Why do (some) astrologers ask for the exact time of birth?

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Bronwyn Elko

After reading this thread I am reluctantly compelled to respond.

First of all, I wish to address post#92, on page 3, in which Astro Teacher was asked, "Is that you Bronwyn?" I was actually surprised by this question: anyone who refers themselves as 'master' is most certainly a man.

Meta-correction:

Post #92 was made by Skeptical Greg and questioned the "brilliance" of our new friend, Astro Teacher

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Is that you Bronwyn ?

More brilliance from the site you linked to:

THE MOONS OF MARS

Quote:

Phobos and Deimos were carefully plotted and positioned to function as second hands in their roles as timekeepers of the Cesium second. Beyond the immediate role, why Cesium? Was the metal involved in ion-propelled vehicles used for their capture from the he Asteroid Belt? Has Cesium been a factor in the maintenance of their precise orbits? Whatever the case may be, Phobos and Deimos were installed in the Martian heavens by people from Earth, not Mars.

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by Bronwyn Elko

After reading this thread I am reluctantly compelled to respond.

First of all, I wish to address post#92, on page 3, in which Astro Teacher was asked, "Is that you Bronwyn?" I was actually surprised by this question: anyone who refers themselves as 'master' is most certainly a man.

For the record, I am NOT Astro Teacher, whose constant dissembling and pompous claim to specious powers are a cosmic affront to the profoundly humbling art of stargazing. You, sir, are an embarrassment to all astrologers everywhere. The few good points you make are completely superseded by your inability to answer the valid questions put forth here. Furthermore, I find your silence concerning whether or not you are in fact me VERY disturbing. People with integrity have no problem answering yes or no to such a simply question; your silence was, I believe, meant to deliberately mislead the people here into thinking you are someone you are not.

Secondly, Six7s post#94 requires a response. You wrote: It seems to me that the author of The Magus of Magnetism, Bronwyn Elko, is either lying or terminally deluded when she says:

Q The great historian of science, Otto Neugebauer, pointed out that it is wrong to dismiss the astrology of the ancient world. . .

Those are Dr. Percy Seymour's words, not mine. As a skeptic of knee-jerk skepticism, I would humbly suggest that you read the article more carefully lest you forfeit credibility. Calling people liars is, in fact, a rather serious allegation.

In the third place, I wish to take up Randi's MDC.

I propose that we, that is, Randi Corp and I, gather the birth data of 200 or so nurses. (Data gathered must be agreed upon by both parties.) The nurses' birth data must be correct within 10 minutes, and must be verifiable. (i.e., birth certificate) The nurses should also be currently employed as such.

My prediction: the data will show a statistical majority of nurses are born with the Sun in a feminine sign: Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn or Pisces. The majority may not be large, but it will be statistically significant.

Lastly, I wish to make clear that I'm not interested in becoming embroiled in this thread, which is hardly a sterling example of critical thinking, on both sides of the argument. However, I will try to answer one or two serious questions, should anyone care to ask.

We do have a thread in which we are trying to set up a test for Astro Teacher - it would be interesting if you would like to take part in the same test.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158144

Note that the thread is moderated, so your posts will not appear until they have been approved by a moderator - to keep the thread strictly on topic and avoid bickering.

ETA The thread above is nothing to do with the MDC, but you might like to consider it a practice run. The do an MDC test you will have to apply by the usual channels which I am sure you can find on this site.

[Jack by the hedge]

I'd just like to point out that, although my reply at post #236 appears to magically predict what A.T. will say in post #239, there is a perfectly rational explanation for my ability.

Please don't ask, though, as you couldn't possibly be expected to understand without a lifetime's study, I'm afraid.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

I keep saying, that in order to participate in a debate on this subject, or any subject, one must have knowledge of that subject in order to then participate in a debate.

Name calling, insults, egocentric opinions, non-facts, are not valid in any debate. In fact, when a debate is held and one of the debaters engages with such debaters they immediately lose the debate.

Then you lost this debate about fifty posts ago.

Quote:

Anyone can have differences of insight on any subject, that is a given, however, in order to debate a subject, such as Astrology, or even to attempt to "prove it" one cannot do so with people who do not even know what the "feminine signs" are (as said by our "new" member Bronwyn) since those engaged in such debates on Astrology who have no knowledge of even the most basic terms, etc., etc., will simply mock that reference based on their own lack of knowledge on this subject.

What is the use of debating that - "the data will show a statistical majority of nurses are born with the Sun in a feminine sign: Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn or Pisces. The majority may not be large, but it will be statistically significant...." - if most, if not all of the so-called debaters do not know what this relevance to Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, or Pisces is in the first place, why they are considered "feminine signs" in the first place, and why the devil does it have to do with just nurses?

I cannot believe that you would miss a point this obvious.

Bronwyn has expressed interest in signing up for the Million Dollar Challenge. He gets to decide what kind of claim to make. If he wants to claim that nurses are statistically more likely to be born under one of the signs that he predicts, he can. Your opinion on it doesn't matter. If Bronwyn's claim is proven false, THEN you can start talking about how his technique is flawed. Until then, his claims are just as valid as yours.

