Four Pillars and Feng Shui Network
Feng Shui Friends
implications of being an art
Implications of an art form
If astrology is entirely an art as defined above, and entirely not a science, then the scientific approach must by definition be rejected. Of course many astrologers already do this. But they do not observe the consequences, which means not making testable statements and not making claims like "Jupiter indicates expansiveness."
Note the problem: Without a sound scientific basis, which astrology is now by definition incapable of having, nobody can legitimately claim that Jupiter indicates anything. All that could be said is something like "the ancient Greeks thought that Jupiter indicates expansiveness, but nobody knows if this is actually true." Anything else would turn astrology into a pseudoscience -- an art form falsely posing as a science, as when the testing of testable claims is rejected or ignored
Science
Campion considers three ways of defining science, namely in terms of (1) its results, (2) its tools, and (3) what scientists do. But these three ways are equally applicable to say gardening or car repairs or even astrology, which thus becomes defined as its results, its tools, or what astrologers do. None of them taps the essential nature of science and its underlying aim, which is obtaining knowledge by systematic testing.
This knowledge is not any old knowledge but a sweeping system of interlinked knowledge that is consistent from one end to the other. For example it would be unacceptable if our knowledge of how atoms behave in chemistry was inconsistent with how they behave in physics.
As more and more knowledge is incorporated into the system, doubtful inconsistencies may be rightly ignored because science is too soundly based to justify chasing anything entirely speculative. But if the inconsistencies are themselves soundly based, as they were for the perihelion advance of Mercury, then in due course science shifts to accommodate them, in this case from Newton to Einstein.
Limitations of Science
Astrologers often point to what they see as the limitations of science that stop it detecting astrological effects. They claim that science is impersonal or unspiritual or insensitive to deeper truths. Or they claim that astrology involves subtle factors not yet known to science. But science requires only that events be observable in some way. And if astrologers can observe the claimed effects, so can scientists.
So the limitations are straightforward -- if no possible observation could rule out a particular claim, the claim is untestable and science is irrelevant. As is the claim in the first place -- if nothing can show it is wrong, then by the same token nothing can show it is right.
Science of course is subject to greed, jealousy and politics like any other human activity. But the over-riding insistence that issues be decided by careful testing means that scientific knowledge is ultimately self-correcting. It may take years or decades, but ultimately errors in science do not survive. How does astrology compare?
Astrology
Campion considers four ways of defining astrology, namely as (1) a science that seeks empirical answers to questions, (2) a neo science that seeks empirical validation of its ideas, (3) a pseudo science that does false science, and (4) a humanity that interprets data. Note how these four are not the same as the previous three (astrology = its results, its tools, or what astrologers do).
Campion himself prefers (4). And its merits are obvious -- by confining itself to interpretation, astrology is elevated above any criticism based on grubby empiricism. (I come back to this point later). But rather than trying to define science and astrology in absolute terms, it seems better to consider what distinguishes one from the other
If astrology is entirely an art as defined above, and entirely not a science, then the scientific approach must by definition be rejected. Of course many astrologers already do this. But they do not observe the consequences, which means not making testable statements and not making claims like "Jupiter indicates expansiveness."
Note the problem: Without a sound scientific basis, which astrology is now by definition incapable of having, nobody can legitimately claim that Jupiter indicates anything. All that could be said is something like "the ancient Greeks thought that Jupiter indicates expansiveness, but nobody knows if this is actually true." Anything else would turn astrology into a pseudoscience -- an art form falsely posing as a science, as when the testing of testable claims is rejected or ignored
Science
Campion considers three ways of defining science, namely in terms of (1) its results, (2) its tools, and (3) what scientists do. But these three ways are equally applicable to say gardening or car repairs or even astrology, which thus becomes defined as its results, its tools, or what astrologers do. None of them taps the essential nature of science and its underlying aim, which is obtaining knowledge by systematic testing.
