From: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:44:55 GMT
Reply-To: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Organization: Bellcore

In article <1992Nov16.192115.21473@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

|> 
|> Actually, there is a constellation called scorpio, and it is 
|> part of the sidereal zodiac.  The constellations of the sidereal
|> zodiac vary in size, measured approximately by the extent of the
|> stars that make them up.  This zodiac constitutes the fixed stars,
|> whereas the astrological signs are made up of an imaginary structure
|> that you construct by extending the line between the sun and the earth
|> at the vernal equinox.  That yields "out there" the sign of Ares.
|> Then divide the circle into twelve equal parts and assign the con-
|> stellation names in order.  This is the zodiac (basically an earth-sun zodiac) 
|> that most astrologers use.
|> 
|> The sidereal zodiac is not based on the sun at all but on the earth and
|> the stars only.  The sun is just another planet that moves through it.
|> There is a smaller number of investigators who also study the sidereal 
|> zodiac as well as the traditional solar zodiac. The question arises, 
|> if there is really a relationship between the movements of the planets
|> through this zodiac and what goes on on the earth, is it of a different 
|> nature than that of the planets' movements through the solar zodiac 
|> (if indeed those movements have an influence)?  The answer is that there 
|> is a difference.
|> 
|> Much misunderstanding could be eliminated if the distinctions were kept
|> clearer, including the scoffing argument raised by scientists that the
|> precession of the equinoxes has shifted all the signs so they no longer
|> line up to the stars, thereby "proving" that astrology is intrinsically
|> nonsense. The fact is that the earth-sun zodiac does not precess, while
|> the sidereal one does. About 2,000 years ago they were approximately 
|> lined up (except for the varying sizes of the sidereal zodiac). Today they
|> are about one sign apart (the Platonic year being about 2160 years).
|> 
|> Scientific skepticism about astrology has never been based on solid 
|> scientific investigation.  It only is based on  a revulsion against the 
|> essentially non-scientific methodology of astrology and the often crude 
|> application of it in a superstitious way.  The result is that most scientists 
|> never get beyond the position that there is absolutely no reason to investigate
|> this "nonsense" anyway, so a few pot shots aimed at the astrology of
|> the National Enquirer variety are deemed to be enough. Then they say,
|> show me some evidence according to my standards of evidence.  Astrologers
|> are not forthcoming with this, so there it stands. No truly scientific
|> investigation is ever made.  For one thing that requires an objective scientist
|> who also has some faith that his investigations may yield concrete results,
|> not one who is determined to find the first piece of evidence that disproves
|> the hypothesis.  If the stars have meaning, then that meaning is as vast and
|> complex as life itself, and not the crude thing that most people make it out
|> to be.


Interesting article (meaning I learned something today), and well stated.

Mike Lynch
mdl@oscar.bellcore.com