• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Evidence Proving The Validity Of Astrology

I think the best way to approach this is to assume that the reality we perceive is not the whole picture.

But we do not have the ability (for whatever reason) to see beyond the norm.

However, something apparently seems to 'break through' every now and again.

My own experience with at least one apparition make me think there are possibilities that we may be able to explore.

It all gets rather murky.

INT21.
 
I think the best way to approach this is to assume that the reality we perceive is not the whole picture.

But we do not have the ability (for whatever reason) to see beyond the norm.

However, something apparently seems to 'break through' every now and again.

My own experience with at least one apparition make me think there are possibilities that we may be able to explore.

It all gets rather murky.

INT21.
This sounds to me like an easy way out -- no need to confront the issues (for oneself) head on! -- we'll just stick with our materialist/naive realist position since, hey!, it works well enough 99.9% of the time and does a good enough job bringing in or maintaining the flow of goodies to which we're accustomed. ([edit:] "So there's that thing with ghosts and falling rocks that happens from time to time... Ain't that weird? HA!") "Oh, and astrology, homeopathy, distant healing, miracles, etc. are all obviously rubbish!"
 
Last edited:
You show me a way of proving that there is a way of revealing the existence of other realms and I will happily consider it.

This, of course, does not include the pronouncements of strange people who have spent years sat on mountaintops smoking or herbal mixtures or injecting themselves with psychoactive chemicals.

Look a tit this way.
If you were to visit some island that had been shut of from the reast of the World for two hundred years and tell them that the air around them was full of people talking to each other. They would probably think you mad.
But if you then produce a radio and let them hear the people talking then they would have, eventually, to change their minds.

So, where is your radio ?
 
So, where is your radio ?

I am not out to prove anything (provable within an "objective reality" framework) to you. I am simply pointing out that your idea that something can only be "real" if objectively measurable/repeatable may be mistaken. You BELIEVE that something can only be real if it meets your criteria. I would only say that it's real according to your definition of "reality", but that there are multiple ways of being real. Was your apparition "real"? (Or merely a misperception or hallucination?) Can you prove it to me?
 
I am not out to prove anything (provable within an "objective reality" framework) to you. I am simply pointing out that your idea that something can only be "real" if objectively measurable/repeatable may be mistaken. You BELIEVE that something can only be real if it meets your criteria. I would only say that it's real according to your definition of "reality", but that there are multiple ways of being real. Was your apparition "real"? (Or merely a misperception or hallucination?) Can you prove it to me?

If anything is 'real' then it has a reality in some realm of existence.

To the best of our knowledge there is only one realm of existence. It is the physical life we lead. When that is over, who knows.
This does not mean that there may not be other reals, but if there are then their existence is hidden from us until we can devise a way of revealing them.

As for the apparition, no, I can't prove it to you or anyone else.

It was just an unexplained happening that looked objectively real from my perspective at the time.

INT21.
 
If anything is 'real' then it has a reality in some realm of existence.

To the best of our knowledge there is only one realm of existence. It is the physical life we lead. When that is over, who knows.
This does not mean that there may not be other reals, but if there are then their existence is hidden from us until we can devise a way of revealing them.

As for the apparition, no, I can't prove it to you or anyone else.

It was just an unexplained happening that looked objectively real from my perspective at the time.

INT21.
One doesn't need to postulate "other realms of existence" (though it may be handy to use the expression in some cases); "other ways of experiencing" or "other reality-defining frameworks" may be sufficient. How do you know with absolute certainty that it isn't your received notion (Abrahamic/Rationalist Monotheism and all that...) that reality is single and exists "out there" that is acting as a filter preventing a richer experience of multiple modes of reality-appearance (of which your apparition experience may have been an instance)?

>It was just an unexplained happening that looked objectively real from my perspective at the time.

What would you say if, as a result or by-product of that happening, you had experienced a miraculous healing (that persisted through time)? Because that has happened -- often! -- to others as you must be aware. Would you deny the objective reality of that miraculous healing? Would you casually dismiss such healing as "just an unexplained happening" unworthy of provoking an extended investigation of how such a thing could possibly happen (and maybe even how to induce it to happen again, if necessary)?
 
