I am an amateur astrologer, who does not publish in a newspaper or work for a TV station (yet). However, I admit I am practising astrology for purely cynical reasons because I love the power it gives me over gullible and dull-minded fools like you.

Pity you’re not a girlie. Then I might try and convince you that your stars are predicting you will meet a ginger haired man who you must sleep with otherwise dire things will happen to you or your mum.

But you are not so believe me when I say: You want to go home and rethink your life.

“nothing to convince me astrology works”

Ah, but I’m not trying to convince you astrology works. I’m just explaining what I think about astrology and whilst doing so hoping to dispel some of the myths about what astrology is and is not. It remains to be seen whether I have, in any way, been successful or not. As I said to another poster, you don’t NEED to use astrology, your life will be no less the rich for not using it. I happen to find it endlessly fascinating, but then other people find collecting stamps endlessly fascinating.

“If nothing else, you’ve simply reduced your argument to sophistry and a cover for cold reading”

How can you cold read without seeing the person or intereacting with them in anyway whatsoever? My posts are admittedly long, and there have been many posts in this forum, but I have addressed this already in response to Mat T in #190 where I say “I think what you mean to imply was do you need to have some pretension of psyhic ability or even see the person, the answer is no, you do not”. In other words armed with just a natal chart and nothing else whatsoever you could start your astrological reading. Another analogy would be that a psychologist could start drawing up inferrenes from a case file which detailed the facts about someones life and the emotional difficulties that they may suggest, however it only becomes useful when you enter into rapport with the person themselves. We do not suggest that pscyhologists do cold readings, they allow their psychology to lead them and astrologers allow their astrology to lead them just as much. I’d be wary (read:stay away from) any astrologer who claims to ‘predict’ your fate. Having studied astrology, it cannot be done. We have free will. Hopefully that puts to rest this cold reading idea. Cold readers deliberately set out to ‘fool’ their clients, whislt I am not saying there are not astrologers out there who do that (there are charlatans everywhere after all), I am saying that actually astrologers on a whole do not do this. They may, of course, be just fooling themselves, but for the most part they are not willfully fooling their clients.

“But again, you have quite clearly suggested, implied or otherwise clearly written that astrology *is* scientific.”

Can you show me where? There is of course a scientific ‘element’ to astrology and that’s because astrology is based on an observable scientific phenomena – the solar system – and by proxy the astronomical elements of it. However I believe I have stated quite clearly that I do not know or have any opinion on any underlying SCIENCE behind astrology’s efficacy. In simpler terms I have no idea/opinion/belief/understanding about how astrology might work if it indeed does work, however whether or not it does work, we can still calculate planetary positions and cycles accurately because we have the astronomy to do that. As for whether any assumptions made after that are relevant I have NO IDEA. I believe that they are useful obviously and that they are relevant, but I do not KNOW that they are in the objective scientific sense. So I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that I have stated that it is scientific. I can only assume that you made certain assumptions about what I have said or would believe.

“Funny that you mention astrologers studying psychology; in my last year of high school, in our psychology subject, we learned all about astrology. And how it was absolute crap. ”

So? I don’t recall saying that psychologists recommend astrology anywhere. I’m simply acknowledging that many astrologers who I know have a training in a psychological background AS WELL. You’ll forgive me of course if I suggest that your last year of high school is not particualrly reputable anyway so I’m not sure what you’re trying to suggest by saying that a high school teacher doesn’t believe in astrology. Who cares?

“Since there is no actual evidence (ie. not anecdotal data) that astrology *does* work, I am holding your claims to the same level of evidence required of scientific hypotheses that don’t work.”

Who said astrology doesn’t work? If a scientific hypothesis has evidence and proof of its claim it is not a hypothesis anymore, it’s a scientific fact. Similarly when we prove that it doesn’t work, then it is no longer a ‘hypothesis’, it is discarded. This is not true for astrology as you have not searched for the evidence to prove that it does or does not work. Lack of evidence of something does not mean that something doesn’t work, science doesn’t work this way. It searches for evidence and if there is none simply states that there is no evidence that it works. If it finds evidene that it doesn’t work it says that it doesnt’ work. Contrast this to your comment that if there is no evidence than it is a hypothesis that doesn’t work – not logically sound.

“But they do suggest, imply or otherwise outright state that there *is* an ability to make a prediction based on the movements of the planets.”

No they don’t. They outright state or imply that they BELIEVE that there is an ability and that if you do too then you can go to them and they’ll tell you what they believe it means. Astrologers do not go around pretending that astrology can tell the future. This isn’t the 18th century anymore. Unfortunately there is no astrological governing body to stop ppl making these claims and undoubtedly you’ll find someone who DOES make those claims but there’s nothing we can do, we cannot stop them, anyone can make any claim they like, but in doing so they harm the reputation of all the other astrologers.

“The fact that there is a use of charts and dates, and pretty little diagrams, just maybe, would convince someone that hey, this is all very scientific.”

It’s hardly the fault of the astrologer what other people think is it? They NEED those diagrams and charts to do what they do, that other people think something else completely is not their fault, they’re not out to try to fool people into thinking they’re scientists. In any event, I’ve yet to meet anyone who wasn’t fully aware that astrology isn’t part of scientific academia. It’s worrying though that you are suggesting that if someone sees a chart that they just asssume that it’s something deeply scientific. I can do a chart on excel on my favorite brands of icecream, I’d hate to think that someone who saw it would think that there is an objective scale of icecream preference.

“Fact remains, your argument is so muddled, I have no idea *if* it works, let alone *how* it works.”

Actually that’s not muddled, in fact it’s crystal clear.

“You had ample opportunity to make a clear, concrete statement/prediction, and you waffle about how this isn’t the right forum. Well, now no one is around to even notice if you did post a prediction.”

Huh!? Are you still talking to me? What are you talking about predictions and forums for? I’m here making all this in THIS forum. There are other forums that are better suited to this conversation than this one but I’m still here not making any excuses for the forum nor pretending to make any predictions. Do you mean to address this to Matthew?

“If I was an astrologer, I’d be wondering if I’d just have wasted my opportunity to convince a whole bunch of skeptics.”

Why would you think I came here to convince other people about astrology? If I came to convince anybody of anything it is to hopefully try to dispel the unpleasant notion that astrologers are willfully and purposefully setting out to rob ppl of their money by using cold reading techniques. That’s just not hte case. Astrologers genuinely believe in what they do, that’s not to say that what they do actually works, but they do genuinely believe it does so the notion that they’re scam artists trying to rope in the vulnerable is simply very very unfair to them and not at all reflective of what they’re trying to achieve. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to earn a living from astrology but astrologers on a whole make sweet F-A. Those that do it professionally barely make enough to survive. The only exception to this are the ones who work in the media like in newspapers. NOrmally astrologers also have a ‘day job’ that helps actually pay the bills. If I wanted to convince anyone of anything it is that contrary to popular belief astrologers are not just greedy charlatans. Apart from that I’m not out to convince anyone of anything, just to have my own views challenged by opposing views to my own, I’ve found it one of the best ways to learn and I love learning. Debates interest me as long as they’re held civialy.

