Anti Astrology
It is amazing what you find on the hyperinternetwebgrid sometimes. After a fairly random walk, I discovered the AntiAstrology blog which aims to bring "science to the astrologer's doorstep". It was set up by Prashant Mullick (the AntiAstrologer?) and Selvakumar Ganesan partly in response to an Indian Supreme Court ruling. The ruling dismissed a petition by scientists against a University Grants Commission directive to introduce courses in Vedic Astrology in the university curriculum.
So it may now be possible to do a degree in astrology? Does that mean that my title as the most qualified astrologer in the world may be under threat? I should explain that statement before we go any further. When I graduated from university, my old high school sent me a letter congratulating me on my degree in 'Physics with Astrology'. Oh how I laughed that morning. I thought it was quite funny as it meant I was more qualified than Russell Grant. Another example was the University of Manchester exam timetable, last year, which listed an exam in 'Introductory Astrology' much to the amusement of the lecturer. As a one off, these mix-ups can be quite funny, but they seem to be all to frequent. Interestingly, I can't think of an occasion when it has happened the other way around. It annoys me because there is quite a lot of difference between astrology and astronomy (or astrophysics); one is a bit of fun and the other is a lot of fun!
Astrology and astronomy have common origins but they parted some time ago when astronomy decided to use scientific principles and astrology didn't. There isn't much love lost between the two camps these days and you will be hard pushed to find an astronomer that defends astrology on a scientific basis. I should point out that all astronomers agree that astronomical bodies and phenomena have effects on our everyday lives. Just look at the fact we have day and night, tides and disturbance to communications caused by the solar wind not to mention the sheer thrill of seeing the Saturn with a small telescope. However, they aren't likely to make you meet a tall, dark, hansome stranger. Answering personal ads in the newspaper will be much more successful at that sort of thing.
I will no doubt have further things to say about astrology in the future when I am less tired than I am now.
Comments: Anti Astrology
I personally am not religious or a member of a religion and also some time ago chose to not permit effects attempted by a person or persons that of course would not be for their own gains they would say that states a person depending on the day and month or even the year that they were born will be a certain way as written before they are born or since just because of the day, month and year that they were born.
There is simple explanations of space and planets of how far from earth the ones there is information on are but for some there is endless pages of non sense when one starts gathering pages and pages of what astrology writers have written about a persons day and month and they are not all the same. At least the scientific reports suggest that the moon is the moon, Jupiter is Jupiter, the sun is the sun etc.
Its the way I see it so don't blame me for writing that you will act like a bull or a Scorpio when you are human or that you are a split personality or have certain types of behavior and aggressiveness just because of the day you were born or that the moon and sun and stars will cause you to be a certain way.
Posted by SCOTT on Saturday 06th Oct 2007 (13:58 UTC)
Life always gives us choices in our life
We always become what we choose to be
Astrologer cant predict life path or our Future
After all he is human, his intention is to gain money for living like us
If Nature wanted people to know their future
it would had given one more sense to human to know future, but it didnt...
Astrologer violates the law of Nature
so they are never messengers of God. Its better to believe in yourself rather than dependent on Astrology for making Life Decision
Posted by Prasanna on Monday 15th Oct 2007 (09:53 UTC)
choices are what makes us be who we are as individuals with individual decisions we choose for ourselves. So often there is examples of powers people give to others and views. Example: religion rules, astrology and horoscopes.
I choose a while ago to not let religious body groups rules be authority in my life and the holy bible God of Romans 13 of the bible affirms it is not a requirement of God or the governing authorities where I live to have to be in a religious body(religious group or church)
Sure I have got laws to follow but less trouble, less views to try to agree with like religious views, astrology & horoscopesâ™. The result is now more peace by not having to try to agree to things I donâ™t like or donâ™t agree with or simply would never be able to due to clashes written in the books one would be trying to support if they were to support it.
The best part of making my own decisions and dropping the non sense is I can legally have a harem of younger than me women; can meet people along as life progress' and enjoy who I do when I do without all the no sense. The best part is I can let sensible adult conversation, sensible behavior and enjoyable feelings be grounds.
Posted by SCOTT on Sunday 25th Nov 2007 (15:08 UTC)
Nice Explanation.....
