From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Nattering Nabobs
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:23:52 GMT
Organization: No, everything yields to entropy. Or did we miss something?

'>' is casper@vxcrna.cern.ch in what follows.

>Hope your asbestos clothes aren't out at the cleaners...I have a feeling
>you'll be needing them soon.

Were you the same one I spoke with earlier - I've got so much backlogged
mail. ... Looks like you'll want to keep your suit on for a while longer.

Here's a quick question. If alt.astrology is a group for people who are
interested in it, what are you doing here, aside from giving people flak?

If I thought Physics was stupid, in what regard would you hold me to
receive mail from me in sci.physics, carping at this and that? Namely,
what do you get from bashing it? I read your letter and I don't like your
attitude. After a few intelligent people have said the same sorts of
things - about how it is really used and so forth, why doesn't it strike
you that maybe they have a better handle on it than you, because they
actually do it, see, and you just sit back in your armchair and scoff.

Astrology and psychology have an amazing amount in common, in terms of what
they deal with and how. I doubt you'd have any trouble mapping your barbs at
astrology into barbs at psychology. And I bet you probably know as much
about psychology too.

If you want to punch it out because it doesn't have a well-defined
scientific basis, go ahead. If you want to understand it, then do something
positive toward that end.

I understand how I use astrology, and I have seen a number of other
astrologers in operation. No two are the same, and I doubt you'll get
two consistent replies about how they go about doing what they do,
or about the basis or validity of astrology. Jesus, look at psychology.
It's a science with differing schools of thought. They even have their
little flame wars about behavioral vs. humanistic etc. - proving? It
proves the science is a science in regard to humans. They are who consume
it, and it is they to whom it means anything. If you don't speak French,
and you walk up to a group of French people, they can talk to you but
you won't understand. It's up to you to realize it's as much your language
problem as theirs.

I use astrology without worrying about causality, precession of the
equinoxes, scientific basis, any of that. It's a tool, and I don't have
to worry about the mechanism to use it successfully. In a number of ways
it's exceedingly arbitrary how one goes about using it. You choose certain
approaches and work with them, and select what works for you.

If you came to me and said, do my chart, but first prove that it works,
I'll say no, I can't prove that it works. I'll say, perhaps I can work
with you to clarify life issues, to increase your self-understanding.
So right here, spew on it - but I might as well be a psychologist too,
so get a clue: you're defining astrology as YOU see fit and asking it
to perform certain things. But you aren't an astrologer! How about
shutting up and actually going to see real, live astrologers do real,
live astrology. THEN you might be more qualified to pass judgement on
what it is you're dealing with.

>"The true height of arrogance is to assume that science is the only way of
>finding knowledge".  After all, don't you know that people were a lot smarter
>back in those days when astrology was invented, you know, back when they thought
>the planets were Gods, that the four humours governed temperament, that
>the universe could be reduced to the 5 platonic solids, etc., etc.

I think what derived from times past was a lot of garbage, in a religious
sense. As it so happens, people were also developing ways of looking at
the world and of thinking about their own natures. Fire, Water, Air, Earth
and Spirit are very powerful, cohesive symbols which relate to the nature
of reality as we experience it. I'm glad you're thoroughly familiar with
these symbols such that you could relate them to your everyday life.
If you don't care about these symbols, fine. Astrology uses them, and it's
an art of interpretation of human experience. If you refuse the glossary,
get off the subject.

Yeah, all those old guys way back there when people were primitive and
superstitious. The fact that we have categories of science is due to
Aristotle. He thought women had fewer teeth than men - he asserted
it as a fact because he never bothered to check, sound familiar? But apart
from small lapses the old guy did pretty well.

>>	As I'm sure you know, many skeptics groups have rewards offered
>>for correct predictions by astrologers. In particular, Australian Skeptics
>>offers $10,000 to any astrologer who can, given someone's date and time of
>>birth, and the dates and times of ten events in their life, state what
>>those events were. Until such time as this challenge is taken up, I remain
>>unconvinced.

These people are jokers, because astrology makes no such claim - that's a
form of clairvoyance. Here's one for you, about on par: I'll project an
atom of lead at high speed through a vessel filled with nitrogen. Physics
is so swift; you point out to me the last molecule of nitrogen that atom
will hit before it touches the vessel wall. Deterministic? Maybe. Are you
competent to compute it? Want to borrow my fleet of Crays?

Science can go down into E = m * c^2 as far as it likes. Matter is energy.
Photons behave like waves and like particles. Matter is made of whatever -
three types of quarks. Can science explain why the universe exists? Not HOW
it works or HOW it is constructed, but WHY things are? What do you think
philosophy and religion deal with? We don't have a freaking clue what the
nature of reality is, so we do our damnedest to find plausible theories.
What you can measure with a ruler of any kind is a mere fragment of what
there is to be understood.
So your skeptic club can offer me seven trillion dollars to prove that
God exists. Am I supposed to stand there, as if I've been made a fool?
Let these people sit back smug in their armchairs. Whichever one of them
is not an atheist is a fool.

