Arguments Against The Astrologers
Lee Lehman Classical Astrology | Astrology, Science and Society, Mark Urban-Lurain | Nick Campion | Project Hindsight Ancient Astrology | Astrology and Academia | Greek and Roman Mythology | The Nine Planets | Kepler College | Astrological Art | Babylonian FAQ | Egyptian Kings | Image Gallery - Greek | The Gnosis Archive | Culture and Cosmos | Hermetic Texts | Robert Zoller's Medieval Astrology
This page will expand to refute every argument against astrology.
A Comparison and Refutation of The Historical Arguments Against Astrology
Edmond H. Wollmann
Kepler College: Astrology in Ancient Civilizations
Nicholas Campion advising
First term, October 21, 2000
Astrological models throughout history have demonstrated the validity of astrology as an important paradigm worthy of serious consideration. Political, religious, and social factors have been the strongest elements in determining whether astrology rises or falls in power, dignifying it as worthy of academic treatment, or denigrating it as a superstition. Evidenced throughout historical documents, are the same fallacious arguments against astrology arising again and again because of astrology opponents' strenuous attempts to define astrology to serve the purposes of social and political factors. Added to this is the lack of clear operationalizing of astrological principles and philosophies on the part of astrologers. Logical arguments have been made regarding astrology to promote or deny its validity, and the most convoluted arguments based in fallacy, to strengthen or weaken it. Arguments are reviewed and investigated through historical documentation by the opponents and proponents of the first and second centuries C. E.. Valid logical arguments and fallacious defective arguments that have been presented throughout the history of the period, are compared, discussed, and refuted.
From "The Rise and Triumph of Astrology in the Latin World":(1)
The arguments against astrology have been longstanding, vigorous, consistent -- and riddled with logical defects. Presented here are the clear evidence of the roots of the continued post-modern wooden-headed thinking (13) about astrology as opposed to what it is; incited by the needs of societies seeking to control people and ideology in the first and second centuries.(8) The ancient world in the first and second centuries C.E. set the tone for the most fundamental objections of astrology by the political and religious powers of the time. Ptolemy sets the tone for the standard rebuttle in Tetrabiblos, and Cicero (9) sets the tone for astrological arguments against astrology in "On The Nature of The Gods" and "Divination" when he writes:
ALet us now speak of the Chaldeans and of the phenomena whereby they foretell the future....(p. 434, 42).ABut let us have done with witnesses and apply our reason to the problem. Those who accept the birthday calculations of the Chaldeans present their case somewhat as follows: in that constellation-studded belt which the Greeks call the Zodiac there dwells a certain force which is so puissant that each individual part of the belt controls and alters the heavens in its own particular way, according to the constellations which are in its section of the sky (or in contiguous sections) at any given time. This force is affected in various ways by those stars which are called >planets= or >wanderers.= But when they have moved into that sign of the Zodiac under which some person is being born, or into a sign which bears some relation or affinity to it, then there comes into being what they term a >triangle= or a >square.= And since the rising and setting of the constellations produce endless varieties of weather and climate, and since, further, the sun works those wonders which we behold with our own eyes, (P. 435) these proponents of astrology believe that it is not merely a matter of probability, but of absolute certainty, that, just as the heat or coldness of the air is regulated and determined by this mysterious power, so children at birth are animated and molded by it, and that every human being has from it his mind, character, temperament, body, vocation, and fate."
Carneades supplied Cicero these standard arguments against astrology. (10)
But the astronomer Ptolemy, (11) knowing the ignorance of the average person with regard to astrological application, reinforces the extant links between astronomy and astrology (separated only for short periods), and explains in great detail via application and delineation of astrological mathematics in his text "Tetrabiblos" (four books),with almost all that was needed to refute the arguments against astrology in his time:
The studies preliminary to astronomical prognostication, O Syrus ! are two: the one, first alike in order and in power, leads to the knowledge of the figurations of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars ; and of their relative aspects to each other, and to the earth: the other takes into consideration the changes which their aspects create, by means of their natural properties, in objects under their influence.(12)...It is, however, a common practice with the vulgar to slander everything which is difficult of attainment, and surely they who condemn the first of these two studies must be considered totally blind, whatever arguments may be produced in support of those who impugn the second. There are also persons who imagine that whatever they themselves have not been able to acquire, must be utterly beyond the reach of all understanding; while others again will consider as useless any science of which (although they may have been often instructed in it) they have failed to preserve the recollection, owing to its difficulty of retention.
