Just something I need to get off my chest, I know it's kind of dramatic for a first post in this forum but I'm not at all as serious as this post makes me look! This is something I've been wondering about - mostly today, after I read a more sceptical report on the dangers of aspartame. While I was reading it, I couldn't help agreeing because their view made more sense than what they called a case-directed approach, where one particular example is given to show that something is not right. And there I was, just thinking "Shi**, that's exactly what we astrologers do.". I know I do sometimes, and I often tell people not to stare themselves blind at the generalisations of each sign because we all have our charts to consider and not just our sun signs. I treat every "case" as a seperate case, and that is exactly what most sceptics don't want... and I hate to say it, today while reading that article about aspartame, I agreed with them. But I think there are more issues involved. I honestly think that natal astrology cannot be used as the be-all and end-all of our personality. For example; if two people are born on september 22, 1975 they might be similar in behaviour. But if one is born in a poor but large family and the other is an only child of a rich couple, then obviously one is going to have more chances in life than the other. And I'm not necessarily talking about the rich kid; being part of a large family, so sounded one of my very first sociology lessons, makes a child more social. I believe that for every family member you have, you can create twice as many solid social contacts. This is true in my mother; she is from a family of 9 and she is very social. Also my partner is from a family of 8 and very social (his is the birth data I used, by the way). I myself am from a family of only 2. This means - parents included - that my mother can form at least 22 solid social contacts in her life now, my boyfriend can form at least 20 and I? ... Despite being social in nature, when it comes to social contacts I must say I've so far successfully formed less solid social contacts than I should be able to. The rich kid in question would only be able to form 6 social contacts, and I can only form 8. Unless you count the dog, and I'm very good with animals! Back to the two people with the same charts (whether they have the same rising is out of the question for now). My boyfriend's chart doesn't show keen social abilities; in fact his 11th house is in Virgo and his mercury is in the 12th house - that would be anything but social. Yet he works in a bar and has many friends; whereas I, with my 11th house in Libra and a 1st house Sagittarius mercury (conjunct rising) know many people, but in effect am friends with hardly any of them. I suspect the rich kid will hardly have any friends at all and might possibly turn out entirely spoilt and simply not deeming people important enough to talk to, or he might become quite lonely, only talking to his parents. Maybe he would even turn out to be autistic. This is just one theoretical example of how variables like environment and nurture influence the already present possibilities in our natal chart. But how do we explain that to a sceptic? I already mentioned that they don't like seperate cases as perfect examples and they want to see a clear line going through the whole thing; "It either works or it doesn't". When these same sceptics who condone astrology, test it, they don't consider the variables and in all fairness, to quote my (capricorn sun) cousin who is a financial advisor for one of the locally major banks; "one thing they didn't take into consideration when they assessed the crisis; and that's the panic rate of the people. When the economy goes down, panic goes up and if you didn't consider that, then you're f***ed. You can't predict panic, it's a variable.". I think something similar applies to natal astrology. When you don't consider those variables that happen after the date of the natal chart, then your assessment of that chart is going to be completely wrong. So how to avoid this? In fact, I think Michel Gauquelin was probably on the spot when he did his famous statistics; he avoided the culture variable by only using people who lived in France. One country generally has the same culture so people born in that country are more likely to behave more similarly when they have the same planetary placements. Sadly enough, his assessment was thrown away for exactly the same reason; because they were all French people. Then, the question begs, how will we ever prove the accuracy of astrology if those sceptics won't even let us deal with the variables that interrupt the original? It's the same with what my cousin stated; she said the crisis, on paper could have been easily avoided. If they had considered the panic rate of human beings it could have been effectively avoided. So if we're allowed to consider culture, nurture and local environment of people, we would be able to give a better reading of a chart?
Ok this is a complicated issue, and I can just as wordy as you. You have been warned! First of all let's think about what constitutes scientific fact. Science as a whole needs to have a model where all things have material causes and effects. Thus, even if you don't have the tools to adequately do this, anything that is "real" must be able to be measured. Plus, for the scientific community to see something as fact, it has to be generally agreed upon that something is indeed a fact. While the facts themselves might be tested and changed or even discarded, a general consensus must be reached that lies outside the personal opinion of individual scientists. Thus, we can have seemingly contradictory situations like how there are individual geologists who believe in a literal Bible, but professionally don't. The reason is, is that we have ways to test an old earth vs. a young one. Scientific consensus usually takes the form of peer review. This is a board of scientific peers within a particular scientific discipline. They look for consistency of method and theory. That being said, astrology has no part of any of this. There are no peer reviewed journals to support astrology, nor can any measurable method be found to measure its effects and causes. This is why popular claims of magnetism, light, and gravity fail. We can measure that. Plus, even if magnetism can magically be found to be the cause, then we would have to figure out a way to explain how Venus' magnetism causes love, and Mars' war. For scientific consensus to accept astrology, it would require them to accept a model that is entirely unscientific. As post-Enlightenment people, we are trained almost from birth to see reality as atheistic and materialistic. This type of thinking bled into astrology, where in the 19th century a shift occurred where astrology was converted into a tool for amateur psychologists, rather than its original purpose, as a tool for wisdom and prediction. Time has only made this change more extreme. What many astrologers don't realize today, is that for almost 2000 years, astrology had no psychology. It's primary purpose wasn't to describe character, but to predict events. Period. Sun signs weren't given the same prominence that they have today until the early 20th century. So, from a traditional outlook, your premise doesn't even fit. To see if someone is social, wouldn't be the 11th house. The 11th is the house of friends. Sociability is kind of a vague concept, but it certainly can't be confined to friends. One can be social and have no friends. One can have friends and not be social. The 5th is the house of entertainment. That's one place. The 11th is friends, that is another. The 10th is career and public. That's another. The 7th is the house of other people (amongst other things), so that's another place. Plus, the traditional way of finding a house ruler doesn't always mean the sign ruler. There is a mathematical method called "almuten" which finds the most powerful planet in any given degree. So for instance, for some degrees, the almuten of Aries isn't Mars, but the Sun. Saturn rules certain degrees of Libra. An almuten acts as a co-ruler. Plus, sometimes the ruler or almuten can deny a house's promise, but another ruler such as triplicity ruler can then carry it forward. Princess Diana's chart is like that for her ascendant. As for the issue of identical charts, this is relatively rare. Even for twins. In order for two charts to be identical, they would have to be born within about 2 minutes in the same place. It happens, but not that much percentage-wise. In big cities it happens more. One degree can affect a chart. I don't really care about proving astrology scientifically. I don't think it's ever going to happen any more than I think science will prove the existence of God. As you may have guessed I am a traditionalist. The traditional world-view is that astrology is a spiritual science. The planets are not causes. Besides, tropical astrology negates physical causes because they differ so much than what is in the sky. I can write about this forever, so I may as well stop here.
We should have hospitals chart every baby born on every day of the year. That way we can identify their future personalities and plan their lives for em.