This knowledge is not any old knowledge but a sweeping system of interlinked knowledge that is consistent from one end to the other. For example it would be unacceptable if our knowledge of how atoms behave in chemistry was inconsistent with how they behave in physics.
As more and more knowledge is incorporated into the system, doubtful inconsistencies may be rightly ignored because science is too soundly based to justify chasing anything entirely speculative. But if the inconsistencies are themselves soundly based, as they were for the perihelion advance of Mercury, then in due course science shifts to accommodate them, in this case from Newton to Einstein.
Limitations of Science
Astrologers often point to what they see as the limitations of science that stop it detecting astrological effects. They claim that science is impersonal or unspiritual or insensitive to deeper truths. Or they claim that astrology involves subtle factors not yet known to science. But science requires only that events be observable in some way. And if astrologers can observe the claimed effects, so can scientists.
So the limitations are straightforward -- if no possible observation could rule out a particular claim, the claim is untestable and science is irrelevant. As is the claim in the first place -- if nothing can show it is wrong, then by the same token nothing can show it is right.
Science of course is subject to greed, jealousy and politics like any other human activity. But the over-riding insistence that issues be decided by careful testing means that scientific knowledge is ultimately self-correcting. It may take years or decades, but ultimately errors in science do not survive. How does astrology compare?
Astrology
Campion considers four ways of defining astrology, namely as (1) a science that seeks empirical answers to questions, (2) a neo science that seeks empirical validation of its ideas, (3) a pseudo science that does false science, and (4) a humanity that interprets data. Note how these four are not the same as the previous three (astrology = its results, its tools, or what astrologers do).
Campion himself prefers (4). And its merits are obvious -- by confining itself to interpretation, astrology is elevated above any criticism based on grubby empiricism. (I come back to this point later). But rather than trying to define science and astrology in absolute terms, it seems better to consider what distinguishes one from the other
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Stanford on -
I'm sorry, but I'm just reading through some of these, and I haven't read past the first paragraph, because I see no need to. I must ask why you are interested in astrology of any kind, if you believe it to be useless? If this is the case, then you are wasting your life, and should study something useful.
I didn't read past the first paragraph, because I don't know what astrologer ever said that "Jupiter indicates expansiveness." Jupiter indicates whatever he will indicate through A)the lord of the zoidion in which he is posited; B) the bounds lord of the zoidion in which he is posited; C) the sect of the chart, the position of his sect mates, and whether the trigon lords of this sect in question fall cadent, succeedent, or angular; D) whether he is in phasis, stationary, direct, or retrograde; E) what kind of rejoicing condition he is or is not in; F) whether he is at home in his own zoidion, in a friend's, or in an enemy's; G) the duodecatemoria of Jupiter, and the lord of the duodecatemoria, and the conditioning, as listed above, of that lord, and all of those lord's conditions; H) any reception that Jupiter may make with a planet I) whether struck by the ray of a benefic or malefic, by whole sign, and by orb; J) would you like for me to continue with the conditions that define what Jupiter will, because there are many more, such as the Decanic facin in which he is posited, his own angularity, and his affinity with any nearby planets, whether within the same sign, or in aversion.
Astrology--and this includes all kinds of the study, not just western--is an extremely complex study. There are no simple answers, just as in 'science' there are none. To study metaphysics as a skeptic is the best way; to study metaphysics with cynical skepticism will make you insane.
Look at the mess that modern physics is in. Now, explain to me, using modern scientific language, what an electron indicates within, say, a chair. You will find your list quite exhaustive, and perhaps you will see that it is not astrology, or science, or any field of study that is complex--it is the universe. An electron does not just indicate some ‘thing,’ nor does Jupiter indicate ‘expansiveness.’ Any astrologer who would say that Jupiter indicates such would be a fool.
I hope I stated this in a clear, concise manner, and will not be accused of Jungian crutch bearing.
