Astrology is also one such experience. " . Thus

you have admitted that it is not a science and further it can not be

explained like sweetness of sugar and lastly you have admitted

that " The fact is astrology is a faith above all. "

 

Predictive astrology does not have any prediction in the form of

sweetness, which can only be experienced and can not be explained. In

that situation there would have been no astrologers, who are

explaining the future event by applying predictive principles.

 

Certainly we have faith on doctor so long he is curing our illness

but if some layman claim himself as doctor and may continue his

practice in suburban area and may cure, may not cure some patients.

It makes no difference over his faith, But if one fine morning some

one say that the doctor is fake then certainly everyone will like to

know about his education and so on. Likewise, predictive astrology,

developed by some astrologer sages like parashar, Varahmihir etc….

and may continue to practice predictive astrology on the pretext that

planet are deities and so on……. Prediction appears to be correct due

to psychological effect (not known in those days) and planets were

treated as deities (hovering over fixed Earth), pleased them by

offering and so on ……….. till we came to know abt the solar system

and developed science and so on. Now if I am asking about the

validity of astrological principles then you (astrologers) can not

save their skin by claiming it science as well as taking shelter

under religion with definite form of principles (refer SOA 6______)

or faith. Now before pushing predictive astrology they may have to

answer many questions. (refer file astrology a science or myth)

 

I can not support your stand that " One can not question axioms. " So

far predictive astrology is concerned. How you can say that it is

axioms. Just come forward with any predictive principle, which you

think is axioms. Can some one predict after analyzing a horoscope

that particular horo. belong to a lady or man, about marriage, about

children, about wife, about job, about money about death and so

on…………….

 

Please do not call God and create problems to him for every foolish

act of astrologers. As no religious scripture from East to West has

ever supported predictive astrology. So where is the question of

calling God now and then that too when astrologers are not able to

find out the time of birth (it is your msg.)

 

But you are claiming it as faith hence no argument, no question,

because we are not analyzing faith, so long someone is not willing to

realize that faith too can only be generated on the shoulder of

knowledge and conclusions drawn by any civilization in any particular

situation; hence knowledge can be updated and conclusions may also be

wrong due to some wrong information. So till you realize that faith

towards predictive astrology may be blind-faith, you may continue

with your faith. But now it is your duty to challenge every

astrologer, who claims that astrology is a science.

 

Please do not take any comment as personal. Members may also like to

share their views.

 

Thanks

sanat

25-4-08

 

PS. Dr Bhashyam and Sushil Ji, we are not receiving msg. from your

side. RU hearing?

 

 

 

 

 

, Jagadisan Ravichandran

<jnravi wrote:

>

> Dear Sanatji

>

> Pranams

>

> I have clearly explained in my post that sweetness can not be

explained only sugar can be explained. I have also said that in

certain matters only personal experience will make you believe things

not arguments or science. Astrology is also one such experience.

>

> Everything can not be explained by science. Because man has not

mastered science, he is only a student in science.

>

> Wen we take the medicine prescribed by a doctor, we do not question

his knowledge. We do not analyze it by scientific arguments. When we

board a flight, we do not question the capability of the pilot to

fly. Similarly, astrology can not be questioned. It is true that some

doctors prescriptions and some flights give you a one way ticket.

Similarly some astrologers also give you wrong predictions.

>

> One can not question axioms. Certain topics can be discussed and

analyzed, certain topics can not be analyzed, because they are

axioms. Axioms are like beliefs.

>

> If one says there is God and the other says there is no God. How

can there be a discussion in this subject? The two ends can not meet.

Because God is a personal experience. A Nastik may point out 1000

arguments to support his belief. But an Astik need not and will not

argue with him. He will only pray to God to give the Nastik some

sanity.

>

> So there is no argument whether astrology is a fact or fiction. The

fact is astrology is a faith above all.

>

> Regards

>

> Ravichandran

>

> sanat2221 <sanatkumar_jain wrote:

Resp. Ravichandran Ji,

> Namaskar,

> Thanks for your msg after a very long time. You have admitted that

> you are silently watching the absurd arguments. Whereas I am

> repeatedly asking the members to take part in the interaction.

