From: fridev@dhhalden.no (FRIDE VEDDE)
Subject: Re: *** NEWCOMERS READ THIS: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ***
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:16:51 GMT

In article <Bu5718.67C@csn.org> kylep@teal.csn.org (Douglas Kyle Pierce) writes:
>Path: dhhalden.no!nuug!aun.uninett.no!sunic!mcsun!uknet!keele!nott-cs!warwick!pipex!uunet!usc!rutgers!ub!csn!teal.csn.org!kylep
>From: kylep@teal.csn.org (Douglas Kyle Pierce)
>Newsgroups: alt.astrology
>Subject: *** NEWCOMERS READ THIS: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ***
>Message-ID: <Bu5718.67C@csn.org>
>Date: 6 Sep 92 05:53:31 GMT
>Expires: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:00:00 GMT
>Sender: news@csn.org (news)
>Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
>Lines: 1064
>Nntp-Posting-Host: teal.csn.org
>
>
>         ****** FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ******
>
>         (Date of last modification: July 6, 1992.)
>
>Here are some questions commonly asked by new readers of
>alt.astrology; the answers to each are given after the list of
>questions.
>
>               *** Requests for Services ***
>
> 1)  Could someone please do a chart interpretation for me?
>
> 2)  I have no idea what to do with my life. Here are my birth
>     data. Can someone please tell me what I should do?
>
> 3)  I was born on a day when the Sun changes sign. Which sign is
>     my Sun in?
>
> 4)  Which Sun-signs are compatible with mine?
>
>    *** Questions About How Astrology is Practiced ***
>
> 5)  Is the Sun-sign all that is important for assessing
>     personality and for prediction, or is there more to
>     astrology?
>
> 6)  How can one predict the nature of a relationship using
>     astrology?
>
>        *** Questions About Learning Astrology ***
>
> 7)  Can anyone recommend a good book on astrology for beginners?
>
> 8)  What is the best approach to learning astrology?
>
> 9)  Where can I find scientific research on astrology? 
>
>                *** General Questions ***
>
>10)  I have seen people born within days/hours of one another
>     whose lives are really different. How come?
>
>11)  What is the meaning of the term "the Age of Aquarius"?
>
>12)  How is it possible for astrology to work?
>
>13)  Does astrology control my future? Is it "wrong" to use
>     astrology to learn what the future holds for me? I'm scared.
>
>            *** Questions About Birth Data ***
>
>14)  I notice that I need to know the time zone used in the place
>     I was born and the latitude and longitude of my place of
>     birth in order to erect a chart. How can I find such
>     information?
>
>15)  I do not know what time of day I was born. Is there some way
>     to find out?
>
>       *** Questions About Astrological Software ***
>
>16)  Does anyone know if there is any software available for
>     astrology?
>
>17)  Where can I get a copy of the astrological software
>     Astrolog?
>
>      *** Questions About Alt.astrology Resources ***
>
>18)  How can I obtain a copy of the alt.astrology "resource
>     list"?
>
>19)  How do I use ftp to get files from the alt.astrology ftp
>     site?
>
>*** Questions Asked With Surprising Frequency by Disbelievers ***
>
>20)  Every sensible person knows that astrology couldn't possibly
>     work, so why are you people wasting your time?
>
>21)  How could planetary forces, of whatever nature, act upon an
>     infant when it is outside the mother, but not when it is a
>     fetus in the womb? Why should the forces only have effect at
>     the moment of birth?
>
>22)  Don't you guys know that astrology depends on a geocentric
>     astronomy? Copernicus blew it away.
>
>23)  Don't you guys know that no cause for astrological effects
>     is known? Therefore such effects cannot exist.
>
>24)  Don't you guys know that tests of groups of astrologers show
>     they do no better than chance? Therefore astrology does not
>     work.
>
>25)  Don't you guys know that astrology makes an infinity of
>     claims? You could never test them all. Therefore we can
>     dismiss it out of hand.
>
>26)  Don't you guys know that you can't really prove a negative,
>     such as astrology never working, anyway? Therefore we can
>     dismiss it out of hand.
>
>27)  Legitimate scientists (or educated people, etc., etc.)
>     universally despise astrology. Can such a weight of opinion
>     be wrong?
>
>28)  Why don't astrologers consider the fact that when the Sun is
>     in the sign of Aries, it is not really in the constellation
>     Aries?
>
>              *** Questions About the FAQ ***
>
>29)  I have a suggestion for this FAQ list. What do I do?
>
>
>
>
>                   ****** ANSWERS ******
>
>
>               *** Requests for Services ***
>
> 1)  Could someone please do a chart interpretation for me?
>
>Answer: A complete interpretation of a person's chart takes a
>great deal of time and energy to prepare. Someone just learning
>astrology might be willing to do a chart for you as practice, but
>if you want a high quality interpretation, you must either find
>an experienced astrologer on the net who is generous enough to
>interpret your chart without compensation, or, if that is not
>possible, you could consult a local professional astrologer (look
>in the yellow pages or look at ads posted in your local occult
>bookstore; you might also write to people in the group in your
>area and ask if they know of any good local astrologers).
>
>Of the experienced astrologers in the group, only Tito Domine has
>offered to delineate charts for people when he has the time. (He
>cannot do readings for everyone who makes a request.) His e-mail
>address is tito@ocf.berkeley.edu.
>
>(If you are an experienced astrologer who wishes to delineate
>charts as a public service to those who cannot afford to pay for
>a reading, and if you would like your address mentioned here,
>please contact the keeper of the FAQ at mmcphers@nyx.cs.du.edu.)
>
> 2)  I have no idea what to do with my life. Here are my birth
>     data. Can someone please tell me what I should do?
>
>Answer: Nobody can tell someone what to do with his or her life.
