Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather
An abridged update of material that originally appeared in a collaborative discourse entitled "Some Philosophical Problems of Astrology", Correlation 14(2), 32-44, 1995. With 25 references.
Abstract -- To evaluate astrology as a source of meaning we need to consider several philosophical problems that until now have not been fully discussed on this website. (1) Astrologers do not agree on what their fundamental hypothesis as above so below actually means. (2) Astrology is defined as precisely not the result of any means we know of. (3) Its meaning cannot be identified except after the event. (4) Astrologers rarely describe what such an astrology predicts, or the evidence they would accept as showing it had failed as a source of meaning. (5) We see meaning in birth charts for the same reason that we see faces in clouds. In short, astrology as a source of meaning is as solid as the Emperor's New Clothes. Which is not to say it cannot be beneficial if honestly described.Full article including this abstract 20m 76kb Home Fast-Find Index