|Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #99
Exegesis Digest Sat, 18 Dec 1999
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:33:13 +1300
From: Andre Donnell
Subject: Comment on 'Prediction is the essence of astrology'
I think there may be some misunderstanding.
As I understand it, those contributors to this list who have commented on prediction, have not so much wished to deny it, as to debate the issues concerning it. These include its ethics, its nature, and its limitations. I don't know of any among these contributors who have less than 25 years professional experience: most have considerably more. Bill Tallman has characterised the Exegesis forum as being at the cutting edge of astrological enquiry. I agree with this, and suggest that if seasoned professionals find that there are matters concerning prediction and other astrological topics that merit thoughtful questioning, then it is entirely proper that they do so. Indeed, such debate is the essence of any active and evolving field. It is how new ideas are formed and old ideas are understood in a new light. It is how any field progresses.
I am not aware of any recent posts, let alone "many" of them, that propose that "astrology needs to justify itself in scientific terms". Quite the contrary. Various posts have suggested, one or two of mine among them, that science may well 'discover' astrology in the near future (in the next 100-400 years seems to express the range).
Perhaps there is some confusion as a number of posters (!) have suggested the application of various scientific, social scientific, and mathematical methods and/or principles to astrology (e.g., Bill Tallman, Bill Sheeran, Dale Huckeby, Dennis, and myself). Any such application entails the development of *novel* techniques and principles adapted to meeting the challenge of astrological enquiry. Wholesale transfer of existing scientific paradigms, methodologies and methods is neither appropriate nor possible. Personally, I believe that such a process, if it is possible at all, would be enriching in both directions. It seems silly to think that astrology would not change scientific principles - whether or not 'science' (the group deemed within society to represent science) is interested in the outcome or products.
Or in other words, in no sense would any such scientific infusion, if it is possible, imply that astrology would merely be swallowed into existing science. Both would have to change.
I agree that "an atomistic, materialist paradigm of science" is incompatible with astrology (accepting for the moment the implied assumption that astrology is not "atomistic" and "materialist"). But I am simply not aware that there is any such paradigm, except as an unhelpful caricature occasionally present in the discourse of astrologers.
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 99
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.