>However by studying one's astrological chart, one can gain
>insights into one's personality, and one can see areas of life
>where there is harmony or discord. A reading of one's chart by an
>experienced astrologer would be very valuable (see #1). After you
>have such a reading done, you could probably benefit greatly from
>learning astrology yourself and studying your chart at leisure.
>You can also look at "transits," the interactions of planets in
>the sky with your chart across time. This tells you when
>opportunities and difficulties arise in various areas of life,
>and helps you plan your future. An astrologer can tell you about
>current transits, or you could learn to read your own transits.
>With a few good books from your local occult bookstore, it's
>really quite easy. (See # 7 about books.) Interpreting transits
>is much easier than reading a natal chart (which involves a
>synthesis of many factors).
>
> 3)  I was born on a day when the Sun changes sign. Which sign is
>     my Sun in?
>
>Answer: Which sign your Sun falls in will depend on your exact
>time of birth. There are two ways you can find out where your Sun
>is in the zodiac. Since the Sun is only one of (at least) ten
>bodies to consider, and since the whole chart is needed for an
>understanding of the personality and the life, it might be useful
>to cast a complete chart, which would tell you the exact position
>of the Sun as well as the exact positions of all the planets and
>houses. This is easy to do these days because there exists
>astrological software for computing charts. The most accessible
>software is a programme called "Astrolog" which was written by
>Walter Pullen, a reader of the group. (See # 17 for details of
>how to get a copy of Astrolog. See # 16 for details of how to get
>information about other astrological software.)
>
>If you do not want to calculate the chart yourself (e.g., with
>Astrolog), or if you have trouble doing so, another option is to
>order your chart from a chart calculation service. Some addresses
>for companies providing this service are listed in the
>alt.astrology resource list (see # 18 for details).
>
>Alternatively, look in an "ephemeris," a book that lists the
>positions of all the planets (usually at midnight, sometimes at
>noon) each day. Ephemerides are available in the astrology
>section at occult ("new age") bookstores, or in some libraries in
>the astronomy section. They usually list positions for Greenwich,
>so you must calculate your time of birth in Greenwich Mean Time
>(e.g., if you were born under Pacific Standard Time, you add 8
>hours to your time of birth to get GMT; Mountain Standard Time,
>add 7 hours; Central Standard Time, add 6 hours; Eastern Standard
>Time, add 5 hours; if you were born during daylight savings time,
>subtract one hour before adding [or subtracting if you were born
>east of Greenwich] the number of hours for the time zone in which
>you were born). Next, determine if the ephemeris lists positions
>at midnight or noon. Then work out the number of hours that
>passed between the time for which positions are given (midnight
>or noon) and your time of birth in GMT. (e.g., for an ephemeris
>that lists positions for midnight, if you were born at 4:30 pm
>GMT, the difference is 16.5 hours). Divide this difference by 24
>to get the proportion of the day that passed before you were
>born. Next, calculate the number of degrees and minutes of arc
>that the Sun travelled through during that whole day. Multiply
>that amount by the proportion of the day that passed before the
>birth, and add the result to the position given for the start of
>the day (or noon if the ephemeris gives noon positions). The
>result is the position of the Sun at your birth.
>
> 4)  Which Sun-signs are compatible with mine?
>
>Answer: Some people feel that, in a very rough way, people with
>Suns in the same element (fire, earth, air, water) or, to a
>lesser extent, in the same polarity (positive -- fire and air, or
>negative -- earth and water) tend to get along more easily. (The
>fire signs are Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius; earth: Taurus, Virgo,
>Capricorn; air: Gemini, Libra, Aquarius; water: Cancer, Scorpio,
>Pisces.) But interactions among specific planets and houses in
>two charts are far more important in determining how well people
>will get along. Your best match may well be someone whose Sun is
>in a sign of a different polarity, and your worst enemy may well
>have his/her Sun in a sign of the same element!
>
>Real compatibility can only be determined when the complete
>charts of two people are compared, or a special chart is
>constructed based on the two people's birth data. See answer # 6
>for details.
>
>      *** Questions About How Astrology is Practiced ***
>
> 5)  Is the Sun-sign all that is important for assessing
>     personality and for prediction, or is there more to
>     astrology?
>
>Answer: The most common misconception about astrology is that it
>divides people into 12 categories, "Sun-signs" (and may subdivide
>them further by Moon-sign). This misconception comes from the
>popular practice of publishing "horoscopes" in newspapers and
>magazines for different Sun-signs, and the sale of popular books
>containing predictions for people of a particular Sun-sign.
>Unfortunately, all such horoscopes provide nothing more than
>entertainment. Valid predictions cannot be made on the basis of
>the Sun-sign alone.
>
>In actual practice, astrology involves determining the exact
>position in the zodiac (not just by sign, but by degree and
>minute, that is, the specific part of the sky) of the Sun, the
>Moon, and 8 planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
>Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) at the time of a person's birth. The
>zodiacal degree of other points and bodies, such as the Moon's
>North and South Nodes, asteroids, Uranian points, and Arabic
>parts, are included by some astrologers. One also calculates the
>positions of 12 "houses" which are specific to the exact place
>and time of birth. The location of planets in these houses and
>the sign on the cusp of each house are important sources of
>information in chart interpretation. One also looks at the
>angular distances in the zodiac between each pair of planets;
>certain specific angular distances, called "aspects," are
>considered meaningful. All of this information is necessary to
>determine the astrological influences present at a person's birth
>and to formulate predictions for the future. The sign in which
>the Sun and Moon fall is only one very small part of the picture.
