I think I understand your point about Kurtz and astrology. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by > > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science > > abandons occult for material causes."
His other examples seem clearer. He may mean that the focus on planets shifted from the value-laden astrological interpretation of the meaning of planetary motion, to the measurable physical motions focus of modern astronomy. But I think he makes this point poorly for Vedic astrology which obviously focuses on planetary motion as well as they could with the tools they had. The case for western astrology seems better. In western astrology the 30 degree arch system is a complete fabrication and does not relate to the physical positions of the stars and planets. Here the focus is on the convenience of a simple consistent system and abandons the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Perhaps he needs a better editor...know any? I'll give your other points some more thought. I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I think yet: And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences" > > I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would. > > I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that > Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly > limited --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new_morning_blank_slate > <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Kurtz goes on, "It is only in recent human history that the species > > has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations. > > Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the > > world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern > > science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful > > cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical > > inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in > > terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but > > natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, > > not as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological > > terms. Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes > > of phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by > > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science > > abandons occult for material causes." > > I don't think he's thought these points through > very well, or at least he isn't explaining them > clearly. He seems to be saying, for example, that > the "magical thinking" of astrology was replaced > by scientific knowledge of the regularity of the > motions of the heavenly bodies, when in fact the > "omens and signs" of astrology are grounded in > very detailed and precise observation of that > regularity. > > Kurtz appears to believe that astrology could exist > only as long as folks thought the movements were > random, when in fact it exists *because* their > regularity had been observed and detailed records > of it kept. > > Moreover, the still more detailed and precise > knowledge made possible by science doesn't *obviate* > astrology, it just gives astrology more precise and > detailed tools to make its predictions and identify > its omens and signs. > > Likewise, weather can be interpreted in meteorological > terms, but that doesn't somehow negate the notion > that there are divine forces behind it. Similarly > with disease. > > "Magical thinking" of the type he's talking about > can easily adapt to greater scientific knowledge > of the phenomena it's concerned with. Science > doesn't wipe it out or make it make it untenable. > If magical thinking is untenable, it isn't because > of science. > > > All of these schrouds could be viewed broadly as cognitve biases and > > errors. And they have been dismantled in part by strong logical and > > reasoning. > > Not the three examples he mentions. > > > Kurtz adds, "Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical > > thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods > > of inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were > > extended to biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues > > to make progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry." > > > > And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences" > > I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would. > > I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that > Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly > limited. > > > -- the > > realms of personal experience, where among other things, logic, the > > rooting out of interpretative and cognitive errors and biases, can > > lead to a much truer interpretation of subjective experience. > <snip> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