Allow me to interject here with a reminder from Jeff Kripal:

It is precisely this ordinariness that makes Fort’s thought so extraordinary.
As we shall see soon enough, Fort’s radical monism expresses a world
in which it is not so much that nothing is supernatural, but rather that
everything is (LO 655). Fort, that is, locates the paranormal not simply in
the rare experiences of a telepathic communication (although it appears
here too) or in the invisible mathematical worlds of quantum physics (although
he looked there as well, before anyone else, as far as I can tell). He
finds it rather, in Colin Bennet’s words now, in “the full light of noon on
a thronged high street, from crowded rooms, from reports of ship’s captains,
baffled farmers, puzzled housewives, and scared families.” Or, as
the poet-journalist Benjamin De Casseres described his friend’s books:
“There is something tremendously real, annoyingly solid about Fort. His
is the first attempt in the history of human thought to bring mysticism
and trans-material phenomena down to (or maybe lift it up to) something
concrete.” Which is to say that Charles Fort discovers the paranormal in
the normal.
 
One doesn't need to postulate "other realms of existence" (though it may be handy to use the expression in some cases); "other ways of experiencing" or "other reality-defining frameworks" may be sufficient. How do you know with absolute certainty that it isn't your received notion (Abrahamic/Rationalist Monotheism and all that...) that reality is single and exists "out there" that is acting as a filter preventing a richer experience of multiple modes of reality-appearance (of which your apparition experience may have been an instance)?

>It was just an unexplained happening that looked objectively real from my perspective at the time.

What would you say if, as a result or by-product of that happening, you had experienced a miraculous healing (that persisted through time)? Because that has happened -- often! -- to others as you must be aware. Would you deny the objective reality of that miraculous healing? Would you casually dismiss such healing as "just an unexplained happening" unworthy of provoking an extended investigation of how such a thing could possibly happen (and maybe even how to induce it to happen again, if necessary)?

Your are missing my points.
I have no (Abrahamic/Rationalist Monotheism) point of view. I regard the Old Testament as a good read, and probably written to scare the masses into submission. But no actual reality to it.

As to your point on healing.

If it did happen, and there are some instances where it looks as if it might, then fine.

I would certainly wish to identify the source. And attempting to make it happen to order would be high on my list of experiments once I had formed a theory on the cause.

And if I couldn't find a cause then it would have to be put in the 'for attention later' file.
 
Your are missing my points.
I have no (Abrahamic/Rationalist Monotheism) point of view. I regard the Old Testament as a good read, and probably written to scare the masses into submission. But no actual reality to it.

Are you getting my point?:) The (monotheistic) "Jealous God" stance of Science, invalidating all other reality frameworks and possibilities of relationship, interaction, or identity between seemingly separate phenomena beyond those accepted by Science, IS the default "reality filter" in place today. "Reality" is out there, measurable, can be scrutinized by the intellect, etc., and if a phenomenon (or class of phenomena) does not lend itself easily or readily to such scrutiny and evaluation, then it is not "real", or if you insist that it has some kind of "reality", then it is of a lower order (unworthy of attention or comment?) of reality than that of things which we can measure and scrutinize. My mist-emerging-and-dissolving Court Jester is necessarily less real than a toaster (by having the temerity to ignore the laws of physics)!

As to your point on healing.

If it did happen, and there are some instances where it looks as if it might, then fine.

I would certainly wish to identify the source. And attempting to make it happen to order would be high on my list of experiments once I had formed a theory on the cause.

You know that others have just gone ahead, accepted a provisional hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, and succeeded in effecting miraculous cures, right? Or do you think one needs a iron-clad theory first? Intent seems to be much more the important factor than the particular belief one holds regarding the causal mechanisms, etc, at play.
 
What would be the mechanism ?
Dunno, maybe the same one by which your apparition... appeared?

