Astrology Vs Science or Cats are better than Dogs

This is a response to http://rainbowofchaos.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-skeptic-versus-the-astrologer/

I once had an argument/discussion with some astronomer/physicists regarding Astrology. They were anti, I was pro. Not because I absolutely am, but I like a good argument like the next person. And it annoyed me, that being scientists, their opinions on Astrology weren’t evidence based, they just didn’t like or understand the stuff. Basically because they’d been told not to.

Bottom line. Astrology = Intuitional. Science = Intellectual.

I wouldn’t put a single cent against an astronomical prediction, and anyone who says that a prediction system is completely accurate is probably a little bit ‘out there’ IMO. As keen astrological understanding should be able to predict lotto numbers shouldn’t it?

I feel qualified to have an opinion on this subject because I’ve studied astrology. I mean really studied it. Years of making charts, checking signs, Esoteric, Exoteric, Greek, Egyption, Hindu, Chinese you name it. There was even talk of a radio spot on BBC Yorkshire to talk about Astrology.
Astrology is fantastic as a reframing and analogy tool. I enjoy learning about it, and using it in the same way that I may wonder who the Darleks really would attack first if they came to Earth.

I’ve found giving astrological perspectives very useful in giving advice and counselling to people. More so than psychological and sociological perspectives have been.
Astrology appeals to our archetypical understanding of the world, and most modern religions – Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism ( maybe Islam but I haven’t checked ) have strong astrological ties whether they admit it or not. Astrology uses colour, elements, forces, likes and dislikes. Which are more fundamental to most personalities than Myers-Briggs types, cognitive behaviour therapy or statistical modelling. So it appeals more to the heart rather than the head. And I’d happily argue, that in anyone, there can be room for both.

I didn’t see the interview on Sunshine that’s been talked about, but it sounds as useful as the classic debate: “Cats are better than Dogs”.

Edit: Re this Milton chap.
Astrology is fun, but not to be taken seriously, as it’s subjective, intuitive and obviously impossible to prove. By all means discredit any charlatan who tricks and misleads, and promises hard predictions for money. Any subject matter can be used for dishonest purposes. But just because a subject is misused, doesn’t make the subject any less fun or interesting.