The problem with astrology is not that it don't fit a scientific framework, the problem is: there is no substance to it, all representations of astrology proved to be some general descriptions that can fit almost anybody.
Even if there was something to it, it got diluted to the point that there's non of it left in it's current form.
The question is: are you talking about the same astrology that is used to extract some money out of people? or there is another version that can be used for anything else?
With the prejudices and presuppositions built into the subtext of your questions, you wouldn't even be open to contemplating what answers there might be to your question without already lining yourself up a debate to prove your beliefs correct.
You've already concretely identified with your position. Your questions aren't humbly seeking new perspectives to broaden your knowledge base - they're merely posed to position yourself as correct, and if you truly were open to a new perspective, you wouldn't even have posed it, recognizing just how limited in inquisitiveness and inherently biased it is.
Maybe you're right,
but I've seen far too much to safely assume everyone is in it for the money, it's a tool I never seen anyone use for anything else.
your eyes must have been focused in a very limited scope, in that case.
some who've not fully understood the depths of its wisdom surely have approached it as a merely predictive technique, attempting to milk a trend and extract money from the naive who seek quick easy answers - no different than those who've jumped on the ICO trend, attempting to extract money from those desiring to make millions overnight in the crypto trend.
meanwhile, astrology never was meant to be a predictive tool - but a language through which to gain access into dimensions of the human experience only understandable through the lens of archetypal patterns.
just as English - or French, Chinese, Swahili, etc - is a language that could be used to mislead, as a means of manipulating perspective for self-benefit by leading people to part with money by painting enticing verbal pictures - some in it "for the money," whether copywriters and marketers or politicians & lobbyists using it as a means to advance their selfish profit-focused agenda. OR, it could be used intelligently and wisely, through which to refine one's thought constructively, communicate effectively to invite others in participation in mutually-beneficial collaboration, exchanging ideas and unveiling insights for the benefit of mankind & society's sustainable evolution.
any tool is neutral, can be used for good or bad. it is the intent, consciousness, and maturity of those who use it which determine whether the outcome of its use is constructive, destructive, self-serving, or for the benefit of others...
Combining science and what I thought of as theology was something that interested me since I was very small. They fit together in my head at least!
I found Rupert Sheldrake on a Ted talk, and read his book, The Science Delusion and loved it! Very many great points about how science has become stagnated by its own beliefs. But if I tell any scientific-minded person about it, all they can do is sneer at morphic resonance.
Come on man! I said 'some good ideas' not 'this is the new bible!'
Sheldrake is great. He's been attacked and misrepresented by militant sceptics and materialists for years...and he doggedly goes forward, stating his case, and pursuing truth as best he can. Ahead of his time, I think.
Very good, looking forward to part 2 :)
After studying Philosophy of Science at the university, I believe scientists of all sorts should do that for some time – looking at one's achievements and field of work in several perspectives can only help to make it more relevant, and perhaps build some kind of bridges between different fields. But when people identify themselves with their achievements, then experiencing criticism and skepticism can heat up some egos indeed... How can we open up? Is the answer psychological? Because then you have psychologists suffering from the 'I'm right, you're wrong'-disease also :P
Most actual scientists I know are very humble about the limitations of scientific knowledge given what we still don't know about how reality works. I'd wager that most of the people who dimisss science as overly confident are merely projecting their own biases.
Agree. At least with the younger generations, there is more humbleness and less dogma. Perhaps this problems isn't with the scientists, rather the uneducated believers in it?
Congratulations @rok-sivante, this post is the ninth most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Superhero or Legend account holder (accounts hold greater than 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Superhero and Legend account holders during this period was 23 and the total pending payments to posts in these categories was $1075.51. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
Ultimately, when you're hit to your lowest, you will find yourself wanting to have an open-mind and also some form of faith. I was talking to a friend about this and I consider him to be really intelligent, and also nice. He too suggests that simply put, we don't have all the answers.
I am willing to admit that I have to chug science aside sometimes in order to protect the human side of me.
A crude example: I don't believe in ghosts, but don't expect me to sleep in a supposedly haunted house for a night on a dare or whatever.
The symptoms you've called out on scientism are the same for all belief systems and ideologies.
On the more specific subject of astrology, those practitioners who insist on some kind of natural science explanation for it lead the discussion right into the jaws of scientism. It's confusing the map and the territory. Astrology is a map. Reality, experience, all subject to the discovered "laws" of other disciplines, are the territory.