>
>This does not mean that people who write horoscope columns
>necessarily just make things up out of thin air. They usually use
>certain astrological concepts, but the application of these
>concepts to sign positions of the Sun rarely produces valuable
>information. To see why, let us look at what typical "Sun-sign
>astrologers" might do. First, they assume that your Sun is
>roughly in the middle of the sign. They then look to see if any
>planets are making aspects to the Sun on the day/week/month in
>question, and they interpret these aspects. If your Sun is at the
>beginning or end of a sign, these aspects will be irrelevant in
>your case. In addition, there may be aspects to other planets in
>your chart that will affect you strongly, and some of them may
>even have an effect opposite to the effect of the aspects to your
>Sun. Sun-sign astrologers might also set up "houses" by assuming
>that the sign your Sun is in is the first house, the next sign is
>the second house, and so on. They then look to see if any planets
>are currently in each "house". A serious astrologer would
>calculate the positions of houses using data about the exact time
>and place of birth, and these houses rarely coincide with the
>Sun-sign astrologer's zodiac-sign "houses." So the Sun-sign
>technique will only work at all for people who happen to have the
>Sun and several other planets in the middle of one sign, and
>whose first house also happens to begin at 0 degrees of the same
>sign. Such people are extremely rare, so for most people
>"horoscopes" will be useless.
>
> 6)  How can one predict the nature of a relationship using
>     astrology?
>
>Answer: The most common technique for determining the nature of a
>relationship is called "synastry." This involves comparing the
>positions of all the planets in two people's charts. One looks to
>see where one person's planets fall in the other person's houses,
>and one compares the positions of planets in the two charts to
>see whether any pair of planets is separated by a number of
>degrees in the zodiac that is considered meaningful. (These
>meaningful distances between planets, e.g., 0 degrees, 180
>degrees, 120 degrees, 90 degrees, and so on, are called
>"aspects".) 
>
>A couple of newer (and still experimental) techniques exist for
>studying the nature of a relationship. One is called the
>"relationship chart" (created by Ronald Davison); the chart is
>cast for the place in space and time that is exactly half-way
>between the two people's birth places and times. The second
>technique is called the "composite chart" (developed by Robert
>Hand). The Sun in this chart is at the mid-point of the two
>people's Suns, the Moon is at the mid-point of the two people's
>Moons, and so on for all the planets. For recommendations of
>books about all these techniques, see the resource list. (See #
>18 for complete details about the list.)
>
>The nature of the synastry technique to be applied depends on the
>nature of the relationship contemplated and also on whether the
>relationship is between male and female or people of the same
>gender.
>
>If two people are contemplating marriage, the technique used is
>different than it would be if they were contemplating a business
>relationship. The technique is also different when evaluating a
>parent-sibling relationship or a superior-subordinate
>relationship.
>
>As a simplistic example, for marriage, a Sun in Aquarius (female)
>is an excellent match for Sun in Leo (male) (Sun's position taken
>alone -- neglecting other planets for purposes of discussion), as
>long as the two people operate on a spiritual level. This has the
>potential for the highest type of marriage.
>
>However, if it is a father-son relationship where the father has
>Sun in Aquarius and the son (especially the first born) has his
>Sun in Leo, they will cause each other frustration to no end.
>
>          *** Questions About Learning Astrology ***
>
> 7)  Can anyone recommend a good book on astrology for beginners?
>
>Answer: Recommendations appear in the alt.astrology resource
>list. (See # 18.) Maggie McPherson posted some beginners'
>lessons; if you would like copies of these, they are available by
>anonymous ftp at hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au in the directory
>pub/astrology; the file names are "lesson.intro" and
>"lesson.aspects." If you cannot use ftp on your machine, write
>for copies to Maggie at mmcphers@nyx.cs.du.edu.
>
>A huge bibliography of astrology books (all levels) is available
>at the ftp site in the file win.rowe.
>
> 8)  What is the best approach to learning astrology?
>
>If you can find a class offered in your area, that might be the
>best approach. It is difficult for the beginner to assess what is
>important in chart interpretation. 
>
>Two lessons are available at the ftp site (see # 19) in the files
>"lesson.intro" and "lesson.aspects". These cover some basic
>concepts, but they do not explain how to cast or interpret a
>chart.
>
>See # 7 about beginners' books.
>
>The most difficult area of astrology is natal (i.e., birth) chart
>interpretation. It takes years to learn the art of synthesis that
>allows for accurate readings of a natal chart. Beginners might
>benefit from concentrating on transits (the movements of the
>planets in the sky across time in relation to a natal chart),
>which are relatively easy to interpret, astrocartography (changes
>in the zodiacal positions of the 12 houses as one moves from city
>to city), for which clear interpretations are available (e.g.,
>from Jim Lewis' work), or synastry (evaluating contacts between
>two charts to determine the nature of a relationship). When the
>basic natures of the planets, signs, houses, and aspects become
>familiar, then one can begin to study natal charts in earnest,
>combining ("synthesising") the various factors wholistically to
>achieve a meaningful reading.
>
> 9)  Where can I find scientific research on astrology?
>
>Answer: Brief summaries of a few scientific studies (written by
>Thomas David Kehoe) are available at the ftp site (see # 19) in
>the files "gauquelin" and "jung.synastry," which can be found in
>the directory pub/astrology/articles.
>
>The most famous research is that of Michel and Francoise
>Gauquelin. Some of their findings have been the focus of decades
>of scrutiny by skeptics, and their results have held up under
>this scrutiny. Some of their studies have been successfully
>replicated with different samples and by independent researchers.
>The highly publicised CSICOP "failure to replicate" on an
>American sample for the "Mars effect" (the appearance of Mars in
>certain sectors with greater-than-expected frequency for eminent
>athletes) has been shown to replicate the effect when the
>athletes are ordered by eminence (see the Winter, 1992 issue of
>the Skeptical Inquirer). (The CSICOP researchers included far
>fewer eminent athletes in their sample than did the Gauquelins,
>and this washed out the Mars effect when the sample as a whole
>was considered. When the athletes are divided into groups
>according to an objective criterion of "eminence," the Mars
>effect emerges among the most eminent.) 
