|
THE
GREAT PARADIGM SHIFT OF 1900 The term "paradigm
shift" is
widely used to describe any major shift in understanding
the basic framework and assumptions of a discipline
or field of study. Originally,
the term "paradigm
shift" applied
only to shifts in scientific thinking. Thomas Kuhn
coined the term, and the explanation given at the
Wikipedia website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift)
of how and why Kuhn developed the term is excellent,
and I quote it here: "Paradigm shift is the term
first used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book
The Structure
of Scientific
Revolutions to describe a change in basic
assumptions within the ruling theory of science.
It has since
become widely applied to many other realms
of human experience as well even though Kuhn
himself restricted
the use of the term to the hard sciences.
According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what
members of a scientific community, and they
alone, share.” (The
Essential Tension, 1997). Unlike a normal
scientist, Kuhn held, “a student in
the humanities has constantly before him
a number of competing and
incommensurable solutions to these problems,
solutions that he must ultimately examine
for himself.” (The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions). A
scientist, however, once a paradigm shift
is complete, is
not allowed the luxury, for example, of
positing the possiblility that miasma causes
the flu or
that ether carries light in the same way
that a critic in the Humanities can choose
to adopt a
19th century theory of poetics, for instance,
or select Marxism as an explanation of economic
behavior.
Thus, paradigms, in the sense that Kuhn
used them, do not exist in Humanities or
social sciences.
Nonetheless, the term has been adoped since
the 1960s and applied in non-scientific contexts." As Kuhn points
out, scientific thinking differs from thinking in the
humanities in that scientific thinking is less flexible.
Scientific thinking advances progressively, and new
understanding supercedes and replaces earlier ideas.
For example, when microorganisms were discovered to
be responsible for many diseases, then previous theories
of the causes of disease must be revised to accommodate
this new understanding. Kuhn points out that scientific
theory is embedded in an overall world view. There
is a kind of chain reaction like this: observations
lead to theories which in turn lead to a world view.
We can notate this briefly as: observations -> theories -> world
view The world view is the
paradigm, the underlying conceptual model in which
thories are embedded. As summarized
in the Wikepedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift): "A scientific revolution occurs, according
to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which
cannot be
explained by the universally accepted paradigm within
which scientific progress has thereto been made. The
paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current
theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists,
and all of the implications which come with it ...
When enough significant anomalies have accrued against
a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown
into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this
crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded,
are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which
gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes
place between the followers of the new paradigm and
the hold-outs of the old paradigm." A
paradigm shift is a scientific revolution. One might
conclude, then, that science does not provide the
solid bedrock of truth that we associate with scientific
thinking, and when the next paradigm shift occurs,
all of our current ideas will be tossed out the window
in favor of a new paradigm. Kuhn does not agree with
this. Again, as summarized
in the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift: "A common misinterpretation of
Kuhnian paradigms is the belief that the discovery
of paradigm shifts and
the dynamic nature of science (with its many
opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists)
is a case for
relativism: the view that all kinds of belief
systems are equal, such that magic, religious
concepts or pseudoscience
would be of equal working value to true science.
Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and
states that
when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a
new one, albeit through a complex social process,
the new one
is always better, not just different" The paradigm shift in science around
the year 1900 and that continued to blossom and develop
in the 20th century with the success of the theory
of relativity and quantum theory, did not replace
the calculations and concepts of Newtonian physics.
It placed Newtonian physics within a larger framework
and demonstrated that Newton's theories of gravity
and inertia are applicable within a particular domain,
and at the smaller dimensions of the subatomic world
and at the the vast dimensions of the Universe other
conceptual models must be employed, and these other
conceptual models radically alter our view of the
ultimate nature of matter, energy, light, and the
fundamental principles of what the reality we live
in actually is. THE SLOW
AND GRADUAL RISE OF EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM While there are paradigm shifts according
to Thomas Kuhn, there are also long-term gradual
trends.
The paradigm shifts occur when spectacular
discoveries resolve anomalies in the current understanding
provided
by science, and accelerate the gradual trend and
transform the dominant world view to a new one. Dr.
Francis Heylighen,
a research professor at the Free University of
Brussels articulates the gradual shift in the way
that intellectuals
and academicians have viewed what is true from
an absolute, permanent, passive approach from the
time
of Plato
to an observational (empirical) approach in modern
times. This is a gradual shift over about 2,500
years! Epistemology is the branch of philosophy
that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic
question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge
from false (inadequate) knowledge?... When we look at the history of epistemology, we can
discern a clear trend, in spite of the confusion of
many seemingly contradictory positions. The first theories
of knowledge stressed its absolute, permanent character,
whereas the later theories put the emphasis on its
relativity or situation-dependence, its continuous
development or evolution, and its active interference
with the world and its subjects and objects. The whole
trend moves from a static, passive view of knowledge
towards a more and more adaptive and active one. Let us start with the Greek philosophers. In Plato's
view knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute,
universal Ideas or Forms, existing independent of any
subject trying to apprehend to them. Though Aristotle
puts more emphasis on logical and empirical methods
for gathering knowledge, he still accepts the view
that such knowledge is an apprehension of necessary
and universal principles. Following the Renaissance,
two main epistemological positions dominated philosophy:
empiricism, which sees knowledge as the product of
sensory perception, and rationalism which sees it as
the product of rational reflection. The implementation of empiricism in the newly developed
experimental sciences led to a view of knowledge which
is still explicitly or implicity held by many people
nowadays: the reflection-correspondence theory. According
to this view knowledge results from a kind of mapping
or reflection of external objects, through our sensory
organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments,
to our brain or mind. Though knowledge has no a priori
existence, like in Plato's conception, but has to be
developed by observation, it is still absolute, in
the sense that any piece of proposed knowledge is supposed
to either truly correspond to a part of external reality,
or not. In that view, we may in practice never reach
complete or absolute knowledge, but such knowledge
is somehow conceivable as a limit of ever more precise
reflections of reality. Heylighen refers to the very common implicitly held
epistemological view held nowadays as the reflection-correspondence
theory. We keep observing, experimenting, and analyzing
and eventually the truth is discovered. We cure disease
and progress in many other ways through greater understanding
achieved by a better grasp of the truth of how reality
actually functions. To the modern mind,
it may seem strange that the ancients felt understanding
was a
more self-revealed, absolute truth immediately understood
by the mind. To appreciate the Platonic view, one
must keep in mind that the rock-solid support for
Platonic
idealism is clearly manifest in the pearl of intellectual
achievement: Euclidean geometry, which is developed
by Eulid about 100 years after Plato. Circles, lines,
and geometry are apprehended directly by the mind.