Quote:

Why just the Sun? What happened to the other positions, aspects, and placements of the other celestial bodies as mapped in a nativity? Where are those planets? Using the Sun alone is "sun-sign astrology" and is not valid to prove such a thing as one can see that there are engineers with no knowledge of nursing who have the Sun in the Zodiacal tropical "feminine" Signs of Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, or Pisces. What about them?

You two practice different kinds of astrology. One of you could be correct, or the other could be correct, or neither could be correct. There is no way to know unless you both agree to scientific testing, as both of your claims are nothing but bare assertion.

Quote:

Of course you will find statistical majority with Sun signs. It is the most general of all the celestial bodies and is also used in "sun-sign" astrology that is not a valid method to use in any test.

It's every bit as valid as yours.

Quote:

The best study, of Michel Gauquelin found no effect for the Sun, so I am curious to why you would use the Sun in statistical tests here in "feminine" Signs that excludes professional nurses who are male? Why use just the Sun alone? What happened to the rest of the planetary positions relevant to the nativities of such occupations?

<snip appeal to authority>

He can go on and on, but all he's found out is that astrology doesn't have any effects whatsoever. That doesn't somehow magically invalidate Bronwyn's claim and leave yours intact. You just sawed off your own leg, Astro Teacher.

Quote:

One cannot understand geometry or algebra until one has learned to count first. One cannot learn to write and converse in another language without first learning the basics. The same is true of any subject.

The same is true of Astrology.

Just as there is a "bias" among those ignorant of this subject, so there is also a bias among those who are not ignorant of this subject. What is missing is education. I do not assume that anyone knows Astrology when debating them, and as a teacher I persist in the principle of learning the subject first BEFORE debate on the subject.

So point us to the texts that you used to learn the subject. Until you do so, we're just guessing blind.

Quote:

One does not have to be advanced to do this, but one cannot be ignorant of the subject either, or, expect others to know what the "feminine signs" are and why should they apply to only female nurses. There are male nurses too, how about them?

Uh... they're not female?

Quote:

Attempting to "prove" anything of Astrology to those without even the most basic knowledge, amid preconceived notions, inaccuracies uninformed opinion, and lack of fact is useless until that person is ready to learn.

Bull****. By your logic, it's impossible to prove that gravity works to someone who hasn't learned advanced relativity.

Quote:

In order to learn one must be willing, and must be able to leave behind one's own preconceived notions, attitudes, biases, and opinions on the subject until they have at least acquired the basics to participate in a debate, or even to "explore" the possibility of it being real - of ANY subject.

...I would post the irony picture again, but that would just be getting repetitive.

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

You are confused. We don't care how astrology is supposed to work when it hasn't been demonstrated that it does work. Nobody is debating whether a majority of nurses ought to be born with the sun in such-and-such a place; that is a prediction - a claim which can be tested. The test can be carried out and its result can be understood by anyone here without their having any knowledge of the system used to reach the prediction.

Sorry Jack, not so. Far from confused. There is no point in "testing" this for people - especially skeptics, who would use any test - successful or not - to then claim that Astrology is valid or not valid - based on a test.

This is not the point. Astrology is not outside of you, it is all around you, in the natural world, the cycles of time, that affect you in all ways, and this is something that has been tested - physically, according to the motions and effects on the natural world, of which we as human beings are a part - in the physical world.

What is the use of trying a test of natal astrology, which is close to impossible to "prove" in the manner that most would like to see "evidence" as this area is metaphysical and to be able to even understand such a test, one still would need to understand the basic terms of astrology. I have not seen any of this on JREF.

Such "tests" are not able to be conducted on Natal astrology because of this fact. The closest a test study came that yielded 50/50 results for and against astrology were those of Michel Gauquelin, and one can see how these results of natal astrology turned out in the link below.

See - http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/g-hist2.htm

Even those results led right back to the sniping between so-called "believers" and "skeptics" going right back to the silly war they've been fighting needlessly on this topic.

Only education, personal observation, and understanding of the physical manifestations of the forces of celestial influences, the Sun, Moon, the planets, on the Earth, which is a planet by the way, will resolve and end these wasted and directionless "debates" on Astrology. There is more of this happening now in this new century and it represents the correct synthesis of interdisciplinary and multi-polar thinking between the physical and metaphysical sciences.

There are plenty of scientific studies of the effects of the Sun and the Moon, and even Venus on the physical Earth, and natural world that have been done, and you can find them on the Web easily.

Debating Astrology by "testing" Natal astrology is useless, it will solve nothing at all and just continue the same old tired debates that runs around in circles while pseudo-skeptics and believers go on and on and on quipping and quipping, sniping and sniping while trying to "test" and "prove" the metaphysical while avoiding the obvious evidence in the physical world.

No one is going to be "convinced" that astrology is "true" holding beliefs that are nothing but mere opinion based on the lack of knowledge, and bias, and the sad absence of personal basic education. You will see this even with knowledge of the months of the year.

I will provide another example based on the lack of education and knowledge of your own world:

Nearly every person on this forum says and writes out the month of September as the "9th month" and October as the "10th month" and so on without realizing that this is not true.

