Zarathustra's Astrology Thread, or, Where An INTJ (Foolishly) Defends Astrology

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, I only skimmed the thread; my bad.

It happens.

I still think he's wrong

You read his book?

I can see that I guess. I must admit that I have a really hard time viewing anything outside of a materialistic framework...

I have noticed.

The framework in which astrology would make sense would have to account for correlations between star movement and personality -- as in, it would have to postulate a causal link -- maybe a common cause?

The way Tarnas describes it is that it is not actually causal, but it is correlational.

He actually leans heavily on Jung's idea of synchronicity.

(As you might imagine, he's very well-versed in Jung.)

The way he describes it is that it's like a clock.

The clock doesn't determine time, it merely points to it.

Same goes for astrology: it doesn't determine what is happening, it merely corresponds to what's happening.

He actually spells this all out very clearly in his interview from 2006 with the CBC that can be found on his website:
http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/pages/interviews/

I'd like to hear an account like this that wouldn't sound really hand-wavey or convoluted.

I thought you said you read his book?

It's very clearly spelled out in the first few chapters.

In fact, I might even be able to find them on his website (LINK)...

[will post if I find them]

I don't really know much about astrology, but why would the difference between January 19th and 20th have more effects than the difference between December 22nd and January 19th?

The location of the planets, relative to one another and relative to the astrological signs will have changed more between December 22nd and January 19th than between January 19th and 20th. Furthermore, birth time and location are also necessary, to determine the houses (of which there are 12), and thus how the planets and signs align with the houses.

I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like you're getting tripped up by the sun sign.

That is the most common part of astrology that people are aware of: "What's your sign?"

But the sun sign is just one part of astrology, and it really isn't nearly as big a part as most people think it is.

The sun sign is like the canvas on which all the other parts of astrology are painted.

Each different stroke (as well as the canvas), combine to create a person's full astrological profile.

Many different pictures can be drawn on the same kind of canvas, and there are 12 different kinds of canvases.

(Really, there are even more, cuz, in my opinion, if you fall on the cusp of two signs, your sun sign will really be a blend of the two).

Sure, why not?

I'll need your birth date, time, and location.

If you don't want to put it in here, just rep or pm it to me.

I guess I just meant it doesn't seem consistent with current scientific theory.

It most certainly is not.

Nor is it trying to be.

And remember, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, scientific paradigms change.

But I do think knowledge (whatever that really means) should be scientific, as in, each theoretical account of a phenomenon should be compared to other possible accounts based on consistency with data and description length.

There's a lot here to peel apart...

First off, I don't know if your account of what is scientific is indeed reflective of what makes something scientific (in the common sense).

I think the following exchange between me and Victor might be helpful in this regard:

Probably the most important thing about truth is that we are mistaken a lot of the time. Our senses deceive us. Our thoughts deceive us. Society deceives us. So we need a way to confirm or disconfirm something we perceive as true. And it is the scientific method that enable us to winnow the truth from fable, from illlusion, from delusion, from wish fulfullment, from ideology, from social imperatives, and even disinformation.

For two hundred thousand years, without the scientific method, we believed wrongly, that the Sun went round the Earth, but just recently the scientific method told us, counter-intuitively, that the Earth goes round the Sun. Who would have guessed?

And so many things the scientific method tells us are those things we could not have guessed.

Yet for two hundred thousand years we have been guessing at the truth, and now we can guess and test our guesses against evidence and reason.

And what of the things that the scientific method cannot tell us?

Seriously.

The scientific method is a way of testing guesses to see if they are false. It's called falsifiability.

We have been able to falsify the Exodus and the Mormon history of North and Cental America, because both made claims that could be falsified by archeology.

However claims that can't be falsified, such as the existence of a benevolent God, can't be tested by the scientific method.

Yes, I know this.

My question was: what of all the things that are not falsifiable?

Well, my guess is that unfalsifiable claims are ones that do not allow evidence to be gathered.

String Theory does not allow evidence to be gathered, and so is unfalsifiable, even though String Theory elegantly unites Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Also experiences that are unrepeatable also seem to me to be unfalsifiable. For to gather evidence, everyone needs to be able to gather the same evidence. For instance to gather evidence of the size and charge of the electron, all of us need to gather the same evidence and apply the same reason to the evidence. So personal annecdotal experiences, not available to everyone, seem to me to be unfalsifiable.

