Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Precision in Astrology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Precision in Astrology

    I have heard varied arguments, especially from scientific viewpoints, about how unaccurate astrology must be- we are using the same system from thousands of years ago, and the way we see the sky has changed much since then!

    This article looks at this concept, and really explains it well!

    http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_praezession_e.htm

    One of the most common arguments used against astrology is that the statements astrologers make have long become obsolete. Astrology claims that someone born on 30th March has the sun at 10° Aries, whereas in reality on 30th March the sun is clearly in the fixed star constellation of Pisces.
    It goes on to discuss and correct this idea. It's a really good read, though short. I'm a beginner, and it answered a few questions of mine.



  • #2
    Yes indeed! The argument that scientists sometimes use against astrology - that the zodiac signs no longer match the stars, and therefore we get it all wrong - is about the most stupid argument imaginable.

    In the same way that we can easily measure our latitude north or south of the equator on Earth (London is 52 degrees north of the equator, for instance), we have to have a fairly arbitrary starting point for measure how far east or west we are - New York is 74 degrees west, for instance, but west of what? By international agreement, we use Greenwich, London as our "starting point". This is by reason of historical accident - Britain was the major seafaring nation in the days when the meridian was agreed, so Britain's capital became the starting point. If we were doing this today, it would probably be Washington or New York instead.

    Similarly, we need a "starting point" in the skies - and that's what 0 Aries is. It's called the "Aries point", and it's arbitrary - and even the scientists at NASA call it the "Aries Point", even though it's no longer in the constellation of Aries. Astrologers measure planets from this point - and so do astronomers.

    Now, NASA use this point, just like we do - and they managed to land guys on the Moon 35 years ago, and regularly land unmanned craft on planets!

    From a scientific perspective, there *are* some very reasonable arguments against astrology - so why scientists choose to use the most ridiculous arguments against astrology instead completely baffles me.

    Comment


    • #3
      And don't forget that there are astrologers who do use the sidereal zodiac (as it appears in the sky). Is their astrology okay for that reason?
      Thank you, Faeawyn, for the awesome banner, and Dextra for the cool avatar!

      Back after 2+ weeks without internet. Sorry.

      "Courtesy is owed, respect is earned, love is given." - Baroness Freya Manslayer (SCA)
      "That which does not kill me makes me stronger."

      AIM: kblackclaw Yahoo: kblackclaw
      <a href="http://www.geocities.com/kblackclaw/index.htm">My website</a>

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Temair
        And don't forget that there are astrologers who do use the sidereal zodiac (as it appears in the sky). Is their astrology okay for that reason?
        I'm not knocking sidereal astrology - merely pointing out that arguments that scientists use against tropical astrology are fruitless, since they use the same system themselves!

        I was intruiged by Dennis Harness and Lee Lehman's talk at the AA conference - Dennis is a Vedic astrologer, Lee is a tropical astrologer - and yet they work together closely and say that both systems give results!

        Comment


        • #5
          I wasn't knocking sidereal either. I saw a fascinating article written as an argument for using the inauguration of George Washington for the US chart and it was done using sidereal. I was wondering if the scientists attempting to debunk astrology are also attempting to debunk sidereal astrology. Because if so, then this argument falls short. That was all.
          Thank you, Faeawyn, for the awesome banner, and Dextra for the cool avatar!

          Back after 2+ weeks without internet. Sorry.

          "Courtesy is owed, respect is earned, love is given." - Baroness Freya Manslayer (SCA)
          "That which does not kill me makes me stronger."

          AIM: kblackclaw Yahoo: kblackclaw
          <a href="http://www.geocities.com/kblackclaw/index.htm">My website</a>

          Comment


          • #6
            I find it interesting that the Western siderealists I talk to don't place a huge amount of store on natal chart delineation, and when they do use it, they seem to view signs rather differently to tropical astrologers. Aspects and house placements won't change dramatically, of course. The one area that siderealists tend to view as really substantiating their view is sidereal solar returns.

            A while back, I went to an astrology meeting on solar returns, and we tried out various solar return charts, firstly using the standard tropical system, then using it but adjust for precession. OK, the precession adjustment may sound like mixing apples and oranges, but in effect it was taking into account the siderealist method of timing. And everyone was rather startled to see that correcting for precession really did seem to give a more accurate SR chart.

            This suggests that Sidereal Solar Return charts really are what they're cracked up to be by the sdierealists.

            Comment


            • #7
              The new issue of the Mountain Astrologer had an interview in the Mercury Direct section with Kenneth Bowser that really /slams/ the Tropical system... He was even asked if he thought both methods had their own benefits as well as negatives and he said no! Now I'm open-minded, and I hate hearing that /one/ way is the "correct" way. I've had my sidereal chart done. It still gives me Sun in Aries but puts my Moon in Leo, and I'd have to say I'm definitely a Virgo Moon. My Leo influences definitely come more from Mars & Saturn in Leo (Tropical) than having them both in Cancer (Sidereal).
              "The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."

              Comment

              Working...
              X