The
circles and lines of the physical world are only
inexact replicas of what our mind understands
directly. Preceding Plato about 100 years earlier
is Pythagoras. We can view Pythagoras as the
person
who heralds a great epistemological shift from the
Babylonian omen-oriented approach to understanding
to an emphasis on comprehension of abstract mathematical
truths as being the foundation for gaining knowledge
and wisdom. I shall reiterate these points again
below in the discussion of important epimestological
paradigm
shifts. THE PARADIGM SHIFT
TO THE NEW SCIENCE OF THE 20TH CENTURY The term "pardigm shift" was
developed by Thomas Kuhn largely in an attempt to
understand the
revolutionary change in thinking that occurred around
the year 1900 and required several decades to become
fully developed, supported, and accepted. To appreciate
the magnitude of this paradigm shift, we need to look
at two earlier epistemological paradigm shifts. There
are 3 massive paradigm shifts that changed the course
of human thought and understanding according to many
historians: 1. The Pythagorean-Platonic-Euclidean paradigm shift
to Platonic idealism from the 500's BC to 300's BC. 2. The Newtonian-Cartesion paradigm
shift to scientific rationalism which became fully
developed in the 1700's. With
the extraordinary developments of Newton and others,
had its greatest
inspiration in Kepler's
discovery
of the laws of planetary motion around 1600,
and early
precedents to this way of thinking going back to
William
of Ockham in the 1300's. Galileo's use of the telescope
and experiments with dropping balls of different
weights exemplify the shift to empiricism. Galileo
was a contemporary
of Kepler. 3. The New Science paradigm shift of the early 1900's. Pythagoras lived in the 500's BC and
established abstract mathematical thinking as a foundation
for intellectual
thought. Pythagorean thought influenced Plato (circa
400 BC), and the development of pure, abstract mathematics
reached a pinnacle of success in Euclid's book The
Elements (circa 300 BC). The impact of Euclid on intellectual
thought can hardly be exaggerated. To give some idea
of the scope of its impact, note that "Euclid's
Elements is the most successful textbook ever written.
It was one of the very first works to be printed after
the printing press was invented, and is second only
to the Bible in number of editions published (well
over 1000). It was used as the basic text on geometry
throughout the Western world for about 2,000 years." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements). In the book "The Manual of Harmonics" by
Nicomachus of Gerasa written in the 1st century A.D.,
the translator Flora R. Levin points out that Pythagoras
was viewed not only as a mathematical wizard, but also
as a person with high spiritual attainment. Pythagoras,
and also some of his followers, were believed to have
the ability to be in more than one place simultaneously,
and to have other magical powers. The power of pure
thought and feeling to attune to the divine and to
help one develop divine qualities was deeply ingrained
in the human psyche. This awareness and belief
eroded after the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm shift
was completed in the 1700's. The huge success of Euclidean geometry cemented the
power of Platonic thinking as the primary way of gaining
truth and wisdom. There are no perfect circles in the
world but there is a perfect circle in our minds. There
are no straight lines without any width in the real
world but there is one in our minds. The power of pure
thought to solve mathematical problems validated the
power of pure, elegant, and beautiful thoughts, and
reinforced the perception of the material world as
a poor reflection of the perfect mind of god. The Newtonian paradigm shift had precedents
in the ideas of William of Ockham and others. It reached
a radical transition point in Kepler's discovery
of the
laws of planetary motion around the year 1600. Physicist
Mario Livio in his book "The Golden Ratio" points out
that Kepler's discovery is one of the most monumental,
if not most monumental discovery in the history of
science. Kepler had discovered that our physical
world is, indeed, based on pure geometry and mathematics
and that, God is a geometrician, so to speak. Kepler
married pure geometry and mathematics with the actual
physical world. From Kepler's time on, we continue
to apply mathematics to our understanding of the
world. It was Kepler who set this process in
motion. In the 1700's, Isaac Newton builds
a towering intellectual
edifice with the discovery of the laws of gravity.
His breakthroughs in the development of calculus
(simultaneously with Leibnitz) push the powers
of mathematics and the
development of physics and engineering forward
to the astounding miracles of science in the 19th
and
20th
centuries. Interesingly, Newton spent more time
studying the Bible and theology than physics. Kepler
had set
out to be in the ministry and pursued science with
an eye to understanding the mind of God. Kepler
practiced astrology, accepting some tenets of astrology
but rejecting others. Descartes, who established
the cartesian coordinate system, a pillar of
rational mathematical
and scientific analysis, distrusted the senses.
Platonic idealists, trusted the direct
perception of his inner mind more than empirical
evidence.
The transition from Platonic idealism to empirical
science
was ushered in by some notable people with strong
Platonic and mystical inclinations. Many others
participated in this transition as well, such as
these 3 important
contemporaries of Kepler: Galileo, Francis Bacon,
and
John Napier. Napier discovered logarithms, formulated
Napier's rules of spherical geometry, and made
other outstanding contributions to mathematics.
Some of
which assisted Kepler in his work, and there
is considerable evidence that he may have also
practiced, or at least
believed in, astrology and magic. The New Science shift of the 1900's
was pioneered by Einstein's theory of relativity,
augmented by the
development of quantum theory, and perhaps best exemplified
by Bell's Theorem. Physicist Henry P. Stapp called
Bell's Theorem "the most profound discovery of
science." Note that he says science, not physics.
Bell's Theorem, therefore, along with relativity theory
and quantum theory, and other important discoveries,
is a competitor with Kepler's laws of planetary motion
as the most profound and important scientific discovery
of all time. "Bell's Theorem (Reality
must be non-local) is remarkable for several reasons: Brief
definition of Bell's Theorem: "Bell's
Theorem is the collective name for a family of results,
all showing the impossibility of a Local Realistic
interpretation of quantum mechanics." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/).
Given below is some background information
about Bell's Theorem: In 1964 John S. Bell, a native of Northern
Ireland and a staff member of CERN (European Organisation
for
Nuclear Research) whose primary research concerned
theoretical high energy physics, published a paper
in the short-lived journal Physics which transformed
the study of the foundation of Quantum Mechanics (Bell
1964). The paper showed (under conditions which were
relaxed in later work by Bell (1971, 1985, 1987) himself
and by his followers (Clauser et al. 1969, Clauser
and Horne 1974, Mermin 1986, Aspect 1983)) that no
physical theory which is realistic and also local in
a specified sense can agree with all of the statistical
implications of Quantum Mechanics. Many different versions
and cases, with family resemblances, were inspired
by the 1964 paper and are subsumed under the italicized
statement, “Bell's Theorem” being the collective
name for the entire family. Irish physicist John Stewart Bell considered the EPR
system and showed with a devilishly clever proof that
all conceivable models of Reality must incorporate
this instant connection. What Bell showed is that despite
the fact that Relativity prohibits instantaneous connections,
despite the fact that no such connections have ever
been observed either in EPR experiments or any other,
despite the fact that quantum theory itself predicts
no observable instant connections, despite all these
considerations from Fact and Theory, the Reality of
the EPR particles is such that their initial contact
must create an instantaneous voodoo-style link between
them below the level of Appearances. In short, according to Bell's Theorem there are instantaneous,
non-causal relationships and interactions between things
that are separated from each other. Modern science
is not founded simply on causality, common sense, and
logic, as some people believe. The revolution in scientific
thinking of the early 1900's changed the face of science.
Modern science is replete with a large number of concepts
that are counter-intuitive, such as curved space, weightless
particles, among many others. WHAT THEN IS THE FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE? Chinks in the Knight's Armor and an Emporer with No
Clothes: The Limits of Newtonian Physics Kepler's extraordinary breakthrough discovery of the
laws of planetary motion, followed in the 18th century
with the unparalleled advancements of science by Newton
and others shifted the attention of intellectuals from
pure mathematics and reason to empiricism. Empricism
proved to have great, unforeseen powers in that the
application of scientific discoveries and practical
experimentation fostered the discovery of the industrial
revolution, the development of the automobile, airplanes,
electricity, and all of the other marvels of the modern
age. However, Newton himself devoted more time to studying
the Bible, alchemy, and other subjects than he did
to mathematics and physics. For a fascinating, brief
account of Newton's life, for example, see this article
by University of Florida professor Robert A. Hatch
at http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm More importantly, Newton's theory of gravity involves
action at a distance! Newton's theory of gravity states
that objects affect each other instantaneously! Newton
employed a conceptual model which was counter-intuitive,
defied our common sense notions of how the universe
operates, and contradicts the notion that the universe
is a giant clock, even though Newtonian physics was
used as the foundation for building a conceptual model
of the universe as a great mechanical clock! The view
of reality as being mechanical in nature and this great
scientific and philosophical edifice which is presented
as being as strong and impervious as a knight's armor,
is, in fact, flawed with cracks from the beginning.
