Leading stage scientist Neil de Grass Tyson explained to Joe Rogan what astrology is. Up to this point in his life, Joe had not given it much thought, so relied on the wisdom of and intellectual honesty of science for clarity.
Neil proudly shared his knowledge. "They all have names. Then you go to the astrologer's tables and they say, 'Oh, this is a rain sign, or this is a drought sign', then you take the names of things, and those names are what they interpret, based on where the Moon is, the Sun is, where the planets are, or whatever the angle configurations there are, and each angle has a certain latitude over which they'll count it as a hit, rather than as a miss, and so this gives extrordinary capacity of the astrologer to tell you what's going on in your life."
Joe replied, "Oooooh, so it's bullshit!", and they both packed up laughing. Subject closed.
There you have it. The same scientist who in an earlier podcast "Disproved astrology in 4 minutes", based on comparing newspaper horoscope predictions, went on to disprove meteorology in 4 minutes, based on newspaper weather predictions.
Sorry, typos, astrologers', de Grasse Tyson, extraordinary. Admin, if possible, we need a bit longer to edit our posts. Thank you for all your hard work.
Hey adol,
The interplay between science, skepticism, and alternative viewpoints is a dynamic process. This topic picks up the discussion BigMac launched, but from the flip side. I think that while science provides a robust framework, acknowledging its limitations and fostering interdisciplinary dialogue can lead to a more holistic understanding of our world than simply arrogantly dismissing alternative viewpoints.
I’ve been immersed in Aurobindo and will share an apt quote in response to the transcript you shared.
“…what we find it difficult to understand or imagine we consider it our right to deny. “
Our denial come across as righteous, but ant the same time such an attitude of certainty and confidence attracts adherents and followers. It seems as though the righteous mind is good for business.
You could as easily insert two Vedic astrologers, maligning western astrology, or vice versa. Or the more recent divide between traditional and modern. All these divides seem to fail on one fundamental fault line. They fail to see how they are each connected and so informed by one another. Not seeing this connection risks wearing one’s blinders too tight, and falling prey to an ALL KNOWING persona. Ultimately, what we miss adopting such attitudes are ALL OF OUR BLIND SPOTS.
Interesting point to land on because one of my goals in consulting is to help clients identify and try to avoid their personal blind spots.
Take care,
HVA
Noel and I had a long talk once. If he were here, his response would be that astrology cannot be proven or disproven. It's not science.
Congratulations on the new site Basil.
Interesting that you discussed that with Noel. What I would give for that opportunity...
In the last seminar I attended, he did infer that he anticipated huge advancements in precision related to all kinds of things but I recall him mentioning medical astrology in particular. Perhaps foreshadowing Cochran's work in Vibrational Astrology which I've not really delved into... but my understanding is that they are trying their best to approach astrology from a quantum direction.
Philosophically, I think we'll ultimately remain with the same conclusion you heard Noel share with your own ears. Like God or Consciousness, astrology cannot be proven or disproven, which is funny to think about because astrologers constantly try to "prove" that their way is the best way.
HVA
Sorry HVA, this is an old argument originating with Kant and then more recently with Popper, but essentially wrong in the case of Astrology. As Kant put it, you need to have related 'sense information' to legitimise inquiry - you need something to measure, and so to order, in keeping with 'the understanding'. In ordinary language, you need to have a model to test using data predicted by that model. We live in an age where analysis of 'big data' is now possible, so I foresee - in the not too distant future - we WILL have the data to test a model for Astrology, such as the one you have access to in my book.
As far as scientific experts are concerned, I remember my early days as a student of physics and the quote attributed to Sir Arthur Eddington, a notable scientist of his day. He asserted that research in physics was almost done and dusted (obviously, I'm paraphrasing) - all that remained was to dot the (i)s and cross the (t)s - and then along came Quantum Theory. Eddington was completely wrong.
As I often assert, astrologers do not understand Astrology in sufficient depth to carry out "legitimate" research (in the Kantian sense) into the reality of Astrology. Collecting data for astrological effects will cause changes in the notions of scientists, forced to take another look at Astrology.
Henry.
Adol33,
Obviously, Neil de Grasse Tyson knows nothing about Astrology but the scientific community in general sees it as fair game for ridicule. Part of the problem is that Astrology is not fully understood by those who use it, so you have limited means of self-defence. Everyone who learns to use Astrology knows, from experience, that it has value.
I've spent a long time on this problem. Current ideas on Astrology are incomplete. It seems likely that Astrology and Kabbalah have the same root in antiquity - Sumer, Babylon and Mesopotamia - the beginnings of modern civilisation. Part of an ancient revelation ended up as Jewish Kabbalah and part of it emerged as Astrology. Recognising the two traditions as two sides of the same coin (ultimately) provides the logical basis for Astrology from which we can develop the structures of Astrology and re-create some of the main structures of Kabbalah, proving that the logical basis is correct.
In the medium term, we need to demonstrate that astrological effects are real - attempts at predicting what individuals will do in life based on a natal chart has not been successful, in that regard. In the era of 'big data' we need to track trends in Human behaviour due to planets transiting signs of the zodiac - Pluto in Aquarius is the obvious candidate. The initial ingress of Pluto into Aquarius brought an explosion of interest in A.I. on the internet. I regularly visit many tech channels on youtube (retired electronics engineer) but even I was surprised by how quickly public interest bloomed.
Bfearr,
Astrology is part of reality. Whether it is regarded as science, well that argument goes way back to Kant - you need to have testable information, based in models of the real world. Science cannot imagine a model for astrological effects - so it cannot be called provable from that perspective. But things may change soon.
Henry.