“Obviously you can do the calculations theoretically, without a telescope.”

In fact you pretty much have to, Tropical (aka Western) Astrology uses a zodiac with equal longitudinal arc per sign beginning at the vernal equinox, as opposed to sidereal (vedic/indian) astrology which purports to use the actual position of the planets in their constellations of the same name which begin at the ‘start’ of the constellation Aries (when they agree upon where that is) and are not of equal length. Curiously sidereal astrology still decide to, from that point onwards, make them equal length. A great deal of the earlier points on this forum should really have been addressed specifically to sidereal astrology because, as is rightly pointed out by skeptics here, precession messes up the zodiac. What the skeptics were not aware of is that western astrology doesn’t use the actual constellations. So basically yeah, you’d have to use an ephemeris, using a telescope won’t help as the constellations in the background are arbitrary and were only meant as mnemonic aids.

“But all the rest of the features of a chart (houses, aspects, elements, etc) are just cycles on cycles. Which is why I mentioned the Fourier Transform earlier –similar principle: give me an infinite orthonormal basis set and I’ll fit any time series data you want.”

I know diddly squat about Fourier Transforms, but if you’re suggesting they can allow for the complexity of multiple cycles within one another then sure, go for it. A natal chart is just one way to lay out the information, it’s not the only one by a long shot. Different strokes…

“Huzzah. Now we have something approaching testability, no?”

Well I dunno you see, because the very same astrological ‘signature’ COULD mean, not an absent father figure, but an EMOTIONALLY absent father figure, or perhaps a ‘poetic’ father figure (in the case of neptune). This means we cannot know for SURE how that signature is manifested until we verify with the ‘client’ – and YUP that means that as astrologers we could be just using the natal chart as a medium through which to explain and extrapolate what is otherwise just a psychological understanding. This was my point from earlier, the analogy of which was the reference to the character from that novel. I’m definitely happy to accept this as a criticism of astrology. I think this is a good point that all astrologers should try to be aware of lest we create a ‘holy book’ kind of approach to it where planets are practically worshipped and a rigidity of tradition creeps in. Perhaps I am unusual as an astrologer (amateur) in that I keep this distinction and acceptance firmly in mind when I read a chart.

“Or even just see whether the subject with daddy issues have a higher rate of retrograde sagittarian Jupiters.”

Yes, this would be interesting. I always felt that studies which examine the sun sign (leos are generous, lets test to see if leos are more generous than scorpio) are completely irrelevant, but the test that you’re purporting has a great deal more relevance. Personally I would like a study or ‘test’ where a number of astrologers (the test should be repeated numerous times by numerous astrologers of varying schools of thought) are given complete access to a patients psychological file and then a natal chart to match to it. Basically, for example, take 10 patients with their psychological ‘file’ (not them themselves to reduce any forer effect) and then 10 natal charts to match to them. I’ve always felt that would be an interesting experiment. It is silly for any astrologer to simply meet someone ask them a few questions and then try to match the chart as has been done in the past. It reveals a great deal of arrogance on the part of the astrologers that they feel they can get past a simple ‘first impression’ like that with just a quick chat. Quite obviously what we reveal to strangers is not always our ‘true self’, we put on a veneer.

“But then we get the stuff about the lack of earth in Bill Gates’s chart being the reason his life is full of earth. Come on, seriously? Did you really just say that the reason someone is rich and powerful is all the earth signs in their chart… unless it’s the lack of earth signs in their chart? ”

Ahhh I shouldn’t have mentioned this, or if I had to, should have explained it better. What I was demonstrating is that up until this when we spoke about cycles I was assuming you meant in teh examples of when we spot a planetary aspect and its recurring cycle in the future – the prognostication part that I was suggesting regular psychology does not have the benefit of. Of course if we just looked at those cycles we’d miss looking at the more basic fundamental psychology of the person which is their natal chart by itself (without looking forwards or backwards in time). With that in mind I was showing how it is not just the planetary positions which astrologers use, it is other things like the elemental balances in the chart – true they are calculated by the planetary positions but they require all the planets rather than just one or two. Now if your transform mentioned above calculates this, then sure go for it, I probably misunderstood you about it.
As for the earth part itself, you need to remove any ‘fate’ or ‘this is who you are’ mentalities that you may have about astrology. Remember the other thigns I’ve said about astrology as I PERSONALLY see it. I am not suggesting that having earth or not having earth makes on a millionaire. Ther eis no such thing as fate. This is probably something I should have focused on before, it’s important to clear your mind of those astrological assumptions that astrology ‘reads your future’ or ‘tells you your fate’ or any of that nonsense. Revert it back to being a psychological tool. In this tool we have basic archetypal ideas like ‘earth’ referring to the material realities – our bodies, food, money, houses etc etc. Someone with no earth in their chart lacks this internal balance. That’s all we can say. What they do with that internal lack is up to them. However like with anything (this is very obvious in psychological terms so again its best to keep thinking this way) we can tend to overcompensate for the things we’re lacking in. That can get materialised as a strong drive to ‘fill that hole’. As another example the aspect pattern (interplanetary configuration) called a grand trine is three planets in ‘easy’ aspect to one another, it doesn’t form much stress or friction, it is easy to have. However because it doesn’t form much stress it often means that the ease of it doesn’t lend itself well to outward productivity. When we’re internally comfortable we tend not to set out to ‘achieve’ or change the environment. But T-squares (another aspect pattern) are more stress or ‘friction’ inducing and so people with t-squares, although being less mentally and emotionally calm and stable as the grand trine, tend to find themselves more productive or at least externally manifestable. There is a desire and a ‘motive’ for making a change or achieving something.
The reason I’m mentioning all this is to show how the examples of ‘every X years, this will happen” become irrelevant here, if we are to use a formula of some kind it must incorporate the WHOLE chart and not just one planet.

Btw I’ll keep checking on this forum as often as I can and as long as we’re both still okay with continuing this conversation. Personally I enjoy discussing issues with someone of a totally different outlook to myself, sketpics are of course the perfect antidote to astrological thought. It’s good and it’s interesting to engage with people who think and see things differently to you so thank you for engaging with me. It’s good to know that two people of opposing viewpoints can sit down together and discuss where each is coming from without resorting to insulting one another or putting on a ‘show’ of superiorioty by either side. Astrologers have irritating habit of thinking that anyone who doesn’t agree with them must be somehow closed minded and mentally dull. Skeptics can have irritating habit of assuming astrologers also believe in magic fairy dust or are intellectually inferior. Thanks for keeping this completely civil and rational – a true debate rather than an excuse for name calling. It’s refreshing!