Newton's great discoveries never fully implied a mechanical
universe, even though many scientists, engineers, and
philosophers believed that all evidence pointed to
the universe as being inherently mechanical. Einstein pointed out that Newton was the first to
describe a universe that operates by forces that work
at a distance in an address he gave in 1920: It was Newton's theory of gravitation that first assigned
a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at
a distance, proceeding from masses. Newton's theory
is probably the greatest stride ever made in the effort
towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And
yet this theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort
among Newton's contemporaries, because it seemed to
be in conflict with the principle springing from the
rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action
only through contact, and not through immediate action
at a distance. -http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html In other words, Newton's contemporaries felt uncomfortable
with the theory of gravity because the theory of gravity
postulated that bodies can affect each other from a
distance with no intermediate force to bridge the gap
in space. Because gravity operates instantaneously,
bodies attract each each other from a distance without
any causal mechanism by which this attraction can occur.
The modern view of gravity is that gravity is a consequence
of space being curved, but curved space is also a counter-intuitive
concept. Physics has never consistently produced concepts
that agree with common sense and the notion of a mechanical
universe. Newton assumed that there must be some mechanism through
which gravity operated but he was at a loss to understand
what that mechanism. In his classic work Principia
Newton states: "...that one body may act upon another at a distance
through a vacuum without the mediation of anything
else, by and through which their action and force may
be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great
an absurdity that, I believe no man, who has in philosophic
matters a competent faculty of thinking, could ever
fall into it." (this quote of Principia is taken
from the article at http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-dist.asp) Newton would not accept that gravity
worked via the mediation of some as yet undiscovered
agent, although
how it could function instantaneously was difficult
to comprehend. Modern physics has found that mechanism
via the curvature of space caused by mass, and the
large mass of our Sun creates a significant curvature
of space. That space could be distorted by so great
an amount that the planets are traveling a line of
least resistance in curved space. Staying
in their orbits provide an explanation of how gravity
can
operate at a distance. The notion of space being
curved by mass defies our common sense notion of
space being immutable and simply an inert context in
which things exist. THE LIMITS OF THE RELATIVISTIC
AND QUANTUM UNIVERSE: Our Fragmented
View of Reality Science evolves because there are always mysteries,
unresolved mysteries, and unexplained phenomena. Even
with the great advances of science in the past century,
we are still unable to conquer disease, make long-range
weather predictions, forecast financial markets, etc.
Progressis often made by repeated attempts to resolve
unanswered questions. For example, eventually an answer,
even if it is only a partial or very abstract answer,
to the riddle of how gravity can operate at a distance,
was discovered. The view of the universe proposed by
the theory of relativity and quantum theory is that
the principles
by which the universe operates when "zoomed in" to
the subatomic level or "zoomed out" to view
galaxies is different from how we perceive the world.
Quantum physics works wonderfully when applied to the
subatomic world but when we attempt to conceptualize
or visualize these concepts in a common sense way,
they seem bizarre. The implications of relativity theory,
such as that time slows down when an object speeds
up, for example, are also counter-intuitive. Even the
world we live in according to physics consists of an
electromagnetic spectrum of varying wave lengths which
our senses determine as being qualitatively more different
from each other than they are. As Phythagoras postulated,
number is at the essence of much of our reality and
the harmonies of a church choir are simply the overlaying
of measurable wavelengths. Astrology is an ancient system of thought that somehow
seems to utilize a view of the universe that is more
acausal, integrated, and somehow more compatible with
the notions of modern physics. However, unlike quantum
theory and relativity theory, and also the insights
into the electromagnetic spectrum, astrology has not
(yet) been validated through experiments and research
studies. It would seem that astrology might act as
a bridge to integrate our fragmented views of reality,
where we use one set of rules and a paradigm when working
in our everyday world, another paradigm for the subatomic
world, and a third paradigm for the world from a large
astronomical perspective. Physicist Victor Mansfield
of Colgate University appears to be one of the few
modern thinkers who has recognized the potential of
astrology in this regards. Here are a few poignant
and insightful quotes from an address by Professor
Mansfield to an astrology conference in 1997. Professor Mansfield emphasizes, as I have also do
in this paper, that science and astrology are not adversaries: As a young man in 1975, I was enthusiastic about my
latest astrophysics research but also deeply hurt by
many of the scientists I admired most because of their
signing such an uninformed statement against astrology.
I knew they understood nothing about real astrology
and its extraordinary value, nevertheless it pained
me to have my scientific elders denigrate something
of importance for my inner life. More than two decades
later, it distresses me just as much to hear some of
the astrologers I admire most at this conference bash
science in an equally uninformed way. Science is hardly
above criticism, but neither side is served by shadow
projection. I'll argue that the way to the personal
and societal transformation we so desperately need
is through reconciliation and understanding between
astrology and science, not recriminations and intolerance.
As we all know, in a religious war with all its primitive
emotional erruptions and inability to communicate across
the battle lines, truth is the first victim. Mansfield points out similarities in astrological
thinking and scientific thinking: Although I know of no quantum mechanical explanation
for astrological influence, since the quantum worldview
is so much more appropriate as a starting point for
its discussion, I will very briefly summarize three
of its key features. First, quantum mechanics is radically
acausal. Despite its unprecedented accuracy and vast
applicability, individual events do not have well-defined
causes. It teaches us that lawfulness in nature does
not require causality-an important lesson for astrology. Second, objects in quantum mechanics cannot always
be localized in finite regions of space and time. For
example, certain correlated systems of particles, that
are carefully studied in the so-called Bell Inequality
experiments, appear to instantaneously communicate
between the parts of the correlated system. In other
words, what happens in a region, say at one end of
the lab, instantaneously effects what happens at the
other end and vice versa. Amazingly, the correlation
does not diminish with increasing distance, nor is
it a causal connection. There is no energy or information
exchange between the parts. Much more needs to be said
about this deeply mysterious phenomenon than I can
say here, but let me characterize it with the following
brief statement. Nonlocality teaches that the relationship
between parts is more fundamental, more real, than
the isolated identity of the parts. From an astrological
perspective, we could say that our relationship to
the cosmos is more fundamental, more real than our
isolated existence. Third, quantum objects do not have well-defined properties
independent of observation. It is not simply that our
observation of these very small systems disturbs them,
but that they are intrinsically indeterminate prior
to observation. In other words, we must participate
in defining the world through our observation. Astrologically
we might say that a transit is not a fully defined
entity but more a potentiality for experience made
actual by our participation in it. Astonishingly, this quantum view is not merely an
artifact of its current mathematical formulation. Analysis
and experiments, independent of the present formulation
of quantum mechanics, show that nature is so deeply
acausal and nonlocal that any future replacement for
quantum mechanics must have nonlocal connections that
work without any exchange of energy or information
between the parts of the correlated system-without
any causal connection. This is an extraordinary fact
that should play a central role in any approach to
understanding nature in general and astrology in particular.
