[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by gthang

can't say that I appreciate the sly approach.

I knew what was coming by the way of questioning, so in post #160 I made it explicit. . Socrates used this technique to extract the answers from his disciples.

Originally Posted by bblost

It's absolutely acceptable to have faith.

...

But trying to merge it into a rational space is for lack of a better word, laughable.

Are you saying though it is laughable, it is acceptable to believe in faith? Or is it like place one foot in a rational boat and another in irrational boat until what is irrational is proved to be rational so that one can switch sides?

[bblost]

It was best said by one of the finest philosophers.

[noopster]

I think the whole discussion on whether astrology is a science is sidetracking this otherwise interesting thread. I think it’s safe to say that, whether you consider astrology “scientific” or otherwise, there is a huge number of people that do believe astrology works.

There is your daily newspaper horoscope kind of astrology which at least for me was the first exposure to all of this, since my parents were too busy making ends meet to bother with all this stuff. Bejan Daruwala was a big name in the newspaper astrology business back in the 80s and 90s. His catch phrase was “Ganesha says...” I don’t specifically remember any instance of his predictions working but even at a young age recognised that he had a knack of impressing people with his clairvoyant skills.

In those days, every newspaper and magazine had an astrology column and as teenagers we followed those avidly. You had a zodiac sign based on your date of birth in the Western calendar; and then there were types of signs (e.g. “water signs”) and the rules that mandated that some signs were compatible while others were like rubber and glue. I am a Scorpio and was convinced that I have a deep dark vengeful side, my sister is a Libran therefore she could not ever take a decision, and so forth. As we grew older, Sun signs became a great way to find whether that cute girl in Chemistry 1 was right for you. Remember Linda Goodman? I worshipped her every word!

Around my late teens I started getting exposed to some aspects of astrology that were not just fun and games but something more sinister. It started with my cousins, who by then were of marriageable age, being told by learned men that they would be unhappy if they hooked up with such and such because their stars and planets were not in alignment. The rebellious kid in me would demand to know WHY. And there were examples amongst us of people being happy together despite their signs being incompatible. That was glibly passed off as the “exception that proved the rule” (till recently I had no idea that phrase meant something else entirely).

Some years later when my college buddy wanted to marry his girlfriend, his mother found an astrologer who predicted that if he married this girl, he would die. My immediate reaction was, “You do realise that even if you don’t marry her, you WILL die, right?” But then we got practical and found ANOTHER astrologer who, for 5,000 rupees, a princely sum back when we had just started earning, recommended some poojas and havanas to mitigate the impending doom. They’ve been together 20 years and he’s still around, touch wood, so am thinking astrologer #2 was the better one. May his tribe increase.

My approach to astrology for many years was identical to my approach to religion: I believed, but there were just too many holes and exceptions for me to believe with real conviction. I chose that path a lot of us take: of least resistance, not willing to offend our loved and respected ones, but also not allowing this stuff to dominate our lives (an American preacher calls this philosophy “Trust in God but lock your car”).

Only in the last ten years or so, after being exposed to the likes of Feynman, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil de grasse Tyson, Samurai and others have my views cemented firmly towards the rational. Of course that doesn’t stop me from reading my daily horoscope whenever I open a newspaper. Like I said before, Shirley Bose in the Mirror is something awesome. Her predictions almost always match, with alarming accuracy. Here is a current snippet:

SCORPIO Oct 23 – Nov 22

Be patient, don’t be restless

The year 2018 teaches you patience and how it is better not to be unduly reactive. However, the year is not as grim as the above sentence sounds. There are rewards galore with relationships being happier; you actually understanding what makes elders in the family behave as they do; children (if any) not being so rebellious (be aware if they are reacting to your behaviour) and career/business going from strength to strength.

Cant say I disagree with any of that!

[AMG Power]

Is the inability to prove astrology scientifically a limitation of astrology or a limitation of science?

[noopster]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Is the inability to prove astrology scientifically a limitation of astrology or a limitation of science?

We should stop worrying about whether astrology is scientific or not and follow the example of the great Niels Bohr who, when teased by his scientist colleagues about how he could believe that a horseshoe hanging on his door would bring him luck, replied deadpan, “I have heard it works, whether you believe it or not”.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Is the inability to prove astrology scientifically a limitation of astrology or a limitation of science?