David
-
Permalink Reply by paulo on -
David i daresay all astrology textbooks indicate jupiter is the planet of expansiveness, philosophy , high thinking you name it.
I think the second paragraph answers your comments.
-
Permalink Reply by paulo on
-
any healthy skeptic would say «if in order to know if jupiter indicates expansiveness one needs steps a,b,c,d,e, and f, i have reason to suspect of that system. Thats the problem with astrology. So many variables and vague things to make it unassailable. No wonder skeptics complain that anything goes in the world of astrology.
There have been meta analysis. People with Mars in Aries with evil aspects-they are supposed to be impulsive and agressive. Well studies found that they are no more so than people in control groups.
Astrologers shoot themselves in the foot when they claim astrology is too deep and soul stuff to be tested. If they make claims those claims are testable. If astrology is no science but only an art, then they cant make any claims. Thats why Master Yu makes no claims..so he can make up what he wants when astrology appears not to work. Just like most western astrologers have been doing. If this is cynicism and not healthy skepticism from my part, then yes im proud to be a cynic
-
Permalink Reply by David Stanford on
-
Jupiter itself, separated from analysis of any chart, is the greater benefic. His nature is "significant for begetting children, child-birth, desire, erotic love, alliances, great gifts, plenty of fruits, justice, sovereignty, governments, opinions, mediations of disputes, preferments of priests, fidelities, inheritances, brotherhood, community, benefaction, confirmation of goods, deliverance from evils, loosing of bonds, freedom, trusts, possessions, households.
Of the outer parts of the body, it has authority over the thighs, feet (whence it also pertains to running in athletic contests); of the inner parts it has authority over the seed, womb, liver, the parts of the right side.
It has authority over the essence of tin.
It is of the diurnal sect, grey and rather white as for color, sweet as for taste."--Vettius Valens The Anthology, Book I, 1.
I do not see expansiveness in there anywhere. I do not study modern astrology, because there is a lack of logic to it. None of it makes any sense. Your references, thus far, have been to modern astrology. If you would like an agreement from me, I will agree that modern astrology is garbage, because it puts emphasis on planets having meaning by themselves. The above statement, made by Vettius Valens, 2000 years ago, is about the earthly things that the planet Jupiter has rulership over. If you read the entire work, you will see that the planet can actually act as a malefic, and the system does work, because there is no intuition involved. In the Hellenistic tradition, there is an order in which to break down a chart, so that no parts are missed. If one studies Hellenistic astrology, and does not use the system of Preliminary Natal Analysis, then they are practicing modern astrology, and using Greek words.
Who is the Kurios, and oekodespotos of your life, and who is the bounds lord of your horoskopos? If you cannot answer these simple questions, then you have no right in saying that the system is fallible; you are basing this on your observations of modern astrology.
I am sorry if you have been 'wounded' in some way by astrology. Find something that you believe in to study. You are really wasting your time.
And for the below comment (why I'm wasting my time, I do not know) scientists do not know how to test astrology, because they do not study astrology. They tend to get stuck on precession. If they make it past that, and understand that we are not studying planets, or constellations, but are studying cycles of time, then they rely upon one planet's placement, without looking at the chain reactions through the chart caused by that planet.
Science uses chain reactions too. Their theories are just as complex.
There is no point in trying to compare the two systems, and this is my last response; this forum is not about western astrology. It is about Chinese metaphysics. Although I believe they are the same, there are others who do not feel this way, and I do not wish to waste space here, when there are plenty of Western Astrological forums online.
Please, find something that you believe in to study, so that you may enjoy life.
David
-
Permalink Reply by paulo on
-
sorry but the researchers, like rudolf smit and geoffrey dean and suitbert ertel are former astrologers, they know astrology and even wrote well known books.
As for the Anthology, is it available on free download at skyscript?
Funny you say this forum is not about western astrology since you were the one who began talking about it here. Another way out?
© 2008 Created by Danny VdB on Ning. Create your own social network