This is a long way from the Cartesian/Newtonian view
at the basis of current attempts at formulating a physical
mechanism for astrological influence. Mansfield points out that synchronicity, a term used
by Carl Jung to describe how astrology works, is not
an adequate model for explaining astrology. Synchronicity is a sporadic and creative erruption
of the unity underlying psyche and matter. Unless you
are in some serious psychological or spiritual crisis,
synchronicity experiences like the one above are infrequent.
In contrast, astrology is effective 24 hours a day,
365.25 days a year. With or without meaning, it continually
works as well for Carl Sagan as it does on you and
me. One might think that with Mansfield's observation
that the Newtonian-Cartesian assumptions of much astrological
research disinclines him to the use of traditional
research studies using statistics, but this is not
quite correct. He states Astrology needs sophisticated statistical confirmation... Some astrologers may worry that by calling for a significant
statistical verification for astrology, I am trying
to cram it into a scientific framework totally unsuited
to its depth and multilevel symbolism. This is an unwarranted
concern. I am only asking for a sturdy flagpole of
carefully verified statistical corellations from which
the exuberant, multicolored banner of astrology can
wave. It is neither possible nor desirable to make
astrology a branch of science. Manfield later states: If we revived Kepler, he would surely recognize modern
astrology, be delighted by the elegant astrological
software, Transaturnians, asteroids, etc. But he would
be struck by how little has changed since his day,
especially in contrast to the extraordinary explosion
of knowledge in astronomy. Where are the astrological
advances that compare with Kepler's three laws of planetary
motion, Galileo's formulation of the scientific method,
Newton's mechanics, or Einstein's general relativity? Although Mansfield does not see astrology evolving
to become a branch of science, he does sense the need
for a revolution or theoretical breakthrough in astrological
thinking, similar to the breakthroughs in scientific
thinking. In other articles on this website I describe
research methodologies and a theoretical framework
for astrology that accerlates the development of astrology
to a vastly more sophisticated and sensitive level
than has been undertaken before. These new developments
do share much in common with theoretical developments
in physics, help resolve numerous dilemmas in astrology,
and pioneer a path for astrology that revolutionizes
the way that astrologers work and does utilize very
sophisticated statistics as a part of the process as
well. His closing remark is: I'll conclude with an experience that
happened to me last night about a block from this
room. There I
came upon two men nearly at the point of physical violence
over who had rights to panhandle at a certain corner.
Most of us have grown hardened to the site of panhandlers
and disheveled nests of blankets in doorways posing
as bedrooms. But this pathetic squabble reminded me
afresh of how obscene it is that the richest country
in the world allows so many of its citizens to lose
so badly in our "winner take all" economy.
Perhaps if astrology can be integrated into our intellectual
and cultural heritage, then the unity so evident in
the cosmic dance of the planets may find an expression
in a deeper appreciation of our shared responsibility
for the planet and the welfare of all humanity. To read Mansfield's full address you can visit this
site: http://www.lightlink.com/vic/astrol.html Mansfield is sensing exactly what I
also sense: that astrology can play an important
role in bringing the
sense of interconnectedness, elegant beauty, and wonder
into our lives. Astrology
can act as a bridge for a more enlightened perspective
to flood our troubled
and materialistically driven world. Astrology appears
to philosophically have much in common with the New
Science of the 20th and 21st centuries. Physics
is validated however and astrology is not. A breakthrough
for astrology could align our understanding of one
another
to be more commensurate with our understanding of
the subatomic world and the intergalactic world.
Recently
I wrote an article soon to be posted on this website
regarding the relationship of what I refer to as
first-order and second-order harmonic influences
on overall cultural
and social development, and both the failures and
successes of societies from crime, inertia, poverty
to creative
genius, prosperity, and social harmony. The cosmic
relationships to various cultural and religious
traditions are also explored. The innovations in
exploratory
and assumptionless research and the application
of sophisticated
analytical models in successful pilot studies are
described in other articles on this website. These
may be stepping stones to a new level
of sophistication and accelerated progress to astrology.
This progress, however, requires continued research,
and a greatly expanded education for astrologers
in order to step into this new world of astrological
understanding.
In the coming years, we will publish more articles
and offer training programs continue the work of
transitioning astrology to a functioning level
that is commensurate
with the effectiveness, usefulness and sophistication
of the understanding of the quantum universe gained
in the 20th century. FALSIFIABILITY: Karl
Popper's Important Contribution to the Definition
of Science Karl Popper had a big impact on the
philosophy of science in the 20th century, primarily
through his
emphasis on falsibiability as a foundation of science.
The essence of falsifiability is that a statement which
can be shown to be false is a statement that science
can address. A statement that cannot be shown to be
false is one that science cannot address. If I postulate
that I believe in God, or that I don't believe in God,
there is no way to show that these statements are false,
so they lie outside the domain of science. If, however,
I state that apples fall to the ground when I drop
them (assuming that winds of hurricane or tornado strength
are not present), I can show that I am unable to falsify
this statement and I therefore can accept it as true. THE IMPORTANCE OF THEORIES IN SCIENCE Theories are extremely helpful to the
advancement of science because a theory helps us
be able to make
predictions about behavior that otherwise could not
be made. The theory of gravity, for example, allows
us to accurately predict the behavior of objects in
outer space. A theory, however, is not necessary, to
make scientifically valid statements. If I do not know
about Newton's theory of gravity or any other theory
that explains how or why objects fall to the ground,
I can still predict that if I drop an apple, it will
fall to the ground. Falsifiability is at the heart
of scientific thinking and is the most essential concept
in science according to Karl Popper, and it is difficult
to argue this point. 20TH CENTURY INNOVATIONS TO ENSURE
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS In the 20th century a set of procedures for scientific
inquiry were developed that help science to fulfill
its mission of determining whether a statement is falsifiable,
and to make steady progress in developing theories
that enable predictions of behavior in other circumstances
(such as the ability of the theory of gravity to predict
the behavior os celestial objects). Among these procedures
and regulations are: 1. The scientific method, which is a series of steps
required for conducting research. In the scientific
method, a hypothesis is stated first, data collected,
and the data is analyzed. There are extensive rules
for ensuring that data is gathered in an unbiased manner,
and a set of terms has evolved for different issues
that arise in scientific research (such as: control
group, placebo, statistical significance, confounding
variable, etc.) 2. In a research study, the hypothesis
is stated as a null hypothesis, that the effect does
NOT exist.
