How to make Astrology acceptable as science?

May be not all the calculations and predictions based on position of planets and stars. But am sure certain parts of the current stream of astrology can match the standards of Science.

Wondering what you all think is needed to get the scientists to start accepting astrology as science.

🙂

Kill religion.

Appears to me there is sufficient evidence to support a scientific theory based around an absolute fact that planets exist in the Milky Way and thier positions influence the earths magnetic field, as well as the energy on earth itself. Look at the moon for example .. we KNOW for a fact that it influences the earth with oceanic pressures, and the behaviour of us humans .. as well as, in the involuntary aspect of female menstruation and gestation. It probably wouldn't take much to assess that other planets do, as well. We already know that all the surface temperatures on the planets in our solar system have risen by the same degrees as earths .. we ignorantly go about life, saying that we are causing the greenhouse effect, when in reality, ALL the planets are experiencing the same phenomena. So, there IS absolute evidence that planets do indeed have an effect on earth and it's inhabitants.

However, it defies theological ideology .. and we have allowed this wool to be pulled so far over all reasoning and logic .. that to put in place any kind of scientific absolute about the universe would create such chaos within this ignorance .. our whole infrastructure built around this very unproven "theory" would cause our destruction as a human race.

We can't have that .. we must continue being led like sheep to the butcher's table, because if we actually have scientific 'proof' of our existence then we cannot be controlled.

lol P-Angel. Looks like you took so much of effort to write what exactly I hoped to hear from someone.

((1. Consistent results that can be reproduced across multiple independant studies.))
Panacea, I agree with you. But this is the most complicated situation to sort out. To have such consistent result, then the person who does the research should also fall under the same zodiacs and should carry the same knowledge. Most times the results vary with difference in knowledge alone. And if we have few diff zodiacs across the globe doing the same research, their findings can be totally opposite.

lost cause.

😉 @ thelibran

It has to be investigated from an Astro Psychological basis which might not have ever been done - its a curiosity I don't understand why a scientist might ignore Astro Psychology which is afterall empirically evident - no scientist can disagree with this kind of investigation has not become a priority this is my point. And you might question why so? And I'm not sure - I suppose that scientists have been far more deeply preoccupied with the natural 'biological' aspects of humna existence to the point that Astro Psychology never caught their interest. Think about it the sciences of biological aspects had spent a huge amount of time fighting against pathological delusions which are "Religions" - rationalistic based scientists have had to huge amounts of their time to prove the natural evolutionary phenomena of evolution strongly contradicting with delusionary ideas inherent with "religions" got to give scientists suchas Richard Leaky a break - pure genius, how could man have been created by some kind of perverse pathological delusion such as this "God" concept about 2,000 years ago - or biblical time, I don't remember when Jesus was born. I think that the Scientists of today are more concerned with evolutionary biological concepts more than anything else due to the fact that they have within their teleological and pedagogical histories have always had to fight against pathological religionistic ideas - this is the main and strongest driving forces that might keep scientists geared towards biological rationality. You might consider Charles Darwin who was in his very essence an evolutionary biologist who proved to the religious society that man or any living creatures weren't created about 2,000 years ago and that it can be proen that certain fossil records go back thousands if not millions of years ago - such as the extinct Dinosaurs, this is the strongest struggle that I prusume that scientists have to deal with becoz they are greatest contradiction against religious communities and 'religions' are not rational - religions are invented and perverse pathological delusions. This is where the strongest contradiction lies which is rational Science and irrational religion. Religions cannot prove anything, religions are pathological, Rationalism which is Scientific is the exact contradiction of Religions. You will realize that this pathological delusion of 'God' created life about 2,000 years ago obviously this is pure bull crap - no rational human would truly beli

'proven'

I'm still amking too amny mistakes

sht 'making'

believe in this sorts of pathological nonsense - dinosaurs go back millions of years and it can be scientifically proven - pathologically deluded ideads about 'gods' cannot prove this. Religions you might consider are intangible while science is tangible - ofcourse science is tangible - no sane people will deny this - there are no such things as "Gods". One contradiction is that both rational science and religion were invented by masculine forces - its a contradiction just as you might consider that life is a contradiction - when man tried to understand the 'void' he invented pathological delusions - he invented peverse paternalistic 'Gods' and he wrote about them - what you would usually call "scriptures" and then since Man is still Man and since man loves to investigate he found - no no - he discovered all sorts of phenomena (such as extinct species) that contradicted with the very pathological God concept ideas that He himself invented and for this reason He rebels against the very same delusions that he created and wrote about becoz now he has found and investigated something that does not fit in with His pathological delusions. Man can you might presume be both rational and irrational at once and Man rebels against all the contradictions that he discover and along these lines of reasoning He never quite made it to the rationaliation of Astrology becoz its always been an intellectual between what is rational and what is irritational. Fortunately for its not like there has not been any Astrological interpretation ofcourse there is so be it atleast we have something. The priority of Science is at war with the Pathological - one masculine force fighting against its very flip side - I know it sounds ridiculous but look around you that's how it is. We live in a world of both rationalism = Science and irrationalism = Religion this is one of the strongest contradictions of mankind created only by masculine forces.