More seriously, whether one attributes this "healing power" to a particular deity, subtle source of power/intervention, or whanot seems, ultimately, irrelevant apart from its capacity to instill faith in the possibility of applied intent resulting in experienceable effects.
One thing seems certain, though: the inclination to claim personal credit for the healing effectiveness will, in most cases, prevent or (sooner or later) terminate the ability to heal in such a manner. Oh, and, as usual, charlatans and hoaxers abound in this as in all areas of human endeavour: entertainment, art, politics, astrology, religion, medicine/psychiatry, psychology, science, etc. etc. Caveat Emptor!
 
What would be the mechanism ?

As well as, previously:
As for the apparition, no, I can't prove it to you or anyone else.

It was just an unexplained happening that looked objectively real from my perspective at the time.

By "mechanism", you are obviously asking about the causal mechanism within objective reality that would allow, say, a person in Wales to cure the psoriasis of someone in Paris, Texas. While there are more than a few physicists and other "Piled High and Deep" types who have proposed mechanisms by which something like that could happen (and -- who knows? -- it's a wide Fortean world out there and ANYTHING is possible!), I don't see the need to go looking for a mechanism (which is, to be clear, a very different activity than seeking ways to more effectively translate intent into experienceable results). What was the mechanism by which my dwarfish court jester appeared within a misty cloud and proceeded to assault me, leaving a nasty bruise on my person, only to dissolve into misty nothingness once more? Perhaps I was hallucinating, but then where did the damn bruise come from?

As a Fortean, do I reject the reality of the experience, and simply say that I must have dreamt the whole thing, and simply bruised myself when I fell out of bed (and then forgotten about the dreaming and the falling, like any card-carrying debunker would insist must have been the case)? And if we can accept the (acausal?)/ascientific/non-mechanistic/dreamlike reality of the jester incident, then why dismiss out of hand the reality of astrological correspondences, homeopathy, distant healing, and all the rest? Or is it Fortean enough to simply declare that, yes, something inexplicable happened to me, but it's murky and it sure would be nice to understand someday what the hell was going on there (but in the meantime, life goes on and I'm not going to be taken for a fool by all the hucksters out there)? As if I, you, or a scientist somewhere will someday discover the mechanism by which such an unlikely event (the apparition, the jester) could have entered one's reality. Anything but entertain the possibility that there is an ineradicable non-mechanistic/dreamlike aspect to our experiencing which most of the time we succeed in filtering out. Was not Charlie pointing to this?
 
Last edited:
I just happened to be reading this, and thought I'd throw it in here (since it is common for sceptics -- both overt and otherwise -- to dismiss any reported "successes" in practices for which no known mechanism might explain the phenomena observed as being due simply to "coincidence"):

There is a view by which it can be shown, or more or less demonstrated, that there has never been a coincidence. That is, in anything like a final sense. By a coincidence is meant a false appearance, or suggestion, of relations among circumstances. But anybody who accepts that there is an underlying oneness of all things, accepts that there are no utter absences of relations among circumstances...
 
I don't see the need to go looking for a mechanism..


And if we can accept the (acausal?)/ascientific/non-mechanistic/dreamlike reality of the jester incident, ..

As if I, you, or a scientist somewhere will someday discover the mechanism by which such an unlikely event (the apparition, the jester) could have entered one's reality.

So, basically it's ok to be a 'believer' ?

For a moment let us apply this to the, apparently, simpler case of ufo sightings.

If they are real (in the accepted sense of real) than they must come from somewhere. And then, it seems, must also return to the somewhere they come from.

So, it follows that if all attempts by our considerably powerful ranks of scientists can't find a source for them, them it would imply that, A) they don't exist. or B) there is some form of physics we do not understand.

Personally I would opt for B.

There is another option. That it is all in the mind and these things do not exist in objective reality. This is a difficult one to prove one way or the other.

Following the above logic, it would seem that the appearance of objects and people 'out of place ' must also be explainable by them being in some other realm and having the capability, not necessarily engineered by themselves, to appear to us in our realm of existence.

How else could it be ?

Maybe they are existing in some extra set of dimensions. But we have no practical way of showing this regardles of millions of pages of obtuse maths stating it is probably so.

Once you hit quark level everything become rather strange.

If they (Fortenean episodes) happen at all, they must have an origin and a transport mechanism.

INT21.
 
Just looking back to the original post.

