From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: newspapers
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:10:58 GMT
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK

In article <28AUG199210071010@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>Once more into the breach...
>
>In article <Btn9Lq.2M5@exnet.co.uk>, s0jrej@exnet.co.uk (James Ellis-Jones) writes...
>
>[criticism of newspaper astrology omitted]
>
>>	People who use the newspaper argument to show what nonsence astrology
>>is are really just parading their ignorance of astrology *and* their inability
>>to argue case by case or point by point.
>>	To win an argument or debate it is not enough to go for the weak point.
>>One weak point does not prove that the whole subject is riddled with logical
>>error,it just proves the theory is not complete.
>>	To win an argument you must go for the strongest points,for the areas
>>which underpin and support the rest of the theory.  To fail to tackle these
>>smacks of abject cowardice and easy point scoring. It has nothing to do with
>>seeing if there is any truth in the theory and sod all to do with proper 
>>intellectual debate.
>>	To summerise. You must deal with natal astrology, mundane astrlogy,
>>Horary astrology ,progressions,transits,midpoints and a host of other tools
>>which seem to work
>
>Well, _I'm_ not here to snipe at discussions about the details of astrology, nor
>to score easy points, and if I were an abject coward, I'd have abandoned this
>group months ago.  I'm afraid your reply above is a bit shaky though, and since
>it appears to be an invitation to discuss the foundations of astrology, let's
>have at it.
>
>Since you refer to strong points of "the theory", could you briefly summarize
>what those might be?  There is no replicated, non-pathological, non-anecdotal
>evidence for the vast majority of accepted astrological conjecture.  The work
>of the Gauquelins stands as the sole pillar of apparently reproducible fact
>upon which teeters the entire ediface of astrology.  To wit, not even
>Gauquelin, nor anyone else, has ever validated the use of the zodiac as a
>delimiter of any quality, trait or event.
>
>You might also explain whether and why Western astrology is the one True theory,
>or whether all forms of astrology throughout the world are equally valid even
>though they largely contradict each other.
>
>So if you have or know of evidence that natal, mundane, Horary, progressional,
>transitional, and midpoint astrology work as advertised, I'd be glad to hear
>about it so I can examine it in a fair way and we can have a "proper
>intellectual debate" (that's what I'm here for after all).  I think "seem to
>work" is the operative phrase in your final statement.  Regretably, there
>appears to be no such evidence, except what people manufacture anecdotally out
>of their own willingness to believe uncritically.
>

	O.K.
	The physical sciences while they have been very succesful in producing
results have never been able to produce the same result twice.  By this I 
refer to the fact that every experiment produces slightly different result  
which are normally distributed in terms of probability on a bell shaped graph.
It is true that *ideal* conditions will produce a very tall thin graph but
there will be none the less *variation*.  When scientists claim that an 
experiment alwasys produces the same result they mean that it does not
produce statisticaly significant variation.
	This is fine with the purely physical sciences where one cause leads
to one event, but the more complex the subject involved the less straight 
forward the relationship.  This seems to be born out if you progress from
physics to chemistry to biology, indeed I have only heard of one case in 
biology where cause and effect are clearly linked (it was the case of the
floppy eared rabbits and I can't remember the details as I was 12 at the time)
By the time you reach very complex systems such as the workings of a society
cause and effect are almost impossible to seperate.  This is a problem with
the method of science in that it can only make firm predictions when the 
object of study can be isolated.  
	If something cannot be readily reproduced in a laboratory scientists
tend to dismiss the pepole who claim to have experienced something.  In this
way science branded thousands of people who claimed to have seen ball lightning
liars just because it could not be produced in the lab.  I was always amazed
that scientists didn't claim snow was a myth considering the difficulty they
had in producing the stuff under controlled conditions.
	So essentially astrology,which is a theory of everything, is too complex
to be subject to laboritory examination.
	We could try.
	To do this however we come up against the principle (in most levels of
pysical science) that all events have causes (quantum mechanics aside) and 
that all related events have some sort of connection.  With the study of astrology
as causal factor we have the problem of the fact that what are
obviouse patterns to the conscous mind have no rational basis. S0jrej@exnet.co.uk
notes the coincidence of two people talking about cars and problems with cars
appearing on the net at the same time.  I would point out the significance of
two types of tornados being on the news at the same time (weather patterns and
aeroplanes) and I suggest are the result of similar celestial configurations.
Cannot be proven unless you accept that the names themselves are in some way
connected.
	Like snow then astrology can be experienced but not neccesarily
reproduced.  How then to know if it works.  Do as I do.  I keep my eyes
open for significantly rare and unusual aspect,calculate midpoints, then
the rising times of these midpoints and scour the news networks for some
correlation. For example the no flight zone over Iraq came into being at
3:15 pm BST just when 3 degrees of Leo where ascending, this is within 2
degrees of the transiting midpoint of Mars/jupe. Additionaly Iraq was involved
in the mars/jupe square via venus in the 12th house of iraq's natal chart. The
house of enemies and misfortune.  No provable connection, mearly very apt.

	Ofcouse *aptness* doesn't prove a thing but it is interesting.

		Yours
			Xavier.