Question by Loyalty: Is astrology only valid due to peoples own experiences?
I wonder this. Why do some people get defensive when there is thorough questioning in their belief of astrology? It’s not the people themselves and I can sympathize, because Astrology has purposely made itself the subject, and target of scrutiny, and heavy criticism. Just for the fact that it is only valid today, due to empirical evidence. I assume that it has been categorized under the entertainment section for a reason?
What do you think?
Best answer:
Answer by ChainLightninGâ…ś
When someone publishes a scientific paper, they know it is open season for criticism. One of the rules of science is that it is repeatable and falsifiable. Einstein’s proof of gravity being able to bend light was criticized until proved by observations of solar eclipses verified his theory.
Astrologers of course don’t like criticism. They can not defend astrology with evidence or testing. No believer really wants to prove that astrology is factual or not. Or which one.
Astrology is not a science but a fortune telling system that is a belief. Tt may have started as a religion system. Most believers now think it should be a lifestyle. Since it is impossible to test a belief, astrology can’t be tested. It also has “rules” but these can be changed, bent, and broken. The exceptions are so numerous that astrology’s rules can not be counted on. It is all about point of view of the astrologer, which despite all the calculations they make are just bells and whistles. But since their customers are happy, that is validation. That is what counts.
In the real world, any and all claims by astrology are fully testable. These have all fail to do better than random chance. The contradictions and lack of consistency are astrology’s ultimate disproof, not the skeptics.
Edit: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
— Carl Sagan
Can we all agree that astrology is extraordinary?
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
No, it’s not only valid due to people’s experiences. I would suggest that before you or anyone makes judgments about the field of astrology, that you take time to do your homework and learn more about the subject. If you’re the individual I suspect you are under another name, I have already suggested this to you.
You cannot judge *anything* with total logic and sensibility without delving into the study to see where the flaws might appear. If you only perceive that subject (any subject) to be in a certain light, then you fool yourself and others by the conclusions you make, and you can potentially shove both feet down your throat.
All processes of academic pursuit in particular require a thorough analysis. That’s not possible if you’re not willing to go beyond the boundaries of your own truths and start to evaluate those understandings you really don’t understand. In the case of why the subject of astrology has been placed in the entertainment section of any site, not just Yahoo, it’s simply that people mis-perceive astrology as only Sun signs (and sometimes, in the East, you would find only Moon signs). Both Western and Eastern astrology are much more than that, and this is where people fall down in their grasp of the field.
It’s far too extensive to explain here. But when you judge a subject based solely on your own beliefs and own validations by educators, sites or books that offer you some kind of comfort zone, you cannot grow to see where the potential flaws lie in the subject itself. Even those who write opinion columns are considered best at writing when they offer the pros and cons of the argument. When you only argue one side, you cannot move beyond the box in which you’ve imprisoned your brain and then you begin to spew nothing but the rhetoric of those whom you’re parroting.
I have *no* problem at all in interacting with or speaking to those who don’t agree with my principles and values that are so clearly ingrained in astrology. I have grown up in a world that rejected astrology for being all these things you say because people didn’t understand–and I studied astrology because I felt there was something to it. So when I, at a time I desperately wanted answers, got conned by someone claiming to be an astrologer, I swore it would never happen again. And I started to study with the intent solely of knowing more about myself and what was there for me. In the process of my studies, I swore as well that if I ever became a professional astrologer, I would devote myself to working with people to teach them to see the difference between good and bad astrology (there are con artists in every field) and teaching them how to evaluate for more.
So there’s no defensiveness on my part beyond my insistence that anyone who questions astrology (it’s not about beliefs, it’s about what I have studied and observed and, based on those studies, observations, and conclusions–and the counterpoints I’ve examined–to come to where I am now with my thoughts about astrology) needs to be willing to examine in as much depth both sides as well. I took astronomy in college with an outstanding astronomy professor who also had a Ph.D in physics–and who was an astrology student, a point I feel needs to be brought out because he epitomizes what represents to me the true scholar. When one wants to discuss astrology with me (without the impassioned emotional knee-jerk reactions that say the person isn’t even reading what I’ve said), I’m happy to do so.
In fact, btw, two of my students are in the field of physics–one through engineering and the other through astrophysics. They challenge me far more than some of the rhetoric I see from those who claim to criticize here. Anyone can shut a door. It takes intelligence to keep it open so one can actually learn rather than making a fool of himself.
Edit: Well, I see you didn’t let me down in my suspicion that you would answer your own question with more parroting. As I told you yesterday, even doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists often disagree with their methodologies and observations based on varying “proofs.” Your comments are still invalid when you espouse the virtues of science without pointing to the fallacies within the field itself. There are flaws in any study and in any field, whether we’re speaking about astrology, which I am *not* convinced is a science and refuse to be tested by scientific rules which I’m not convinced can validate this field since it’s not something I even agree with, or we’re speaking about physics or astronomy or anything else. Just do your homework!