Here, Ptolemy answers with authority, introducing from the start the complexity of astrology as escaping the cognition of most by powerfully delineated astrological techniques. This in essence refutes almost all -- all except the apparently unanswerable "fate VS free will"(13) debate that still evokes heated debate today. Perhaps he does not answer from the assumption ofcatarchic astrology as being a given. The exploration of these arguments against astrology in the past through the writings of not only Cicero, but Sextus Empiricus, Saint Augustine, the philosopher Favorinus, (14) Saint Basil in the Exogenic Homilies, (15) Saint John Chrysostom in the Homilies on The Gospel of Matthew, (16) and Ante-Nicene Fathers (Volume V) and other Christian reactions, demonstrates the fundamental objections of astrology by those ignorant of the subject then -- as now, and that little has changed in the way of the debate. Those objections are demonstrative of, as in the past, the gulf between those skilled in astrology and those ignorant enough to make defective assertions about it without investigation.(17)
Now, rather than discounting the idea of fate, Ptolemy proceeds to answer each of these objections.(18) Ignoring the fate aspect was a mistake (many astrologers of today make), because it allowed the idea of fate and determinism to continue to be an assumed aspect of astrological premise, which elicits more discounting by clear observation of the facts (i.e., that twins do not experience the same lives, fates, careers, etc. like a science would be able to predict). It also allowed the rising Christian cult to use that argument as evincing disempowerment personally and a form of the denial of God's will. Hence, in essence, Ptolemy does not satisfy the fate argument, but instead implies that the complexity of astrology is so high that mistakes will be made (Anangke(19)). This may very well be why he ignored the twin argument as well, because he was unwilling to admit the possibility that astrology was not a science that could be verified or repeated with confidence, or because it was never intended to be a science in the terms of modern presentism. Although there may be some truth to the idea that astrology still describes twins accurately, precise births at the same places would evidence exact lives; were astrology a hard science (and predeterminism being then a given, also in evidence). Rather than answer exactly each argument, he outlines the complexities of the analysis involved in determining these things, and in the 15th chapter of Book 3 of Tetrabiblos, so complex is his discussion of proragation and the number of modes possible, a professional astrologer of today finds it difficult to follow. His mathematical knowledge is flexed and demonstrates his ability as an astronomer and numerical fact finder as well. This silenced his critics to some degree by demonstrating that astrology was indeed scientific enough as an organized body of knowledge to challenge all but the master of it. This was a positive answer to the arguments asserted (as they are today) issuing from ignorance of the subject, and lack of expertise.(20) From this point on he examines each of the issues at hand.
Outlining these primary fallacious arguments we begin withCicero, who advances his ideas about what astrologers believe, and asserts that #1) the weather does not affect children, why should the stars? Ptolemy answers this in great detail and indicates how the triplicities etc. can be used to determine hot winds, moisture, and other weather phenomena. So the weather is caused by astrology, which causes everything else that proceeds from it.