How can one debate Astrology when one ignorantly does not know that they have used (and continue to use) astrological terms every day while denying Astrology? Think of it: the names of the days of the week are named after celestial bodies: Sun, Moon and the planets.

We also see people not even knowing how to number the 12 months of the year in their natural order.

A wise man once said, "the truth will set you free."

"Sept" means the number 7, "Oct" means the number 8.

Sept = 7th month
Oct = 8th month
Nov = 9th month
Dec = 10th month

January 1st is not the new year. It is a false date with the Earth at 10-degrees of Cancer, and the Sun at 10-degrees Capricorn, tropically. I know this is hard for people but get your mind straight first - before trying to debate any subject - especially astrology, which is a controversial topic enough as it is. To learn these things, you have to "unlearn what you have learned" to quote a famous fictional character.

In the Northern Hemisphere:

mid-March = 1st month, vernal equinox, Aries, cardinal mode, element is Fire, start of Spring
mid-April = 2nd month, Taurus, fixed mode, element/Earth, middle of spring
mid-May = 3rd month, Gemini, mutable mode, element/Air, end of spring

mid-June = 4th month, Cancer, summer solstice, cardinal mode, element/Water, start of Summer
mid-July = 5th month, Leo, fixed mode, element/Fire, mid-summer
mid-August = 6th month, Virgo, mutable mode, element/Earth, end of summer

mid-September = 7th month, autumnal equinox, Libra, cardinal mode, element/Air, start of Fall
mid-October = 8th month, Scorpio, fixed mode, element/Water, mid-fall
mid-November = 9th month, Sagittarius, mutable mode, element/Fire, end of fall

mid-December = 10th month, Winter Solstice, Capricorn, cardinal mode, Earth, start of Winter
mid-January = 11th month, Aquarius, fixed mode, element/Air, mid-winter
mid-February = 12th month, Pisces, mutable mode, element/Water, end of winter

Get your seasons right - September is not the 9th month, October is not the 10th month, and so on. Knowing the basics of astrology will determine if you are able to even begin to think of debating, much less even considering "testing" Astrology.

Learn some basic principles and the general language of Astrology so at least you can be informed on Astrology and not misinformed. Anyone that does not do this is simply engaging their opinions on the subject which is worthless because you have no knowledge of the subject you are talking about.

Get some knowledge of astrology FIRST, get your times and seasons in order, get educated, suspend judgment, opinion, and just read, learn, explore and discover - THAT is the True Scientific Method.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Bronwyn Elko

My prediction: the data will show a statistical majority of nurses are born with the Sun in a feminine sign: Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn or Pisces. The majority may not be large, but it will be statistically significant.

Excellent, a testable claim.

Quote:

Lastly, I wish to make clear that I'm not interested in becoming embroiled in this thread, which is hardly a sterling example of critical thinking, on both sides of the argument. However, I will try to answer one or two serious questions, should anyone care to ask.

My question is this: how will you control for the fact that nurses are mostly recruited from teenage girls of little academic ability, and teenage girls of little academic ability are notoriously prone to believing in astrology and are therefore more likely to have accepted its advice (e.g. that their sign is one that makes nursing a suitable career choice) than members of most other professions?

Off hand the only way I can think of to eliminate the small effect this might make as the cause of any small effect that might be observed is to look only at the birth dates of nurses living in a country where astrology is not part of popular culture.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Bronwyn has expressed interest in signing up for the Million Dollar Challenge. He gets to decide what kind of claim to make.

The name Bronwyn is, traditionally reserved for men of an exceedingly feminine nature

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

There is no point in "testing" this for people - especially skeptics, who would use any test - successful or not - to then claim that Astrology is valid or not valid - based on a test.

Please explain the logic of the above. Why is there no point in establishing whether astrology is valid or not?

PS I'm a little hurt that you assume I'm so ignorant as not to know where the names of months and days come from. I think I learned that while still at primary school.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

I keep saying, that in order to participate in a debate on this subject, or any subject, one must have knowledge of that subject in order to then participate in a debate.

Name calling, insults, egocentric opinions, non-facts, are not valid in any debate. In fact, when a debate is held and one of the debaters engages with such debaters they immediately lose the debate.

Anyone can have differences of insight on any subject, that is a given, however, in order to debate a subject, such as Astrology, or even to attempt to "prove it" one cannot do so with people who do not even know what the "feminine signs" are (as said by our "new" member Bronwyn) since those engaged in such debates on Astrology who have no knowledge of even the most basic terms, etc., etc., will simply mock that reference based on their own lack of knowledge on this subject.

What is the use of debating that - "the data will show a statistical majority of nurses are born with the Sun in a feminine sign: Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn or Pisces. The majority may not be large, but it will be statistically significant...." - if most, if not all of the so-called debaters do not know what this relevance to Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, or Pisces is in the first place, why they are considered "feminine signs" in the first place, and why the devil does it have to do with just nurses?

Why just the Sun? What happened to the other positions, aspects, and placements of the other celestial bodies as mapped in a nativity? Where are those planets? Using the Sun alone is "sun-sign astrology" and is not valid to prove such a thing as one can see that there are engineers with no knowledge of nursing who have the Sun in the Zodiacal tropical "feminine" Signs of Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, or Pisces. What about them?