The math/astronomy aspects of astrology are mechanisms in the construction of the mapping method's models. They are not literally causes, but elements of description.
Otherwise, how could such a variety of mapping methods give good results?
Your argument is a fallacy. Science is not "a belief system" and never has been, never will be. In fact it is the complete absence of a belief system. An absence of belief is not a belief.
If you don't understand the basic axioms of logic, arguments, and reality then you're arguing from a point that is pure make belief and fantasy.
Updat: please see comment below. I misread "Scientism" for "science". My bad
Sorry, you didn't differentiate the word "scientism" which indicates a belief system, from "science", an epistemological discipline. I was not talking about the latter, except to acknowledge its valuable role in the last sentence of the second paragraph.
That's ok - misunderstandings are common in this kind of medium.
Seems like we're pretty nearly on the same page - except that our concepts of what astrology is are quite different. And this is what I was talking about with the map/territory confusion a couple of messages back.
So, let me pose the following question to you. Would you measure the claims of mathematics, or of various other formal systems, like software modeling languages, or hardware ones? Astrologers don't help themselves by insisting that they're dealing with some kind of empirical phenomena called astrology. Because in my view, after 40+ years of studying it, and 35+ years of STEM education and career, what we have here is an abstraction error. Confusion of a map with the territory. That's what I was trying to say in my initial message. But people in our society/culture tend not to be raised to make such distinctions.
You should check out "Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View" by Richard Tarnas. He's a statistician who set out to debunk astrology once and for all. But when tracking astronomical movements against historical data he found "anomalies" that tied in with what Astrology was claiming. For istance the conjunction of Uranus with certain planets every 80 coincided with major socio-political upheavals. Good read, merges the two subjects you're discussing.
The problem with astrology is not that it don't fit a scientific framework, the problem is: there is no substance to it, all representations of astrology proved to be some general descriptions that can fit almost anybody.
Even if there was something to it, it got diluted to the point that there's non of it left in it's current form.
The question is: are you talking about the same astrology that is used to extract some money out of people? or there is another version that can be used for anything else?
With the prejudices and presuppositions built into the subtext of your questions, you wouldn't even be open to contemplating what answers there might be to your question without already lining yourself up a debate to prove your beliefs correct.
You've already concretely identified with your position. Your questions aren't humbly seeking new perspectives to broaden your knowledge base - they're merely posed to position yourself as correct, and if you truly were open to a new perspective, you wouldn't even have posed it, recognizing just how limited in inquisitiveness and inherently biased it is.
Maybe you're right,
but I've seen far too much to safely assume everyone is in it for the money, it's a tool I never seen anyone use for anything else.
your eyes must have been focused in a very limited scope, in that case.
some who've not fully understood the depths of its wisdom surely have approached it as a merely predictive technique, attempting to milk a trend and extract money from the naive who seek quick easy answers - no different than those who've jumped on the ICO trend, attempting to extract money from those desiring to make millions overnight in the crypto trend.
meanwhile, astrology never was meant to be a predictive tool - but a language through which to gain access into dimensions of the human experience only understandable through the lens of archetypal patterns.
just as English - or French, Chinese, Swahili, etc - is a language that could be used to mislead, as a means of manipulating perspective for self-benefit by leading people to part with money by painting enticing verbal pictures - some in it "for the money," whether copywriters and marketers or politicians & lobbyists using it as a means to advance their selfish profit-focused agenda. OR, it could be used intelligently and wisely, through which to refine one's thought constructively, communicate effectively to invite others in participation in mutually-beneficial collaboration, exchanging ideas and unveiling insights for the benefit of mankind & society's sustainable evolution.
any tool is neutral, can be used for good or bad. it is the intent, consciousness, and maturity of those who use it which determine whether the outcome of its use is constructive, destructive, self-serving, or for the benefit of others...
Loving every minute of this article!
Combining science and what I thought of as theology was something that interested me since I was very small. They fit together in my head at least!
I found Rupert Sheldrake on a Ted talk, and read his book, The Science Delusion and loved it! Very many great points about how science has become stagnated by its own beliefs. But if I tell any scientific-minded person about it, all they can do is sneer at morphic resonance.
Come on man! I said 'some good ideas' not 'this is the new bible!'
End rant, now following!