All I see is a lot of blather, but really, nothing to convince me astrology works (ie. you make a prediction, it holds true). If nothing else, you’ve simply reduced your argument to sophistry and a cover for cold reading, but even then you can’t show that it *does* work. Anyway this basically means you’re doing psychology, not astrology. For which, I think, it may have been pointed out to you that in this case, your use of the planets are merely redundant. The fact that you think planets have something to do with it says more about your *beliefs* in *how* it works, but says nothing whatsoever about the fact that it *does* work (or not, as the case is). Astrology or psychics, they’re pretty much using the same method of cold reading and just positing some ‘otherworldy’ idea onto it.

Funny that you mention astrologers studying psychology; in my last year of high school, in our psychology subject, we learned all about astrology. And how it was absolute crap.

“Astrology is JUST a tool”.

Well, you’re right about that, but not in the way you mean it.

… Anyway, in your reply to me you try and state that astrology is not about changing people’s lives. But then you state: “Astrology is not about changing people’s lives” and then in the same sentence, “help work through a course of action that is constructive for them”. Hmm, gee, that sounds like a… what’s it called? Oh yes, a paradox.

So either you have no clear idea of what astrology is, or you can not explain it clearly to me. I’m actually guessing both.

“Just curious, would you apply this thinking to religions as well, who, after all, make potentially more damaging claims? How about life coaches? ”

We’re not talking about religion, nor life coaches, so my answer has no relevance here. You make it quite clear that astrology can be considered a ‘science’, in that you can track patterns and make predictions based on them. Since there is no actual evidence (ie. not anecdotal data) that astrology *does* work, I am holding your claims to the same level of evidence required of scientific hypotheses that don’t work. I put them in the trash.

“In any event most astrologers nowadays make their clients understand that astrology is not scientifically verified, if for no other reason than to prevent legal action. ”

But again, you have quite clearly suggested, implied or otherwise clearly written that astrology *is* scientific. Now you’re just backtracking.

“Astrologers are not trying to hoodwink their clients into thinking they’re at a science lesson or at a scientifically approved model of study, astrologers are astrologers and are happy to get that across.”

Well, duh! But they do suggest, imply or otherwise outright state that there *is* an ability to make a prediction based on the movements of the planets. That is the assumption made by people who seek astrological advice. The fact that there is a use of charts and dates, and pretty little diagrams, just maybe, would convince someone that hey, this is all very scientific. Again, this seems to swoosh by your head at great speed. (Quack miranda being exactly that, merely a formality. I have no doubt that those who use astrology, such as yourself, believe that it has some scientific methodology behind it.)

Funny thing is, that I am open-minded enough on astrology to be convinced by a bloody decent argument and some solid logic. Fact remains, your argument is so muddled, I have no idea *if* it works, let alone *how* it works. You had ample opportunity to make a clear, concrete statement/prediction, and you waffle about how this isn’t the right forum. Well, now no one is around to even notice if you did post a prediction. If I was an astrologer, I’d be wondering if I’d just have wasted my opportunity to convince a whole bunch of skeptics.

PS. None of what you wrote in answer to Matt shows *how* or *why* looking at a star chart would tell you anything but what kind of person someone is, and what their personality is like. (And who decides what ‘earth’ means, or any other kind of similar term? Who decides which planet correlates with what made-up personality trait? – I don’t consider ‘earth’ to mean anything, and think that perhaps people/personalities are a little more nuanced than a one-word description) Matt points out perfectly well: why don’t you just *ask* the person? Why even bother looking at a star chart?

So yes, I’m asking if the planets themselves are necessary. (Asking, because I don’t want to be accused of arguing against something I don’t understand… Oh, wait, too late. Thanks sam.) Obviously you can do the calculations theoretically, without a telescope. In fact, that’s exactly what you are doing when you make a chart, assuming you consult an ephemeris. What I’m getting at is whether the numbers have to originate with the planets. And it seems that you’re saying: yes, they do.

BTW, I said above that talking about basic cycles was a simplification. I realize that. But all the rest of the features of a chart (houses, aspects, elements, etc) are just cycles on cycles. Which is why I mentioned the Fourier Transform earlier –similar principle: give me an infinite orthonormal basis set and I’ll fit any time series data you want. Enough cycles interacting will give you a myriad possibilities to correlate to virtually anything. And that’s precisely why I want to know if the planets actually contribute. By saying yes, you’re claiming that astrology isn’t just elephant-fitting. Absent father figures don’t just correlate with a bunch of interacting non-phase-locked periodic functions; absent father figures correlate with Jupiter being retrograde in sagittarius *because*[astrological reasoning goes here].

Huzzah. Now we have something approaching testability, no? Get a bunch of people, determine which ones have daddy issues, give their charts to an astrologer, sit back and be amazed at the statistically significant rate at which said astrologer picks which ones. Or even just see whether the subject with daddy issues have a higher rate of retrograde sagittarian Jupiters.

Oh. But then we get the stuff about the lack of earth in Bill Gates’s chart being the reason his life is full of earth. Come on, seriously? Did you really just say that the reason someone is rich and powerful is all the earth signs in their chart… unless it’s the lack of earth signs in their chart? Okaaaaaaay. Now might be a good time to bring back my original question: what use is astrology? What testable, verifiable, falsifiable predictions can it make? What can the planets tell me that not-having-planets cannot?

Harmonics son, its all about harmonics.

“What I actually said was that adding something unnecessary to a tool, and claiming that it’s important, blinds you from improving that tool or gaining full benefit from it.”

Oh I totally misunderstood/misread what you meant.

Okay, it seems like the crux of your argument is in suggesting that using the planets is unecessary.

Basically the patterns themselves are seen via the planets. It is not a pattern that, by chance, happens to coincide with a particular planetary cycle. It is not that the price of cabbages as an 84.32 year period reflecting a planet which has that cycle as well. This is because if we were to do as suggested here and reduce the cycle to a mathematical formula we’d have to do so for all the planetary cycles AND their interplanetary cycles. If you can create a formula to do that, then go for it, but you’re STILL using the planets as the primary information giver, this is subtly different than simply saying every 84 years X, Y and Z happens you’d have to see if another planet was interfering with this cycle. For example, with my Jupiter Saturn interest rates cycle, the aspects of Uranus with these planets can, predictably, alter this cycle, blips in the information may be seen when Uranus gets mixed in as well. The every X years formula also removes the notions of retrogradation, typically in astrology you may have, for example, a triple conjunction, the first conjunction, then a retrograded conjunction, then another forward motion conjunction – each of which may offer something different depending on which one it is.