'ideas'.

"we KNOW for a fact that it influences the earth with oceanic pressures, and the behaviour of us humans .. as well as, in the involuntary aspect of female menstruation..."

female menstruation? never heard that before...

'fortunately for us' sorry thinking too fast

You might then reiterate about the structuralism inherent within religions - well then ofcourse religious systems are imbedded in structuralistic systems - Religions were invented by masculine forces and then you might reiterate that what is 'structuralistic' is rational and then I might refute that ofcourse Man invented pathological delusions and to create order he created structural systems - comparatively Capitalism is more Rational that Religions - Religions perse are pathological you cannot say the same about Capitalism which is another empirical entity invented by masculine forces - both Religion and Capitalism are perversions - no sane person would disagree with this concept its just that Religion is not rational and Religion is not tangible but within religious systems you can find structuralism that you might argue as being rational - so be it but not Religion itself the constructed structuralism within Religions has its own way of modifying and structuralising the lives of people and within this respect there is the rationalistic component afterall structure is rational and what is rational is Masculine and there goes the contradiction again Religion and Structure blah blah same goes for Capitalism and the structure of Capitalism - Capitalism provides 'structure' within societies. Back to the topic Science never got to the the point of deeply delving into astro psychology - you might consider that even if this branch became formally scientifically sanctioned people would not accept it. This branch while it is true is more peripheral to the greater perversions religion, capitalism, science although fortunately for us this subject hasn't been completely ignored - ofcourse it hasn't astrology is still very basic within or with regards to the lives of people.

It's been theorized by many that the race of men were created within the biblical timeframe by an entity they referred to as a god because he was the leader of the Anunnaki Elite.

In theory, the Annunaki were a race of species who inhabited the missing 5th planet from the sun, inbetween Mars and Jupiter, called Tiamat. When the planet was destroyed the Annunaki migrated to earth. Though earth did have evolved species of homo (originating with Hablis), they were still intellectable, uncivilized ... animals.

The Annunaki were a superior race, much larger and intelligent. They procreated with homo's and some believe to be the Missing Link, the anatomical features were similiar enough for procreation of the species.

Supposedly .. they put thier creation of the first humans in the garden of eden some 2000 years ago ... it is believed by many that there are some Anunnaki (in original form) still existing on earth .. called, Nordics or Blondes. Normally we only hear about encounters with the Grays.

In this theory .. here is a portion of Gensis 6, in which it describes that the Sons of Gods, seeded the daughters of men. And they were giants upon the earth.



1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

((female menstruation? never heard that before... ))

from wiki

"The word "menstruation" is etymologically related to moon. The terms "menstruation" and "menses" come from the Latin mensis (month), which in turn relates to the Greek mene (moon) and to the roots of the English words month and moon ? reflecting the fact that the moon also takes close to 28 days to revolve around the Earth (actually 27.32 days). The synodical lunar month, the period between two new moons (or full moons), is 29.53 days long.

A 1975 book by Louise Lacey documented the experience of herself and 27 of her friends, who found that when they removed all artificial night lighting their menstrual cycles began to occur in rhythm with the lunar cycle. She dubbed the technique Lunaception.[23] Later studies in both humans[24] and animals[25] have found that artificial light at night does influence the menstrual cycle in humans and the estrus cycle in mice (cycles are more regular in the absence of artificial light at night), though none have duplicated the synchronization of women's menstrual cycles with the lunar cycle. One author has suggested that sensitivity of women's cycles to nightlighting is caused by nutritional deficiencies of certain vitamins and minerals.[26]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunaception

For last few weeks I have been trying to replace the word 'God' with the word 'Nature' to see if it makes any sense.

(( In theory, the Annunaki were a race of species who inhabited the missing 5th planet from the sun ))

lol!!! who created them?

(( But if the tester has to be the same zodiac in all cases the method is contaminating the data and therefore at minimum ))

Same tests can be done by a set of people belonging to another particular zodiac at the same time and both the results can be analyzed to see the variation in understanding of these two zodiac on the same situation.