Sheldrake is great. He's been attacked and misrepresented by militant sceptics and materialists for years...and he doggedly goes forward, stating his case, and pursuing truth as best he can. Ahead of his time, I think.
Agreed!
Very good, looking forward to part 2 :)
After studying Philosophy of Science at the university, I believe scientists of all sorts should do that for some time – looking at one's achievements and field of work in several perspectives can only help to make it more relevant, and perhaps build some kind of bridges between different fields. But when people identify themselves with their achievements, then experiencing criticism and skepticism can heat up some egos indeed... How can we open up? Is the answer psychological? Because then you have psychologists suffering from the 'I'm right, you're wrong'-disease also :P
Nice. I bet that would be an interesting course.
Psychological dynamics of sillyness and ego... always at play in even the "smartest," highest-credentialed of us...
Most actual scientists I know are very humble about the limitations of scientific knowledge given what we still don't know about how reality works. I'd wager that most of the people who dimisss science as overly confident are merely projecting their own biases.
Agree. At least with the younger generations, there is more humbleness and less dogma. Perhaps this problems isn't with the scientists, rather the uneducated believers in it?
Yep.
And thankfully. We'd hope the new generations would be getting smarter...
I'd argue that people who dismiss science are just stupid. Lol.
Congratulations @rok-sivante, this post is the ninth most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Superhero or Legend account holder (accounts hold greater than 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Superhero and Legend account holders during this period was 23 and the total pending payments to posts in these categories was $1075.51. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
Ultimately, when you're hit to your lowest, you will find yourself wanting to have an open-mind and also some form of faith. I was talking to a friend about this and I consider him to be really intelligent, and also nice. He too suggests that simply put, we don't have all the answers.
I am willing to admit that I have to chug science aside sometimes in order to protect the human side of me.
A crude example: I don't believe in ghosts, but don't expect me to sleep in a supposedly haunted house for a night on a dare or whatever.
Science is my favorite subject and i love science😊
good posting and keep it up😊
always be happy and plz upvote..!
The symptoms you've called out on scientism are the same for all belief systems and ideologies.
On the more specific subject of astrology, those practitioners who insist on some kind of natural science explanation for it lead the discussion right into the jaws of scientism. It's confusing the map and the territory. Astrology is a map. Reality, experience, all subject to the discovered "laws" of other disciplines, are the territory.
The math/astronomy aspects of astrology are mechanisms in the construction of the mapping method's models. They are not literally causes, but elements of description.
Otherwise, how could such a variety of mapping methods give good results?
YES.
Excellent articulation/points, through-and-through.
Your argument is a fallacy. Science is not "a belief system" and never has been, never will be. In fact it is the complete absence of a belief system. An absence of belief is not a belief.
If you don't understand the basic axioms of logic, arguments, and reality then you're arguing from a point that is pure make belief and fantasy.
Updat: please see comment below. I misread "Scientism" for "science". My bad
Sorry, you didn't differentiate the word "scientism" which indicates a belief system, from "science", an epistemological discipline. I was not talking about the latter, except to acknowledge its valuable role in the last sentence of the second paragraph.
That's ok - misunderstandings are common in this kind of medium.
Cheers!
Thanks for explaining you were trying to define something different. You were right that I missed that nuance.
Sounds like the OP about astrology which claimed it was (partly) using science as a basis was actually Scientism to me:
Whereas when the claims of astrology can and have been measured, and found to be false, that is not.
Seems like we're pretty nearly on the same page - except that our concepts of what astrology is are quite different. And this is what I was talking about with the map/territory confusion a couple of messages back.
So, let me pose the following question to you. Would you measure the claims of mathematics, or of various other formal systems, like software modeling languages, or hardware ones? Astrologers don't help themselves by insisting that they're dealing with some kind of empirical phenomena called astrology. Because in my view, after 40+ years of studying it, and 35+ years of STEM education and career, what we have here is an abstraction error. Confusion of a map with the territory. That's what I was trying to say in my initial message. But people in our society/culture tend not to be raised to make such distinctions.
Cheers!
Yes. Finally I read something I have noticed myself...
You should check out "Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View" by Richard Tarnas. He's a statistician who set out to debunk astrology once and for all. But when tracking astronomical movements against historical data he found "anomalies" that tied in with what Astrology was claiming. For istance the conjunction of Uranus with certain planets every 80 coincided with major socio-political upheavals. Good read, merges the two subjects you're discussing.
Haha, nice. :-)