Yes, those are both examples (one specific, one general) of things that would seem to fall into the realm of unfalsifiability. I think there are many more, too. You mentioned the one about whether there is a benevolent God. The benevolence wouldn't seem to necessarily be required, but all kinds of cosmological questions would seem to fall outside the realm of falsifiability.

Still, though (and I say this with all respect, as I appreciate that you're finally seeming to engage with me openly and honestly): you have not answered my question. While the scientific method would seem to be able to help us better understand the issues that are falsifiable, what about the ones that are not?

I ask because my impression has been that you do not regard these questions with much respect or importance.

And this has always been an issue for me with your perspective on things.

Frankly, though, I do kind of like your version, as it does seem to open itself up to narratives that would find themselves outside the realm of falsifiability, and thus, our current dominant understanding of what it means to be "scientific". In that sense, your construction would actually seem to be more scientific, in the sense that word was originally intended to mean (i.e., scientia, or knowledge).

So in order to raise my belief in astrology, I'd have to see a lot of data that fits better with astrology than determinism...

Well, first off, not all materialism need necessarily be deterministic.

And, secondly, determinism and astrology aren't necessarily incompatible.

Materialistic determinism and astrology are incompatible, but that's because of the materialistic part, not the deterministic part.

...since the description length of astrology is really high (as in, you have to use more words to explain astrology than to explain materialistic determinism).

This last part is interesting...

See, to our modern minds, I would agree, more words would have to be used to explain astrology than materialistic determinism.

But that is more a reflection of our modern cosmological view, than of the ideas of astrology and materialistic determinism themselves.

If you were to have to explain materialistic determinism to a culture where astrology were the dominant paradigm, you'd probably have to spend more words explaining materialistic determinism to them.

And, lastly, I think it's relevant to note that the primary way to gather data about astrology is to check out as many astrological charts as possible.

Just a thought.

 

[Zarathustra]

Saturned's Natal Chart: The Aspects

The Natal Chart

The Aspects

Mercury Conjunction Venus 4.38 293

She looks on the bright side of life: she is gay, agreeable, optimistic, sociable. She likes to speak and write, and does both with charm and artistry. Her intellectual pleasures are influenced by her feelings. She is amorous and sensual. She likes beauty, the Arts but also travelling.

Sun Conjunction Mercury 5.32 225

Because your ego and your mind are aligned, you possess much mental energy. You are always in a position to think about what you want, and in many ways, this is an interruption of the will. You are highly intelligent with a great drive to communicate with other. You invest a lot of pride in your intellectual capacities. You may not always listen as well as you speak, however! You might be too busy thinking about what to say next. But you are very curious and although you enjoy expressing yourself, you usually don't dominate conversations completely. As far as studying or learning goes, you are better off reading the material than listening to a teacher. These traits come from a strong need to take an active role in communications. It is very hard for you to passively listen and absorb information.

Your opinions are usually strong and you are an independent thinker. You tend to be proud of your opinions and thoughts, and might easily get a bruised ego if you are not "heard", if your opinions are pushed aside or ignored, or if your opinions are criticized. You are expressive and possibly a very animated speaker. You are also very witty and others enjoy your playful and sometimes mischievous sense of humor.

Moon Sextile Venus 1.36 174

You are generally amiable and project a soft and yielding manner. You possess natural charm and you are highly imaginative and sympathetic. You can make an excellent mediator and go-between. You are keenly aware of your need for relationships and for intimacy. You have a well-developed respect for qualities typically associated with the feminine. People appreciate you for your tender heart and friendly, diplomatic disposition. You should enjoy a good measure of personal popularity and success in your life. Although generally considered "lucky" with relationships and with money, this is less about luck than it is about a certain level of inner peace and positive energy that attracts pleasant situations. At times you can be complacent, downright lazy, and over-indulgent in the "pleasures" of life. However, you are a peace-maker at heart and have an unusual ability to help and heal others. You are gracious and warm.