Most of the above stuff is a long way from it.
 
Just looking back to the original post.

Most of the above stuff is a long way from it.
It might indeed appear to be OT, but certainly addressing the issue of the need for a mechanism that can explain the possibility of some phenomenon to be considered "real" is central to the case of astrology. Apologies to the OP, though, if the discussion strayed a little too far off the path they intended it to go down...
 
IMHO the discussion hasn't strayed too far away from the OP's initial query.

There are basically two lines of investigation which could shed light on this matter:

(1) A survey and analysis to see if astrology's predictions are clearly accurate and / or robust.

(2) Theorization on how the stars could affect humans and human affairs (i.e., "the mechanism") to set the stage for demonstrating the alleged connection between the heavens and the course of human affairs.

I think item (1) has been the problem all along. If the effect cannot be reasonably demonstrated, there's little point in searching for a mechanism.
 
IMHO the discussion hasn't strayed too far away from the OP's initial query.

There are basically two lines of investigation which could shed light on this matter:

(1) A survey and analysis to see if astrology's predictions are clearly accurate and / or robust.

(2) Theorization on how the stars could affect humans and human affairs (i.e., "the mechanism") to set the stage for demonstrating the alleged connection between the heavens and the course of human affairs.

I think item (1) has been the problem all along. If the effect cannot be reasonably demonstrated, there's little point in searching for a mechanism.
Where do you intend to gather these "predictions" from? Daily Stars columns? As I've already stated here, they are absolute BS. From forecasts made by media-savvy "astrologers"? Again, don't waste your time.

I could go on, but I can predict with 100% confidence that any such project is guaranteed to prove only the utter "invalidity of astrology".
 
Where do you intend to gather these "predictions" from? Daily Stars columns? As I've already stated here, they are absolute BS. From forecasts made by media-savvy "astrologers"? ...

That's been the main problem all along ... It's been almost impossible to assemble a data set of predictions (or equivalent analyses, depending on the branch of astrology at issue) against which to evaluate features, events, etc., for accuracy. The result has been scattered advocacy based on anecdotal correspondences alone.
 
That's been the main problem all along ... It's been almost impossible to assemble a data set of predictions (or equivalent analyses, depending on the branch of astrology at issue) against which to evaluate features, events, etc., for accuracy. The result has been scattered advocacy based on anecdotal correspondences alone.
But it's all anecdotal. Astrology is not a science, but an interpretive craft. You would end up attempting to do a statistical study of stories. There is no such thing as planet A + planet B + zodiacal position 351.24 = car crash, in any scientifically coherent way. It's all stories (from which, nevertheless, under certain conditions, very accurate predictions can indeed be made... but anyone who agreed to participate in such a study is a greater fool than the one who might have thought that it had even a .000000001 chance of giving a result favourable to astrology).
 
But it's all anecdotal. Astrology is not a science, but an interpretive craft. ...

.... And it will remain a subject of recurrent argument until and unless someone addresses the two methodological problems I listed earlier.
 
Whose argument? Not the astrologers', certainly, since they know (or should know) that it's not a science, and they just go on doing what they do, but others who, for some unfathomable reason, believe that if it cannot be shown to operate within the confines of their scientific straitjacket, then it should be banished from the face of the earth, or at least mocked and ridiculed until it crawls away of its own accord.
 
Whose argument? Not the astrologers', certainly, since they know (or should know) that it's not a science, and they just go on doing what they do, but others who, for some unfathomable reason, believe that if it cannot be shown to operate within the confines of their scientific straitjacket, then it should be banished from the face of the earth, or at least mocked and ridiculed until it crawls away of its own accord.

OK, so you've arrived at your own conclusion ... Fine ... I'm not addressing any conclusion; I'm addressing the issues surrounding any attempt to support a conclusion (either pro or con).
 
I'm addressing the issues surrounding any attempt to support a conclusion (either pro or con).
Understood!; I'm simply pointing out that attempting to do a statistical study of astrological interpretations (call them predictions, if you like) is somewhat akin to doing a statistical study of apparitions. In either case, there's no measurable thing there. Most here, it would seem, will take this to mean that they are therefore unreal. I take it to mean that their reality is of a different order than that of (measurable) things, though no less real!).
 