The basis for astrology is stars, planets and other celestial objects control life of humans in earth. There is no mathematical proof or empirical evidence to support this idea.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Is the inability to prove astrology scientifically a limitation of astrology or a limitation of science?

Neither. Until there is some evidence that astrology works, science can't look into it. Will science start looking into how pigs fly? Not until they see pigs fly. So far there is no physical or mathematical evidence that pigs fly.

Originally Posted by noopster

replied deadpan, “I have heard it works, whether you believe it or not”.

The reply starts with a no.

“Of course not,” replied the scientist. “But I understand it’s lucky whether you believe in it or not.”

However, there is no proof that it was Niels Bohr who said it. It is a very popular parable.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Neither. Until there is some evidence that astrology works, science can't look into it. Will science start looking into how pigs fly? Not until they see pigs fly. So far there is no physical or mathematical evidence that pigs fly.
.

Providing scientific proof is a function of science not astrology. So the answer "neither" doesn't apply there. Science couldn't prove gravity existed until 1686 - does that mean gravity didn't exist before that? Or is it an indication of the limitations of science as there are limitations to astrology?

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by noopster

There is your daily newspaper horoscope kind of astrology

This is a new Western astrology concept right? Making general monthly predictions based on the day you were born? Or did Indian astrologists do this too, hundreds of years ago, before mass media?

Originally Posted by Samurai

Will science start looking into how pigs fly? Not until they see pigs fly. So far there is no physical or mathematical evidence that pigs fly.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

If science cannot prove how pigs fly it's a limitation of science not of the pig.

There is some photographic evidence to prove that certain species of pigs can float in the air. Can science explain this phenomenon?

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Providing scientific proof is a function of science not astrology. So the answer "neither" doesn't apply there. If science cannot prove how pigs fly it's a limitation of science not of the pig.

Providing the proof is the function of the one bringing out the theory. So if astrology is saying something then its the responsibility of astrology to provide the proof. Science never said being born under a particular star can decide how your life would be - so why should it provide proof about something it is not even bothered? Coming to think of it - calling science as a separate school of thought itself (like a political party) is wrong. If astrology is able to provide proof for anything it says then that will also become science

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Providing the proof is the function of the one bringing out the theory.

That is what science dictates not astrology.

[vibbs]

Originally Posted by AMG37

So the answer "neither" doesn't apply there. Science couldn't prove gravity existed until 1686 - does that mean gravity didn't exist before that? Or is it an indication of the limitations of science as there are limitations to astrology?

It does not work like that. Prior to 1686, if someone believed in gravity and no proofs were available, scientific community would say, bring us the proof. Once that was done, it was accepted.

What we say now is the same, bring us proof that astrology works.

If you don't have proof that it works it is a belief. And one is free to believe in what he wants. Just like belief in God.

The point of contention and all the debate that is happening in this thread is only on the assertion that Astrology is a science. Well if it is, and if proponents of astrology claim it is a science, then the onus of providing proof rests on their shoulders.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by vibbs

I
The point of contention and all the debate that is happening in this thread is only on the assertion that Astrology is a science. Well if it is, and if proponents of astrology claim it is a science, then the onus of providing proof rests on their shoulders.

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense. (Haven't read this thread in its entirety)

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by AMG Power

Science couldn't prove gravity existed until 1686 - does that mean gravity didn't exist before that?

You are joking right? Believe it or not, there was evidence for gravity before 1686. If you jumped from a height, you would land on the ground. Yes, even before 1686. Since there was ample evidence for gravity, scientists had been trying to understand it for centuries. What happened in 1686 was it was explained mathematically for the first time. Start here to understand how this process works.

Originally Posted by smartcat

There is some photographic evidence to prove that certain species of pigs can float in the air. Can science explain this phenomenon?

Of course, the giant pig balloon is filled with a gas lighter than air, so it raises. But it is held back using cables, so that it doesn't fly away for good.

However, I was talking about living breathing pigs. Not balloons shaped like a pig.

[AMG Power]

Originally Posted by Samurai

trying to understand it for centuries.

What happened in 1686 was it was explained mathematically for the first time.

By the same logic being used in arguments in this thread and as gravity wasnt scientifically proven till 1686, the folks living prior to 1686 would have been "scientifically" right in bringing forth the arguments used in this thread as to the non existence of gravity - it just wasn't proven yet. Trying to understand its existence is not the same - one either has scientific proof of gravity or one does not.