>
>Some of the Gauquelins' research is summarised in the following
>books: Michel Gauquelin, "Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior"
>(3rd edition, published in 1985 by Aurora Press, P.O. Box 573,
>Santa Fe, NM 87504); Michel Gauquelin, "Planetary Heredity"
>(published in 1988 by ACS Publications, Inc., P.O. Box 16430, San
>Diego, CA 92116-0430); Francoise Gauquelin, "Psychology of the
>Planets" (published in 1982 by ACS Publications, Inc.).
>
>A preliminary report of a study showing the relationship between
>inspiration in scientific discovery and certain angular
>separations of planets appears in a booklet entitled "The Eureka
>Effect," by Nicholas Kollerstrom and Michael O'Neill. It was
>published in 1989 by Urania Trust, 396 Caledonian Road, London N1
>1DN. A complete report on this study and some additional data on
>inventions will appear sometime in the next few years.
>
>The Astrological Association of London publishes a scholarly
>journal devoted entirely to astrological research. It is called
>Correlation. (See the resource list for the address and phone
>number of the Astrological Association; see # 18 for information
>about the resource list.) Prior to its first publication in 1981,
>research articles appeared in The Astrological Journal, also
>published by the Astrological Association. If you are in Britain,
>all issues of this journal are available at The Astrology Study
>Centre (396 Caledonian Road, London N1 1DN), the Oxford and
>Cambridge University libraries, the Scottish National Library in
>Edinburgh, the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, Trinity
>College in Dublin, the Warburg Institute, London University, the
>British Library in London, and the York University library. In
>the USA, these journals are available at the Heart Center
>library, 315 Marion Avenue, Big Rapids, MI 49307. Astrologers in
>your local area may have copies of these journals as well.
>
>Astrological research appears occasionally in academic journals
>of psychology. A literature search (e.g., of the database
>"Psychological Abstracts") for articles containing the keyword
>"astrology" or "astrological" (or "astrolog?" where "?" is a wild
>card) would turn these up.
>
>Because of the difficulty in publishing astrological research (or
>any unorthodox research), much remains unpublished. Among such
>studies are those described in postgraduate dissertations on
>astrology. A list of these (up to 1981) appears in the December,
>1982 issue of Correlation. For more recent dissertations, check
>Dissertations Abstracts at a university library. (Our very own
>Mark Urban-Lurain did a multivariate analysis of the birth data of
>members of Alcoholics Anonymous for his Master's thesis at Michigan 
>State University.)
>
>                   *** General Questions ***
>
>10)  I have seen people born within days/hours of one another
>     whose lives are really different. How come?
>
>Answer: Even a few minutes difference in the time of birth or
>having a different birth place can change the chart
>substantially. Obviously people who have just the same birthday
>will have different charts. Since Earth is the only planet that
>makes a trip around the Sun exactly once a year, all the other
>planets will be at completely different positions in a different
>year. But even if people are born on the very same day, their
>charts can differ quite radically. The Moon moves about 13
>degrees in a day, and the astrological houses, which are an
>extremely important element of the chart, move through the entire
>zodiac in a 24-hour period! And their positions are affected by
>latitude as well. In addition, even if two people's charts are
>identical (which is rare), other factors may influence the way
>the chart is expressed. Some people operate on a material level,
>some on a mental level, and a few operate on a spiritual level.
>The same chart can be expressed on any of these levels. An
>astrological chart does not show the "fate" or "destiny" as such.
>The person always has a choice, and the free exercise of the will
>determines how the influences indicated in a chart manifest
>themselves.
>
>11)  What is the meaning of the term "the Age of Aquarius"?
>
>Answer: Due to the precession of the equinoxes as explained in
>question # 28, the Vernal Equinox enters a new sign in the
>sidereal zodiac about every 2160 years. According to output from
>Astrolog, at the Vernal Equinox in 1992, the Sun will be at 5^
>Pisces 22' in the sidereal zodiac. Because of this, the current
>age is called the "Piscean" age. The Vernal Equinox will not
>actually occur in the sign of Aquarius in the sidereal zodiac
>until the year 2377. Some astrologers, however, believe that the
>equinox is close enough to the cusp of Pisces that we will begin
>to see some of the effects of the Age of Aquarius, hence the
>"Dawning of the Age of Aquarius." Opinions also differ regarding
>the exact boundaries of the constellations and the length of an
>astrological age.
>
>12)  How is it possible for astrology to work?
>
>Answer: There are at least two schools of thought. One common
>explanation is synchronicity, an acausal connecting principle
>proposed by Carl Jung. The general idea is that events on earth
>of a certain nature coincide in time with astronomical events of
>a similar nature (according to the symbolic significance of the
>planets and their relations in the heavens). Although
>synchronicity operates throughout the universe, the planets might
>have special significance because they are part of collective
>experience (that is, we can all see them or know about them) and
>so they can take on a collective meaning -- they can speak to the
>"collective unconscious." But Jung's synchronicity principle is
>still hypothetical and still not well understood.
>
>Jung's idea is similar to the ancient hermetic idea of resonant
>bonds of sympathy between "similars" (which share a common
>essential design) in the microcosm and macrocosm. This was the
>ancient explanation for the correspondence between cosmic and
>mundane events.
>
>A less popular explanation is that there are unknown and
>currently undetected forces or energies emanating from the
>planets that affect life on earth, perhaps something akin to
>Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields." (This type of explanation is
>unpopular among those physicists who believe that all the forces
>in the universe are already known.) Biological evidence showing a
>harmony between celestial rhythms and biological rhythms suggests
>that known or unknown planetary forces operate on organisms at a
>material level, sometimes through changes in the pattern of solar
>radiation. Such biological effects might alter psychological
>processing and thus human action and the events that arise from
>it.