For example, if I conduct an experiment to test whether
vitamin C prevents colds, my hypothesis might be stated
as "the intake of large amounts of vitamin C does
not prevent colds". In science, a "guilty
until proven innocent" approach is taken. We assume
that nothing is true, and then gradually let into a "circle
of truth" those things that have been demonstrated
to be true. This approach makes progress slow, but
progress is also nearly rock solid if the rules of
scientific inquiry are observed. 3. Clear definition of terms, emphasis on the limitations
of a study, and skepticism regarding generalization
of results and causal relationships. If a study on
the ability of vitamin C to prevent colds is conducted,
the study will involve a certain mesaurement of vitamin
C intake administered to a particular demographic group
(the experimental group) and compared to a control
group with a different intake of vitamin C and hopefully
of the same demographic profile as the experimental
group. Other demographic groups (i.e. of different
age, ethnicity, social environment, gender, health
status, diet, etc.) may have different results. Scientists
also look for confounding variables. For example, if
students who take after-school programs score higher
on examinations, a non-scientist may quickly conclude
that after-school programs contribute to higher test
scores, whereas a scientist realizes that many other
variables may correlate with attendance in after-school
programs and these other variables may actually account
for the success of the program. Because of the conservativism
of science, progress is slow and expensive. Huge amounts
of time, energy, and resources, are needed for scientific
progress. 4. Science is practical, not idealistic. Perfect
control groups, completely unbiased data, and other
ideals of scientific research are not always possible
or may be too expensive. Science progresses by taking
small steps when necessary. Exploratory resarch, pilot
studies, and small steps that may help eliminate some,
but not all, biases, are taken when more comprehensive
and sophisticated studies are impossible, too time
consuming, or too expensive. 5. Peer review is an important part of scientific
research. Even an excellent researcher can overlook
limitations, problems, and possible alternative explanations
for results of a study. Constant peer review and re-examination
of studies is critically important. In most cases there
is no simple check list that one can go through to
ensure that every possible issue has been dealt with
effectively. Research is about discovering what is
not currently understood and this means, to some extent,
going beyond the limits of current knowledge, and it
is easy to overlook important issues that are relevant
to a particular line of research. 6. Research journals, libraries, databases, and institutes
that catalogue and organize research. Scientific research
builds upon the work of other researchers. One does
not fabricate ideas out of one's own imagination without
regard to previous work done on the subject of interest.
In order to build upon previous research, previous
research must be available to the researcher. Research
journals are monitored by a team of experts in the
field to help ensure that the rules and regulations
for scientific research are observed. The results of
these efforts are not perfect, but the vast majority
of scientists abide by the regulations and progress
forward is steady, as is evidenced by the great explosion
of scientific knowledge over the past hundred years. 7. There are standards for how scientific research
articles are written as well as conducted. There are
also standards for how one becomes a chemist, physicist,
biologist, etc., by requiring certain levels of education
in order to have certain titles of accomplishment in
these fields. These standards and regulations do not
work perfectly but they do ensure, on the whole, high
standards of professionalism and steady progress forward
in the sciences. Some standards may seem more like
ettiquette or arbitrary traditions, such as the standard
5% and 1% cutoff points for statistical significance,
or the statement of a hypothesis as a null hypothesis.
Nevertheless, these regulations are nearly universally
accepted and they do create a universal language upon
which scientific research and communication between
scientists can be effectively conducted throughout
the world. The flowering of the Einstein's new insights around
the year 1900 into a massive paradigm shift of science,
a shift from a view of our universe from a giant clock
to something mysterious and awesome is propelled forward
by the development of these systems to ensure that
science is practiced in a way that generally meets
the high ideals of science to fairly and systematically
produce valid results. As we shall see in our discussion
below, these principles are not 100% effective but
they do help. THE IMPORTANE OF INTEGRITY
AND HONESTY IN SCIENCE It is easy to think of science as some kind of objective
phenomenon, like a hammer or a saw, that we pick up
and use. We can think of science as an iron-clad entity
that is impervious to the foibles of humanity. Science
is rigorous and well-defined, or so it would seem.
However, the celebrated American physicist Richard
Feynman, emphasizes that astrology, ESP resaerch, and
sometimes even research in psychology and other fields
typically are a false science: But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or
later get me into a conversation about UFO's, or astrology,
or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness,
new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've
concluded that it's not a scientific world. He refers to these areas, as typically
pursued, as being "cargo cult sciences", or false sciences.
The origins of the term "cargo cult science" are
given in his address, which you can read by visiting
the website cited, but is not of importance for our
puposes here. Here is a section of his discussion on
the importance of honesty and integrity as a bedrock
of science in this address to a graduating class in
1974: But there is one feature I notice that is generally
missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that
we all hope you have learned in studying science in
school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring
it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind
of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific
thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a
kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're
doing an experiment, you should report everything that
you think might make it invalid--not only what you
think is right about it: other causes that could possibly
explain your results; and things you thought of that
you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how
they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell
they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation
must be given, if you know them. You must do the best
you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly
wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example,
and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also
put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle
problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together
to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure,
when explaining what it fits, that those things it
fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes
something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to give all of the information
to help others to judge the value of your contribution;
not just the information that leads to judgement in
one particular direction or another. The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast
it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard
that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's
true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking
about is not just a matter of not being dishonest;
it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another
level. The fact that should be added to that advertising
statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated
at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature,
they all will--including Wesson oil. So it's the implication
which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true,
and the difference is what we have to deal with. What keeps astrology, ESP research, etc. from being
a valid science is not the subject of astrology or
ESP itself, but rather the way in which it is researched.
Feynman does not talk without experience; he spent
some time with new age researchers of various kinds.
He gives an example of an outstanding research study
done in psychology, but which is ignored by later researchers
who conduct similar kinds of research. This is another
example of cargo cult science, the unwillingness to
honestly and fairly use all information to make progress
in our understanding. He gives an example of a colleague
who fails to report negative results in a study, another
example of falling of the path of real science. When
a field is dominated by lack of honesty, integrity,
fails to build upon previous studies, and is in denial
or ognorance of what has been found in other studies,
then the entire field has become a cargo cult science.
If we want astrology to be more than a cargo cult science,
then we must be honest and have integrity. Cargo Cult Science in Medicine: Richard Feynman does
not give this example, but a great amount of medical
research is conducted by scientists funded by, and
sometimes even employed by, companies that are invested
in products that depend on the research being conducted.
A pharmaceutical company frequently donates money to
a university department to research their product or
the active ingredient in the product. Jessica Utts,
author of widely used textbooks in college level statistics
books, points out that research funded or conducted
by people with who experience a tangible result in
their success and/or income as a result of the research
is a serious bias to be avoided in scientific research.
The rules of scientific research are to remove every
possible contamination of the research results, and
yet the medical community continues pursuing these
methods of funding and conducting their research. A
bias does not invalidate a resarch study but it does
decrease the likelihood of the research results being
valid. This statement is not a political or subjective
personal statement, but a statement based on the principles
of scientific inquiry. THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
SYSTEMS TO EPISTEMOLOGY In the introduction to the book "Quantum Reality" by
Nick Herbert he mentions that the 18th century was
simultaneously the time of the flowering of science
and of the rising of democracy. The French Revolution
and the American Revolution created on the North American
and European continents nations that were guided by
the will of the people rather than the will of a ruling
nobility. The unparalleled success of Newtonian physics
and accelerated developments in mathematics propelled
breakthroughs in the knowledge of the universe based
on careful analysis and study our world with the aid
of mathematics and logic and perseverance. How was knowledge gained before the 18th century?
Until Galileo dropped 2 balls from a tower around the
year 1600 no one had verified whether a small ball
would drop slower than a large ball. Experimentation
and observation were secondary to logic and pure reason.
Euclid did not need to conduct experiments to develop
a powerful system of geometry that became a mainstay
of academia for two thousand years. Observation was
not completely ignored. A story of Pythagoras told
by Nicomachus about 600 years after the life of Phythagoras
is that Pythagoras was inspired to develop his thories
of harmonics and the harmony of the spheres from
an observation of a blacksmith striking iron rods
of different
lengths and observing that the longer the iron rods,
the lower the pitch that they produced when struck.
Thus, the concept that numbers, as the measurement
of things, was the foundation of sound, had begun.