If we return to natal astrology, this cyclic idea would be irrelevant. If we simply convert the planets into cycles of X years then we miss all the interplanetary stuff that make up the aspects which is the real crux (in my view) of astrological merit – you are not simply a Sun in Taurus, you are a Sun in Taurus in the 11th house conjunct Saturn and opposition Pluto – very different. Then there is also the fact that, for example, you may have all your planets in water and air signs and utterly lack earth and water – all this must be taken into consideration. The planets tell us more than JUST their cycles, it is merely that we can use their cycles in addition to their positional information to help us build a psychological profile.
As an example, take someoen who has no earth in their chart (earth signs are capricorn, taurus and virgo), let’s imagine this person has NO planets in any of those signs. The psychological archetypes that earth refer to is less conscious in the individual and as a result there may be either overcompensation, projection or just basic lack of that element in their lives. it might depend on the position of earth-like planets such as venus and saturn which one, as well as the ascendant and midheaven. A strong Saturn, Earth signs for the Ascendant and MC would alter which way this would swing. However we can say that with the earth-related archetypes less conscious, the person may act it out less consciously – normally the lack can create a ‘vacuum’ that you get sucked into overcompensating for it. At its most crude, earth archetypes may be related to material/manifest subjects – particularly the body and money. Take the example then of Bill Gates or, say, Donald Trump, both of whom have earth lacking in their chart, but whose lives are FLOODED by earth stuff. So the lack of earth creates a vacuum in the psyche and the person overcompensates and act VERY earthy.
You would not be able to make these understandings merely by looking at their cycles. Their positional information is of utmost importance AS WELL. However once we build up this picture and notice the Sun – Neptune oppostion we mentioned earlier, then we can use the planets and project them forward or backward to observe their cycles for prediction or prognosticationary puporses. This part could be done using just a mathematical X years formula of course, but even with this we miss out on the retrogradationary cycles and again the interplay with other planets. Let’s imagine that in X years time the cycle repeats, but this time Neptune is also aspecting otehr planets or it’s not just neptune aspecting the sun now, it’s also Saturn – all this has a different interpretation.

If this can all be done mathematically or formulaicly then go for it, but you’d it’s all still the planetary positions that you’re basing your information from, whether you convert that information into graphical form a la a natal chart, or mathematical form a la a number of formulae doesn’t really matter.

Where did I say that an astrologer wouldn’t use another tool? What I actually said was that adding something unnecessary to a tool, and claiming that it’s important, blinds you from improving that tool or gaining full benefit from it. Yet again we come back to the question I’ve been asking all along: do the planets actually add anything? You seemed to say no they don’t (“Oh you could [just use patterns/cycles], in fact that’s all you’re doing really when you get down to it. The planets are just the representation of the cycles”). So why not just study the cycles? That’s what mathematics does: it abstracts the relationships from the objects themselves. In Aristotelian language, it is purely the formal cause. So it is *not* the same thing as astrology (or any other representation based on physical objects). In my analogy, the formal cause — the mathematics, the pure abstract cycle — is the tool (the hammer); astrology is painting the hammer green because its adding something (the correlation of that cycle to a specific astronomical body). Thinking that the greenness is important limits us because we lose sight of the fact that only the cycles are important, which means that we can look at whatever cycles we want, not just those dictated by n lumps of matter orbiting the sun (where n = O(1) – O(10) depending on who you ask).

I know this is a simplification, but to make the point… the orbit of Jupiter takes 11.86 years; suppose I look at interest rates and see an 11.86 year cycle; OK, I can use Jupiter or I can use math, no major difference. But what if interest rates show a 12.73-year periodicity? Either I can arse around trying to force some combination of 11.86 and 84.32 (Uranus) and 0.24 (Mercury), and so on, to fit 12.73… or I can just forget about planets, run the interest rate data through an FFT, and say “hey, look, interest rates are periodic at 12.73 years”.

The only reason to keep the planets in the picture is if they actually contribute something. In which case, what? And show me how they add whatever it is that they add.

Or to look at it another way: you have a tool that you claim achieves some goal. Let’s assume that it really does achieve that goal (something that I don’t think is settled, as far as astrology is concerned, but let’s assume it for the sake of argument). Scientifically and skeptically speaking, I want to know what aspects of the tool are necessary for the tool to do that job. One simple(ish) way achieve that is to remove bits and see if it stops working. You’ve said that you could take away the planets and it still works. But take away the cycles and (surely) it doesn’t. That suggests to me that the planets themselves are spurious, and that correlations to planetary cycles are coincidences with other confounding variables. However, if all the cycles and correlations that showed up in mundane data happened to have astronomical correlations as well, then I would believe that that was too coincidental. So are you claiming that interest rates have an 11.86 year period and the price of cabbages in Iowa has an 84.32 year period, but nothing has a 12.73 year period? (Not literally, of course.)

Because otherwise, even if interest rates are exactly 11.86-year periodic, what about all the things that aren’t? So, yeah, as you predicted, I’m going to call confirmation bias.

Once again, finally, do the planets give anything more than formal cause? In particular, are they (again, to use Aristotelian terms) the efficient cause?

“OK, don’t know why Google books isn’t working for you”

My guess is that there is a licensing issue depending on what country you are in. I am posting from the UK for example and the book may not be available for that country for particular copyright issues.

“but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It’s just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge.”

Ok so I actually do think that the planets themselves are important, not as causal factors, but as ‘reflections’, sort of like there is a fractal effect in the planetary movement with regards human nature and the mundane world (metaphorically speaking), so philosophically I do happen to believe that the planets are reflective, whereas, for example, drakes and ducks are not. However what I am saying is that it is fully possible that I am wrong on this score and that actually, like Gail is saying, it is merely just providing a framework or model to think about a certain problem. I happen to believe that it is not, but I am not so foolish to think that I am right on this score as I do think it could be equally probable that, like Gail says, it is irrelevant what you project the understandings on to. Certainly when you hear of astrologers using the incorrect birth time or date it would suggest this. I do not know having never done that, but it is fully possible. Basically I’m somewhere between Gail and what you might regularly assume of an astrologer. I THINK the planets are a kind of ‘fractal’ (can’t think of a better metaphor) representation, but if this isn’t the case then astrology is merely providing an abstract model of thinking which is useful regardless of what it is projected onto (in this case planets).

“Oh you could [just use patterns/cycles], in fact that’s all you’re doing really when you get down to it. The planets are just the representation of the cycles. Occam’s razor is not a philosophy that applies here……”

Oh okay I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant here. What I’m saying is that yes, you are just looking at patterns and cycles, but you cannot remove the planets from that picture because it is by way of the planets themselves that you are observing the patterns, without them how would you observe them? It would be like saying “oh statician, i get that you’re examining this information but I really do think that these numbers and graphs are just positing plurality, let’s remove them”.

