Guest guest Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Hi All I've been thinking. I applaud your desire, Therese and all, to develop an astrology that is more " scientific. " How would we define this? I'm serious, Perhaps the first step is to define what it might look like. In Gauqueline's case, he set out to disprove astrology so he started looking at things that are very simple. Perhaps it would be interesting to set up some simple hypothesis and set about checking it....just a thought. While daunting for one person, perhaps we could work collectively (a strange concept for most astrologers but made more accessible on the net) I'm a little jaded, I'll admit, but that might make me more helpful. Anyone interested in making a definition and a hypothesis? I'm not sure what this might look like, I'm just tossing out a thought cynthia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Hi Cynthia, Mark McDonough (of AstroDatabank) had laid out the best research protocol for astrologers. As I recall, the first step is to look at a stack of charts all of which share some trait, occupation, or whatever. His article is probably posted on the ADB site. Therese At 02:57 PM 10/23/04 -0500, you wrote: > > > Hi All > I've been thinking. I applaud your desire, Therese and all, to develop an >astrology that is more " scientific. " > > How would we define this? I'm serious, Perhaps the first step is to >define what it might look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.