Astrology doesn't need to be accepted by the science community for any kind of validation.

An idea need not be scientific to be valid and useful and beautiful. Similarly, identifying an idea as "less scientific" is not a final judgement on that idea (or at least it shouldn't be considering all the other features the idea may have)
~~~~~~~~~~~

agreed :)

love all-ways,
mem

When I first became interested in astrology, I discovered that it is actually very flawed. Everything is based on relativity, for sure, and while some may consider that a strength, it makes it very easy to mis-interpret things.

For one, the calendar we use changes. Look at ole' wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform

It is not even correct for the astronomical position of the stars.

Second, since modern astrology (and even from the start) is simplified down to 12 signs and houses, instead of.. what was it? Like 21? It is heavily debilitated.

Those are my biggest points against astrology, while simple, still big. Most of the scientific community's reasons don't really hold up if you research into astrology's purpose in relation to humanity more. Like I hear Steven Hawking's argument:

"...But the real reason most scientists don't believe in Astrology is not scientific evidence or the lack of it, but because it is not consistent with other theories that have been tested by experiment.
When Copernicus and Galileo discovered that planets orbit the sun rather then the Earth and Newton discovered the laws that govern their motion, Astrology became extremely implausible.
Why should the positions of other planets against the background sky, as seen from Earth have any correlations with the macromolecules on a minor planet that call themselves "intelligent life"? Yet this is what Astrology would have us believe.
There is no more experimental evidence for some of the theories described in this book then there is for Astrology, but we believe them because they are consistent with theories that have survived testing."

While that does make sense in a cosmic perspective, he forgets that it is our own perspective we are calculating with astrology most of the time. It is the planets in relation to the viewer, and that is why it works in a perspective from the earth... no matter where in the solar system the earth is.

Thing is, for me, we don't really know what we are talking about half the time because it is far more complex and "all-encompassing" than we can presume to know. So I suppose my personal argument is that it doesn't really matter if astrology is considered a science... people will do what they want with it anyway. Or something. I'm kinda piddling out. I'll work more on it later if others don't fill in with their ideas...

thanks, should i read into that? peanut butter-faith, chocolate-reason... together
~~~~~~~~~~
it works on many levels, all at the same time ;)

love all-ways,
mem

"Facts do not need interpretation by means of faith based assumptions, they are self evident."

Facts may have truth independent of human understanding.
But as soon as a person derives meaning from what they see, they are using their own personal filters to decide which information is important and which is worth keeping. They are connecting new "facts" or observations to pre-existing knowledge structures. The way that the new stuff fits in depends on what old stuff exists there already and decisions made about what to keep and throw away.

Even if we could remove the influence of our emotionality from our reasoning, we would still be interpreting everything we see based off of somewhat arbitrary basic assumptions. Different people choose different base assumptions and no one can prove or disprove these kinds of assumptions.

One of your assumptions is that faith is unneccessary and not very valuable it sounds like. Another assumption you seem to be making is that human beings interact with facts in an obvious and self-evident way without cultural filters or technological manipulation or anything. I can try to give compelling reasons why that may not actually be true but I could never prove you wrong on that point one way or another and you could never prove yourself right one way or another. You have your reasons that you found your assumptions desirable.

It is an assumption that we chose to make differently. We will forever look at the same "facts" and interpret them differently because of our difference in starting assumptions. I can see your train of thought (I think) and I am not going to go calling you names because of the assumptions you decided to start with or anything. I realize that what you think makes perfect sense based on the assumptions you decided to make.

Maybe I should use a different word than justify: How about explain? support?

Example: similarities in the genetic code - fact
*Interpreting it as a sign of evolution - filtering through an assumption that all things in the physical world are able to happen without the help of a "higher power" in some way
*Interpreting it as a sign of a common creator - filtering through a different assumption that all things happen at the will of a personality called "God"
Note: Even stating that the genetic code is "similar" involves some measure of value judgement and interpretation concerning how similar is similar enough.

Another Example from the little tiny boxed-in world of accepted science:
Rotting meat inside a jar - flies emerge a few days later
*Interpreting it as a sign of flies coming from meat - filtering through an assumption that all that exists is what we can see (spontaneous generation was the actual name of the "scientific" theory at the time)
*Interpreting it as a sign that flies lay eggs we can't see - filtering through an assumption that some things exist that we cannot see with our naked eye (until the development of microscopes (what 500 years ago compared to the whole of human civilization?) this view could have only been accepted with some measure of faith)
NOTE: All of this example is operating under the assumption that all physical phenomena we observe has a strictly physical cause

If people are forced to limit themselves to their current abilities to perceive they will limit their ability to see the truth.
Also, the idea of a person forming ideas and thinking without the operation of their own personal blind spots and filters is psychologically unsound from my understanding of psychology, at least! But remember, I have my own filters too of course.

Maybe you have reached some enlightened state of shedding all your personal filters and blind spots...but then how do you think at all or hold any kind of vision of things or picture of the world?
My guess is that you are likely taking your chosen assumptions as having a more universal value rather than recognizing your own personal value placed in those assumptions.

Many people seem to use it like a truth rather than a process.
~~~~~~
yeah, religion ended up the same way, unfortunately ~ I've got my fingers crossed that astrology doesn't also go that way......

love all-ways,
mem