>You and me both.  Here you are likely to see several different answers.
>
>1) Tests done by skeptics are not fair since they cheat to make the astrologers
>look bad.

I've never heard this remark from any astrologer. But I have heard numbers
of them say they had no patience for someone coming in expecting them to
account for astrology. Go to a shrink and tell him he has to justify his
profession or his methods to you - he looks at you and says, I do what I do,
I assumed you came here to do that. Why are you wasting my time? And yours?

You can make a 'fool' of anyone by feeding them false information. A skeptic
worth the name will cooperate to begin with and assess the results, they
will not try to jury-rig the test. So (1) makes no sense as a statement.

>2) Astrology does not work in a repeatable way, so there is no way to predict
>events with this kind of precision before the fact.  When we examine the chart
>after the events, with full knowledge, of course everything makes perfect
>sense.

Read Barbara Watters' book "Horary Astrology and the Judgement of Events",
second part consisting of case studies. Maybe YOU will come back and say,
oh, she only presented the cases that worked! But you won't be able to make
the quip about "can't predict ... with precision." She got a guy off a
murder rap with the stuff, and saved someone from buying stock in a company
which later failed. She uses it brilliantly, and you haven't any idea how
she did this or how she could, because you don't relate to the subject at
all. Read the book. AND I'LL SEND A COPY TO YOU IF YOU GIVE ME A MAILING
ADDRESS, I don't want any lame excuses.

Let's suppose you have an incredibly nonlinear system sitting in front
of you in a black box, with rows of knobs on top. Your job is to determine
exactly how to make the box behave in a specific fashion. The only way to
do this is through trial and error and observation, by twiddling the knobs
and seeing what happens. After a while you develop a theory - this knob
kinda does that, and this knob changes the thing that that knob does, and
so forth. Suppose I come up to you before you've finished, and say, well,
since you really don't seem to know how it works, I guess your theories
are all hot air? I mean, I see you can get it to whine and wheeze, but
it still doesn't put out a pitch at middle C, so it's probably useless.
Is that a fair assessment, of the truth, and of the knowledge that you
have already accumulated?

Let's suppose there is a family of people, all of whom you know fairly
well. You've spent enough time with them to know roughly how any two of
them relate to each other. You've watched numbers of family arguments
and how they went down; one night Father wins the argument and gets his
way. One night Father wins the argument, but Mother storms out angrily.
Father goes after her and five minutes later they come back and the
decision is changed! Well, here it is, your weekly visit. An argument
starts. How will it end? Who will win? Why?
YOU don't know. YOU will guess. And you might be WRONG. And next week,
the same time, the same people, even the same topic of argument, could
go down differently. It's PEOPLE who are 'not repeatable'. This is a pretty
good model of what astrologers do and what they're up against.

>3) Astrology is a form of personal counseling and it would be impossible to
>make these kinds of predictions without a close personal acquaintance with the
>subject.  Of course, people here have no problem holding forth in great volume
>about minor features in the charts of people they have never met, but I guess
>this constitutes "research in progress".

So in the above example, the more time you spend with the family, probably
the better you will be able to size up what is going on, to know what will
happen. If I were going to pay you money to give me a good bet what they
would do, and then I said "but don't go meet them anymore", you'd think
I was nuts, that I had tied your hands behind your back. Did I want a good
answer, or an offhand guess? You have astrologers confused with psychics.
Give an astrologer the test for a psychic, sure, they'll probably do lousy.

Read the Watters book. Astrology is inexact, but it can be used well by
people who've invested the time and effort to make it a functional tool
for them.

>4) Fuck off and die you troublemaker, we don't want you here questioning our
>beliefs.

Well, I suppose if it were a congregation and you sat in the back of the
hall snickering, it'd get on their nerves after a while.
The preacher would say, well, if you're interested in what we do here,
why not read the Bible? You look at him and say, sure, but prove to me
God exists first. He looks at you and says, well, I can't do that, son.
But if you listen to what we do here, and maybe better if you read this
book, you would understand what we're doing and could be a part of it
if you wanted to. You say, no, Mr. Preacher, I'm content to sit in the
back of the room laughing at you.
You understand nothing, make no effort, and find no other venue to expend
your energy in. What do you think you look like to the people in the
congregation? Do you expect them to appreciate your sitting back in ignorant
judgement?

GET A CLUE - hang around and eat the wine and crackers, we don't care.
The congregation has you figured out too.

-ecsd

"if he hasn't had his Saturn return yet, he will probably figure this out
when it happens", would be my gift to you.