Taking this idea through all signs Ptolemy delineates an array of possible weather indices. Previously in Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy clarifies the fallacious notion that the constellations determine the "signs" of the Zodiac. Refuting geographic arguments as well, therefore, whether we were in the northern or southern hemisphere etc. would make no difference on the conceptual idea of "Aries". Regarding the signs, he proceeds to outline each sign and its influence on the weather patterns. But would this explanation hold knowing the vastness of the world and its differing climates? Indeed it would -- if Ptolemy's arguments of the ascension and declination or diurnal and nocturnal, and Oriental and Occidental effects are put into play as variables (i.e., "The Terms According to Ptolemy", Book I Chapter XXIV). One of the ways that Ptolemy refutes the arguments of his day is with mathematics, wherein he implies at the very least (or demonstrates in the extreme) the vast and complex indices of astrological considerations or variables as being sufficient in themselves for astrologers errors in prediction or delineation -- should they make them. (22)
Of the major arguments put forth by Cicero and other opponents of astrology, is #2) the notion that the stars look different from different places on earth depending on geographical location. Cicero and Empiricus (23) advance similar arguments against the validity of astrology (most defective and still carried forth today). Cicero argued that the great circles that divide the heavens;
This argument is defeated by Ptolemy when he explains the effects of planets and stars condition with reference to the horizon and (described above) the zodiac as defined by equinox. For in chapter IV of book I he states that the division into masculine and feminine signs is further delineated by "the ascendant to the mid-heaven, or from the angle of the west to the lower heaven, they are considered to be masculine, then being Oriental: and in the other two quadrants, feminine, being then Occidental." This division of the heavens along with Maututine and Vespertine (25) potential includes variables that confound the opponents understanding. The complexities mount and real astrology emerges, that not unlike today, evidences and reveals more the ignorance of the opponent of astrology, than any invalidity of astrology itself. (26) Ptolemy argues that there is a hierarchy of sorts in the power of influences in nature. Ptolemy ignores this argument by not addressing it specifically but answers it generally in his dissertation on astrological applications, implying that astrological knowledge takes care of this assertion when the chart is cast for the proper latitude etc. (and rightly so).
Augustine (27) quotes Cicero and states that twins #3) do not evidence astrology as a valid science because two individuals born at the same time can grow up to lead very different lives and die at different times (Cicero uses the twins Procles and Eurysthenes as examples).
Augustine mocks the concept of astrological timing based on conception, noting that conception can occur spontaneously or after a time period beyond the actual "planting of the seed." Regarding the concept of the fate of twins, Ptolemy does not directly answer this dilemma (excepting the momentum assertions). But he answers the doubts about conception time determination errors, by moving the focus to birth which is more readily observable, and states that each (either conception or birth charts) indicates the affairs from that timing point forward. He also reveals that he is convinced that astrology is a science with measurable variables of extreme complexity. He discusses the idea of momentum not in terms of fate (because he surely sees the momenta as changeable) but more in terms of strength of variable;
But #4) does the belief in Anangke make a subject a science? The basic tenets of logic were established in Ptolemy's time, and the arguers both pro and con use it to serve their views. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is not evidence of presence either. In order for something to be a science there must be a deductive construct as the basic equation for the truth premise. (29) Math fits this construct. Therefore, recognizing astrology as inductive, Ptolemy leaves the science of astrology dependent upon further discoveries (either mathematical or observational) regarding the aspects of nature which have the prevailing effect upon events and people. In so doing he allows the competing philosophical constructs to fill the unexplained gaps with fallacies easily consumed by a less enlightened general populace. (30) Being a natural philosopher, Ptolemy does not directly address, nor seems to be aware of, the impending "creator issue" as being one with astrological premise, perhaps because this issue was a later creation of the rising Christian cult. The logical arguments against astrology are then embraced by the Christian cult to help promote Christian values over pagan (even though the same arguments deny their own cult beliefs). Saint Augustine in the "City of God Against The Pagans" even goes so far as to assert that the will of men or God (implying a separation not only from nature, but the cosmos and God and man as well) determine what becomes of us, not the stars or planets. Thus, by separating the all (God), linking the disempowering effect of the Stoic beliefs of fate and astrology, and separating free will from the stars and planets (God's creations), Saint Augustine aligns astrology with evil in opposition to not only man's free will, but also God's will. This is a powerful misinterpretation and defective fallacious assertion, a straw man defective fallacy that has held sway for almost two millennia.(31)
Let us examine the first arguments. Ptolemy clearly defeats the birth time and animal arguments (that they should likewise be affected) in one swoop:
THE CONCEPTION AND THE PARTURITION, OR BIRTH ; BY WHICH LATTER EVENT THE ANIMAL QUITS THE WOMB, AND ASSUMES ANOTHER STATE OF EXISTENCE
In the modern era, the first breath describes the birth-time. The act of self-sustaining autonomy is itself indicative of the physical beginning. (32)
Trying to reinforce the timing issue, Augustine uses Nigidius' analogy of the potter's wheel to explain the differences between twins astrologically.
