ae2ea207   
   XPost: alt.astrology   
   From: a@a.uk   
      
   "The True Edmond Wollmann"  wrote on 14th January:   
   >On Jan 13, 9:08 am, "A B"  wrote:   
   >> Yes, but there's no harm in coming at it from another angle and checking   
   >> whether you got it right. The merit of this experiment, if it works, is   
      
   >But if your skills are honed you will know what part of it IS testable   
   >and what parts aren't. This is called operationalizing the varibles.   
      
   Of course, but I don't see any problem with testing this.  Why, have you   
   thought of one?   
      
   >>that it's quite objective. With psychological astrology, especially with   
   >>subtle effects, there is always the possibility that you're kidding   
   >>yourself.   
      
   >Your kidding yourself if you think you can operationalize it without   
   >having a working knowledge of it. Astrology on a whole is NOT a   
   >science, this is why I am cautioning you. There are many variables   
   >involved because you are "testing" the chart, the theories of reading   
   >a chart, the astrologer, the person, the persons evolution and   
   >development...etc.   
      
   That's the beauty of this particular experiment - not being a psychological   
   matter, it has far fewer variables to worry about, so it's much simpler to   
   test.  Of course, if you then wanted to see how the findings affected   
   psychological astrology, you'd need to take all that into account again, but   
   that would be for afterwards.   
      
   No, astrology isn't a science, but surely it can be STUDIED by science - a   
   rather different thing.  As an analogy, cycling is a sport, not a scientific   
   discipline.  But scientists can successfully examine how it works, and even   
   suggest ways the bikes could be better made.  The scientists aren't actually   
   cycling; in the same way, astrological research isn't part of the practice   
   of astrology, but a method of studying astrology.  Thanks for the caution,   
   though; I'm aware of the dangers of getting so bogged down in observations   
   that you don't think about how they fit into the actual practice of   
   astrology.  Still, with the present piffling amount of astrological   
   research, there's little enough risk of that!   
      
   >Evidence does not fulfill clients or make predictions that serve the   
   >general populace, it is SKILL that does this.   
      
   And skill requires observation (you can't learn French by logical deduction;   
   you need a dictionary, or an obliging French person).  Experiment is just a   
   systematic way of making observations.  Obviously no amount of evidence   
   could by itself teach someone to interpret a chart well.  But equally, no   
   amount of practice, intuition, logic and what-have-you could by themselves   
   teach someone to interpret a chart, if they didn't know what the planets   
   related to.  You have to have the information before you can become skilful   
   at using it.   
      
   All the best,   
   A. B.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)