>
>Whatever explanation is offered, it is evidence from experience
>and research that convinces people that astrology does indeed
>work. The rich descriptive theory that has evolved over thousands
>of years provides for a deep understanding of human nature and
>the capacity for prediction of the type of circumstances that
>will prevail during specific time periods. As with most areas of
>inquiry, the correct explanatory theory to account for the
>structure of the descriptive theory awaits its discoverer.
>
>13)  Does astrology control my future? Is it "wrong" to use
>     astrology to learn what the future holds for me? I'm scared.
>
>Answer: In Western astrology, it is not believed that the cycles
>associated with the planets control your future; it is believed,
>rather, that YOU have ultimate control over your future through
>the exercise of your will. The planets only indicate some of the
>tendencies inherent in your personality and the conditions that
>surround various areas of life. One cannot determine in precise
>detail exactly what will happen in one's life from day to day and
>moment to moment, but only what kinds of influences will be
>present. There is a famous saying: "The stars incline, they do
>not compel." Within the situational and psychological context
>described in a chart, you are free to act and react according to
>your will, which is in turn guided by the wisdom you possess and
>your stage in your spiritual evolution. As for good and evil,
>there is nothing "wrong" with learning what sort of conditions
>will exist in your life. It may be to your advantage to foresee
>these influences so that you can be prepared and control your
>actions to better work in harmony with the celestial cycles.
>
>             *** Questions About Birth Data ***
>
>14)  I notice that I need to know the time zone used in the place
>     I was born and the latitude and longitude of my place of
>     birth in order to erect a chart. How can I find such
>     information?
>
>Answer: To find the latitude and longitude of your place of
>birth, you can estimate from a map (which is not really very
>accurate) or look them up in a reference book such as Thomas G.
>Shanks "International Atlas" or "American Atlas" (which also
>provide information about the time zone and the use of daylight
>savings and war time for each city/town); these are usually
>available in the astrology section of occult bookstores. Time
>zone information is usually available in a reference book at your
>local library, but if you think you might have been born when
>daylight-savings time or war time was in effect, you must either
>check a reference book such as Shanks' or phone the
>state/provincial archives for your birth place and check with
>them. Note that some cities changed the time zone they used at
>some point in their history, so it is *always* best to check with
>a reference such as Shanks or phone the state/provincial
>archives. A difference of one hour changes a birth chart
>radically!
>
>If you were born in the United States of America, there is
>another method for finding latitude and longitude: through the
>database server located at port 3000 at martini.eecs.umich.edu;
>this is accessed by the command "telnet 141.212.99.9 3000". Once
>you are logged in, type in the name of any U.S. city, followed by
>the abbreviation for the state (e.g., Seattle, WA) and the
>programme will display the longitude and latitude. To end the
>session, just enter "bye."
>
>15)  I do not know what time of day I was born. Is there some way
>     to find out?
>
>Answer: To find your exact time of birth, talk to a parent (who
>may have the time written down somewhere) or contact the hospital
>where you were born; sometimes the time appears on a birth
>certificate. If the time cannot be found, some astrologers claim
>to be able to determine the time through a technique called
>"rectification" which involves looking at astrological influences
>present when major events happened in the life, such as meeting a
>future spouse, marriage, birth of children, death of
>parent/sibling/spouse/friend, and so on.
>
>If no time is known, and if rectification of the time is not
>possible, some information about the person can still be derived
>from a chart. The position of the Moon, which moves about 13
>degrees per day, will be inaccurate, and the positions of the
>planets in the astrological "houses" will be unknown. But the
>relations among the planets will be roughly accurate, and the
>sign positions of the planets (except perhaps the Moon) will be
>correct.
>
>          *** Questions About Astrological Software ***
>
>16)  Does anyone know if there is any software available for
>     astrology?
>
>Answer: See # 17 about Walter Pullen's "Astrolog" software.
>Information about other software (e.g., commercial software) is
>available in Michael Bulmer's "resource list." If it does not
>currently appear at your site, see # 18 for details on getting a
>copy.
>
>17)  Where can I get a copy of the astrological software
>     Astrolog?
>
>Answer: Walter Pullen posts new versions on alt.astrology as they
>are ready. If you missed the most recent posting, you can get the
>latest version by anonymous ftp at the following ftp site:
>hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au; the code for Astrolog is in the
>directory pub/astrology (along with other useful stuff). Astrolog
>was also posted to comp.sources.misc and is therefore available
>at any of the numerous ftp sites which archive this newsgroup,
>such as ftp.uu.net. It can be found in the directory
>/usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume28/astrolog/*, in six convenient
>compressed shell archives. If you cannot use ftp on your machine,
>write to Walter at astrolog@byron.u.washington.edu and ask him
>for a copy of the programme. Astrolog can easily be loaded on
>UNIX (and less easily on a PC), and it is very easy to run. 
>
>         *** Questions About Alt.astrology Resources ***
>
>18)  How can I obtain a copy of the alt.astrology "resource
>     list"?
>
>Answer: Michael Bulmer posts the resource list occasionally. If
>it is no longer at your site, you can get a copy via anonymous
>ftp at hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au; the list is in the directory
>pub/astrology. If you do not have access to ftp from your
>machine, write to Michael at bulmer@hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au and
>he will send you a copy. The resource list provides
>recommendations for books on astrology, addresses of astrological
>associations and organisations, information about astrological
>software, addresses of chart calculation services, and other
>useful stuff.
>
>19)  How do I use ftp to get files from the alt.astrology ftp
>     site?
>
>Answer: For many sites (but check with the systems people at
>yours), you type "ftp hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au"; when connected
>to the ftp site, type "anonymous" and then enter, as a password,
>your e-mail address. Once into the account, type "cd
>pub/astrology" to get into the right directory. If you wish to
>see which files are present in that directory, type "ls". If you
>want to transfer a file (e.g., the file README) to your account,
>type "get README"; repeat for however many files you wish to
>transfer. (Note that commands are case-sensitive, so type the
>file name just as you see it in the directory listing, i.e., in
>caps or lower case.) When you are done, type "bye" and you will
>be disconnected.