Sun Opposition Midheaven 3.42 -118

She struggles with finding a career that suits the personality. She does not face up to problems and her plans are often difficult or even impossible for her to realize.

Moon Opposition Mars 0.33 -99

You can be precocious, animated, and passionate. You seek emotional excitement in your life. Although you often project a brave and tough image, your skin isn't as thick as you'd have others believe. You tend to put up defenses due to your emotionally vulnerable and excitable disposition. Unrest is characteristic, as you are bored by routine and become easily frustrated when life is "too easy". There's a buzz of energy surrounding you, and you tend to meet with many conflicts in your life. With the opposition, the conflict tends to be lived through relationships. The passions are quite raw, especially in youth.

If you can channel your excitable energy into sports or some other competitive field, all the better. Although you can be a decidedly amiable and interesting person, others always seem to sense your boundaries. Something is bound to get you worked up, and it's not always clear what that something will be. Your bluntness can be both appreciated and considered offensive, depending on your audience! You are eager to make a personal impact on those around you. It is possible that you are too eager in this sense, and you come across as self-absorbed and difficult to stomach. Patience is definitely not your strong point! Your responses are quick, and your are a passionate person who is usually quite courageous although your energy is sporadic and sometimes wasted. You are sexually responsive.

Short description: She is very emotional and is driven to do things by her emotions. She does not think things over or through in a given situation. She is irascible and easily angered or fired up. Marital disputes are very likely, and a heated domestic atmosphere.

Sun Trine Uranus 2.00 97

It is natural for you to question tradition. You are, above all things, an individualist. You naturally rebel against that which is established. It doesn't mean that you consistently break all the rules, but you definitely do question some of the rules, especially those that simply don't make much sense. You possess a huge distaste for routine. You work best when you have some say as to when and how you get things done. You possess much self-integrity. You avoid labeling people and are most offended when others attempt to label or stereotype you.

You easily embrace new ways of doing things, you stick up for the underdog, and you express yourself in unique and inspiring ways. You don't have to try to stand out as unique--you are original, creative, and progressive without trying. You are far from pretentious. You value honesty and truth, and you avoid putting on airs. You believe in the equality of people, and easily relate to people from all walks of life. You possess an unmistakable enthusiasm about life, and generally your life is interesting because you invite unusual or adventurous experiences into your life. You are generally appreciated by others because you are open-minded, fair, and not judgmental. Nothing really seems to faze you! You take things in stride, and are rarely shocked or taken aback by human behavior.

Jupiter Sextile Saturn 0.35 75

She is serious, patient, honest, hard-working, orderly. Her judgment is good and she thinks things over. She pursues her objectives to the bitter end, usually knowing when to choose the right moment. She is upright and respects the law.

Venus Square Jupiter 1.52 -75

She is nonchalant, pretentious, full of self-importance. She likes what is beautiful and sometimes ostentatious, and spends lots of money for the sake of appearances. She likes to please and has numerous amorous adventures. She is unfaithful and undergoes tribulations in love.

Venus Trine Mars 2.09 62

She is amorous, not a peaceful and calm lover but a passionate one with a strong temperament. She is demonstrative in love, and likes healthy pleasures. She enjoys life to the full.

Mercury Square Neptune 1.36 -51

She makes errors of judgement, and lacks sincerity. She lets things happen, and is happy in her dreamworld. Confronted by reality, she is hesitant, incapable of being tested and falls back into her imaginary world. She might become a drug-taker.

Mercury Trine Uranus 3.32 43

She is perspicacious, ingenious: she binds intelligence and originality together with genius. She likes literature, especially fiction. She is spontaneous in her friendships and knows how to take advantage of the situations that arise.

