Like the idea of 'medicine' and whether we should get up off our knees when saying 'Doctor' (!?)

"Real Astrologers\ufffd" through the ages - predated shrinks. They HATED being (sometimes forced) to make 'predictions' -- which has nada Zippo to do with the stuff of homo-sap "breeds" (like Cocker Spaniels), "types" etc. Astrology - when there were Real Astrologers - was NEVER about predicting events; not to say that spin by the egotist - was invented by Billy just lately.

Anyone who believes that 'Astrology' cannot often reveal lots about how a particular person 'usually behaves' - is a person who knows no more about Astrology than.. having read the infotainment "horoscopes" in the paper.

Now as to the difficulty of (our Grand Idea of) causality - that which can see no connection between Newtonian (or Riemannian or ..) motions of celestial objects and 'people': Never mind! the 'causality' and our Certainty that: were there such, we would See It. [Sure we Would] OK?

Screw the 'methodology' - if via Murican John Dewey Pragmatism: a 'Real Astrologer' can reveal personality quirks which most shrinks fail to notice. I say *IF* .. and I have met at least two Real Astrologers in my lifetime. (Alas neither is alive today) -- and lots more wanna-be 'psychologists'. I know which of these offered the clearer insights and which: psychobabble, aimed at mere social life-"adjustment" under the guise of 'mental health'. Babytalk. Jargon. Rote-recipes.

I cannot doubt that there are as many 'astrologer' charlatans as there are PHBs and Economists in the world! Throw out this baby with the bathwater, if you must. Just don't pretend that you have "cooled the course", in doing so.


Ashton
who would not dream of 'sending anyone to an astrologer'. Or a church. Or towards an MBA.

It is easy to dismiss the calculations as "a mental crutch" - though in order to do so "for lack of demonstrable 'causality'" - one must also sidestep very much that is merely presumed.. in our use of that word.

Accordingly, I have little idea what are the ingredients of a 'Good Astrologer', and arguing definitions of causality is about as fruitful as arguing religious dogma. I'll settle for perspicuity -- and in the same sense that:

Rembrandt's students could not acquire his abilities - even via his personal instruction. A very good psychologist ie one who actually knows how to observe and has experience vast enough to 'interpret' -- may be in a similar class to a 'Good Astrologer' (?) Maybe.

I know of no paradigm for fathoming human personality, and I never met a psychologist as insightful as the mentioned two Astrologers. Pragmatism is what we use re results, when the method can not be taught by rote, or the problem is too complex to have become analysed adequately. (If indeed 'analysis' is even an appropriate tool re a homo-sap creature - via another homo-sap creature)


Ashton

Personally, I have no interest in 'horoscopes' nor any daily involvement with the discipline? / art? / science? / scam (so often - today).

But as to its being snake oil: then it has lots of company - like Pop psych (often taught as a University course). The dogma of the various 'Schools' of psych are correlative to religions: Reichians have their version, as do Maslow- ... et al. None is science, though efforts are made to employ statistics - these efforts often fall short, and always 'prove' little.

Other company: allopathic medicine, promoted (at least in the US) as the 'Christianity' of body care ie. The One True Method. Won't wast time listing alternatives (nor attempting to suggest when/where an alternative might produce better results). Then too, as with all Professions - wherein people profess To Know: clearly it is caveat emptor from the get-go, whichever method one opts to try. 'Faith' appears to be the largest ingredient in medicine or choices of a psychologist - it sure as hell ain't Science, and you can forget appending exact for all obvious reasons. MDs I have dealt with (re research involving radiation of tumors, etc) have been uniformly weak in science, and characteristically uncurious about their rote assumptions. Add arrogance (esp. in a young pup) and stir.

Anyway (I repeat) - I'd never 'recommend' that someone visit an Astrologer, though if that particular one were still alive - I might, if asked for some recommendation regarding psych. Ditto an MD, though I have in the past met a few who maintained open minds, tested their own treatment policies and did Not treat the PDR - as a medical Bible, and pharm-chem as the panacea.