However, observation and experimentation did not
have the huge endorsement and support that they have
today
as keys for discovering the truth. Today we spend
billions of dollars on resaerch, and research is
seen as the
key to finding cures for diseases and other advancements
of civilzation. We can speculate that the paradigm shift of the early
1900's ushered in an age of tolerance and broad acceptance
of cultures, where tribalism, racial and gender prejudices
are replaced with a sense of universality, and where
a mechanical universe and an emphasis on discipline
is replaced with a sense of an inspiring and awesome
universe where creativity and the development of creative
potential is more important than rigid disciplines.
We spank our children less and we encourage them to
be creative, independent, and accepting of a diverse
world community. The transition to this new view may
take centuries and in those places where the transition
is slowest, the pain and suffering of holding on to
a moribund paradigm is evident. I am speculating here,
but the main point is that epistemology and any area
of human inquiry does not exist in a vacuum. Our social
environment is formed by our beliefs and attitudes
and in turn our beliefs and attitudes are affected
by our social environment. THE ROOTS OF ASTROLOGY IN PLATONIC
IDEALISM Demetra George, Robert Schmidt, and other astrologers
who have carefully studied the early roots of astrology
point out that astrology as we know it today was formulated
in an extraordinarily short amount of time between
the time of Pythagoras and the time of Christ, in perhaps
as few as two hundred years! I suspect that as more
ancient texts are translated and discovered and we
learn more about ancient cultures, we are likely to
find out that the transition in astrological though
that occurred around the 300's BC and 200's BC had
longer roots than is now known, but the essential fact
that a rapid transformation in astrological thought
from a form of omens to a vast and complex system of
analysis occurred, for the most part, in this very
compact time frame. Given the historical context of this
time period, the rapid development of a system of
astrology is not
completely surprising to me. With an emphasis on the
power of pure reason and the divine intelligence to "see" directly
into the fundamental truths of our existence, intellectuals
were inclined to see a well-developed, tightly integrated,
coherent, and elegant system of ideas as true, just
as Euclidean geometry is known to be true by virtue
of its own inherent internal consistency, applicability,
and appeal to the intelligence, intuition, and sensitivity
of the human mind and soul. Freed from the huge emphasis
on validating itself through extensive empirical
research which we greet any new idea with in
modern times, the
ancients could devise and develop wonderfully intricate
and sophisticated cosmic systems of 12 constellations
beautifully patterned with connections to the 4 elements
of fire, earth, air, and water, and the actions of
the various planets and fixed stars in relationship
to each other. Built upon a rich heritage of associations
of the planets and fixed stars through Babylonian
times, the observations and theories of the Babylonians
became
raw materials for the intellectuals of Greece to
develop elegant cosmic analytical systems. Again,
we want to
underscore the point that the ancients were not
oblivious to observational evidence and observation;
they simply
were not as heavily emphasized as they are today,
and greater emaphsis was placed on ideas based
on direct
reason and understanding. Platonic idealism is
not dead today and, no doubt, there are a larger
number
of Platonic thinkers among mathematicians than
among scientists, and Euclidean geometry has
the same appeal
to our intelligence today as it did 2,000 years
ago. However, in modern times a tremendously
greater emphasis
is placed on observationa and experimentation and
less emphasis on the natural ability of the
human mind to
directly perceive truth. DIVINE
REVELATION AND THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS Because of the emphasis on the ability of the mind
to directly perceive truth, and the sense that the
abiilty to perceive this truth connects the human soul
to divinity, it becomes very easy to see the genius
of Pythagoras, Plato, Euclid, and others as a form
of divine inspiration which has filled their minds,
and in some cases, their entire lives. Legends of Pythagoras,
according to Flora Levin in her commentary on Nicomachus's
book The Manual of Harmonics, portray him as saintly
or enlightened being beyond the scope of normal human
experience. Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe and
the Middle East and also back to the early Hellenistic
astrology there are exaggerated claims of the source
of astrological knowledge. Many astrological ideas
are attributed to Hermes or to Nachepso and Petosiris,
or to other persons of high repute. There are attributions
of ideas to Plato, Ptolemy, and others in the Middle
Ages, some of which are clearly not properly referenced.
It may seem strange today that attribution of an
idea is given to some ancient person who is dead,
when we
are much more likely to claim credit ourselves if
we are feeling greedy, arrogant, or selfish! However,
when the basis for gaining wisdom and knowledge is
primarily direct perception, one's ideas will find
much more credence among others when attributed to
a person who is almost a deity rather than to oneself,
no matter how clever or pure of heart one might be. In the book The Arabic Parts in Astrology:
A Lost Key To Prediction Robert Zoller points out
that "Traditionally,
knowledge was transmitted by oral means, from teacher
to students. The teachers were thought of not as researchers
or scientists but rather as enlightened spiritual masters
whose words embodied great wisdom. Written material,
if used at all, was only secondary to oral teaching.
It was not intended to supply all the details of the
skill but was simply meant as an aid to the memory.
For this reason, most ancient esoteric texts, especially
magical and astrological ones, were brief, cryptic,
and incomplete." (page 11) We can see, then, that
the epistemological assumptions of the astrological
tradition and our modern empiricism are very different
indeed! Platonic idealism provided a good basis for
an emphasis on divine revelation. Note that Pythagoras
was regarded by many as enlightened and having mystical
powers, so the close connection of the ability to
perceive the truth with closeness to the divine
and transcendental
is deeply ingrained in the thinking of most people
until the transition to empiricism during the Newtonian-Cartesian
paradigm shift. Interestingly, Zoller sees the future
of astrology in hearkening back to the metaphysical,
spiritually
inspired roots of astrology, and he states that the "present
confused state of affairs stems entirely frm the widespread
ignorance of the traditional metaphysical foundation
of astrology among Western practitioners since the
Renaissance, or perhaps since the Middle Ages" (Ibid,
page 12). By his focus on ancient philosophy, Zoller
fails to see the actual geometric basis of Arabic Parts
and their close affinity with harmonics, wave theory,
and symmetry. See the article at http://astrosoftware.com/ArabicParts.htm
for more information on this topic. Zoller devotes
about 60 pages to an elaborate discussion of the numerological
basis of astrology in the second chapter of the book
on the metaphysical basis of the parts, without ever
identifying the fundamental geometric basis of the
Arabic Parts. This is not, however, surprising because
the geogemtric basis of the Arabic Parts and their
relationship to harmonics, wave theory, and symmetry
has been overlooked in the written literature for thousands
of years. While I agree with Zoller that
religious and spiritual dedication and a life
inspired by purposes
other than materialistic and greedy ones is extremely
important, his regressive view of idolizing the ancient
methods and alienating himself from modern insights,
is highly destructive to the development and progress
of astrology. Progress in astrology is made not by
pitting divine revelation and ancient wisdom against
modern science and technology, as Zoller does (read
the appendix to this book, for example, for an example
of his views in this regards), but rather in allowing
knowlege, infomation, and insights from all possible
sources, including the invaluable insights of modern
science, to illuminate astrology. A very simple example
of the results from this open-mindedness is the understanding
that the numerical and mathematical basis of Arabic
Parts is much more clearly described in the article
at http://astrosoftware.com/ArabicParts.htm in a
few pages than in 60 pages of discussion by Zoller
which
never directly explain why Arabic Parts are important.
