From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:43:01 GMT

mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes in part:
>|> I say it [astrology] has a theory, and that you don't know what that is.
>
>Granted (in my case):  Please point me to source or sources for the "theory".

Please accept this question positively: theory as to what about astrology,
so we can narrow it down. If I cite a reference, I'd like for it to be
appropriate. Don't flame the question; I don't know works that purport to
be a "theory of astrology", but I know works which I consider "theories of
astrological workings". As authors I find respectable - Liz Greene, Barbara
Watters; Robert Hand is more technical. Numbers of others. There is a large
interface with Jungian psychology. I seriously think you would find it
interesting to read one such book without prejudgement - it would explain
a lot about the general conception of astrology (as I perceive it) versus
what I know it to be through using it. A book by Jeff Green, "Uranus", is
short; Liz Greene's "Saturn: A New Look at an Old Devil" is highly
recommended (by me.) But those are not "a theory of astrology".

>|> 1) I have proven my beliefs to my self.
>Lemma 1':  I never make mistakes.

I make mistakes all the time. My perception is ever a working model of reality.

>Lemma 1'':  Personal experience is an infallible source of information
>      about both internal and external events.

I need to decide a course of action, I do that based on my models. When they
are shown wrong, I correct them. What is this, Logic/Psychology 101? :)

>|> 2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
>|> 3) Then he hasn't my internal experience.
>Lemma 3':  The skeptics internal experience is irrelvant.

Inasmuch as (a) I can't use it in my work, (b) I'm not the skeptic.

>|> Especially when the information is freely
>|> available to those with the interest to pursue it.

>Please point me to what you are talking about here.

When I was an M.S. Grad student at MU in Oxford, Ohio, I went every few days
to the library and came back home with stacks of books - algebraic topology,
analysis, category theory, model theory, proof theory, etc. etc. etc.
I pored over those books - mostly unintelligible - just to try to get a feel
for what the subject did and how it worked. It only took about a week or two
to realize that what I got out of a B.S. in Math was garbage, compared to
what there was to know.

Whoever has a marginal interest in what Astrology may or may not be, can go
to an occult or new-age bookstore and browse dozens of titles on it.
Barbara Hand-Clow wrote a book on Chiron which turned into one of those
"crystals, rainbows and unicorns" type things that I - yes, *I* - have trouble
with - I know she knows what she's talking about because I know about it too,
from my own perspective, but I wouldn't be able to get it from her style of
thought.

>|> Those who don't, still enjoy the freedom to harrass, but not without being
>|> called down for it, which I have done earlier.

>Awfully nice of you to let other people disagree with your own personal
>experience.  I'm sure we all appreciate the generosity implied by this
>comment.  Getting flamed by you is a pretty scary prospect, I must
>admit.

Grrr. That's right.
Has more to do with "Oh, you believe that? That's bosch. You're a fool."
versus "Oh, you believe that? I don't. Why do you believe it?"

Got - the - drift ?

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% T h i s   i s   n o t   a   . s i g   -   i t ' s   a   t e a s e %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17717 talk.religion.newage:4632 alt.alien.visitors:7285