What truly boggles the mind is that in a Fortean forum filled with discussion of cryptids, UFOs/UAP, and all manner of strange things, the belief reigns that phenomena are either measurable/knowable via a scientific approach, or (if they refuse to ever have their reality confirmed by such) are "unreal" and therefore in the same category as misperceptions, hallucinations, and delusions. Is this really where Charlie was coming from?
 
Last edited:
What truly boggles the mind is that in a Fortean forum filled with discussion of cryptids, UFOs/UAP, and all manner of strange things, the belief reigns that phenomena are either measurable/knowable via a scientific approach, or (if they refuse to ever have their reality confirmed by such) are "unreal" and therefore in the same category as misperceptions, hallucinations, and delusions. Is this really where Charlie was coming from?


as I've said, scientific method is one tool.

please don't over generalise :)
 
What truly boggles the mind is that in a Fortean forum filled with discussion of cryptids, UFOs/UAP, and all manner of strange things, the belief reigns that phenomena are either measurable/knowable via a scientific approach, or (if they refuse to ever have their reality confirmed by such) are "unreal" and therefore in the same category as misperceptions, hallucinations, and delusions. Is this really where Charlie was coming from?

This is a false dichotomy / distinction.

Fort's point was that there are things the then-ever-more-prevalent physical sciences couldn't authoritatively address within their own materialistic conceptual context and their prescribed methodological context. He didn't advocate dismissing anything lying beyond science's scope as necessarily false or mistaken. In other words, if Fort was advocating for anything it was the validity of "grey areas."

This grey area status means there's no definitive conclusion on the subject - i.e., the debate is inconclusive. If there were to be a way to progress toward some sort of reasonable final conclusion it could well involve approaches associated with scientific inquiry (e.g., surveys; statistical analysis; models of causal relationships). If astrology believers were seriously interested in demonstrating the subject's validity, they would be well advised to leverage their critics' own cherished methods so as to make a more convincing case.
 
This is a false dichotomy / distinction.

He didn't advocate dismissing anything lying beyond science's scope as necessarily false or mistaken.

So we agree that there is a class of phenomena beyond science's scope, which it would be not only foolish but utterly fruitless to attempt to study and understand with the tools of science (like astrology, perhaps?).

In other words, if Fort was advocating for anything it was the validity of "grey areas."

Grey areas which by their very nature shall possibly always remain such, or are such only at present because our scientific tools have not yet reached a sufficient degree of sophistication so as to enable us to pierce their mysteries?

This grey area status means there's no definitive conclusion on the subject - i.e., the debate is inconclusive. If there were to be a way to progress toward some sort of reasonable final conclusion it could well involve approaches associated with scientific inquiry (e.g., surveys; statistical analysis; models of causal relationships).

Or equally might not well involve such approaches at all? What other approaches would you suggest? Literary, psychological, philosophical ones? (And, again, might there be phenomena whose very nature is such that reaching a "reasonable final conclusion" with respect to them shall always remain an impossibility?)

If astrology believers were seriously interested in demonstrating the subject's validity, they would be well advised to leverage their critics' own cherished methods so as to make a more convincing case.

Why would they bother, when they are aware that "their critics' own cherished methods" are misapplied to this category of phenomena, and shall find nothing "real" there with the tools they habitually deploy? And who are these "believers seriously interested in demonstrating the subject's validity"? What I find rather rmore ubiquitous are believers of another sort interested in demonstrating the subject's invalidity.
 
Last edited:
... Or equally might not well involve such approaches at all? What other approaches would you suggest? Literary, psychological, philosophical ones? ...

Any reasoned analytical approach might prove useful in this case. There's no reason to limit the possibilities to the methods prevailing in the physical sciences. For example ...

Hermeneutic analysis (drawn from literary and socio-historical fields) might be eminently useful in grappling with the issues of symbolism and patterns that underlie astrological lore and prescriptions.

Any number of psychological approaches or orientations might be relevant in describing / analyzing astrological effects on personality and / or behavior.
 
Back
Top