“if all it really means is “every 2.761 years, energy consumption in Europe and the Nikkei undergo a simultaneous jump…..sum_n a_n sin(n pi t/T)… If it’s all just about the cycles and correlations, we have mathematical tools that can study those without having to introduce any unnecessary pluralities”

Continuing from my last point with these counter arguments in mind. The statician is simply using a numerical and graphical system to examine the patterns, the graphs arising from the numbers which are representative of something else (stocks, prices, whatever). Similary an astrologer is using a graph arising from, rather than numbers, planetary positions (degrees in effect). It is actually no different that the astrologer examines his information from planetary degrees than a statician examines them from any other arbitrary mathematical choice. That statician could equally use colours or the pitches of sound to examine them but naturaly the human mind is less able to process these things logically as it is mathematics, but whatever FORM we choose to examine something in is irrelevant, they are merely a medium through which our minds understand the information being examined. Astrologers use planets as that medium, or rather their placement. If you wanted to convert that information from being [symbol of mercury][symbol of aries][planetary degree] to being some other representation, fine, it’s irrelevant. You’re still examining the same system. In continuing your example it would be like rebuking the builder for using the hammer as he is using it and instead suggest he hold it in his left hand rather than his right or swing it a particular way. It is the same sytem whether you convert it into a mathematical formula or not.

So actually whether we convert the planets into mathematical formulae or not is simply a matter of approach, you’d still be using astrology. The only thing that would change is the language that you use to study it, you would be converting the symbols of the planets in their current degrees for a number or formula which would represent the VERY same thing. Whether you wrap the hammer in a pretty bow or not, you’re still using that hammer.

“But pretending that a correlation is something to do with planets is positing a plurality”

Your logic is starting to fray here. The correlation is between the planets and the psychology of the person (for example). How then can we say that a correlation involving the planets, being something to do with the planets, is positing a plurality. The correlation INVOLVES the planets, therefore using them is not positing a plurality any more than telling the statician that fine use your statistics but when you start introducing numbers and graphs you’re introducing plurality.

“Also, by limiting yourself to green hammers, you miss the chance to make a better hammer”

With all respect, this is completely without logical merit. It would be no different than saying that because an astrologer suggests that a dog is an animal with four legs, all animals with four legs must be dogs. Just because an astrologer uses a tool does not imply that he may not use other tools or that he may adapt or develop or evolve those tools. In fact we can see historically that the mindset of how astrology is determined and how it works has indeed evolved and become more refined. We also see that astrologers all too often also study psychotherapy or psychology, or study those first and then study astrology. In other words, by sheer merit of simple example, we can that this logic falls down almost immediately. It has NO logical merit. To think that using one tool prevents you from using another is silly.

Even if it were true, we could apply this kind of thinking to any other kind of builder – science, psychology, anything at all. This is simply some muddy thinking. Of course the builder can put down his hammer to pick up a saw or a screwdriver or to pick up a different kind of hammer, a sledgehammer say. Astrology is JUST a tool, I happen to think that its an effective tool, but it still JUST a tool and like every tool, it is only fit for its purpose. A screwdriver will never saw through wood, a hammer will never turn a screw. So it is with all tools and astrology is no exception, it is however, utterly erroneous to think that because someone really enjoys hammering in nails, that he will be incapable of picking up a saw.

(in address to Matthew)

“You haven’t specifically said if these kinds of predictions are actually possible, so Paul makes a good point: Why not specify what predictions are possible first?”

Yes, I don’t see how you can be expected to suggest what prediction you would like when it has not been made clear what predictions are ‘available’. Also, I’m not sure how we might test the efficacy of his prediction. One argument made against astrology is a kind of forer effect, so let’s imagine that Matthew makes his prediction, couldn’t it equally be that the querent simply reads into it what he wants? This is what is argued against astrology but it coudl work in reverse could it not. The querent being so unwilling to accept that astrology may have any efficacy whatsoever, may just as equally, in a kind of reverse forer effect, suggest that it was completely wrong whatever happens.
Something, or at least someONE more objective would be needed to test this claim. Something that is, if you like, a third party to this forum.

Perhaps a prediction on who would win the world cup, or about a particular famous person. Something that we cannot tamper with and that our inherent prejudices either for or against astrology cannot interfere with. Otherwise all we’d ahve is the querent’s word, which considering they are here to argue against astrology, would be worth next to nothing.

@flip

“if they were advising me on how to change my life. Isn’t that what astrology is according to you?”

No. The ‘client’ may wish to change his or her life, but it is not my place to tell them how to live their life. Astrology is not about changing people’s lives, at least not for me, it is about explaining particular cycles and patterns, possibly predicting future ones, and, in dialogue with the client, help work through a course of action that is constructive for them.

“should be allowed to make claims that are either incorrect or not backed by any science”

Just curious, would you apply this thinking to religions as well, who, after all, make potentially more damaging claims? How about life coaches?

In any event most astrologers nowadays make their clients understand that astrology is not scientifically verified, if for no other reason than to prevent legal action. Astrologers are not trying to hoodwink their clients into thinking they’re at a science lesson or at a scientifically approved model of study, astrologers are astrologers and are happy to get that across. Most professional astrologers will have information to that effect and on most astrologer’s websites you’re likely to see a list of things that they do or do not do.

@Paul

“Just as surely as a patient for a psychologist would not say “show me the metadata and all teh studies done to arrive at these psychological conclusions otherwise it won’t benefit me” neither would this logic apply to a client of an astrologer.”

Actually, as a patient, I WOULD want to see the data (or at the very least know that the doctor was using a methodology/treatment that has proven efficacy and low-no side effects) if they were advising me on how to change my life. Isn’t that what astrology is according to you? A method to improve or effect change in my life? The fact that many patients don’t care of how the doctors get there suggests a lot of reasons why so many people get sucked into sCAM treatments. That patients are too trusting or don’t ask, doesn’t mean the doctor – or the astrologist – should be allowed to make claims that are either incorrect or not backed by any science.

BTW, I already gave examples: “you will unexpectedly receive $500 – $2500 dollars this week”, “you will be in a car accident on day x” (some detail, such as color of the car would be good, too). You haven’t specifically said if these kinds of predictions are actually possible, so Paul makes a good point: Why not specify what predictions are possible first?

‘Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there. They don’t make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. But when you start to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people. In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It’s just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It’s like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that’s now been taken away and hidden. The graphite’s not important. It’s just the means of revealing the indentations. So you see, astrology’s nothing to do with astronomy. It’s just to do with people thinking about people.’

But whether or not that’s your view… my problem with your position is right here (using your words, which should be representative of your views, right?):
Oh you could [just use patterns/cycles], in fact that’s all you’re doing really when you get down to it. The planets are just the representation of the cycles. Occam’s razor is not a philosophy that applies here.
That, to me, is two opposing statements mashed together. Occam’s Razor is “plurality should not be posited *without necessity*”. You’ve just stated that the planets aren’t necessary, ergo, by the Razor, they should not be included. The fact that you include the planets and midheaven and so forth, without any justification for doing so, is precisely why Occam applies.

