From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: May you live in interesting times.....
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:21:00 GMT

Happy New Year, all.

In article <27360038@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM>, stevek@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Kauder) writes...
>>In alt.astrology, sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us (Sean M. Foley) writes:
> 
>>  What reasons do you have to believe that planets are the sole influence of
>>  everything that be? 
> 
>I'd like the avoid the daily flame wars which this newsgroup evokes.  

You and me both...

>Having said that:  Look at the first sentence above.  I do not claim 
>(and have not claimed in 20 years of astrology) that planets are the 
>"sole influence of everything that be."  I simply find planetary movements 
>to be one of the (best) maps about what is coming.
> 
>It's not really different than looking at the weather forecast in the
>newspaper:  Based on someone's long experience and expertise, they have
>looked at weather patterns today and can make a prediction for tomorrow's
>weather.  This generally proves accurate -- though not enough to let me
>fully trust my plans for today to the newspaper weather forecast.

Is this really an apt analogy?  Weather patterns are physical patterns which
directly cause physical effects through a known mechanism.  This is why they
are somewhat predictable.  If the weatherman says a cold front is coming, then
there is a cold front somewhere, and while it may not move exactly as the
weatherman expects, or may dissipate, there is a clear connection between that
system and the foot of snow that may get dumped on you.  Not that the behavior
of the system is always predictable, but its means of influence is clear.

In astrology, the situation seems to be the reverse.  The movements of the
planets (= weather system in your analogy) are surely predictable, but the
means of by which these movements influence anything is entirely unclear.

Astrologers seem to readily admit that there is no cause and effect relationship
between what happens in the sky and what happens on Earth (this seems to be
your point as well) and there is no demonstrable reason why or how this or that
pattern should cause tankers to run aground (note the tanker actually ran
aground a number of days ago), people to get shot at in Iraq, Somalia, or
Bosnia (seems to be happening more or less continuously), or storms to lash the
east coast (rather common in winter as I recall).

>Medical forecasts are the same:  A learned doctor will tell you that
>some bruise or growth will likely follow some course of action (unless
>the doctor takes some action, of course).  Based on the doctor's action,
>another likely course will ensue.

Again, this seems like a poor analogy.  A bruise or growth doesn't form on
your arm merely *because* something is wrong with your stomach (for instance),
it happens because something physically caused it, and that something is no
doubt related physically or psychologically to whatever malady you are
suffering from.  It is precisely because of this causal connection that a
doctor is able to diagnose your problem and treat it.  If the symptoms were not
causally related to the problem, there would be no way of knowing whether a
bruise was the sign of internal bleeding or athlete's foot.  Contrast this to a
planet entering a sign or forming a particular aspect with another - there is
no known mechanism for connecting this to events on Earth, and hence the
analogy seems to suit the argument that you are trying to argue against, namely
that astrology = determinism.

>Planetary movements are the same:  They forecast coming events.  I am
>always happy to have accurate information instead of blindly assuming
>there is no way to look at future trends.  There is always free will.  

It'd be interesting to get into the question of why they "forecast" coming
events which do not occur - if they are capable of forecasting events without
any causal connection to them, why don't they forecast what will actually
happen (i.e. after you exercise your free will) instead of 'what would have
happened if...'.

>Forewarned is forearmed.

Flame not, and ye shall not be flamed...


Dave