4 ms·

Astrology is a tricky one. Any competent astrologer could look at a chart and say any number of objectively false things that are simultaneously true within a g

Astrology is a tricky one. Any competent astrologer could look at a chart and say any number of objectively false things that are simultaneously true within a given field of archetypal possibility. It's ability to narrow the scope in this way is astounding, and also what makes it "true" even though most predictions might factually miss the mark. Without a sophisticated understanding of the house system, no skeptic could possibly understand. I've given up trying to explain it. Those who know, know.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
Without a sophisticated understanding of the house system, no skeptic could possibly understand. There are over a dozen house systems. I prefer Placidus myself, but it seems like a meaningless statement. https://www.horoscope.com/us/editorial/faqs/editorial-faq-house-systems.aspx#:~:text=There%20are%20over%20a%20dozen%20different%20house%20systems,derived%20from%20dividing%20space%2C%20time%20or%20the%20ecliptic https://www.horoscope.com/us/editorial/faqs/editorial-faq-ho.... I studied astrology in earnest in my teens and twenties and considered becoming an astrologer. I was a homemaker who wanted a divorce. It's a field with no governing body telling you who is a "qualified" astrologer and who isn't. As far as I can tell: You don't get a college degree in it. There's no equivalent of a bar exam. At least such seemed true last time I cared to look. I was casting charts for friends and such. I also had done a lot of therapy. One day, I realized my advice had gotten better because of all the therapy I had done, not because of astrology. I knew the day I met her man the first time that he was not right. Casting a chart and telling her "It's a bad relationship." amounted to giving her my longstanding opinion of her relationship and using astrology as an excuse to do so, thus my opinion expressed elsewhere in comments here that astrologers were likely learned men giving good advice because they were educated and saying "the stars say so" to cover their butts. I like astrology. I don't think it's useless. I like it because it provides me a menu to choose from to sort my problems that I have as yet not found in any other school of thought. "Ah, it's a Saturn influence. Saturn rules poverty and limitations. It also rules time and effort and hard work. I can accept my poverty and limitations or I can put in the time, effort and hard work to overcome them." I like astrology, but at some point I made the conscious decision that if I was going to be paid for my professional advice, I would get a degree and call it "my professional opinion, based on thus and such" and not claim "the stars say so" as my way of washing my hands of personal responsibility for sometimes being wrong. HN is probably the worst place possible to mock skeptics of astrology. Historically, admitting to belief in it was a good way to cut your throat. I have no idea why this piece is on the front page. But maybe we can try to discuss the topic without skeptics suggesting people who believe in it are merely idiots and vice versa.
- sibeliuss 4y ago
  > it seems like a meaningless statement To elaborate, I was using it to qualify my description of astrological truth vs concrete truth; without understanding the houses, and thus the archetypes at ones disposal for a given frame of reference, one can't understand how an incorrect prediction could simultaneously be true. To give the simplest of examples: Astrologer predicts in 2033 that so and so is going to have a child, based upon Jupiter transiting the 5th house. So and so doesn't have a child, but rather publishes a book that they have been passionately working on. The prediction is concretely false, but if you understand the houses, it is actually true, since the 5th governs children and creative endeavors. One has "given birth" to a book. Roughly speaking, this is the primary mode of astrological prediction. It takes a certain fluidity of mind and some learning to grasp this sort of thing -- that is, archetypal thinking -- and one can't expect skeptics to equip themselves for such a task unless they are already so inclined.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    I fully understand why the house system is a big deal to astrologers. For one thing, it's like half the chart. It dramatically enriches the amount of information you have to work with. I've spent a lot of years toying with the idea of writing a blog that critiques astrology in a serious way. I've even made a few stabs at it. But it seems like a pointless waste of time. People who believe in astrology wouldn't want to hear "You're wrong!" and people who think it's hoccum wouldn't bother to read it. Understanding the house system can explain to other people who believe in astrology why astrologers sometimes make predictions that are so off the mark. It cannot explain to skeptics why astrologers think the stars empower them to predict anything. And skeptics are not wrong to wonder that. Astrology has a poor track for prediction. I don't personally think predicting extremely specific future events (like the birth of a child) is even a good use for astrology. And I'm someone who studied it in earnest and still thinks it has some merit, yet I spend less and less time on the topic.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > But maybe we can try to discuss the topic without skeptics suggesting people who believe in it are merely idiots and vice versa. Why? All the rest of your comment was you explaining how you had come to realise there was no "there" there to believe in. So, congratulations on having stopped being an idiot, but why shouldn't we be allowed to point out that those who believe in idiocy are being idiots?