Of course you will find statistical majority with Sun signs. It is the most general of all the celestial bodies and is also used in "sun-sign" astrology that is not a valid method to use in any test.

The best study, of Michel Gauquelin found no effect for the Sun, so I am curious to why you would use the Sun in statistical tests here in "feminine" Signs that excludes professional nurses who are male? Why use just the Sun alone? What happened to the rest of the planetary positions relevant to the nativities of such occupations?

"Until his untimely death in May 1991, Michel Gauquelin (b.1928) was the world's most formidable scientific researcher into astrology, where his studies rank among the best ever conducted. Much of his success was due to Francoise (1929=2007), his Swiss-born wife and co-worker until 1985. His early fascination with astrology led to 45 years of research that resulted in a dozen popular books (many translated into several languages), 30 data books, and about 150 scientific articles. He used rigorous methods and large samples of hundreds or thousands of cases.

Tests of signs, aspects, transits, and astrologers were negative. Tests of planetary positions with respect to the horizon were positive but only for eminent professionals and only for the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The effect sizes were tiny (typically around 0.04 when expressed as a correlation) and of no practical use.

Tests of planetary links between parents and children seemed positive but the effect size was even tinier (barely 0.02) and later seemed to disappear, leaving their existence in doubt. The planetary effect was later called the Mars effect because Mars (the planet linked to sports champions) was then the focus of attention. But depending on the occupation (there were nine others) it could have been called the Moon, Venus, Jupiter or Saturn effect.

There was no effect for the Sun, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto, or for ordinary people such as those who visit astrologers. Planetary effects among eminent professionals have so far replicated across a total of 34 out of 35 studies, of which 8 are by independent researchers. Gauquelin's negative results upset astrologers, who found them hard to explain, and his positive results upset skeptics, who found them equally hard to explain."

For more on Michel Gauquelin, see - http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/g-hist2.htm

One cannot understand geometry or algebra until one has learned to count first. One cannot learn to write and converse in another language without first learning the basics. The same is true of any subject.

The same is true of Astrology.

Just as there is a "bias" among those ignorant of this subject, so there is also a bias among those who are not ignorant of this subject. What is missing is education. I do not assume that anyone knows Astrology when debating them, and as a teacher I persist in the principle of learning the subject first BEFORE debate on the subject.

One does not have to be advanced to do this, but one cannot be ignorant of the subject either, or, expect others to know what the "feminine signs" are and why should they apply to only female nurses. There are male nurses too, how about them?

Attempting to "prove" anything of Astrology to those without even the most basic knowledge, amid preconceived notions, inaccuracies uninformed opinion, and lack of fact is useless until that person is ready to learn.

In order to learn one must be willing, and must be able to leave behind one's own preconceived notions, attitudes, biases, and opinions on the subject until they have at least acquired the basics to participate in a debate, or even to "explore" the possibility of it being real - of ANY subject.

Oh. Goody. Goody.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

My question is this: how will you control for the fact that nurses are mostly recruited from teenage girls of little academic ability

Not everywhere...

www.moh.govt.nz/.../nursing-studying-schools

Quote:

In order to become a registered nurse in New Zealand you need to complete a three year Bachelor of Nursing degree

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by six7s

The name Bronwyn is, traditionally reserved for men of an exceedingly feminine nature

My bad.

[malbui]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

Nearly every person on this forum says and writes out the month of September as the "9th month" and October as the "10th month" and so on without realizing that this is not true.

How can one debate Astrology when one ignorantly does not know that they have used (and continue to use) astrological terms every day while denying Astrology? Think of it: the names of the days of the week are named after celestial bodies: Sun, Moon and the planets.

We also see people not even knowing how to number the 12 months of the year in their natural order.

A wise man once said, "the truth will set you free."

"Sept" means the number 7, "Oct" means the number 8.

Sept = 7th month
Oct = 8th month
Nov = 9th month
Dec = 10th month

You'll have to help me here as I can't see the point you're making.

Firstly, none of this stuff about the historical names of the months is news to anybody. I was even discussing in with my six-year-old the other day, as it had occurred to her when there were learning the calendar at school that there were offset similarities between the names of the final months and the way she counts in Italian and French. It's no big deal and certainly not arcane knowledge.

Secondly, the names of the months are of no significance whatsoever. September became the ninth month for historical reasons and it's never been necessary to change. But we could call the ninth month Colin or Orange or Qwertybob; it really doesn't matter. Or are you claiming that there is some cosmic significance to the names of the months? And if so, what is the impact on the practice of astrology in cultures and languages where the months are not named according to the Roman tradition?

[kitakaze]

Astro Teacher, I hope that you can take the time to address the following two posts in which I have outstanding questions regarding your expertise, the science of astrology that you referred to, and discerning through the nativity of an individual the time and manner of death. Thanks in advance.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=196

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=212

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by malbui

You'll have to help me here as I can't see the point you're making.