Zoller explains the metaphysical
meaning behind various numbers but he does not
explain specifically how
this numerological theory indicates why Arabic
Parts are
important or how Arabic Parts would be crticially
important within the context of the conceptual
framework that
he uses. However, from the standpoint of modern
physics, as described in the above
article,
we can see that Arabic Parts are extremely fundamental
and important. Divine revelation and wisdom may
be
helpful to astrology, but should not be pitted
against technology and "materialistic" science,
as Zoller does. People may be materialistic and
some may
be scientists and some may be clergymen, but modern
science is not inherently materalistic. THE NEW SCIENCE AND THE NEW ASTROLOGY Astrology
is an enormous intellectual evidence largely based
on its direct intellectual appeal. The
evidence from actual observation involves many deceptive
illusions that make astrology appear to be
more accurate than it is. In other words, when the
ancients did use observation to support a theory, the
observations were anecdotal evidence based on the study
of particular individuals and cycles.
These
anecdotal observations are prone to a host of biases
and confounding
variables that make them appear to be more accurate
than they are. One of the confounding variables is
the effect of the divinatory experience that occurs
in a given moment. I have discussed the divinatory
effect in other articles on this website. Some astrologers,
such as Patrick Curry, Geoffrey Cornelius, and Nick
Campion have emphasized that the lack of scientific
support for astrology and the fact that the ability
of astrology to work very well in actual practice,
indicate that astrology is primarily, if not completely,
a divinatory, and not a scientific discipline. However,
unlike these authors, I am more optimistic that a
new form of astrology that is commensurate with the
paradigm
of modern physics can evolve. In fact, astrology may play a very important part
in developing an understanding of our universe that
fully conforms to the parameters of Bell's Theorem
and the insights of quantum theory. In my own astrological
work I place a great emphasis on intricate planetary
patterns, and the underlying theory of this pattern
analysis is wave theory and symmetry. Wave theory is
a fundamental underlying principle of both the physics
of the 19th and 20th centuries, and symmetry has become
increasingly emphasized in quantum theory and super
string theory. Mario Livio's book Symmetry is highly
recommended for a non-technical introduction to the
importance of symmetry in modern science. The compatibility
of these emerging astrological methods in very high
consonance with the thinking of modern physics is not,
in my opinion, a coinicidence, but rather is an indication
that the first few emerging baby steps of astrology
out of its ancient cocoon of Platonic thinking into
a bright new world of relevance and importance in the
modern world has just begun. Although currently at
astrological conferences and in astrological literature
an increasing emphasis is being placed on the revival
of ancient astrological methods, I sense that in the
coming decades it will be these cutting edge modern
developments in astrology that will have the most lasting
and important impact. SORTING OUT THE NATURE OF ANCIENT
AND MODERN ASTROLOGY In the study of astrology on encounters confusing
and contradictory statements from astrologers and non-astrologers.
Two individuals who have made a fair and honest assessment
of astrology are Garry Phillipson in his book Astrology
in the Year Zero and Kenneth Irving in the book The
Tenacious Mars Effect co-authoried with Ertel Suibert.
There are also many cases of confusing and erroneous
statements, a few of which are given below: The Magi Society has written several books on astrology
and in these works there are references to the extensive
systematic empirical research of the Babylonians. There
is, to my knowledge, no research indicating that the
Babylonians engaged in systematic empirical research.
Observational evidence was certainly not completed
ignored, but historians from the historical overview
given in this article, and the overwhelming evidence
of research to date, it is unlikely that the Babylonians
were carefully recording and comparing their theories
regarding correlations of celestial events with human
behavior. There is also little evidence to suggest
that they measured angular relationships as precisely
as the Magi Society states. Any statement that contradicts
the historical evidence should be supported by a statement
of the sources for this evidence, and the Magi Society
does not provide this. Robert Zoller in his book The Arabic Parts - Lost
Key to Prediction states that arabic parts have no
mathematical basis, when, in fact, they do, as expained
in other articles I have written on this website. Zoller
also encourages a return to the ancient roots of astrology
and the wisdom gained by the enlightened perceptions
of the ancient astrologesr. The notion of ancient enlightened
astrologers is romantic and inspiring, but the historical
evidence suggests that the ancient astrology is inspired
more by Platonic idealism and idealistic vision, with
no doubt some highly inspired wisdom as well, but Zoller
goes even further in suggesting that Kepler derailed
astrology from its true roots with his introduction
of minor aspects. John Frawley, in his book The Real
Astrology, joins Zoller in the lament of astrology's
downfall via Kepler, but both Zoller and Frawley
ignore the rich tradition of seeing harmonics inherent
in
the cosmos dating back to arguably the most powerrful
original force behind cosmological thought: Pythagoras.
Nicomachus and other Pythagoreans continued the tradition
of Pythagorean thinking and the pursuit of a harony
of the spheres. To my knowledge there is no evidence
that Pythagoras practiced or studied astrology, and
the Pythagoreans were more concerned with the concept
that there is a harmony of the spheres and a similar
principle of harmonic sound relationships between
the cosmos and earthly life, but without explicating
any
specific astrological rules by which such a similarity
might influence the lives of people. At the opposite
extreme of Zoller and Frawley, who ignore the rich
harmonic tradition of intellectual thought are
astrologers who claim that Pythagoras was an astrologer
and/or
numerologist practicing the form of numerology
practiced today, but there is, to my knowledge, no
evidence
of this, although Pythagoreans did see anthropomorphic
assocaitions in numbers. In short, we must honestly appraise the historical
evidence and not selectively focus on particular historical
traditions, while ignoring others. This is another
aspect of honesty and integrity that is so important
for us to sort out what the nature of astrology really
is. Astrologers sometimes discount the relevance of science
to astrology, noting the limiting Newtonian perspective
of most science, or the inability of science to assess
complex combinations of variables. Some astrologers
have even stated that science can only study one variaable
at a time. These views of science harken back over
100 years to the science of the 18th and 19th centuries.
They are anachronisms and science is far more subtle,
sophisticated, flexible, intuitive, and holistic in
its potential than such notions of a primitive, blunt,
and limited science suggest. Interestingly, astrologers
who feel that science is so very limited in its capacity
to encompanss complex systems often employe a fairly
simple system of astrological analysis while, ironically,
my own approach to astrological intepretation is extremely
complex and intricate compared to most astrologers,
and yet I am a proponent of the ability of science
to be effectively applied to astrology. Research in
astrology is not simple, and we need a great amount
of creativity and hard work to make progress, but I
think it is possible, and, in fact, progress has already
begun, as discussed in other articles on this website. Astrologer Jeffrey Wolf Green has suggested that modern
approaches to understanding are patriarchal and his
evolutionary approach to astrology, with its emphasis
on incarnation and the evolution of the human soul,
could be better appreciated with the more feminine
sensitivity that was employed in some ancient cultures.
There is some truth to this historical perspective
in that rational empiricism has gained the upper hand
in recent times, but it is more helpful to cite specific
historical events, thinkers, cultures, and their accomplishments
in order to obtain a realistic appraissal of the value
of various ancient and modern methodologies in astrology.
Otherwise, we are likely to end up in a polarized battle
between believers and unbelievers in astrology as we
stay entrenched in our views. A careful and honest
study of the history of astrology is likely to reveal
good and bad guys appearing in all historical periods,
and each historical period having its benefits as well
as limitations. A careful study of the historical tradition,
reveals a male-dominated emphasis
in all periods of astrology and perhaps more so in
ancient
times, with Platonic idealism dominting in the past,
while psychological, wholistic, and compassionate,
supportive approaches to astrology are stronger in
the current time period. I am planning at some point
to also write an article on the psychological paradigms
employed in ancient western and Vedic astrology,
and I do believe these ancient systems have some
advantages,
as well as disadavantages, as compared to modern
astrological systems, but a clear division of ancient
feminine versus
modern masculine, or ancient inspired wisdom versus
modern mechanical thinking, is not, in my opinion,
supported by a thorough study of these systems of
astrology. When I was giving seminars in Mexico city in 2006
I was told that a lady had not attended the lecture
because her husband had discouraged her from doing
so because astrology was just a lot of medieval thinking.
