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.