You seem to think that it’s just an aesthetic choice between one “tool” or another, but that’s not the point here. The point is that you’ve added something that you acknowledge is unnecessary. To work with your tool language/analogy (as best I can)… builder 1 uses a blue hammer, builder 2 uses a green hammer; everyone would agree that it doesn’t matter what color the hammer is; but if builder 2 says that green hammers are great because the ancient wisdom of the Atlanteans told him that green hammers derive great nail-impelling ch’i by aligning the chakras of solar rays, I’m gonna call bull****. And if builder 2′s friend then says that no, it’s not really anything to do with chakras, but insists that green hammers are still awesome, I’m still going to say that s/he should stop talking about the damn color of the hammer. Either the color is important or it’s not. If it is, show me why. If it’s not, don’t pretend like it is. At very least, you have to show me that the green hammer works better than the blue one, even if you don’t know why.

I’m guessing you’d say at this point that they’re both still using hammers. But my point is that one is claiming something about the color, which has nothing to do with its effectiveness in walloping nails.

That’s why I’m invoking Occam.

If the planets — qua planets — have nothing to do with astrology, astrology should stop talking about them. And at that point, astrology is statistics and signal processing. See? That hammer already exists, but doesn’t pretend to care what color it is. All this “symbolic language” about “Neptune being in a square aspect with Mercury” is just painting the hammer green, if all it really means is “every 2.761 years, energy consumption in Europe and the Nikkei undergo a simultaneous jump”.

Remember, you’re the one who states that you don’t know how or why astrology works (and neither does anyone else). So all you have is correlation. Which, in itself, is fine. But pretending that a correlation is something to do with planets is positing a plurality (painting the hammer green). Unless you can show a necessity for doing so (which is tricky given that you have no how or why), you’re violating Occam’s Razor.

Also, by limiting yourself to green hammers, you miss the chance to make a better hammer (by focusing on something related to the hammer’s actual function, rather than its color). This is the point I was making about limiting yourself to the cycles created by the planets. And I think you missed that point: you said “The planets are no more ‘chance’ than any other pattern that would be used”… this is true only if you assume I’m looking for something to *generate* patterns (/cycles/correlations), rather than simply study the patterns (/cycles/correlations) themselves. Again you’re advocating one color against another; I’m saying forget the color and look at the hammer. I can generate — sans planets, aspects, or, indeed *any* physical apparatus — a description of every possible cyclic phenomenon on earth with infinite precision. Don’t believe me? Behold: sum_n a_n sin(n pi t/T). Astrology arbitrarily throws out some of those terms because, by chance, our solar system formed with certain periodicities hard-wired into the finite number of masses in it.

If it’s all just about the cycles and correlations, we have mathematical tools that can study those without having to introduce any unnecessary pluralities (be they planets, cosmic rays, invisible pink unicorns, chakras, space teapots, or anything else), and, at the same time, without introducing any limitations that may accompany those.

I’ve not read the book and no preview available for it for me to comment on it. Perhaps if you summarise the character’s position I can affirm or deny that it is similar to my own position?

“Again, it’s an Occam’s Razor thing for me: if astrology is really just about uncovering patterns and cycles (which is what I understand of what you’re saying), then why not just study patterns and cycles?”

Oh you could, in fact that’s all you’re doing really when you get down to it. The planets are just the representation of the cycles. Occam’s razor is not a philosophy that applies here. It WOULD apply if I was saying, use the planets as well as using AlternateCyclesToolX, but I’m not. That’s not to say you COULDN’T use those other tools, just that astrology is itself one of those tools.

“Yes, they generate nice cyclic patterns, but why limit yourself to those that happen to have been created by certain chance occurrences in the formation of our solar system?”

Well why limit yourself to any patterns that occur by chance by any other system? The planets are no more ‘chance’ than any other pattern that would be used so there is really no argument here. They are uniform enough that we can calculate planetary positions with a good degree of accuracy for hundreds and even thousands of years. Of course the further away we get from a particular epoch the more error we’ll have but even then we’re often talking a degree or two of right ascension and possibly a bit more due to gravitational perturbations. But even with this it’s pretty damn uniform cycle, in fact it is arguably more uniform and more predictable than any other pattern or cycle that you might care to analyse.

“So yet again, it comes back to: are *the planets* actually providing anything? If not, I see no need for them. If so, what is it and how do I identify and demonstrate this effect?”

The question should not be why use ToolX over ToolY. We do not apply this thinking to other walks of life. We woudln’t apply occam’s razor to computer equipment and say hey we have microsoft so why not do away with all this apple stuff, what’s the point of it. THe point is just that it is different and to the users of it is more accurate or superior in whatever foci they take to have importance. So too with astrology. Nobody, certainly I am not, suggesting that astrology should usurp psychology or any other system of cycles or patterns, I am merely explaining how astrology works (in my understanding), it is for whoever chooses to use these toosl whether they use astrology or not. It is not my place to argue that someone should or should not use astrology or use any other tool, arguably it is not yours either, all we can do is point out the tools available and let the craftsperson select which one he feels is right for the job. The proof would be in the pudding, if they and their clients are happy with the result they won’t care what tools were used to arrive at that conclusion, just as you wouldn’t care whether your memo was printed from a mac or a pc computer, it’s the memo you’re interested in, and the same is true for astrology.

“And from a practical point of view, even if they are emanating “quantum ether rays” (or whatever) that cannot be detected by any physical means, nor demonstrated in any tangible way, what practical benefit is gained from believing this?”

I’m not going to speculate on how astrology works, if indeed it does work, so I won’t comment on any physical phenomenon that may be at work. When we talk about physical means and tangibility we’re outside what astrologers today can provide or know about. Therefore it’s an impossible question, I don’t know is the only answer to give to this part of the question. HOwever what can be benefitted is the understanding of cycles and patterns and all the rest that I’ve described already. Just as surely as a patient for a psychologist would not say “show me the metadata and all teh studies done to arrive at these psychological conclusions otherwise it won’t benefit me” neither would this logic apply to a client of an astrologer. HOW the astrologer/psychologist got there is pretty irrelevant to the client, THAT they have gotten there is what’s important for them and their proof is in their own pudding in that if it helps them then it’s all good. We might argue about administering placebos but in reality astrologers ACTUALLY believe in what they’re talking about, they’re not just trying to fool their clients.