Firstly, none of this stuff about the historical names of the months is news to anybody. I was even discussing in with my six-year-old the other day, as it had occurred to her when there were learning the calendar at school that there were offset similarities between the names of the final months and the way she counts in Italian and French. It's no big deal and certainly not arcane knowledge.

Secondly, the names of the months are of no significance whatsoever. September became the ninth month for historical reasons and it's never been necessary to change. But we could call the ninth month Colin or Orange or Qwertybob; it really doesn't matter. Or are you claiming that there is some cosmic significance to the names of the months? And if so, what is the impact on the practice of astrology in cultures and languages where the months are not named according to the Roman tradition?

You are inaccurate on both counts. Seasons are everything: they determine your health, the production of food, which you would not be able to survive without, and the fact that your very moods are dictated by the amount of light you receive from the Sun as the Earth moves on its own axis.

It certainly is a "big deal."

[bookitty]

Astro Teacher, My little question has been lost in this thread and wasn't precise so I'll try again.

About 20 years, I had a very detailed astrological chart done up. It wasn't sun-sign stuff but rather talked about many planets, this rising, that in this place, etc. It came with a large stack of paper and a sky-chart with many colored lines.

Re-reading it, I find that it gives a very clear picture of who I was then but all of the future stuff is incredibly wrong. It's pretty easy to see from the then-present where I was expected to go but there was a major event (not mentioned) that changed the way I thought and my life took a far different path.

Of course you can say that this astrologer was a fraud, or simply inept. That is always a possibility. But, if I were to go to you for a reading, how would I know that you were not also inept?

In other words, what proof could you give me that you can do what you say?

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Astro Teacher, I hope that you can take the time to address the following two posts in which I have outstanding questions regarding your expertise, the science of astrology that you referred to, and discerning through the nativity of an individual the time and manner of death. Thanks in advance.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=196

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=212

Hi - I do not discuss death dates with clients - ever. There are favorable and unfavorable times and seasons for doing all things. Common sense, and knowing one's own personal nativity can help in situations which require more attention to matters of physical safety

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

You are inaccurate on both counts. Seasons are everything: they determine your health,

No.

Quote:

the production of food,

Certain types.

Quote:

which you would not be able to survive without, and the fact that your very moods are dictated by the amount of light you receive from the Sun as the Earth moves on its own axis.

No.

Quote:

It certainly is a "big deal."

That still doesn't explain why the names of the months matter. Way to dodge the question and fail at the same time.

[Trystero4]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

You are inaccurate on both counts. Seasons are everything: they determine your health, the production of food, which you would not be able to survive without, and the fact that your very moods are dictated by the amount of light you receive from the Sun as the Earth moves on its own axis.

It certainly is a "big deal."

Pretty sure we've fixed that whole 'lean winter' thing.

[malbui]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

You are inaccurate on both counts. Seasons are everything: they determine your health, the production of food, which you would not be able to survive without, and the fact that your very moods are dictated by the amount of light you receive from the Sun as the Earth moves on its own axis.

It certainly is a "big deal."

I'm impressed. Your response bears utterly no relation to my questions. Would you like to have another try?

[Starthinker]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

I keep saying, that in order to participate in a debate on this subject, or any subject, one must have knowledge of that subject in order to then participate in a debate.

For me, and I think for a lot of people here, it's not about debating anything. JUST SHOW US THAT IT WORKS. Oops, hit the cap lock. Show us one prediction, one reading, one whatever it is that you do, so we can verify that it works. Once we're shown that it works (or that it doesn't work) THEN we can debate the hows and whys.

I've asked before and didn't see an answer. If I came to you and said my life is a pile of ****, I'd like to make it better and I'm told astrology is a way to make your life better, what would you do for me? How much would charge? What kind of changes would I see in my life? Do you offer advice? Predictions? Suggestions? You say other astrologers are worthless but then don't say what you do that's different. And when we ask, you just say "go look it up".

It's like going to a car dealer and asking about a car and instead of being offered a test drive the dealer says "go research it, I'm not doing your work for you." when all we want is a test drive just to see if it works. We don't care how it works or why it works, just if it works at all. Can you see our frustrations? You claim to be the expert but won't answer any questions. If my heart is bad I don't want a doctor that says "go look it up" I'd want a doctor that says "Here's how we'll help you."

So, again, as clearly and politely as I can I will ask you that if I came to you as a paying customer, what would you do for me and how much would it cost? Surely customers have asked you this before, what do you tell them? My life is hell and I'd like to make better. If some kind of chart based on the time of my birth will help me somehow, then by all means, how can you help me?


I predict this post will be answered with "I've already answered this" (although I can't find where), some variation on "go look it up", or "go find your own astrologer."

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Astro Teacher, My little question has been lost in this thread and wasn't precise so I'll try again.

About 20 years, I had a very detailed astrological chart done up. It wasn't sun-sign stuff but rather talked about many planets, this rising, that in this place, etc. It came with a large stack of paper and a sky-chart with many colored lines.

Re-reading it, I find that it gives a very clear picture of who I was then but all of the future stuff is incredibly wrong. It's pretty easy to see from the then-present where I was expected to go but there was a major event (not mentioned) that changed the way I thought and my life took a far different path.