>
>
>*** Questions Asked With Surprising Frequency by Disbelievers ***
>
>20)  Every sensible person knows that astrology couldn't possibly
>     work, so why are you people wasting your time?
>
>Answer: It is impossible to rule out astrological phenomena on _a
>priori_ grounds. Current understanding in scientific circles does
>not shape the actual structure of the universe. Science involves
>research. No mere mortal is omniscient, and so none can predict
>infallibly which effects would show up in research and which
>would not. What is currently known is not all that will ever be
>known. It is a mistake to buy into the current way of thinking as
>if it was an accurate and complete picture of the universe. Dogma
>is antithetical to true science.
>
>_A priori_ arguments are not the final word in science, which was
>designed, after all, as a means of discerning nature's secrets by
>actually examining nature, as opposed to just thinking about it
>the way Aristotle and Descartes did.
>
>21)  How could planetary forces, of whatever nature, act upon an
>     infant when it is outside the mother, but not when it is a
>     fetus in the womb? Why should the forces only have effect at
>     the moment of birth?
>
>Answer: Given that we do not yet have an explanation for
>astrological phenomena, we cannot assume that astrological
>correspondences are due to some "force" (e.g., gravity) that can
>travel through a mother's body as easily as it can through the
>walls of the hospital. 
>
>One research finding might be relevant to this question. The
>Gauquelins found that one of their results, the "inheritance" of
>angularity for specific planets (i.e., the child of a parent with
>an angular planet tends to have the same planet angular), was
>only present when the birth was natural. This finding suggests
>that it is not exposure to air per se that produces the
>astrological effect. Rather, the baby is "destined" (for unknown
>reasons) to be born at a certain time, and to retain the
>astrological character of that time. Unnatural births (e.g.,
>C-section, or drug-induced labour) prevent birth at the "correct"
>time, and so the child fails to "inherit" its parent's planetary
>angularity in its own chart. (No studies have been done looking
>at the effect of the type of birth on any factors in actual chart
>interpretation, so the Gauquelins' finding does not speak to the
>issue of astrological charts in general; if future research fails
>to find an effect of the circumstances of birth on the validity
>of the birth chart, then the reason for the child's absorption of
>the character of the time of birth will not be able to be
>accounted for by destiny.)
>
>22)  Don't you guys know that astrology depends on a geocentric
>     astronomy? Copernicus blew it away.
>
>Answer: This is an argument that never occurred to Copernicus,
>who practiced astrology. Heliocentric versus geocentric is a
>method of calculation, and it is easy to postulate astral forces
>indifferent to the current interpretation of orbital mechanics.
>In any case, as the answer to the next question will show,
>demonstration of the possible causation of astrological effects
>is not clearly relevant to showing the existence of these
>effects.
>
>A force exerts the same influence whether the position of the
>body exerting it was calculated using Ptolemaic, Copernican,
>Keplerian, Newtonian or Einsteinian orbital mechanics. And, of
>course, astrology was originally practiced using observation,
>before astronomy was sufficiently advanced to allow highly
>accurate prediction of the positions of the planets.
>
>23)  Don't you guys know that no cause for astrological effects
>     is known? Therefore such effects cannot exist.
>
>Answer: There are quite a few variations of this very popular
>fallacy. A common variation is to point out that the hands of the
>doctor delivering a baby exert a far stronger gravitational pull
>than any planet could. Again, the reasoning here goes, "no cause,
>therefore no effect." If there ever is a cause advanced for
>astrological effects, it may well not involve gravity.
>
>All sorts of sciences are based on empirical evidence alone, with
>no explanatory theories available. Genetics was accepted as part
>of science before the discovery of DNA, and, even now, the
>complete mapping from genetic factors to amino acids is far from
>complete. In psychology, the principles that govern the
>organisation of vision and audition (i.e., that determine the
>boundaries and content of separate "figures," "objects," or
>"streams" of sound) are well established, but researchers have no
>idea why perceptual processes follow these particular principles.
>
>Vast areas of sciences that *do* provide causal explanations make
>specific predictions that cannot be derived directly from the
>believed cause but are based on empirical evidence and
>descriptive theories that capture the structures inherent in the
>data. Tide tables, for example, are calculated empirically.
>Although physicists know enough about the relevant physical
>processes to make it plausible that there should be two tides a
>day, even though the earth revolves only once a day, mathematical
>formulae directly relating this cause to the observed tides do
>not exist.
>
>To tread but briefly on philosophical ground, the notion of
>causality itself is not well grounded, and is considered by many
>to be a function of human perception rather than a property of
>the universe (see, for example, David Hume in "A Treatise of
>Human Nature" and Immanuel Kant in "Prolegomena to Any Future
>Metaphysics"). As the empiricist Hume discovered, humans make an
>attribution of "causality" when they have certain types of
>perceptual experience (e.g., when A is perceived to precede B in
>time, B is always perceived to be preceded by A, and so on, then
>A is perceived to "cause" B). The famous psychologist Albert
>Michotte did many studies in which he examined the factors that
>give rise to the impression of causality (see "La Perception de
>la Causalite," 1946, or the English translation, "The Perception
>of Causality," 1963). He showed, for example, that animated dots
>on a screen are perceived to be involved in a causal interaction,
>with one dot "causing" movement in another, when the timing
>relations of their movements and the relative direction of their
>movements fall within a certain range. (Of course no "causal
>relation" was ever actually present, since the movement was due
>to animation.) 