Moon Sextile Mercury 3.02 41

You can be quite expressive and animated in your speech. You have an outstanding memory and tend to pick up a lot of information from your environment. You love to chat and to exchange ideas. Even if you are shy, once you're friends, you love to talk about pretty much anything under the sun, and you enjoy sharing stories from your past! For the most part, you are focused on day-to-day activities in your communications rather than on grander philosophies. You are naturally curious and interested, and others find you very easy to talk to. You are accommodating and curious, but you are not as well equipped to handle heavy emotional demands. You thrive on change and variety. You might be a little addicted to gossip! More probably, however, you are simply very curious about others. There is a twinkle in your eyes, and you are never short on humor. You are playful and versatile--you make a fun companion and an interesting friend. You listen! Yes, you do talk and occasionally interrupt in your excitement, but you are a curious person who does want to hear what others have to say, and that is a real pleasure. In fact, you are more able than most people to get others talking, simply because you are very receptive and sympathetic. You pick up others' feelings and body language readily.

Sun Square Neptune 3.57 -41

You have a desire to be something special or to experience something more than the ordinary. You are a day-dreamer and idealist. It is easy for you to trust others, even (and perhaps especially) people who might seem from the outside looking in as unsavory types. You are looking to identify with something beyond what is normally expected of people. You may have had a childhood that didn't help you direct or define your life. Perhaps the early family life was lacking in supervision or clearly defined rules. A father figure may have been absent or distant and ineffective. You may have a glorified image of your father. Whether the image is very positive or very negative (or if it swings between these extremes), the image is not very clear or rational. Whatever the case may be, you struggle with defining who you are. You might gravitate towards the "wrong people", or get in with the "wrong crowd" in an attempt to define who you are. You might be susceptible to being taken advantage of by others, especially by men or authority figures. You may be easily led astray by peculiar desires or self-destructive habits. In order to add a greater-than-ordinary dimension of experience to your life that helps you to feel special and important, you might be attracted to Neptune-ruled behaviors, such as secret affairs, drugs, or other escapist behaviors. In some way, you may feel a strong urge to glamorize your role in the world. There can be some confusion about the past (such as remembering childhood experiences in ways that are far removed from reality), and a tendency to daydream about being someone more "important" than you feel you are. You may struggle with early conditioning that made you feel tossed aside or neglected in some way, and certainly not directed or supported. You are very sensitive, especially with regards to any real or imagined blows to your ego. If the natal chart shows a strong sense of reality and a robust mind (Mercury and Saturn well-placed, for example), the negative interpretations of this aspect are less extreme. Still, you are likely to recognize at some point in your life that you have a tendency to engage in escapist and self-destructive fantasies and/or habits. It is useful to be able to connect these behaviors with their probable source, which is likely to be a weakly-defined ego and identity in childhood.

Mercury Trine Mars 2.29 34

She likes to discuss, likes polemic. She has good judgment and is determined. She is a worker and has lots of energy. She has a lively intelligence and goes to the heart of things. She is enthusiastic, incisive, and energetic in thought and speech.

Venus Trine Ascendant 5.08 33

She likes everything beautiful, the Arts, balance and harmony. She is amiable and sociable. She likes entertainment and has a loving nature.

Neptune Sextile Pluto 2.06 29

[this is a multi-generational, not a personal, aspect, as both of the planets are outer planets]

Mars Trine Uranus 6.01 11

She possesses exceptional energy. She is impulsive but bold. She takes on risky enterprises for the good of the community, with all the energy she possesses. She has a great need of her independence, likes her freedom of action.

Jupiter Opposition Neptune 8.06 -10

She is easily influenced. She is a dreamer, who lets herself be seduced by fine words, which are not always sincere. She does not see wickedness and is often fooled by people.

Saturn Square Ascendant 3.51 -10

Her life is difficult and cramped. She is a worker, but success takes time in coming. She has problems in being open. She accepts solitude, rather than looks for it. Family problems.

Mars Trine Ascendant 7.18 3

[no description provided]

Saturn Trine Neptune 7.31 3

Her plans are realized in a methodical fashion, she works hard to achieve success.​

[MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION]

 

[redacted]

It happens.

You read his book?

No, but I'm pretty certain I disagree.

The way Tarnas describes it is that it is not actually causal, but it is correlational.

He actually leans heavily on Jung's idea of synchronicity.

(As you might imagine, he's very well-versed in Jung.)

The way he describes it is that it's like a clock.

The clock doesn't determine time, it merely points to it.

Same goes for astrology: it doesn't determine what is happening, it merely corresponds to what's happening.