Of course you can say that this astrologer was a fraud, or simply inept. That is always a possibility. But, if I were to go to you for a reading, how would I know that you were not also inept?

In other words, what proof could you give me that you can do what you say?

There is no guarantee or proof. Like with anything occupation in the world. The best that you can do is to consult with the experts who have attained many years of knowledge, experience and practice. There are some excellent professional astrologers in the world though.

You are going to run into all kinds of people who either know a little, know some, or know a lot. This is a serious problem in astrological circles. There are many students, or amateurs who are strongly attracted to astrology, but do not have the experience, amount of knowledge, etc., to practice astrology at the natal consulting level.

Some students come to you "brainwashed" and need to be de-briefed about such things as the natural order of the months of the years, for instance, which is mandatory just to be able to read a astronomical ephemerides.

It takes decades to become proficient enough to practice on the advanced professional astrological level, and frankly you are taking chances picking astrologers out of a hat these days considering the lack of principles and standards out there.

The older, the better the astrologer goes the general rule. There are exceptions to that, of course, but you will want a professional astrologer with at least 25-35 years of knowledge. Life experience is essential for anyone who consults astrologically.

This is why I have taught astrology to students so there is also life experience as well as scientific proficiency in astrological studies because it takes time for students to absorb the knowledge and get through the Natural Branch before going into the more advanced branch of judicial astrology, which natal astrology is a part.

Some amateurs practice natal astrology, which is very advanced, yet, beginners to astrology erroneously start here without attaining proficiency in the Natural astrology of the physical world. I always begin my courses here.

Some people don't want to wait and jump right into consulting, which causes problems because they lack the knowledge and experience. I detest this because I believe that the person is sacred, and no astrologer should consult with a human being until they have had at least 20+ years of astrological instruction and practice in both branches of astrology and life experience to relate to the client and their issues and concerns.

[Bronwyn Elko]

PA: For the record, I am a woman . . . (you referred to me as a man).

Thanks for pointing out Astro T's cognitive errors. I find his arguments muddled and truly exhausting.

[Jimmy Roberts]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

You are inaccurate on both counts. Seasons are everything: they determine your health, the production of food, which you would not be able to survive without, and the fact that your very moods are dictated by the amount of light you receive from the Sun as the Earth moves on its own axis.

It certainly is a "big deal."

Why do you keep distorting the arguments that are presented? malbui argued that the names we give to the months are arbitrary. They have no impact on the revolution of the earth about the sun. malbui mentioned nothing about seasons or anything else you wrote in your reply.

Originally Posted by malbui

Firstly, none of this stuff about the historical names of the months is news to anybody. I was even discussing in with my six-year-old the other day, as it had occurred to her when there were learning the calendar at school that there were offset similarities between the names of the final months and the way she counts in Italian and French. It's no big deal and certainly not arcane knowledge.

Secondly, the names of the months are of no significance whatsoever. September became the ninth month for historical reasons and it's never been necessary to change. But we could call the ninth month Colin or Orange or Qwertybob; it really doesn't matter. Or are you claiming that there is some cosmic significance to the names of the months? And if so, what is the impact on the practice of astrology in cultures and languages where the months are not named according to the Roman tradition?

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by Bronwyn Elko

PA: For the record, I am a woman . . . (you referred to me as a man).

Thanks for pointing out Astro T's cognitive errors. I find his arguments muddled and truly exhausting.

Then point them out rather than making such unsubstantiated statements and we will see who has "cognitive errors" and whose arguments are muddled. You are dealing with a teacher of astrology, so I would be very interested to see how you will be able to do so as this is my expert field.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Bronwyn Elko

PA: For the record, I am a woman . . . (you referred to me as a man).

Yeah, my bad. Never heard the name "Bronwyn" before. Sorry.

Quote:

Thanks for pointing out Astro T's cognitive errors. I find his arguments muddled and truly exhausting.

You and me both.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

Then point them out rather than making such unsubstantiated statements and we will see who has "cognitive errors" and whose arguments are muddled.

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Roberts

Why do you keep distorting the arguments that are presented? malbui argued that the names we give to the months are arbitrary. They have no impact on the revolution of the earth about the sun. malbui mentioned nothing about seasons or anything else you wrote in your reply.

You are wrong. It is not arbitrary at all. And for you to say that it has "no impact on the revolution of the earth about the sun" is a contradiction in terms. Are you serious?

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Excellent, a testable claim.




My question is this: how will you control for the fact that nurses are mostly recruited from teenage girls of little academic ability, and teenage girls of little academic ability are notoriously prone to believing in astrology and are therefore more likely to have accepted its advice (e.g. that their sign is one that makes nursing a suitable career choice) than members of most other professions?

Off hand the only way I can think of to eliminate the small effect this might make as the cause of any small effect that might be observed is to look only at the birth dates of nurses living in a country where astrology is not part of popular culture.

Good luck in finding that culture.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by six7s

Not everywhere...

www.moh.govt.nz/.../nursing-studying-schools

Australian nurses is it then

Though of course astrology is well known there, and there might still be a few who allowed their star sign to influence their choice of career ...

