Message #24761

[mccoy]

Guys, I really forgot about the original point.

Bro...Ahem, ding-dong (which I'm going hereafter to abbreviate to dd), you have a way to be too serious with things and to clash with other people who have a likewise serious way. I suggest that you relax in this forum, relaxing is what a forum should be about, beyond discussing constructively.

Of course astrology is not a physical science. If it were a science like chemistry or physics, we could make verifiable and repeatable experiments.

That means, we could take chemicals in the right doses and the right procedures and by following that we may end up with the same final compound.

Also, the goodness of a theory or a method may be measured by the correctness of the forecasts.

Is an algorithm forecasting the weather working? How good? That's immediately verifiable from the real weather.

I don't know if there have been such evaluations for astrological forecasts. Maybe the only study on such an evalutaion has been negative (no accurate forecasts as a whole).

So we should first determine the accuracy of various forecasts. Then determine the reliability of them by statistical methods, then ascertain whether the inaccuracies are due to individual lack of skills or biased method and so on.

There is no definitive verdict on that.

I agree with b...ahem, dd, that astrology is not a conventional science. It is simply a forecast method, or it maybe regarded as a niche of behavioural psycology, where individual behaviour is analyzed from a signature of alleged former lives. Such an analysis may provide help and support. And the forecasts are based upon that karmic signature and they also can be of psycological support.

I have no sufficient data to judge the goodness of forecast of astrology. On the whole, maybe it's not favourable.
Whereas determining the psycological signature is probably more accurate.