It's a crap shoot out there. I suppose I mistrust Certainty.. more than most other nameable homo-sap afflictions. It's so like the Pope's Infallibility [in "faith and morals" - a rubric that can be spread as far as a rubber yardstick]. Near-Certainty on say, the physics of motion - I'll go with. Re homo-sap: nada, nil, Zippo. We don't know Shit about even our bodies, let alone mind and especially emotion. And about the interactions of these three concepts -?- Hah!

Perhaps my sample of One 'Good Astrologer' (actually two, but unimportant) is an aberration - and his was (merely) a quite superior intuition. Yet he did his calculations before suggesting anything, and was notably addicted to eschewing normal daily homo-say lying. So no - I am not Certain about Bennett, either. But if his use of Astrology as a model was essential to the accuracy of his work: let there be More Astrologers like him!




Ashton
Founding Member and CIEIO, The Certainty Police

Science doesn't make a very good religion - and human personality is far too complex for.. neat scientific paradigms. (Of course, one has to try - that's what Academia is for!) But IMhO - the results thus far are about comparable to Ford trying to build a Ferrari. You get an Expensive Pinto.

There's lots to nitpick in Carl's little Opus. Some other time, perhaps.


Ashton

PS It's "Demon" - that word.

After all, Anyone can make something as well constructed as a Rolls, at Rolls prices.

(But the more closely I inspect the Acura ['Vigor' over here, maybe "CC-5?" in JDM versions elsewhere] - the more impressed I am with what QC really means: when it ain't just marketing BS) All body panels fit with unusually small spacing and - perfect alignment, including under-hood. I've rarely seen (never owned) any 'car' as evidently put together to Last. One example: the modified McPherson struts cum shock absorbers are designed for unlimited (er, life of car?) endurance.

And the several owners with near 400K km attest to their original ones still performing as at 30K. One guy has 300K *miles* on his. (Ditto - the often infamous FWD U-joints). I think I Like their engr. decision to keep the engine fore/aft (like the Saab was!) and not the usual transverse. Claim also is that - equal-length (L/R) driveshafts minimize torque steer: apparently so. This '94 car corners, stops, accelerates - well enough to eat for lunch some Popular '02 models ... Some say that the best built cars ever -- were the early '90s Japanese models assembled IN Japan. If this is an example, might be a grain of truth there. [/paeans]

And in a group of Vigor owners at Yahoo, where a few of these (mostly guys) used to work at Ford -- from engineering to production -- their habitual ref for "sloppy body panel fit" and for choices of the kinds of plastic trim as begins to look shabby after 3-5 years, etc. is *Ford*. [The Tempo being the Ugly Duckling for cheap laughs] One avers that this 'deterioration of appearance' is an actual M$-like Aim = how else to get you to think of replacing it a bit more often? (So why Would you get the Same, after early disappointment with its 'fading' -?- ask an addicted Windoze upgrader.)

Anyway - I acknowledge that the above is hardly a scientific unbiased survey of industry QC (!) so I'll add an equally unscientific factoid: once in a Ford dealership I perused an Escort on the floor. Stooped down by driver door and saw *RUST* on some frame rail or other - I forget now exactly Where I saw it). This: brand new!

But yeah - I never doubted that, hidden (and suppressed!) within all those MicroSloth Ford engineers.. is as much technical capability as in any army of paid pros,laboring under the Corporate yoke of: Cut the [=Our!] cost, make it look flashy.. but make sure they don't keep it Too Long...

Just as: scuttlebutt is that the "TL, CL" (later US Honda / Acura models) aren't as well done as their progenitor: the Vigor. And the exc. and remarkably trouble-free 5-cyl engine has by now been eliminated from TL option. Gotta have a Vee-6 or the sheep will be confused (seemingly a factor, along with lousy recession-timing -- for Vigor poor sales on '91 intro + the poor rear-seat leg room! I could care less about That..)

So it goes -


Ashton
OK I admit - it's fun having a new toy; especially when the closer I peer, the better it looks! Now.. with the ECU limiter disabled - will it make 143 mph? [cackle]