I'm being flippant, but I do think it's a factor that should be taken into account, though it's admittedly hard to see how.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

You are wrong. It is not arbitrary at all.

Yes, it is.

Quote:

And for you to say that it has "no impact on the revolution of the earth about the sun" is a contradiction in terms. Are you serious?

Are you? Seriously. To say that the names of the months affect the movement of the Earth is ludicrous.

[Bronwyn Elko]

Actually, according to the link you provided, Bronwyn is "a somewhat common name for women and an uncommon last name for men and women. Personally speaking, I have never met a man named Bronwyn. Plus, as my moniker shows, Bronwyn is my first name, Elko, my last.

I will agree that many people do get confused by the name.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

There is no guarantee or proof. Like with anything occupation in the world. The best that you can do is to consult with the experts who have attained many years of knowledge, experience and practice. There are some excellent professional astrologers in the world though.

That's all very interesting but basically what you are saying is that one just takes their chances? That (outside of sun-sign novices) there is no way to differentiate between an expert astrologer and a fraud?

If I had gone to you for a reading, asked that same question, and received that answer, I would have walked out. Please don't take offense but "Trust me, I am a professional" isn't an answer I want to hear from anyone. It's such the wrong answer that it has become cliche.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

Then point them out rather than making such unsubstantiated statements and we will see who has "cognitive errors" and whose arguments are muddled. You are dealing with a teacher of astrology, so I would be very interested to see how you will be able to do so as this is my expert field.

being on AT's ignore list doesn't stop my fascination with his audacity...

Why should you, Astro Teacher, be believed when all you do is make unsubstantiated claims that you are an expert?

If you want to be taken seriously, I sincerely suggest that you post something - anything - other than the vague waffle that has become your hallmark

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by bookitty

That's all very interesting but basically what you are saying is that one just takes their chances? That (outside of sun-sign novices) there is no way to differentiate between an expert astrologer and a fraud?

If I had gone to you for a reading, asked that same question, and received that answer, I would have walked out. Please don't take offense but "Trust me, I am a professional" isn't an answer I want to hear from anyone. It's such the wrong answer that it has become cliche.

There is no "right answer." There are good astrologers and bad ones, just like there are good doctors and bad doctors, good scientists and bad scientists, good dentists and bad dentists, good bankers and bad bankers, etc., etc. You are going to find real professionals, and frauds in all occupations.

Not every doctor is a fraud, not every scientist is a fraud, and not every dentist is a fraud and not every astrologer is a fraud. You can find good, real professionals in all these fields.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

Not every doctor is a fraud, not every scientist is a fraud, and not every dentist is a fraud

Evidence for such claims is easy to come by

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

...and not every astrologer is a fraud.

Evidence for this claim is ZERO

[fromdownunder]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

You are wrong. It is not arbitrary at all. And for you to say that it has "no impact on the revolution of the earth about the sun" is a contradiction in terms. Are you serious?

What you appear to be saying here, is that if we change thge name of September to "Fred", this will somehow impact on the earths orbit around the sun, or alter the seasons, or something.. who really knows?

I don't think that you mean this, so please clarify.

Norm

[Astro Teacher]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

Sorry Jack, not so. Far from confused. There is no point in "testing" this for people - especially skeptics, who would use any test - successful or not - to then claim that Astrology is valid or not valid - based on a test.

This is not the point. Astrology is not outside of you, it is all around you, in the natural world, the cycles of time, that affect you in all ways, and this is something that has been tested - physically, according to the motions and effects on the natural world, of which we as human beings are a part - in the physical world.

What is the use of trying a test of natal astrology, which is close to impossible to "prove" in the manner that most would like to see "evidence" as this area is metaphysical and to be able to even understand such a test, one still would need to understand the basic terms of astrology. I have not seen any of this on JREF.

Such "tests" are not able to be conducted on Natal astrology because of this fact. The closest a test study came that yielded 50/50 results for and against astrology were those of Michel Gauquelin, and one can see how these results of natal astrology turned out in the link below.

See - http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/g-hist2.htm

Even those results led right back to the sniping between so-called "believers" and "skeptics" going right back to the silly war they've been fighting needlessly on this topic.

Only education, personal observation, and understanding of the physical manifestations of the forces of celestial influences, the Sun, Moon, the planets, on the Earth, which is a planet by the way, will resolve and end these wasted and directionless "debates" on Astrology. There is more of this happening now in this new century and it represents the correct synthesis of interdisciplinary and multi-polar thinking between the physical and metaphysical sciences.

There are plenty of scientific studies of the effects of the Sun and the Moon, and even Venus on the physical Earth, and natural world that have been done, and you can find them on the Web easily.

Debating Astrology by "testing" Natal astrology is useless, it will solve nothing at all and just continue the same old tired debates that runs around in circles while pseudo-skeptics and believers go on and on and on quipping and quipping, sniping and sniping while trying to "test" and "prove" the metaphysical while avoiding the obvious evidence in the physical world.

No one is going to be "convinced" that astrology is "true" holding beliefs that are nothing but mere opinion based on the lack of knowledge, and bias, and the sad absence of personal basic education. You will see this even with knowledge of the months of the year.

