This guy sounds like he has an idea that he wants to be true but doesn't know how to fit it in to the world so that other people might think he's onto something. It's interesting how he thinks antipathy towards astrology is a blindness due to prevailing dogma and isn't part of the scientific story for that reason rather than because it didn't convince in easily tested blind trials. And that it doesn't physically make sense, this is also important. You can't propose a revolution in science unless you have good evidence that everyone else is wrong and a you need a readily understandable mechanism by which your new ideas might work.
He draws an irrelevant parallel between solar flare prediction and astrology and he has an odd idea that things can only affect each other via known forces is erroneous. It wouldn't matter if he had a new force to propose as it would work in the same we if it existed, but he uses electro-magnetism which is very well know indeed, and not even a remotely plausible explanation for astrology because of the law of reduced effect due to waves losing power with value of the distance squared. This would be a flat contradiction to every other physical discovery because they simplify explanations rather than becoming more elaborate to keep cherished beliefs intact. The truth is that science made such big gains in the 17th century because it dropped old beliefs about the systems of the world. So he's either proposing a new force which doesn't work in the same way as electromagnetism - which sounds like special pleading to me, or he wants science to re-write its laws so the EM can vary its power differences between planets so that the elliptical orbits of the solar system make some kind of sense in the context of birth charts - which they don't at the moment. "The planets are clearly not colliding with the Earth, so they cannot have an effect by collision. Therefore they either affect the Earth by acting at a distance, which the assumption rejects, or there are forces that we simply do not know or understand. Astrology seems to be action at a distance with no intermediate forces. This is one of the reasons why astrology fell from grace in the seventeenth century. Seymour and others like him are trying to solve astrology’s philosophical incompatibility with science by proposing theories that do not violate science’s philosophical foundations." Their time would be better spent proving that astrology has a basis in fact by demonstrating that the predictive/descriptve powers it claims for itself are more than simple chance, vagueness or wishful thinking. Make sure there is a signal to be heard above the noise before you rewrite everything you know to accommodate it! ---In [email protected], <noozguru@...> wrote : Robert Hand's take on science and astrology. Hand however is more into tropical or western astrology: http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_astrobyhand1_e.htm http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_astrobyhand1_e.htm On 03/06/2015 03:32 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: I think what you are talking about, s3raphita, is "self-fulfilling prophecy": Well, if going to an astrologer means your marriage is more likely to be a success that nicely makes my point. Which is? That skeptics ask "is astrology true?". The more interesting question might be "does astrology work?". In certain, limited applications it probably does. ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <turquoiseb@...> mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : I think what you are talking about, s3raphita, is "self-fulfilling prophecy." From: "s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife]" mailto:s3raphita@...[FairfieldLife] <[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] To: [email protected] mailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 3:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maybe this is why things get so screwed up? I've never found astrology a convincing science and have had little time for such shenanigans. There are always exceptions. I think most readers would find the book How To Spot A Bastard By His Star Sign an amusing (and sneakingly apologetic) approach to the subject. And there is a certain *aesthetic* appeal in astrological symbolism - as also with Tarot cards - which appeals to my sensibilities. However, there is one approach to astrology that does strike me as positive and defensible. Here's an example: consider a couple who are arranging their wedding. They go to an astrologer who casts their horoscopes. After the usual examination said astrologer decides on a fortunate date and time for the wedding which has positive aspects of the planets. No date can be 100% positive; perhaps Mercury and Mars have a troubling relationship. But, says our astrologer, not to worry: if the bride wears an emerald necklace on the day that will nullify the baleful influence. So complete baloney, no? But if the couple really believe in astrology won't this give them a strong psychological boost on the fateful day? And I'd even claim there's something more going on here. The whole business of the consultation and the follow-up action means that the couple are performing a ritual. A ritual performed with appropriate seriousness bypasses the conscious, superficial self and activates (through imagery) the deeper - more powerful - unconscious self. So it's not (just) a case of the gullible following the unscrupulous. The couple *really are* aligning their core selves with the flow of Life all around them. Their marriage vows are now supported by the inertia of the universe. I would wager serious money that statistics would show that those couples who do consult an astrologer are more likely to have successful marriages than those who don't.