>
>Even so pragmatic a scientist as Sir Isaac Newton argued that an
>appeal to cause is unnecessary because the type of laws he
>discovered, which are purely descriptive in nature (e.g., the
>relation f=m*a among the theoretical constructs force, mass, and
>acceleration), are sufficiently powerful to predict events and
>account for all the available data. He believed that physical
>theories are what the physicist Pierre Duhem called "the economic
>condensation of phenomena" (see "The Aim and Structure of
>Physical Theory"):
>
>     "To tell us that every species of things is endowed with an
>     occult specific quality by which it acts and produces
>     manifest effects, is to tell us nothing; but to derive two
>     or three general principles of motion from phenomena, and
>     afterwards to tell us how the properties and actions of all
>     corporeal things follow from those manifest principles,
>     would be a very great step in philosophy, though the causes
>     of those principles were not yet discovered; and therefore I
>     scruple not to propose the principles of motion above
>     mentioned, they being of very large extent, and leave their
>     causes to be found out." (Optics, Query XXXI at the end of
>     the second edition.)
>
>So the descriptive theories of astrology, the relations that have
>been discovered and exploited over a period of thousands of
>years, may not lend themselves to an explanation in terms of
>causes any more than Newton's laws of motion do. The human mind
>seeks "causes" (at least in the West), but Nature herself may be
>indifferent to them. The Eastern vision of an harmonious universe
>with all its interconnected parts dancing in unison may be more
>in line with reality.
>
>24)  Don't you guys know that tests of groups of astrologers show
>     they do no better than chance? Therefore astrology does not
>     work. 
>
>Answer: The same is said of investment managers. From the
>Economist for March 7, 1992, p. 81: "Numerous studies suggest
>that `exceptional' investment managers do not exist. In any given
>period, each has no more than an even chance of doing better than
>the market index; moreover, a manager who does well one year is
>no likelier than others to do well in the next. A few funds may
>beat the index for, say, three years running, but these are no
>more common than chance would predict. Give a sample of
>coin-tossers three coins each. If they obey the laws of
>probability, one in either will toss three heads."
>
>Does this mean there is no such thing as good investment advice?
>
>The question of the standard of practice in the profession and of
>the validity of the discipline are not the same, and should not
>be confused. Do the best astrologers participate in such tests?
>Given that astrology is not a closed profession, can testing
>groups of people where the only criterion for selection is that
>they say they are astrologers really say anything about
>astrology? Given these sort of ground rules for the test, would a
>good astrologer decide to participate? 
>
>Even if highly qualified astrologers agreed to participate in a
>study, did the specific test administered give the astrologers a
>fair shot at accuracy (e.g., if they are asked to match charts
>with people, are they allowed to get to know the people well and
>learn about their lives and personal history in detail, or are
>they allowed just a brief chat with the people)?
>
>It would be very hard to answer any of these questions with an
>unqualified "Yes." The talent of practitioners and the validity
>of the discipline they practice must not be confused. And
>scientific tests conducted by those attempting to "debunk"
>astrology must be evaluated with as much critical attention as
>any other scientific study. The tests must be fair. The
>conditions of the tests must be conducive to finding an effect if
>any is possible. They must not be arranged so that finding an
>effect is impossible simply by virtue of the experimental design.
>
>One must be very careful in drawing conclusions from a *lack* of
>evidence (either because of negative findings or because no
>studies have been conducted). The failure to find an effect does
>not mean that the hypothesis is false. It just means that one
>hasn't found evidence in favour of it. Nothing more, nothing
>less. But if one *does* find an effect, then one has evidence in
>support of the hypothesis (and any other hypothesis that would
>make the same prediction, whether or not that hypothesis is
>currently available). So there is an asymmetry that is rarely
>recognised: evidence (data) can support an experimental
>hypothesis, but a lack of evidence cannot refute it (even if the
>lack of evidence is in the form of failure to find a predicted
>effect, e.g., a difference between samples). The possibility
>always remains that our experimental design is flawed and/or our
>measurement techniques are inappropriate and so they fail to
>capture the effect. In psychology, where measurement is often
>very difficult and indirect (as it is in much astrological
>research), one can fail to find evidence to support a particular
>hypothesis even after years of experimentation. Then some clever
>researcher invents a new measurement technique, or creates a new
>experimental design more favourable for the emergence of the
>phenomenon of interest, and the predicted effect emerges!
>
>Note that many scientific astrological studies that do not focus
>on the ability of individual astrologers (e.g., to match charts
>to people) have found positive results that are replicable. (See
># 9.) The elements of subjectivity and interpretive ability are
>missing from these studies because they concentrate on objective
>measures (e.g., the presence/absence of a planet in a certain
>area of the chart for a certain group of people) and so effects
>are easier to observe. As any experimental psychologist will
>confirm, subjective judgments are fraught with error, and the
>unreliability in such measures vastly reduces the success rate of
>experimental studies.
>
>25)  Don't you guys know that astrology makes an infinity of
>     claims? You could never test them all. Therefore we can
>     dismiss it out of hand.
>
>Answer: Any non-trivial field makes an infinity of claims. If you
>wished to refute physics you could not track down every
>prediction it makes. This does not mean physics is not a science.
>In verifying physics, you look at the basics. If they hold up,
>you consider it basically valid, and then attempt to replicate
>more abstruse claims. You will never be able to replicate every
>claim implied by physics.
>
>26)  Don't you guys know that you can't really prove a negative,
>     such as astrology never working, anyway? Therefore we can
>     dismiss it out of hand.
>
>Answer: That a negative cannot be proven hardly constitutes a
>refutation of astrology. The argument above reduces to "a
>negative cannot be proven, therefore all negatives are false". If
>you want to be strict, you must accept that all negatives must be
>taken as possibly true, forever. It is not legitimate to say, "a
>negative cannot be proved, therefore all negatives that seem
>weird to me are false." That is simply clothing a prejudice in
>pseudo-scientific language.
>
>27)  Legitimate scientists (or educated people, etc., etc.)
