4 ms·
It's better to think about Astrology as a form of divination, rather than an objective science to be refuted. Sure, one can derive objective statements from sym
by sibeliuss 5y ago
It's better to think about Astrology as a form of divination, rather than an objective science to be refuted. Sure, one can derive objective statements from symbols that potentially extend in every direction, but the more interesting aspect is how the act of asking questions of the natal chart can yield unexpected answers that are true. It's a highly developed symbolic art, not a science.
- 1_player 5y agoIs anyone arguing that astrology is science? You call it divination, I call it a scam for gullible people. If there's one objective truth, is that astrology and divination in general has nothing scientific to it.
- sibeliuss 5y ago> Is anyone arguing that astrology is science This is the standard that most apply to it, including most in this discussion. What I'm saying is that engaging with symbols is a creative act that can be useful and participatory. A persons natal chart, if read correctly, provides a web of symbology that the reader can engage with in order to stimulate the imagination. If one comes to the chart with a question and plays with the symbols, answers can arise that are unexpected and often startling in their usefulness. This does not make the response true in an objective sense ("such and such planetary position means x") but rather, it can provide answers in a similar way that other art forms provide answers. The difference with Astrology, however, is that the symbolic art used to engage with questions is a highly developed and extensive system, and has been refined over the millennia. A good analogy would be a psychological programming language that is thousands of years old, with libraries and coroutines that one can implement to help interpret general questions about human nature.