I will provide another example based on the lack of education and knowledge of your own world:

Nearly every person on this forum says and writes out the month of September as the "9th month" and October as the "10th month" and so on without realizing that this is not true.

How can one debate Astrology when one ignorantly does not know that they have used (and continue to use) astrological terms every day while denying Astrology? Think of it: the names of the days of the week are named after celestial bodies: Sun, Moon and the planets.

We also see people not even knowing how to number the 12 months of the year in their natural order.

A wise man once said, "the truth will set you free."

"Sept" means the number 7, "Oct" means the number 8.

Sept = 7th month
Oct = 8th month
Nov = 9th month
Dec = 10th month

January 1st is not the new year. It is a false date with the Earth at 10-degrees of Cancer, and the Sun at 10-degrees Capricorn, tropically. I know this is hard for people but get your mind straight first - before trying to debate any subject - especially astrology, which is a controversial topic enough as it is. To learn these things, you have to "unlearn what you have learned" to quote a famous fictional character.

In the Northern Hemisphere:

mid-March = 1st month, vernal equinox, Aries, cardinal mode, element is Fire, start of Spring
mid-April = 2nd month, Taurus, fixed mode, element/Earth, middle of spring
mid-May = 3rd month, Gemini, mutable mode, element/Air, end of spring

mid-June = 4th month, Cancer, summer solstice, cardinal mode, element/Water, start of Summer
mid-July = 5th month, Leo, fixed mode, element/Fire, mid-summer
mid-August = 6th month, Virgo, mutable mode, element/Earth, end of summer

mid-September = 7th month, autumnal equinox, Libra, cardinal mode, element/Air, start of Fall
mid-October = 8th month, Scorpio, fixed mode, element/Water, mid-fall
mid-November = 9th month, Sagittarius, mutable mode, element/Fire, end of fall

mid-December = 10th month, Winter Solstice, Capricorn, cardinal mode, Earth, start of Winter
mid-January = 11th month, Aquarius, fixed mode, element/Air, mid-winter
mid-February = 12th month, Pisces, mutable mode, element/Water, end of winter

Get your seasons right - September is not the 9th month, October is not the 10th month, and so on. Knowing the basics of astrology will determine if you are able to even begin to think of debating, much less even considering "testing" Astrology.

Learn some basic principles and the general language of Astrology so at least you can be informed on Astrology and not misinformed. Anyone that does not do this is simply engaging their opinions on the subject which is worthless because you have no knowledge of the subject you are talking about.

Get some knowledge of astrology FIRST, get your times and seasons in order, get educated, suspend judgment, opinion, and just read, learn, explore and discover - THAT is the True Scientific Method.

Education is first. Free your mind and your a** will follow. Not "opinion." Get your seasons straight first - that will go a long way towards your step into a larger world.

[Pure_Argent]

Originally Posted by Astro Teacher

Education is first. Free your mind and your a** will follow. Not "opinion." Get your seasons straight first - that will go a long way towards your step into a larger world.

Re-posting nonsense does not make that nonsense valid in any way, shape or form.

[Bronwyn Elko]

Astro T said, ". . . "feminine signs" that excludes nurses who are male?" And, "Why are they considered feminine signs in the first place, and why the devil does it have to do with just nurses?"

Good grief! You call yourself an astrologer and you don't know the why the feminine signs are considered feminine? The negative/feminine signs are so-called to indicate their inclination toward introspection/introversion. The positive/masculine signs are so-called to indicate their propensity for extroversion. This simple classification of the signs has nothing to do with gender: it is a label to distinguish between introverted versus extroverted signs. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether nurses are male or female; the test should show a preponderance of births in feminine signs. why? Because nursing requires enormous sympathy, an ability to be receptive to the needs of others. From an astrological point of view, it's perfectly logical to assume that the feminine signs are generally more receptive to the feelings/needs of others. How they use their gift of receptiveness is, however, certainly debatable: some receptive types use their 'sympathy' to manipulate others. Nevertheless, the quality of receptiveness is considered a 'feminine' trait in astrology. For an expert, you certainly do seem oddly ignorant of even the most basic astrological principles.

To Six7s:

Thanks for the invite to the practice test. I must admit I'm curious . . . and will consider it. May take a few days before I get the time to examine the parameters of the test: I'm busy working with the poor, at the moment.

Pixel: I honestly don't think it matters a bit whether young girls are foolish enough to take up nursing because they believe they were 'born for it.' If they are unsuited to be nurses it won't take long before they bail out. Nursing is very demanding on one's inner resources; those girls not truly sympathetic won't last long. In any case, we could narrow the parameters for eligibility (weed out the teens) by simply stating that only those nurses who are a) over 25, b) have been active in the profession for four years or more, need apply.

[Jimmy Roberts]

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

What you appear to be saying here, is that if we change thge name of September to "Fred", this will somehow impact on the earths orbit around the sun, or alter the seasons, or something.. who really knows?

I don't think that you mean this, so please clarify.

Norm

That's AT's modus operandi: Twisting simple, direct questions around to the point of absurdity.