>     universally despise astrology. Can such a weight of opinion
>     be wrong?
>
>Answer: Yes. Easily. Examples in the social sciences of educated
>opinion doing a total about-face are common. Racialist theories,
>now despised by almost all those in academe, were orthodox before
>World War II, as just one example.
>
>In the health sciences as well, practices such as phrenology,
>acupuncture, hypnotism and chiropractic have all crossed in one
>direction or another the line that separates respected science
>from despised pseudo-science. If astrology does so too, it will
>definitely not be the first time, and probably not the last.
>
>This question is based on an appeal to authority and, as such, is
>an example of a common fallacy in reasoning. Plausibility based
>on current world views is a poor guide to the nature of reality,
>but scientists, being human, are as fallible as the rest of us in
>embracing modern views with undue passion. (Humans have a deep
>need to feel they understand things. The unknown is a source of
>fear, so many choose to deny it. But the unknown is only unreal
>for those who are omniscient. For those of us who are less than
>omniscient, humility is in order in any discussion of the nature
>of reality.)
>
>28)  Why don't astrologers consider the fact that when the Sun is
>     in the sign of Aries, it is not really in the constellation
>     Aries?
>
>Answer: This is due to the phenomenon known as "the precession of
>the equinoxes." The equinoxes are the points in time and space at
>which the earth, with its tilted axis, is positioned with respect
>to the sun in such a way that the length of day and night are
>equal. Most astrologers, with a few exceptions, base their work
>on a zodiac with sign positions determined by the equinoxes
>rather than the constellations. At the Vernal Equinox, which
>occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the
>sign of Aries. The signs are not defined by the constellations.
>The zodiac positioned with respect to the equinoxes is called the
>"tropical zodiac"; the zodiac based on the constellations is
>called the "sidereal zodiac." Because of the precession of the
>equinoxes, the equinoxes are moving backwards with respect to the
>fixed constellations by about one degree every 72 years.
>Approximately two thousand years ago, the beginning of the
>tropical sign of Aries was aligned with the beginning of the
>constellation Aries (perhaps around 217 A.D.).
>
>Why do the tropical signs have the same names and symbols as the
>constellations with which they were aligned 2000 years ago? Isn't
>the sidereal zodiac the source of the meanings of the tropical
>signs? And so shouldn't astrologers take the meaning of a
>tropical sign from the constellation most closely aligned with it
>now? This argument is based on the presupposition that the
>meanings of the signs come from the natures of the symbols in the
>heavens that we call constellations. But clearly this is not the
>case. Some of the most dominant traits of Virgo are obsession
>with detail and an analytical and critical nature. How could
>these traits be derived from a picture of a virgin? How could the
>Piscean qualities "spiritual," "selfless," "imaginative,"
>"inspirational," "feminine," and "idealistic" be derived from a
>picture of two fish? Few traits of each sign can easily be
>related to the symbol assigned to the constellation of the same
>name.
>
>There is no necessity, given current knowledge, for the tropical
>signs to have received their meaning from the constellations of
>the sidereal zodiac; it is possible that the nature of the
>tropical signs suggested a symbol to associate with a
>constellation (since the symbols look very little like the
>pattern of stars we associate with them). Perhaps the
>constellations with which we are familiar came into being during
>the period in which the tropical sign Aries was aligned with the
>constellation Aries. When did the tropical zodiac and
>constellations appear? The tropical zodiac may have been around a
>long time. The Egyptians had a tropical (solar) calendar by the
>early part of the third millennium B.C.; given the direct and
>transparent relationship between the signs of the tropical zodiac
>and the months of the solar year, they may well have had a
>tropical zodiac as well. Tropical calendars in the form of
>standing stones (e.g., Stonehenge) date from 1000-5000 B.C. in
>Northwest Europe, so the tropical zodiac might have existed there
>as well. Unfortunately, the preliterate people of these cultures
>left no records behind. Some sort of zodiac, possibly sidereal,
>with 12 equal signs, existed in India in 3000 B.C. A manuscript
>(in Sanskrit) from that period shows that astrologers then used a
>zodiac, an equal house system, and aspects counted sign to sign
>(as in much modern-day Hindu astrology).
>
>The origin of the modern constellations is somewhat obscure, so
>it is very difficult to decide whether the constellations were
>around to lend meaning to the tropical signs at the time that the
>tropical zodiac was created. Noonan (1976; Journal of Geocosmic
>Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 6-7) claims that the first zodiac of
>the constellations appeared around 500 B.C. The constellations
>are believed to have been assigned symbols by the Babylonians,
>but there were originally 36 constellations, and only some of
>them coincide with the modern sidereal signs. We know that some
>of the symbols used for the modern signs are recent, because the
>original symbols were all animals (the word "zodiac," derived
>from the Greek zo^idiako's, means "circle of animals"). We can be
>certain that the modern constellations of the zodiac existed by
>about 30 B.C. because they appear very clearly on the ceiling of
>the Temple of Hathor at Dendera in Upper Egypt. So was the
>tropical zodiac in use by then?
>
>It might have been. The precession of the equinoxes was certainly
>common knowledge by then. Precession was discovered at the very
>latest in 200 B.C., when Hipparchus wrote about it. But Sir
>Norman Lockyer found that many very early temples in Egypt had
>been moved at different periods in history so that they lined up
>with a particular star as it precessed across the sky. 
>
>(See, for example, E.C. Krupp, "In Search of Ancient
>Astronomies," New York: Doubleday, 1977.)
>
>                *** Questions About the FAQ ***
>
>29)  I have a suggestion for this FAQ list. What do I do? 
>
>Answer: Make your suggestion known by sending mail to the keeper
>of this FAQ file, Maggie McPherson at mmcphers@nyx.cs.du.edu. The 
>preferred format is to submit a copy of the actual changes being 
>suggested.