Really Impressed
Posted by Chiranjeevi on Monday 13th Jul 2009 (05:09 UTC)
I have been fasinated by astrology for over 20 years, it still fasinates me. I attended a lecture given by world famous Professor Richard Dawkins and was quite disappointed. I asked Richard Dawkins for his time of birth and was greeted by a intellectual ignorance. If people like Dawkins are anti astrology and write ridiculous articles against astrology then it is right that as astrologers that we have a right to reply for his ignorance. Dawkins isn't interested in a debate/discussion with professional astrologers, doesn't include media astrologers. My final word would be for astronomers, to read 'Who built the Moon' by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. Alas, nothing to do with astrology, but food for thought. Enjoy!
Posted by Neil Duran on Sunday 11th Oct 2009 (23:47 UTC)
Posted by Stuart on Monday 12th Oct 2009 (07:51 UTC)
Astrology is a complex subject with many variables. Astrology has been called unscientific, so how would the scientific method work? Scientist don't or can't take astrology seriously. The Dawkins of the world will take action against any scientist who supports astrology. His evolution fantasy is too important to him. Realistically there is too much bias against astrology.
Posted by Neil Duran on Saturday 29th May 2010 (19:56 UTC)
If I can drag this back to astrology, the *scientific method* (not to be confused with our current descriptions of nature) is a very good way to test if something works or doesn't i.e. separate real things from fantasy. The scientific method works regardless of whether something is considered "scientific" or "unscientific" so I don't get your point. It is up to the proponents of astrology to show serious evidence rather than coming up with excuses.
Posted by Stuart on Sunday 30th May 2010 (12:10 UTC)
Astrology basically does not support evolution theory and Dawkins is anti astrology for no good reason.
Stuart, astrology has been tested rigorously by the Gauquelins. These test results were validated by Professor Suitbert Ertel. CISCOP tried in vain to discredit the results and failed. The scientific community isn't interested in evidence. Dr Vernon Coleman is the only medical doctor with the courage to state that sun sign and health are related.
Posted by Neil Duran on Sunday 27th Jun 2010 (19:06 UTC)
If you know something about sun sign astrology, can you explain why it doesn't use the true position of the Sun? For instance, right now the Sun is in Gemini, having just left Taurus. However sun sign astrology seems to say it is in Cancer.
Posted by Stuart on Sunday 27th Jun 2010 (22:31 UTC)
I mention evolution because it's accepted in the main frame of the scientific community as being a random process. In astrology I believe there is no such being as randomness. The planet we live on did not happen by chance. CISCOP stands for Committee for Skeptical Inquiry claims of the paranormal. The Gauquelins have the published result and the methodology was deemed valid by Professor Suitbert Ertel. CISCOP was presented with valid evidence for astrology but chose to ignore the findings and then tried to discredit the evidence. It wasn't silly mention this point, you are obviously ignorant of the ignorance of the scientists. I use the american ephemiris for planet positions, the same book used by astronomers. I get the impression that you are anti astrology and don't check what I post?
Posted by Neil Duran on Tuesday 13th Jul 2010 (18:06 UTC)
Science uses evidence. Without evidence, it isn't science. I'm sure you know this so I thought you were being silly to be provocative.
I can't just accept one person's word for it that the methodology of a study was fine. It doesn't matter if they are a professor or not. In the case of large studies, it also helps if the person verfying the methodology is someone who is an expert in statistics. We could spend all day coming up with authoritative people to back up almost anything but they are all irrelevant; it is solid evidence that matters.
I had a look at Vernon Coleman's astrology report (http://www.vernoncoleman.com/astro.htm). The statistical analysis is poor and it fails to provide basic information such as the number of people in each star sign so the uncertainty on the risks in each star sign is unknown. It does quote the total number of respondents (367) but this implies an average of roughly 30 per star sign (and numbers in specific star signs could be lower/higher). No information is given about the sample of people so other factors such as socio-economic background are not considered. With low numbers, other effects may be dominant so it is a shame it doesn't discuss this. In summary, saying that something is more likely than average (for a sample) to happen may be true but it may not be significant.
You didn't answer my question about the Sun.
American Ephemeris stopped being published in 1980 and, after combining with Astronomical Ephemeris, became the Astronomical Ephemeris in 1981. I don't know any astronomers who use that publication as everyone seems to use JPL's Horizons. However, I accept that some astronomers are likely to use it.
Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 14th Jul 2010 (00:24 UTC)