He actually spells this all out very clearly in his interview from 2006 with the CBC that can be found on his website:
http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/pages/interviews/

A clock doesn't determine what's happening, but it is causally related. The clock's position is a function of time.

I want to know how personality and star movement are linked... are they functions of the same thing? Is one a function of the other?

The location of the planets, relative to one another and relative to the astrological signs will have changed more between December 22nd and January 19th than between January 19th and 20th. Furthermore, birth time and location are also necessary, to determine the houses (of which there are 12), and thus how the planets and signs align with the houses.

I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like you're getting tripped up by the sun sign.

That is the most common part of astrology that people are aware of: "What's your sign?"

But the sun sign is just one part of astrology, and it really isn't nearly as big a part as most people think it is.

The sun sign is like the canvas on which all the other parts of astrology are painted. Each different stroke (as well as the canvas), combine to create a person's full astrological profile.

Many different pictures can be drawn on the same kind of canvas, and there are 12 different kinds of canvases.

(Really, there are even more, cuz, in my opinion, if you fall on the cusp of two signs, your sun sign will really be a blend of the two).

Even if the sun sign isn't all of astrology, if it's a relevant variable at all my argument stands.

It most certainly is not.

Nor is it trying to be.

And remember, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, scientific paradigms change.

Yeah, that point of mine wasn't very good.

There's a lot here to peel apart...

First off, I don't know if your account of what is scientific is indeed reflective of what makes something scientific (in the common sense).

I think the following exchange between me and Victor might be helpful in this regard:



Frankly, though, I do kind of like your version, as it does seem to open itself up to narratives that would find themselves outside the realm of falsifiability, and thus, our current dominant understanding of what it means to be "scientific". In that sense, your construction would actually seem to be more scientific, in the sense that word was originally intended to mean (i.e., scientia, or knowledge).

I guess I wasn't using "scientific" in the accepted sense.

Well, first off, not all materialism need necessarily be deterministic.

And, secondly, determinism and astrology aren't necessarily incompatible.

Materialistic determinism and astrology are incompatible, but that's because of the materialistic part, not the deterministic part.

I probably shouldn't have used the two terms interchangeably. But it's kinda irrelevant.

In fact, I don't even think materialistic determinism is incompatible with astrology. You just have to come up with a causal account (in physics terms) for the correlation between personality and star positions, which is basically the same problem you face if you create a framework outside of materialistic determinism.

This last part is interesting...

See, to our modern minds, I would agree, more words would have to be used to explain astrology than materialistic determinism.

But that is more a reflection of our modern cosmological view, than of the ideas of astrology and materialistic determinism themselves.

If you were to have to explain materialistic determinism to a culture where astrology were the dominant paradigm, you'd probably have to spend more words explaining materialistic determinism to them.

Okay, so it's true that minimum description length is language dependent. You can always come up with a hypothetical language in which the term you want to use is one word. But we can also say that some languages are more useful than others in terms of communication. I was assuming that our language is specialized towards expressing simple propositions about reality. Given the knowledge at our disposal, it seems much more simple to say "each state of the universe is a function of the previous state" (hypothesis 1) than "each state of the universe is a function of a hidden cause which randomly chooses variables in the universe and makes them correlated to one another through invisible means" (hypothesis 2). [edit: okay, this might be a bit of a strawman.]

If I'm choosing a belief about reality, even in the face of no data at all, I'll favor the first hypothesis because it's more simple. So if I were to change my belief to hypothesis 2, I would need data that hypothesis 2 would account for better than hypothesis 1. Enough of that data and I'll switch my belief.

And, lastly, I think it's relevant to note that the primary way to gather data about astrology is to check out as many astrological charts as possible.

Just a thought.

What I mean by data is "data that would distinguish the disbelief of astrology from the belief of astrology". I don't know if charts would help there. I want to see some scientific studies.

 

[Ginkgo]

lol

+1

 

[Zarathustra]

+1

Can you expand on that?

 

[Ginkgo]

Can you expand on that?

P-L-U-S O-N-E

 

[Jaguar]

P-L-U-S O-N-E

+1

 

[Zarathustra]

P-L-U-S O-N-E

+1

Cowards

 

[crack]

I have found that, whether or not it is representationally/correspondentially true, there is pragmatic value to it, as has every person with whom I've gone over their natal chart.

