3 ms·
As usual the mention of astrology on HN summons forth the legions of trolls who have never studied the subject. Before dissing astrology so readily consider how
by cutler 8y ago
As usual the mention of astrology on HN summons forth the legions of trolls who have never studied the subject. Before dissing astrology so readily consider how many commonly used words have astrological roots. Re-read the last sentence for an example. Consider also the number of eminent thinkers throughout history, including the history of astronomy, who held astrology in high regard - Tycho Brahe, Claudius Ptolemy ("Tetrabiblos"), John Dee, William Lilly, Culpepper & Kepler to name but a few. Like Kepler, Galileo was also a "mathematicus" - a title which combined the three disciplines of maths, astronomy and astrology. The astrology of horoscopes and app-fillers, which you so readily ridicule, is nothing more than the invention of the newspaper journalist R.H.Naylor in 1930.
If you would care to step outside your mechanistic, "scientific" cage for a moment and look at the full moon once in a while ask yourself this - is it so far-fetched that man might impute siginificance to the fact that the lunation cycle divides the year into 12? 12 is no ordinary number. 11 would not have been significant, nor would 13. Then consider that there are 7 planets visible to the naked eye and meditate on the mathematical connection: 7 = 3 + 4 ; 12 = 3 x 4. Without any zodiac signs involved at this stage you already have a rational argument for the universe, or at least our bit of it, being non-random. The ancients had a lot less technology than we have but maybe they were wiser.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- skilled 8y agoI have never read this book [1] but apparently, it's perfect for people who question the validity of astrology. The book name also strongly implies it. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/You-Dont-Really-Believe-Astrology/dp/1491880600 https://www.amazon.com/You-Dont-Really-Believe-Astrology/dp/... Disclaimer: I know a woman who is friends with the author and is very fond of her.
- cutler 8y agoSkyscript.co.uk and Oxford scholar Nick Campion's "A History of Western Astrology" are 2 excellent sources for putting the record straight.
- Ntrails 8y ago> the fact that the lunation cycle divides the year into 12? Assuming you mean "The lunar cycle" - I was not aware that it divided the year into 12 at all (there are more than 12 in a year). If you ascribe significance to the nearest round number, that feels like stretching > 12 is no ordinary number. 11 would not have been significant, nor would 13. in what sense? 11 and 13 are at least prime, 12 is incredibly ordinary.
- cutler 8y ago12 is divisible by 3 and 4 which added equal 7 - the number of visible planets. 11 and 13 aren't divisible. Lunation cycle != lunar return. A lunation is a synodic period. There are 12.3 lunations per year so the nearest whole number is 12. The tropical year has 4 turning points - 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes. That the number of lunations in a year is divisible by the number of solstices/equinoxes is very significant and non-random.
- Ntrails 8y ago12.3 != 12 12.3 is not divisible by 3 or 4, is not special or whole or interesting. Manipulating things in an attempt to make them significant is ludicrous. Should there be higher powers and deeper meanings driving things, they would be exact.