So the majority of your points seem to center around the question of what particular unique selling point does astrology have that no other system has, the underlying message being that if there is none than why bother astrology. Personally I think that astrology provides a great system that is at least equal to psychological systems for understanding the human ‘condition’, but in addition it provides an excellent tool for the understanding of cycles and their possible effects prognostically. It further allows for an understanding of a philosophical concept of an a priori mentality negating a tabula rasa effect at birth and in doing so raises more questions about the workings of the personality and human mind, but in its approach it can show that the person is likely to have particular characteristics as shown in a pictographic form BEFORE we even speak to the client.
Now personally I think that that ticks a lot of boxes for me and if we want to use the philosophy of Occams razor we might equally suggest that seeing as this one tool ticks so many boxes why bother with introducing other ones? WHy not stick with this ‘swiss army knife’ kind of tool?

@Matthew
“what sort of prediction would satisfy you?”

Why not specify what predictions are possible first?

(apologies for my last comment which was ‘adf’, just testing something as I couldn’t get my post to work)

Not even the wackiest woo-meister thinks that people really believe that the solar system was designed by humans.

The stuff about “the physical body of a great spiritual Hierarch” was quite awesomely absurd, though. 5 stars.

This seems to be the best defense of astrology I’ve ever encountered, I think. (Sadly ironic, then, that it comes from a fictional character written by a huge skeptic… oh well.) Is this basically your position?

But anyway, my main problem is still “why do you need planets?” Or, firstly, “do you need planets?”. Again, it’s an Occam’s Razor thing for me: if astrology is really just about uncovering patterns and cycles (which is what I understand of what you’re saying), then why not just study patterns and cycles? Why introduce planets? Yes, they generate nice cyclic patterns, but why limit yourself to those that happen to have been created by certain chance occurrences in the formation of our solar system? Why not just say “hey, patterns and cycles! Let me whip out my Fourier Transform, maybe a low-pass filter or two, and analyze the heck out of these various data sets.”?

So yet again, it comes back to: are *the planets* actually providing anything? If not, I see no need for them. If so, what is it and how do I identify and demonstrate this effect?

And from a practical point of view, even if they are emanating “quantum ether rays” (or whatever) that cannot be detected by any physical means, nor demonstrated in any tangible way, what practical benefit is gained from believing this? Russel’s Teapot, in other words.

@Matthew
OK, as you choose. I said that you could make any prediction you wanted here in public. So I don’t see why I need to contact you privately. This isn’t really for my benefit either. Ray (and I and others) made the offer/challenge so you can impress us with your spooky abilities and start the process of changing our minds. If you don’t want to stick a public prediction out here, that’s your call.

One can be perfectly intelligent and believe in wacky ideas. The guy can be a brilliant EE and still believe in, oh I don’t know, that the US congress is under the control of aliens from a nearby system with a base on the far side of the moon (made that up as an example).

He has beliefs unsupported by evidence and is asserting that they are facts.

“Just because you cannot see these Hierarchs doesn’t mean they don’t exist.”
How am I supposed to accept something like this when (s)he can’t provide evidence for the existence of these “Hierarcahs”. He’s making assertions not disagreeing. I’m the one disagreeing that there is something real about astrology.

Does this not say more about the skeptics than the thing they are skeptical of?

What is it with electrical engineers and woo?! There have been so many EE and other engineers who have posted on this blog in favor of woo.

Are you for real? Are you Poeing? Really? Astrology is on the same level as scientifically established concepts such as Ohm’s law? I don’t think anyone here questions Ohm’s law, even if they haven’t studied it, because of the solid evidence behind it. It’s a tested and validated principle. Astrology isn’t. They best evidence is some correlation.

” Because the forces they represent are spiritual forces and those forces are not subject to time, gravity, and distance like we are familiar with on earth. If someone is unaware of this fact, then obviously they can make wrong assumptions about astrology.”
How is this a fact? Where is the [ censored ] evidence?

Wow. Just wow.

It’s amazing to me how people who have never studied the subject think they know more than those who have. The ignorance they display is unbelievable. But I guess this is no different than 1st-graders thinking something is ridiculous just because they are too young and too inexperienced to have gained true understanding of the matter at hand.

Q: How can planets so far away influence us here on earth?

A: Because the forces they represent are spiritual forces and those forces are not subject to time, gravity, and distance like we are familiar with on earth. If someone is unaware of this fact, then obviously they can make wrong assumptions about astrology.

Q: How does a rock in space have any influence on us?

A: Because that rock in space is actually the physical body of a great spiritual Hierarch and the forces that operate through and by these Hierarchs are forces that are designed to help us in our evolution. Do you really think that man, as bone-headed as he is (look around you), could have designed this solar system and all the laws and spirits that are here learning in this School of Life? Don’t kid yourself. We all have unseen teachers that are helping us evolve on our way to becoming better souls. Just because you cannot see these Hierarchs doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The planets you can see, and if you understand the truth behind what you physically see, then it would be easier for you to understand how and why astrology works.

Q: If astrology works, then why can’t it predict the future?

A: It can – at times. But not all the time. Why? Because we all have free Will and are in control of our own destiny, thus the future can be changed, avoided, circumvented, etc. Astrology shows tendencies only, so nothing is locked in stone. The mass murderer doesn’t HAVE to be a mass murderer, yet he does have tendencies which if uncontrolled may lead him in that direction. A person’s individual Will can override any planet’s influence, if the person decides to exercise his will. Why is that so hard to understand and accept? It’s perfectly logical.

Astrology “works” because the solar system above is reflected within each of us. The forces the planets represent are forces that are in each of us. If you understand these forces, then you begin to understand your tendencies. The same forces produce the same tendencies, although there are many individual ways these tendencies may be put into action or lack thereof. Why? Because spirit creates matter. Matter is simply a reflection of what is in the spiritual worlds. The planets are the matter, but the forces behind them, and within us, are the unseen spirit behind everything.

Please reconsider your points of view, folks – you would find that doing so could prove beneficial to you. But it’s your choice – you have free will. “The wise man rules his stars, the fool is ruled by them.”

Just remembered you said you didn’t know your time of birth so we can’t use your chart after all. I’m just against reading the charts of minors.

But anyways, let’s imagine a scenario where you yourself wrote down some general commetns on your life and your character, even things like ‘parents separated when I was 9′ etc. Then if Matthew and I wrote that “difficulty in the parental dynamic betwen 8 and 10′ you could quite plausibly say, nope, that coudl apply to anyone. Of course any of it COULD apply to anyone, that’s true of any personality based test, anyone COULD be an extrovert, or thinking-perceiveing person or whatever else in teh style of myers briggs testing but the point is that whilst anyone COULD be like that, not everyone IS like that.

So even if we got it totally spot on, you may just shrug and say ‘nope’ and nobody would know any better. In any ‘testing’ scenario there should be a lack of bias and of course an astrology skeptic judging astrology is hardly non biased.

So with that in mind I’m sure this is a total waste of time anyway. If it was YOUR chart, I’d consider it and do a quick paragraph to give an example of the kind of thing that astrologers actually do, but I don’t like reading for other people who don’t know about it nor for reading about children. There’s a whole branch of astrology called synastry where you look at two charts for compatibility. I don’t use that either for the same reason, in my view reading someone elses chart isn’t a good approach to astrology as you don’t have teh permission of the person you’re reading and you’re knowingly reading it anyway.

