Night
Boring old fossil
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,755
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5/8
There has been little serious scientific attempt to validate or invalidate astrology because it does not fit the belief systems of most of those who practice and fund science, I suspect.
No. There is little scientific interest in astrology because it is a non-science.
Here. You even answer your own question earlier in your analysis.
If a genuine correlation can be established, with a degree of statistical association between aspects significantly higher than would occur by chance, astrology has the potential to be a useful psychological tool, if not a scientifically falsifiable one.
Fair enough?
We're still far from having an adequate explanation for the mechanism behind counter-intuitive scientific principle of quantum uncertainty, for example, but since the phenomenon has been experimentally verified, we accept its existence.
I see this a lot with New Agers (not necessarily you, ragashree), in that they try to make a fuzzy connection between legitimate theory - like quantum uncertainty - and the validity of their pet theory on the basis that quantum uncertainty is not very well understood at this point, much like their theory fails to be understood.
What hard data can you offer that connects quantum uncertainty with astrology?
Developing a bridge between psychometrics and quantum mechanics sounds more like misdirection away from the faults of astrology and onto an ideal that suggests somehow that astrology and quantum principle share a commonality because they are individually difficult to understand (for profoundly different reasons, of course).
I don't see any real validity with the comparison beyond distorted rhetoric.
If we were to try to do so the best method would probably be to determine an set of psychological tests to examine a large number of people for particular traits, then correlate the results with their birth charts and the corresponding astrological predictions. This is a formidable task due to the number of variables involved, but I'm sure it could be done if someone ever had the will and funding. At the moment the debate is mostly going round in circles, anecdote squaring off against easy fallacy, and I don't see it ending any time soon.
Sounds like you have a good working methodology to prove your particular belief.
And, no - the debate isn't "going around in circles". Astrology is entertainment. The only real debate is whether or not you individually find it entertaining.
Indeed. I suspect this is all too often because it doesn't fit their belief system, which is often at heart a mechanistic one. Arguments against it in this case are almost inevitably straw men, serving more to validate the non-believer's lack of belief than to change the opinion of those who do believe.
The onus is on you. Providing negative evidence (as in "your belief system is skewed because you adhere to x philosophy") doesn't provide positive data proving your theory.