Autonemesis

Oh please... First of all, that's not a square, it's quincunx, or an aspect derived from 72° angles (one fifth of a circle). The effects of those are even fainter than for squares. Looking at the URL you gave, it would seem you also pay attention to sextiles. I think I got you pegged now. You're a technician. That's your style. If it's on the chart and there's something in the book about it, then it must be accounted for. Is that about right?

Shadowy Man

How do you define "science"?

ps418

Sorry to disappoint you, but as any kind of generalization, that doesn't accurately describe me by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, either astrology is bunk, or you're doing it wrong. Care to try again?


No, you obviously did not give me what I asked for. I asked specifically how one goes about attributing characteristics to planets. If you think you've even begun to answer this question, you're deluding yourself.

Patrick

Jesse

Volker:
Muhammad also has determined empirically psychological assessments, which was later written in the Quran.

Jesse:
What did Muhammed determine?

Volker:
The laws of Islam.

I thought Muhammed determined the laws of Islam by getting a message from God, not by doing surveys of people.

Jesse:
Anyway, ..

Volker:
It is interesting to see, how here is replied to arguments. There is no prove given, that science can measure hurt souls, but the psychological effect of the laws of islam to the souls of many woman is 'anyway'. This is not a scientific discussion, it is a political discussion.

Huh? I never said science can measure "hurt souls", whatever that means. It can only measure empirical things like human behavior. Also, the reason I didn't go into more detail about your Muhammed "argument" is that I didn't even understand what you were talking about, and I still don't (see my question above). Perhaps once you elaborate on exactly what you're arguing that Muhammed determined, and how he determined this, and how this relates to scientific studies, then I'll be able to address it.

Jesse:
... the effects of rape can be verified by more scientific forms of testing ...

Volker:
Where is the proof? What is the effect? On what? On a soul? If one argue, that it is full in the range of nature to be raped, how would you argue against this without to prove, that ethic is a part of nature? No Sir. I don't buy your assertion in a scientific discussion forum.

I have no idea what the phrase "it is full in the range of nature to be raped" means. Again, a study of rapes would verify that being raped is correlated with certain changes in behavior or psychology, like maybe showing that women who have been raped have a harder time forming romantic relationships than women who have not (I have no idea if this is actually true, I'm just pointing out a possible thing that could be studied--for example, here's someone's term paper summarizing research on The Effects of Rape on Subsequent Relationships). The point is not to say anything about the morality of rape (which I assume is what you were talking about in the comment 'that ethic is a part of nature', although I don't really understand that either), just to study its empirical effects.

Jesse:
... like large-scale studies of rape victims vs. women who have not been raped, ...

Volker:
I have read it more then ten times. - No comment.

You have read what more than ten times? That sentence? Is it unclear? I'm talking about surveying a large number of women of similar backgrounds (trying to control for other variables), asking them various questions including "have you ever been raped", and then seeing if those who have been raped tend to answer any of the other questions differently than those who have not.

Jesse:
My understanding is that astrology has been subjected to this form of scientific testing, with the result that no correlation between planet positions and things like personality or life history were found.

Volker:
That's correct for the statistical significance of that works. But there is an evidence recognized by individuals, they acknowledge individual astrologic interpretations.

If natural science is not able to perceive this reality, than it is a problem of natural science, but not of astrology. Natural science never has shown, that there is an ethic. From this, natural science is not competent in the spiritual order of nature. The ethical claims of science are not better than the claims of religions; both is based on incompetence and on social power to suppress other forms of understandings. Each uneducated child can interpret the truth in music, or the truth of injustice by inner knowledge - science and religions not.

That defense won't work, because astrology is not solely about ethical or aesthetic claims--it also makes empirical claims of the type science can investigate, like "people born under a certain sign are more likely to have a certain kind of personality" or "certain events are more likely to happen in people's lives when the planets are configured in a certain way." If these claims repeatedly fail to be verified by scientific testing, then it's safe to say they're probably nonsense.

As for anecdotal "evidence recognized by individuals" that for some reason fails to show up on statistical tests, I would offer this story:

Or how about this:

ps418

I had a similar experience with tarot divination, once upon a time. After being a believer for a while, I had come to the conclusion that it was BS, while a friend of mine thought that there "must be something to it."

To prove to him that it was BS, I had him do two tarot readings, back-to-back, using my Crowley-Thoth deck. Of course, the card arrangements produced by the two readings were not at all the same, even when I asked the same question of the same cards at the same time (well, back-to-back readings, anyway)! He could not explain why the readings were different, nor tell which one I should listen to. At least astrology and palmistry can give somewhat consistent answers, as long as everyone agrees ahead of time what the signs and symbols 'mean' (though the attributions are completely arbitrary, of course: Mars is no more 'martial' than Venus).

Patrick

Volker.Doormann

Patrick wrote: "My birthday is March 5, 1974"

5.3.1974 07:00:00 UT = 00:00 in L.A.
delta t: 44.668780 sec jd (ET) = 2442111.792184

ecl. long. ecl. lat. dist. speed
Moon 1 leo 20'21.0510 -2°58'29.8989 0.002430683 14°41'31.5194
Uranus 27 libra 19'21.8001 0°36'16.6611 17.691094268 -0° 1'37.9591

It depends on his true birth time. I have taken this and I have calculate about 86°. That's a Square (90°) using an orbit of 5°-7°.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

True knowledge about the order of nature (p.e. Theology is the science of god).

Volker

Shadowy Man

Ok, then we are using different definitions. Therefore, I can't comment on whether astrology is "science" in your terms. In mine, it is not.

Volker.Doormann

Never mind. There is a documented fact, that you have cut abrupt our relationship and there is a documented fact, that you would not listen to that stuff about Pluto & transformation. Then you wrote: "I now conclude that you have no answer. Have fun with your charts.

Patrick"

My Interpretation is not a generalization. My interpretation describe accurately your cut of our relationship with 'Have fun with your charts.'

However. EOD

Volker

ps418

Apparently your definition of "documented fact" is about as sensible as your definition of science. In case you didnt notice, we are still discussing astrology, despite the fact that you cannot or will not answer my simple question about how planetary attributes are assigned.

You mean, the 'stuff' that assumed the very point at issue (pluto=transformation), and did not in any way answer my question? I didn't ignore it. I promptly checked it out, and saw that it didnt even begin to answer my question.

Patrick