Well , if you come from the astronomy perspective , it could be a bit easier to accept as a science. However, astrology will never be accepted as a science because it is hard to disprove or approve. There is no absolute, and it's not always accurate.. I don't think it can be proven to be true as a science. Plus, it's not objective enough, you know how many people would cry if they were judged by their zodiac sign, it would be kind like a way of predicting behavior based of that.. Besides, what if our presidential canidates were judged based off if their signs?

It will never be a science, because it's purre entertainment.

The only way to make astrology as aceptable as science is through psychology. Astrology can be seen as a study of psychological traits and human behavior. As for supernatural and planets, i doubt it because alot are outdated and can only be seen as quasi-science.

i agree, i think astrology can be more recognized and respected through the psychological sciences. More the nature of the beast. Hard cold facts are for molecules and atoms. It's much harder to prove the direct influence of planets on people. But like the moon's effect on the tides, people are affected by the natural universe, too, and hey maybe that will be the crack in the door. The word "science" may not even be needed or necessary, and does not negate or minimalize the truth and impact of astrology for the past 3000 + years, when first discovered by ancient Egyptians. I think it's more important to keep the charlatans away, than anything. Science doesn't make astrology real, it's the people who live it everyday, since millenia. (Also, there's a real mathematical element to astrology, it's far from guess work.)

WELL RED_ARIES. PSYCH IS MY FIELD OF STUDY. AND I CAN'T SPEAK TOO MUCH BECAUSE I'M WORKING ON SOME WRITINGS, BUT WHAT I WILL DO IS, LET U KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR STORES SOON. I CAN SEE WHY U WOULD SAY THAT, BEING THAT DESCRIBING HUMAN TRAITS IS PSYCHOLOGICAL. HOWEVER, PSYCHOLOGY IS UBIQUITOUS ANYWAY... ASTROLOGY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT AS A SCIENCE THROUGH PSYCHOLOGY BECAUSE PSYCHOLOGY DEALS WITH MENTAL PROCESSES, BEHAVIOR AND ANIMAL BEHAVIOR. ASTROLOGY IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH. PLUS A THEORY WOULD HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED , WHICH MEANS THAT, A HYPOTHESIS AND A THEORY , TO SHOW IT TO BE TRUE. HOWEVER, WHAT VARIABLES WOULD BE MEASURED? PSYCHOLOGY SHOWS OBJECTIVITY, WHEN A HYPOTHESIS IS FORMED , ALONG WITH A THEORY , IT MUST BE CARRIED OUT FOR AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY TO SHOW A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VARIABLES EXIST. ASTROLOGY CAN NOT SHOW THIS, THEREFORE IT CAN'T BE A SCIENCE. ASTROLOGY IS TRUE BUT BASED SOLELY ON PROBABLITY, AND SUCEPTIABILITY. WON'T HAPPEN , CAN'T HAPPEN. IT'S TOO HARD, TO SHOW RELAIBILITY AND VALIDITY, WHICH IS WHAT A THEORY MUST PROVE. ASTROLOGY CAN'T BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN.

GOOD AZZ DISCUSSION THOUGH, GLAD I COULD HELP~

The trouble with existing field of psychology, imho, is that its purely based on assumption. There is no clear cut definition about how brain process data or stores memory or manages complex calculations and how humans feel. There is no framework which can explain intelligence or understanding or communication. Its a big mess out there.

Astrology has a structure when it comes to communication and understanding. And people from all walks of life irrespective of their level of education or nationality or race, they all display similar character patterns. Thats what scientists hesitate to see. Most astrologers also dont push these obvious factors instead try to sell their power to predict and make more money out of it.

Then maybe it needs it's own category within its own critera .. Kind of like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Does everything have to fit so neat and perfect, before it counts? This is where the sciences are gravely limited. I think we will never please the scientific field, and why should we have to, since astrology isn't pure science. To me this doesn't make sense, and is ironic, at best. I do believe (serious) educated astrologers should have their own licensing body, like any other practice. At least you can now find a few University level programs. ..so one small step at a time, i guess.

"Most astrologers also dont push these obvious factors instead try to sell their power to predict and make more money out of it."

i wholly agree TL; and like what i inferred in my last post, let's separate the chaff from the wheat. ..so important and long overdue. Where are the Trumps, the Ramsays, the Bill Gates of astrology; these are the run-away ambitious types we need..lol

((Then maybe it needs it's own category within its own critera))

I think its essential. trying to fit astrology within the narrow minded system of science will be like trying to accommodate an elephant in a kennel.