Actually, I agree with the husband in that astrology
can sometimes regress a person's thinking patterns
back to medieval times and dissociate the person from
the wonderful developments of modern thoughts, all
of the benefits, both material and spiritual, of the
paradigm shift arund the year 1900, and the cutting
edge advancements of our times. It is important that
our study of astrology is enriched by the understanding
of medievalists, Vedic astrologers, and others at that
we can incorporate this understanding into a higher
synthesis and greater wisdom and understanding than
we can otherwise have. To regress back to medieval
thinking is not the goal of astrology, but in some
cases can be the result. The husband of this person,
of course, did not know exactly where I would lead
the attendees, but every teacher does lead the audience
down a path, and it is the responsibility of teachers
to be well-informed, to develop a comprehensive understanding
of the subject, and strive to lead the students along
a path that will move them forward. FINAL
POINT A final point of interest
to astrologers: the major
paradigm shifts in scientific thinking have coincided
with conjunctions of Neptune and Pluto and the interested
student of astrology can read an article regarding
this subject, which is also on this website. Arguments for and Against Astrology, and How to Effectively
Communicating with the Public I hope that this article has helped the reader gain
a greater appreciation of the ways in which historical
movements, and, in particular, the 3 massive paradigm
shifts mentioned in this article, have shaped the development
of astrological thinking as well as the overall development
and direction of science and culture. Many arguments for, and against, astrology
are made by astrologers and non-astrologers. When
the subject
of astrology is mentioned, one of the very first thoughts
that arises in the minds of people is "Do you
believe in it?" or "Is it valid?". I
have been lecturing about, discussing, and writing
about astrology for over 3 decades, and I have found
that invariably the question of what validity, if any,
astrology has, is always brought to my attention. In
order to communicate effectively with the public, astrologers
must have a grasp of relevant issues regarding the
subject of whether astrology is valid. Given below
is a brief summary of two cally important items that
I believe every astrologer needs to master in order
to discuss the validity of astrology intelligently: 1. Quote Sources!!! In this article I have referenced
Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, two of the most important
philosophers of science in teh 20th century. Kuhn and
Popper are invariably mentioned in any discussion of
the nature of science. I am not being original in referencing
these authorities, but I am building upon the base
of knowledge and information that is widely accepted,
and that I also personally accept, as a basis for understanding
what science is and how truth is discovered. The overview
of historical periods that I have presented is based
on scholarly historical works and will be respected
by historians and other academicians. To simply present
your own personal view of the relationship of astrology
to science, without having studied the ideas of leading
thinkers on this subject, and without having made an
honest attempt to incorporate and intelligently respond
to these ideas is unacceptable. Astrology is not a
subject that can be mastered in a few months. I am
Curriculum Director at The Avalon School of Astrology,
and we have developed a comprehensive curriculum to
ensure that astrologers have the knowledge and competency
to communicate about astrology intelligently and effectively,
as well as apply astrology in an ethical and competent
manner. 2. Be intellectually honest! Richard
Feynman's suggestions on how to properly pursue science
are very important,
and whether you regard astrology as a science, superstition,
divination, or anything else, Feynman's advice is tremendously
important. In the field of astrology we have a great
amount of cargo cult science. Feynman ended his commencement
speech with this statement: "So I have just one
wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere where you
are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described,
and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain
your position in the organization, or financial support,
or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that
freedom.". This is a powerful statement that drives
to the very heart of what is most important. For example, astrologers often mention
Mercury retrograde whenever communications go awry,
there are computer
breakdowns, etc. but research indicates that Mercury
retrograde has very little, if any, effect, on mass
communications. It may be possible that Mercury retrograde
is important in some way, but to ignore the research
is intellectually dishonest. In an article entitled "Yes,
Mercury Is in Retrograde. So What?" in the New
York Times (November 11, 2006) Andy Newman and other
New York Times staff did research on Mercury retrograde
and this research appears to not have been done previously:
they gathered data to verify whether Mercury retrograde
does correlate with communication problems. They found
out that Transcom, a regional traffic monitoring company,
reported 41.9 major events during the Spring 2005 and
2006 seasons there were 41.9 incidents reportedly daily.
In comparable nonretrograde periods there were 42.4
per day, indicating very slightly fewer problems during
the retorgrate periods. Also, Metro-North and New Jersey
transit than trains were 0.4 percent less likely to
arrive late when Mercury is Rx. In both cases very
slightly better results occurred when Mercury was retrograde.
However, the Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics
that the percentage of late flights in and out of LaGuardia
airport went up from 22.8% to 24.6% during retrograde
periods. Claims of mishandled luggage went up a very
tiny amount. The results of this research, therefore,
do not show any clear pattern for communications to
break down during Mercury retrograde periods. Communication
may be affected by Mercury retrograde but the data
indicates that the manner in which this may happen
is not simple and simply expecting communication breakdowns
during Mercury retrograde periods is not realistic
or accurate. The Gauquelin studies are not free
from controversy and debate. We have no completely
solid proof of any
ideas in astrology. Some astrologers have adopted the
position that astrology has only truth within a divinatory
context, and astrology cannot be validatd scientifically.
This is intellectually honest and is a reasonable argument,
but some of these same astrologers then make statements
of an objective nature, statements that are falsifiable.
An example of such a statement is "with his Libra
and Gemini he talks a lot", "no wonder he
is stubborn with a stellium in Taurus", etc. etc.
etc. These statements imply a correlation of celestial
events with behavior, and the statement is often made
as objective statementst that are true outside of any
particular single moment of engagement by the astrologer,
such as is done in a divinatory exercise of reading
tarot cards of the I Ching. The correlation of zodiac
sign placements and aspects between planets is a falsifiable
correlation, and it needs to be held to the standards
of falsifiable statements, and regarded as purely conjectural
at best until validated. In astrology we have an especially difficult time
being intellectually honest because we are faced with
the extreme cognitive dissonance of experiencing that
astrology works in actual practice but is not validated
by research. Every astrologer must find his or her
own way of resolving this seeming contradiction. Skeptics
of astrology must also resolve this contradiction.
Sometimes skeptics claim that astrologers are charlatans
using astrology to make money or have poor critical
thinking skills, without having any experience with
leading astrologers or their writings. By the way,
this is not true of Richard Feynman, who did research
new age alternative thinking before commenting on it.
Resolving cognitive dissonance by honest
study and the courage to admit where one is unsure
or undecided
is a sign of inner strength and fortitude, not weakness,
and can ultimately enable one to resolve the contradictions
by discovering the truth. Ignoring, or accepting
overly simplistic resolutions to cognitive dissonance,
can
simply keep one's intellectual development stagnant
as one acquiesces to the impasse. I see the elevation
of astrology to a vastly more sophisticated system
of analysis than is currently widely practiced as
the future of astrology as the path of the future
of astrology.
The success of exploratory research into astrological
factors that discriminate professions in the Gauquelin
data and in gold prices in articles to be put on this
website soon, and the successes of pilot studies which
are described in other articles on this website demonstrate
that this vision of a metamorphosis of astrology from
its current level to a very different and more sophisticated
level is not just philosophical speculation, but a
work already in progress. |
Copyright © 2007
Cosmic Patterns. All Rights Reserved