So,

> naturally it is your fault by not defending or explaining your

stand.

> In my earlier msg I cleared that it is the difference of opinion

> which leads us to new horizon of knowledge and we can find the

truth

> after searching new logics etc. and I am giving due regards to

every

> opinion and incorporating them in my various SOA________ files,

which

> you may have seen. I have also suggested that members may invite

> their other friends or astrologers to this forum to have some

> exchange of views. Because what the use of a forum is, if every

body

> has same opinion or if there is no space for difference. What you

can

> learn from such forum. In view of my above explanation how you can

> say that interaction is absurd.

>

> The problem is this that everyone has his own ego and he is not

> willing to change his stand fearing a sort of defeat. But actually

it

> is not so. We must learn through out of our life and we can only

> learn if we have open mind. Discussion in the forum is not meant

for

> changing your views but aim is just to bring you on the brink of

new

> thought so that you may start a new thinking yourself with a

> different opinion or if you want to continue your own thought, it

is

> still welcome, then it is your duty to teach others and reply

various

> queries. Actually we accept everything as correct which is being

> followed by others. But you may have seen queue in front of

wineshop

> but no customer on the shop of fruit seller. So please don't be

lured

> with crowd.

>

> So far experience is concerned, conclusion drawn after your

> experience may be right or wrong. So you may have open mind every

> time. I am studying astrology since last 40 years and with a view

to

> find a single foolproof prediction, I myself prepared an eskain

> horoscope incorporating almost all principles (may be seen in file

> section). But actually there is no truth in astrology.

>

> It is your wrong conclusion that Members do not want to waste

their

> time and energy by involving in absurd arguements. If it is so

then

> you can teach us correct explanation and I can assure you that

> atleast I am willing to know your stand and your teachings but not

on

> the shoulder of baseless faith. Either you say that Astrology is

not

> a science and it is a matter of faith then there is no question of

> discussion; at this stand you have to challenge various

astrologers

> and forums that it is not science. But at one hand you want to

take

> benefit of popularity of science and on the other hand you want to

> take it as a faith. How both statements may be taken together?

>

> I will again like to request you to please see various points and

> discussion in various SOA______files in file section or in file

> astrology a science or myth, or may raise any point which you

think

> is beneficial for astrology. But with silence you are not going to

> serve your purpose. You must take active part and strongly defend

> your point. So far I remember you have only defended your point

> regarding time of birth (refer file SOA time of birth), wherein

you

> have admitted that our sages do not have clock but forecasted on

the

> basis of intuition. Thus where is the need of correct time and

> application of astrological principles or defending these

> requirement. Certainly we must search some intuition master who

can

> correctly peep in future and forget all astrologer who are

exercising

> baseless tactics.

>

> So please do not be a silent listener. Come out with fresh energy.

As

> we are not asking to explain the sweetness of sugar but we are

asking

> sugar itself and we will learn what is sweetness. But actually you

> are providing bitter pills and claiming it as sugar.

>

> Remember nothing is against you personally and I am ready to say

> sorry for any hurting.

> But pl. defend your stand logically and take any thread. Because

you

> see, actually we have wasted 2 msgs without any concrete arguments.

>

> Waiting for your msg full with arguments and not just bypassing

> remarks.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Yours

> Sanat

>

> Members may please share your stand on any point on any side

either

> in favour or against astrology but without personal ill-will.

> Krishnamurty ji where are you, if you want then we can take up

your

> point. SB ji you have raised many points hence we are looking for

new

> points or your counter stand on various earlier points (refer

> SOA_____ files). Some more files are still in the pipeline.

> Ms. Dipika Ji, I am still not able to download timetwins of Dean.

If

> you can upload then pl do it and members will also be able to see

it

> afterwards. I will again try. Yes, one thing which I want to say

that

> I am slow but attend every msg. So you can say I am irregularly

> regular. Hi.

>

> , Jagadisan Ravichandran

> <jnravi@> wrote:

> >

> > Pranams

> >

> > Almost all the members have been watching silently all the

absurd

> arguements on this thread.