So, basically, your interest in Astrology is solely because it aids self-discovery/reflection - NOT because what it says is true or not, but because it provokes self-reflection regardless?

If my understanding is correct: Are you only using Astrology because it's the most comprehensive* self-reflection-provoking tool out there?
*Astrology says a lot more than MBTI, for example, so it is going to produce more self-reflective thought than MBTI because with Astrology you have to go "wait, does this apply to me/is it really true for me?" many more times than with, for example, MBTI.

I find the reason "I'm only interested in Astrology as a self-reflection-provoking tool, idk and I'm not saying it's true or not, idc about that" utterly ridiculous because defense of a system that is all about being correct, if it is indeed incorrect, perpetuates a system that should be abolished (it is wrong, invalid, false, etc.). If everyone knew that Astrology's purpose was JUST to provoke self-reflection, then your interest would be all right... but since pro-Astrology folks claim that Astrology is about being right, that's what Astrology is about.

 

[Zarathustra]

I have found that, whether or not it is representationally/correspondentially true, there is pragmatic value to it, as has every person with whom I've gone over their natal chart.

So, basically, your interest in Astrology is solely because it aids self-discovery/reflection - NOT because what it says is true or not, but because it provokes self-reflection regardless?

No.

You go wrong when you say "basically", "solely", and "NOT".

I consider the pragmatic value of astrology to be a baseline that, regardless of whether astrology is representionally/correspondentially true or not, will always be there. A sort of bottom-line, or floor if you will.

Whether it is actually more than that (i.e., whether it is representationally/correspondentially true) is beyond our capability to know, in the sense of being able to scientifically verify or falsify it.

As such, I leave that question open.

If my understanding is correct: Are you only using Astrology because it's the most comprehensive* self-reflection-provoking tool out there?

You go wrong when you say "only".

*Astrology says a lot more than MBTI, for example, so it is going to produce more self-reflective thought than MBTI because with Astrology you have to go "wait, does this apply to me/is it really true for me?" many more times than with, for example, MBTI.

Agreed.

I find the reason "I'm only interested in Astrology as a self-reflection-provoking tool, idk and I'm not saying it's true or not, idc about that" utterly ridiculous because defense of a system that is all about being correct, if it is indeed incorrect, perpetuates a system that should be abolished (it is wrong, invalid, false, etc.).

@bolded: the issue is that astrology is unfalsifiable, so this can never be determined in a conclusive scientific manner.

If everyone knew that Astrology's purpose was JUST to provoke self-reflection, then your interest would be all right...

You go wrong with "JUST".

You seem to want to be reductionistic, to close off possibilities when there is no scientific proof that they should be closed off to.

I am NOT saying that's ALL astrology is: I'm saying that its representational truth is scientifically unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

As such, the only rational position is to be agnostic on the matter.

After that understanding is achieved, then you can see whether there's any pragmatic use to astrology.

(There is actually more, but this is Lesson 1. Once this comes to be properly understood, we can move on to Lesson 2.)

...but since pro-Astrology folks claim that Astrology is about being right, that's what Astrology is about.

Am I a "pro-Astrology folk"?

Is that what I'm claiming?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Whether it is actually more than that (i.e., whether it is representationally/correspondentially true) is beyond our capability to know, in the sense of being able to scientifically verify or falsify it.

As such, I leave that question open.

...........................

@bolded: the issue is that it is unfalsifiable, so this can never be determined in a conclusive scientific manner.

Yes, and the very nature of unfalsifiability makes something unscientific and generally leaves it dead in the water.
But science can approach some things that are important about astrology. We can use the scientific method to find that there's no meaningful correlation between a person's zodiac sign and personality traits. We can also grasp a sense of proportion about how trivially small any known force produced by these celestial bodies would be upon individual people. The concept of astrology requires one to conjecture a force that either contradicts or escapes extremely reliable principles of physics.

I guess I'm saying that if I should be agnostic about astrology, I should also be agnostic about evolution and diluvial continental formation.