Maybe you’ll see this as a cop out or whatever, that’s fine, it’s actually just a case of having an ethical code to astrology. Just as you couldn’t grab a psychologist and say “psycho analyse that person over there”, you can’t grab an astrologer and say “interpret this person’s chart”.

“Subject born Oct 21, 2005, 5:10pm, Boulder, CO. Do you need exact lat/long? I can find them….And if Paul wants to play along, how about your version of astrology?”

No can do I’m afraid. It’s just a personal thing, but I think it could be deeply unethical to read a chart of a child. I have no doubt that you, being a healthy skeptic, would not project too much from it, but I just don’t think it’s a healthy way to approach things. Post your own and I’ll write a quick paragraph only if there’s something of particular note worthiness.

“sorry if, by consequence, I appear too blunt”

I’m tough skinned, it’s all fine!

“what actual bearing does the arrangement of stuff in the sky have on the counseling?”

Okay I’ll likewise try to be succint. It provides an alternate model of interpretation. Not better, not worse, just alternate. What is the use of a toyota when you have a renault? There are similarities, there are differences, this is true in all expression of life, astrology-psychology is just one. In fact many astrologers nowadays utilise psychology as well. Liz Greene and people like her effectively pioneered this approach if you want to learn more.

“what actual bearing does the arrangement of stuff in the sky have on the counseling?

It is to do with patterns and recurring cycles. A pattern is observed at TimeX, using astrology you can ‘skip ahead’ in time until the pattern repeats or makes a similar aspect and ‘predict’ the recurrence of the theme previously observed. Hope that makes more sense.

“does that mean that someone is likely to have an absent father figure?”

It’s symbolism and archetypal themes. The Sun represents amongst other things a father archetype. The condition of the sun represents in metaphoric symbolic language the inner ‘picture’ of the father. Neptune for example symbolises ‘loss’ or diffusion, lack of clarity or blurring of boundaries. The two in harsh aspect could indicate a loss of father figure or a confusion of father figure boundaries. We need more circumstantial ‘evidence’ from the chart to ascertain more.

“one is the basic underlying scientific correlations”

Pass. I’m not a physicist. I’m inclined to consider Bell’s Theorem on this one – metaphorically if not in exactitude. I don’t understand the mechanics of electromagnetic wave propagation either, but it doesn’t stop me from observing that a microwave heats up last night’s dinner.

“but instead of “predicting” it, they’ll simply say “so, tell me about your father””

So will an astrologer. This is an archetypal language, if it’s not your father, it may be another similarly archetypally ‘correct’ symbol. Remember that the theory of astrology renounces a tabula rasa effect – there are no blank slates in astrological reasoning. We’re born with preconceptions, as to how accurate they are objectively is difficult to determine. A good astrologer attempts to determine them all the same.

“perfect setup for confirmation bias to work its magic”

Yup, it coudl well be that this is the case. One thing I agonise over is whether that’s all it actually is. Undoubtedly astrology provides a language and model for understanding the human psyche, every bit as good as psychology does in my view. However it is entirely possible that it is simply an intellectual framework to work off just as a psychologist would. I try to be careful about this as I’m ultra aware of it, but it’s impossible to rule out completely. I’m more comfortable with this kind of ‘attack’ on astrologers than the sort that assume that astrologers are willingly pulling the wool over peoples eyes to make a quick buck. It’s much more likely they’re just fooling themselves innocently and genuinely believe in what they do. Of course I happen to think that there IS something to it, but if there actually isn’t, it’s not that astrologers are trying to con people, they actually believe it themselves.

‘And if not really, why do you need them at all?”

Oh you don’t NEED them, any more than you NEED a psychologist.

“What is that something? What is it that astrology is uniquely able to tell me?”

Okay, patterns and recurring themes and how they are likely to affect you in the future.
People come asking “why is this happening to me” and astrology has a framework to check what’s going on now, rewind the clock and find out what happened before. What happened when you were 17 because this is a continuation of that cycle. Oh your father passed away, and what’s happening now again? Oh your boyfriend of 5 years just dumped you. The cycle has to do with loss of the male archetype perhaps and the ensuing emotional dramas that are projected outwardly onto male people in your life due to a lack of incorporation perhaps of inner masculine archetypes. What’s not incorporated internally is projected externally and tagged as ‘fate’. (hoping this is starting to make more sense now)

(okay I tried to keep it as short as possible, i totally failed! So many questions to get through! Sorry for rambling but just wanted to address the questions properly)

So again, what is it that the stars and planets and mid-heavens and houses are actually providing? They’re making predictions… but not really. And if not really, why do you need them at all? Why not just ask some questions and make some suggestions based on the answers. Therapy, in other words.

To hammer the point: astrology is fundamentally based on getting *something* — some information — from the position of stuff in the sky. What is that something? What is it that astrology is uniquely able to tell me? And can it be demonstrated to tell me something that I couldn’t get from asking questions, or reading tea leaves, or meditating in a pyramid, or…?

Psychiatry, BTW, is fundamentally based on looking at the factors in a person’s life that shape their personality. No planets, aspects, or ascendants needed. Plurality should not be posited without necessity, right? You’re positing a plurality by introducing planets, aspects, and ascendants. So show me why they’re necessary.

Seriously, Matthew, you don’t see why someone might possibly think you’ve been just a wee bit evasive? After numerous exchanges, it’s only a full day after Ray makes his last post (declaring that he’s done with this) that you “accept” his challenge. And even that comes only after several others call you on it. And it still relies on Ray suddenly reappearing and emailing you. Very convenient for you, really. A skeptic might just possibly — if they were, y’know, nasty and skeptical — maybe think that perhaps you stalled until Ray gave up, so that you can then claim that you offered to take his challenge but he never responded! It’s *his* fault! Bad skeptic, not giving you a fair chance! Yeah.

Well, I gave you a birth as well. I hearby give you license to say what you like, unless it gives away information that would compromise the subject’s safety (“you will be alone and unarmed in an unlocked house with 1 million dollars next Tuesday at 8pm, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Buttmunch, TX”). Actually, on second thought, just so there’s no wiggle room, you can even say that, if you like. That’s only a problem if it’s true…

A specific prediction, preferably in the near future, if you please. Subject born Oct 21, 2005, 5:10pm, Boulder, CO. Do you need exact lat/long? I can find them.

And if Paul wants to play along, how about your version of astrology? Want to give a non-specific reading? General character or whatever? Harder to judge the accuracy, but I’m willing to play along.

PS: Matthew said “I don’t know how much of this he (or anyone else) wants thrown around in public”. Really? Shouldn’t you be able to work that out?