> >

> > The reasons for the silence is very simple. There are certain

> realizations that have to come only by personal experience. We can

> show sugar but we can not explain sweetness. Members do not want

to

> waste their time and energy by involving in absurd arguements.

> >

> > Each individual has the right to imagination.

> >

> > Ravichandran

> >

> > dipika blr <blr.aspirant@> wrote:

> > Does the silence of the group to this earlier message

> mean that the " time twin study " has effectively sounded the death

of

> astrology as a science?

> >

> > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM, dipika blr <blr.aspirant@>

> wrote:

> > Dear Readers,

> > I am starting a new thread to discuss whether " Astrology is

faith

> or fiction? " .

> > The old topic discussed whether " fake astrologers have have

> brought disrepute to astrology "

> > I think this is just a convenient excuse to address

astrology's

> shortcomings. Here I shall focus on how astrological principles

> themselves are questionable.

> >

> > The case against astrology

> > The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It does not

> deliver benefits beyond those produced by non-astrological

factors,

> it has not contributed to human knowledge, it has no acceptable

> mechanism, its principles are invalid, and it has failed hundreds

of

> tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology

> books, which in effect are exercises in deception. But it doesn't

end

> there.

> > Astrologers disagree on almost everything, even on basics such

as

> which zodiac to use. They rarely test control data, which is why

> scientists see astrologers as crazy or even crooks. In fact

> astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely wish to help

others.

> But the claim they repeatedly make (astrology is true because

based

> on experience) is simply mistaken - what they see as its strength

> (experience) is actually its weakness (no controls).

> >

> > The case for astrology

> > The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic

astrologer

> provides low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard

to

> come by. You get emotional comfort, spiritual support, and

> interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. In a dehumanised

> society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Where

> else can you get this sort of thing these days?

> > In short, there is more to astrology than being true or false.

But

> note the dilemma - to get the benefits you have to believe in

> something that is untrue. The same dilemma can apply elsewhere as

in

> psychotherapy and even religion, so it is not unique to astrology.

> Nevertheless it presents an ethical problem that astrologers have

> generally failed to recognise let alone resolve Please

see " Journal

> of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198, a long scholarly

article

> of 24 pages and 85 references. Tests of time twins and of

astrologers "

> > --> http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

> >

> >

> > To start off the debate, I am including the proceedings

> >

> > from " Current Science " Journal on this topic.

> >

> > Indian scientists on Vedic astrology

> > Thirty comments from Current Science

> > Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in

> India decided to provide funds for courses in astrology and

palmistry

> at Indian universities. The decision provoked outrage and

controversy

> in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal Current

> Science. Of thirty comments, most of them from scientists in

> university departments or research institutes, about half

dismissed

> astrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt

decisive

> tests were needed, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with

> funding something that the majority of Indian people believed in.

In

> chronological order, the authors and their comments are briefly as

> follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

> > 2000, Volume 79, issue 9

> > Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry

> courses. 2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11

> > Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess

> claims.

> > Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks

> credibility.

> > Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.

> > Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too

late.

> > Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.

> > Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people

believe.

> > Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a

science.

> > Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.

> > Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should

we.

> > Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be

> challenged.

> > Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will

ignore

> it.

> > 2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3

> > Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas

a

> chance.

> > Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of

> science.

> > Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so

> honour it.

> > Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't

blame

> public.

> > Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and

uncertainty.

> > Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not

> affected.

> > Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a

> misnomer.

> > Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.

> > Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is

> futile.

> > Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs

> demystifying.

> > Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be

> science?

> > Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more

> difficult.

> > Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or

the

> reverse.

> > Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs

> sciences.

> > Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be

> fooled?

> > Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not?) -- Not!

> Recommended!

> > Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any

other.

> > At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years

> later:

> > 2004, Volume 87, issue 8

> > Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay

> silent.

> >

> >

> > Opinions on Astrology from Files section of SOA (courtesy

Sanat

> ji)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with

Mobile.

> Try it now.

> >

 

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile.

Try it now.

>