 

[crack]

Pro-Astro: I was not saying you are a pro-Astro person. I was saying what Astrology is for is determined by them.

I get what you're saying with everything else, but I think your stance is wrong because it ignores the important matter. If Astrology is not true, no one is going to care about it. It doesn't matter how neat and comprehensive a system it is, i.e. how great and unmatched a self-reflection-provoking tool it is; the current system of Astrology is set up to "tell you" you are a certain way, which in turn sparks self-reflection, but if it is a fact that Astro is untrue, the descriptions then are completely meaningless and random, and no one is going to desire to sit and read 1, 000, 000 personality characteristics or what-have-you just so they can decide if those 1, 000, 000 dimensions of personality (nice, mean? cold-hearted, selfless? intense, laid-back? enjoy peace, need action? etc.) are true for them or not.

The way I've handled the question of Astro's validity is this: It is possible we just do not yet understand how it works, so I then go on to testing Astrologically out statistically.

You are actually doing the first part of what I'm doing (considering it possible), but not trying to disprove or prove what you actually can falsify. Instead you are just going: "Well, it may be true or not, can't determine.... But here, this is what Astro says is true! (with the implication that there's actual relevance to the output by Astrology)"... no?

 

[Nicodemus]

What is astrology's pragmatic use and value, Zarathustra?

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, and the very nature of unfalsifiability makes something unscientific and generally leaves it dead in the water.

I'm pretty sure that's not much more than a tautology.

Plenty of people (and understandably so) do not consider things that are unfalsifiable or unscientific as "dead in the water".

But science can approach some things that are important about astrology. We can use the scientific method to find that there's no meaningful correlation between a person's zodiac sign and personality traits.

You don't seem to have read the part when I dealt with this earlier in the thread.

We can also grasp a sense of proportion about how trivially small any known force produced by these celestial bodies would be upon individual people. The concept of astrology requires one to conjecture a force that either contradicts or escapes extremely reliable principles of physics.

Nor did you apparently read the part when I dealt with this.

Please read the thread.

 

[Zarathustra]

What is astrology's pragmatic use and value, Zarathustra?

To gain insight into oneself, others, and possibly more.

 

[Zarathustra]

Pro-Astro: I was not saying you are a pro-Astro person. I was saying what Astrology is for is determined by them.

I get what you're saying with everything else, but I think your stance is wrong because it ignores the important matter. If Astrology is not true, no one is going to care about it. It doesn't matter how neat and comprehensive a system it is, i.e. how great and unmatched a self-reflection-provoking tool it is; the current system of Astrology is set up to "tell you" you are a certain way, which in turn sparks self-reflection, but if it is a fact that Astro is untrue, the descriptions then are completely meaningless and random, and no one is going to desire to sit and read 1, 000, 000 personality characteristics or what-have-you just so they can decide if those 1, 000, 000 dimensions of personality (nice, mean? cold-hearted, selfless? intense, laid-back? enjoy peace, need action? etc.) are true for them or not.

The way I've handled the question of Astro's validity is this: It is possible we just do not yet understand how it works, so I then go on to testing Astrologically out statistically.

You are actually doing the first part of what I'm doing (considering it possible), but not trying to disprove or prove what you actually can falsify. Instead you are just going: "Well, it may be true or not, can't determine.... But here, this is what Astro says is true! (with the implication that there's actual relevance to the output by Astrology)"... no?

I've got to go to yoga shortly, but I appreciate the thoughtful response.

I'll get back to you later tonight.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The only thing I can find that seemed relevant was the part about material paradigms and alternative paradigms. Is that what you meant?

 

[Zarathustra]

The only thing I can find that seemed relevant was the part about material paradigms and alternative paradigms. Is that what you meant?

On the second part, yes.

On the first part, search "canvas".

The first part was also thoroughly covered b/w me and Sim in the previous astrology thread, but CzeCze mangled it.

 

[Nicodemus]

To gain insight into oneself, others, and possibly more.

Insight so unique that only astrology can provide it?

 

[Zarathustra]

Insight so unique that only astrology can provide it?

Not necessarily, but astrology might be a particularly useful tool for figuring it out.

And, if it seems to reflect something accurate, then, well, who knows.