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Without a sophisticated understanding of the house system, no skeptic could possibly understand. There are over a dozen house systems. I prefer Placidus myself, but it seems like a meaningless statement. https://www.horoscope.com/us/editorial/faqs/editorial-faq-house-systems.aspx#:~:text=There%20are%20over%20a%20dozen%20different%20house%20systems,derived%20from%20dividing%20space%2C%20time%20or%20the%20ecliptic https://www.horoscope.com/us/editorial/faqs/editorial-faq-ho.... I studied astrology in earnest in my teens and twenties and considered becoming an astrologer. I was a homemaker who wanted a divorce. It's a field with no governing body telling you who is a "qualified" astrologer and who isn't. As far as I can tell: You don't get a college degree in it. There's no equivalent of a bar exam. At least such seemed true last time I cared to look. I was casting charts for friends and such. I also had done a lot of therapy. One day, I realized my advice had gotten better because of all the therapy I had done, not because of astrology. I knew the day I met her man the first time that he was not right. Casting a chart and telling her "It's a bad relationship." amounted to giving her my longstanding opinion of her relationship and using astrology as an excuse to do so, thus my opinion expressed elsewhere in comments here that astrologers were likely learned men giving good advice because they were educated and saying "the stars say so" to cover their butts. I like astrology. I don't think it's useless. I like it because it provides me a menu to choose from to sort my problems that I have as yet not found in any other school of thought. "Ah, it's a Saturn influence. Saturn rules poverty and limitations. It also rules time and effort and hard work. I can accept my poverty and limitations or I can put in the time, effort and hard work to overcome them." I like astrology, but at some point I made the conscious decision that if I was going to be paid for my professional advice, I would get a degree and call it "my professional opinion, based on thus and such" and not claim "the stars say so" as my way of washing my hands of personal responsibility for sometimes being wrong. HN is probably the worst place possible to mock skeptics of astrology. Historically, admitting to belief in it was a good way to cut your throat. I have no idea why this piece is on the front page. But maybe we can try to discuss the topic without skeptics suggesting people who believe in it are merely idiots and vice versa.

sibeliuss 4y ago
> it seems like a meaningless statement To elaborate, I was using it to qualify my description of astrological truth vs concrete truth; without understanding the houses, and thus the archetypes at ones disposal for a given frame of reference, one can't understand how an incorrect prediction could simultaneously be true. To give the simplest of examples: Astrologer predicts in 2033 that so and so is going to have a child, based upon Jupiter transiting the 5th house. So and so doesn't have a child, but rather publishes a book that they have been passionately working on. The prediction is concretely false, but if you understand the houses, it is actually true, since the 5th governs children and creative endeavors. One has "given birth" to a book. Roughly speaking, this is the primary mode of astrological prediction. It takes a certain fluidity of mind and some learning to grasp this sort of thing -- that is, archetypal thinking -- and one can't expect skeptics to equip themselves for such a task unless they are already so inclined.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  I fully understand why the house system is a big deal to astrologers. For one thing, it's like half the chart. It dramatically enriches the amount of information you have to work with. I've spent a lot of years toying with the idea of writing a blog that critiques astrology in a serious way. I've even made a few stabs at it. But it seems like a pointless waste of time. People who believe in astrology wouldn't want to hear "You're wrong!" and people who think it's hoccum wouldn't bother to read it. Understanding the house system can explain to other people who believe in astrology why astrologers sometimes make predictions that are so off the mark. It cannot explain to skeptics why astrologers think the stars empower them to predict anything. And skeptics are not wrong to wonder that. Astrology has a poor track for prediction. I don't personally think predicting extremely specific future events (like the birth of a child) is even a good use for astrology. And I'm someone who studied it in earnest and still thinks it has some merit, yet I spend less and less time on the topic.
CRConrad 4y ago
> But maybe we can try to discuss the topic without skeptics suggesting people who believe in it are merely idiots and vice versa. Why? All the rest of your comment was you explaining how you had come to realise there was no "there" there to believe in. So, congratulations on having stopped being an idiot, but why shouldn't we be allowed to point out that those who believe in idiocy are being idiots?