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