Astrology is not a science!

[Guest guest]

I think it should be clear to all of us that astrology is not a

science. All the studies done have been made on the tropical zodiac,

and they haven't shown any positive result. This is an indirect way

of confirming that the tropical zodiac has no validity and should be

discarded.

 

Those of us who have opted for the sidereal zodiac at least have the

illusion and what is more important, the possibility, that this

zodiac can show a more statistically significant connection.

 

By the way, as far as I know,Fagan never made statistical researches

on astrology.I think only Bradley made some researches on weather and

also wrote a book trying to find a clue for religious vocation, but I

haven't read it since it is difficult to find it.

 

But I understand he did not worked with birth times , so in my

opinion this study has no relevance. In case I am wrong I would

appreciate somebody corrects me.

 

 

Alfonso Osorio

 

 

 

 

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

> At 04:41 AM 5/4/03 -0000, Jesse Milligan wrote:

>

> >>> I'm a scientist, interested in the science of astrology (and

there is

> one, as Fagan's statistical research has demonstrated).

>

> Uh, huh, and what might this 'statistical research' be?? Who

replicated it?

> What were the studies? When were they performed?? If you are a

scientist,

> then you know that research is virtually worthless until it's been

> replicated by others. (I know about the early research by Bradley.)

>

> >It frankly amazes me that 10 celestial objects and the three

cardinal

> aspects (conjunction, opposition, and square) that have been

demonstrated

> statistically useful aren't enough for people.

>

> Again, what are these statistical sources and the replications?

>

> >(Pursuant to this, I have developed a freeware western sidereal

astrology

> program to make calculation of all of this easy and correct.

> http://home.attbi.com/~jesse.m/aldebaran/

>

> Thank you. I'll check it out.

>

> >> The other flaw is that nobody gives predictions but runs to

explain

> >> the events once they have happened!

>

> >At this point, I think the best we can do is determine a

probability of an

> event happening. Prediction may come eventually.

>

> Yes, agreed.

>

> >>I agree with you that this list has far too much drama and fuzzy

> astrology, and too little honest and proven technique--but the only

way to

> change it is by speaking up, not running away.

>

> Yes again. Easy to complain and criticize. Difficult to show some

evidence

> for an astrological principle and speak with clarity so everyone can

> understand what we are saying.

>

> I appreciate your comments. It's nice to see a new name on the list.

>

> Therese