Minderwiz
Sagitarian,
Thanks for taking the trouble to share these views and experiences. There's an awful lot of material there to think on and reflect.
I too was trained as a (social) scientist and indeed spent time learning the philosophy of science and empiricism. Science is an extremely useful approach to the world around us and has led to many discoveries that have accelerated the development of our civilisation (though not all have been positively used).
I have no doubt that there is a 'natural' astrology that can be (and eventually will be) demonstrated. There's enough evidence from studies such as the Gauquelins' or the work of Percy Seymour. However when it comes to the use of Astrology to 'read' situations or 'trends', I tend to take this as more divination than scientific work. The reason lies in the role of the Astrologer as a 'reader of signs', which are not only literal but also allegorical. Moreover these signs tend to be context specific - they relate to a specific person in a specific situation, or a specific horary question, etc.
Science works in generalising from individual cases which have a very high degree of commonality. It requires that the law of large numbers applies and that results are replicable - if we conduct the study again we get the same answers (within statistical limits). Astrological divination is rarely replicable, because it is based on highly differentiated individual circumstances. The Astrologer who reads the signs is not an outside observer - he or she is directly involved in the process. The same combination of individual, circumstances and Astrologer will almost certainly never happen again - we are into individual case Astrology.
This reason on its own is enough to make a scientific explanation of Astrology very unlikely. There may however be a psychological explanation and there is almost certainly a 'religious' or 'divinatory' explanation. The issue in effect comes down to the meaning and interpretation of signs, both to the person for whom the reading is done and for the Astrologer who does the reading.
The reading may well yield very useful information for the 'subject' of the reading and this may well help them in their decision making - there is more to 'evidence' than simply scientific evidence and 'reasons' do not necessarily have to be based on empirical investigation.
The above paragraph also suggests that Astrology is not deterministic - we are not saying what will be but what might be - the actions of the individual can change the outcomes. In a real sense Astrology furthers free will by providing evidence for decisions about what to do.
Thanks for taking the trouble to share these views and experiences. There's an awful lot of material there to think on and reflect.
I too was trained as a (social) scientist and indeed spent time learning the philosophy of science and empiricism. Science is an extremely useful approach to the world around us and has led to many discoveries that have accelerated the development of our civilisation (though not all have been positively used).
I have no doubt that there is a 'natural' astrology that can be (and eventually will be) demonstrated. There's enough evidence from studies such as the Gauquelins' or the work of Percy Seymour. However when it comes to the use of Astrology to 'read' situations or 'trends', I tend to take this as more divination than scientific work. The reason lies in the role of the Astrologer as a 'reader of signs', which are not only literal but also allegorical. Moreover these signs tend to be context specific - they relate to a specific person in a specific situation, or a specific horary question, etc.
Science works in generalising from individual cases which have a very high degree of commonality. It requires that the law of large numbers applies and that results are replicable - if we conduct the study again we get the same answers (within statistical limits). Astrological divination is rarely replicable, because it is based on highly differentiated individual circumstances. The Astrologer who reads the signs is not an outside observer - he or she is directly involved in the process. The same combination of individual, circumstances and Astrologer will almost certainly never happen again - we are into individual case Astrology.
This reason on its own is enough to make a scientific explanation of Astrology very unlikely. There may however be a psychological explanation and there is almost certainly a 'religious' or 'divinatory' explanation. The issue in effect comes down to the meaning and interpretation of signs, both to the person for whom the reading is done and for the Astrologer who does the reading.
The reading may well yield very useful information for the 'subject' of the reading and this may well help them in their decision making - there is more to 'evidence' than simply scientific evidence and 'reasons' do not necessarily have to be based on empirical investigation.
The above paragraph also suggests that Astrology is not deterministic - we are not saying what will be but what might be - the actions of the individual can change the outcomes. In a real sense Astrology furthers free will by providing evidence for decisions about what to do.
I agree about striving to be specific when thinking of astrology for divinatory purposes. (Else what use can astrology be in terms of prediction???)