But how can these differences be measured, let alone predicted? Augustine uses the problem of fortune telling (33) to ask why would we consult astrologers when to eat or sit down or other such petty things, when such major differences arise in even twins from immeasurable astronomical measurements? (34)
Cicero and Empiricus both attack the scientific perspective of Ptolemy and the astrologers #5) with the concept that the planets are too far away to have any effect. (35) Ptolemy answers this to some degree by describing rays, but then states that the horizon makes effects weak if there is heavy atmosphere, indicating that he believes the influence from the stars capable of being affected by weather (a contradiction). Ptolemy does outline the effect of the ascendant, Sun, and Moon as being paramount and critical in delineation (along with the part of fortune, describing it as the ascendant of the moon). He does not answer directly the "effect" of the stars other than as rays. He does make the argument however, that the visible stars or bodies above the horizon, are far more potent than those "under the earth." In his terms, the ambient causes the weather, hence the weather reflects the ambient. In this time in history, these arguments would have been strong and valid because of the inability to measure the distance of stars or other factors with confidence.
Here, an exposition of these arguments by Anthony Long in "Science and Speculation" demonstrates how fallacies are repeated and confounded against astrology with absolutely no basis:
Here, Anthony Long demonstrates how the lack of astrological expertise and knowledge is profoundly dangerous in making logical arguments against it, because he reinforces Plotinus' (who I believe was seeking to empower astrology, not destroy it) own fallacious defective argument that location of the observer is irrelevant or not important in all of astrology. The astral divination of the Babylonians originated with observations by the observer in a particular location. Horoscopic Greek (time-view) Astrology is dependent upon time and space aspects of the "equation" as paramount and primary. Hence, both are in error when making comparisons of perspective (39) from anywhere other than the location of the subject or issue at hand's "birth place" for where the chart would be constructed. It is the relative positions of bodies locations relative to the observer, that is important and part of the equation.
One of the arguments against observations of the Chaldeans was #6) That sight, the sense the Chaldeans use to observe the stars etc., is the most unreliable sense! This is complete foolishness on the part of Cicero (for this time period) (40) and the skeptics who use it, because in so arguing he discounts empiricism itself (observation, one of the keys to scientific pursuits). He also says that the moon swoops so low as to almost touch the earth! So much for observation, I assume is his point(?)
Ptolemy ignores the assertion that sight is that fallible and instead moves the observations around to allow them to be more certain. He also argues that any flaws are the effect of the incompetency of those doing the delineations rather than the science itself. (41) This is a powerful and accurate assertion I include here -- that was not, but must be -- overcome by all opponents of astrology.(42)
The practicing astrologer can easily sympathize with this view because it is a logical analysis of the actual facts of astrological application (and current and past state of the social deficits extant regarding fraud). Therefore, in this case, Ptolemy's logic is impeccable.
One of the general arguments posed by Empiricus is #7) the heredity argument, saying that different races (such as the Ethiopians who have curly hair) cannot have hair like that of a Virgo which would be straight, or their skin white. Ptolemy points out that the regions are ruled by signs according to their direction and locations, and thus defeats this argument.(astrocartography)
Empiricus argues #8) that events in the life do not "sympathize" with the heavens, in the same way that the person's organs do with their head, because there is space between them, he then separates the concepts of necessity, chance, and free will which (he assumes) discounts the fate idea.
But what is the first cause? Existence itself has no predetermined cause that can be confirmed.(44) Because Ptolemy sees astrology as a first cause, he really doesn't address the sympathy argument specifically, but generally attributes techniques and rule following as the probable errors of the astrologer, not astrology (and as stated before, he more accurately addresses Cicero's differences in fate, chance and free will with the momentum argument). He outlines in great detail the probable (45) physical, mental and even parental defects that will be shown in the chart in chapters 16 through 19 of book III, and even discusses the astrological significators that tell whether the child will survive or be reared if it does. This is a devastating argument coupled with the momentum concept, to all arguments about "fate" or necessity, without directly addressing why this is so-- because to do so, means addressing the creator issue.
Because of these foundations, the continued arguments of #9) -- That environmental and cultural factors are irregular and unpredictable, so astrologers cannot predict them and must take these into account -- is disposed of. Because Ptolemy moves the first cause to astrology, hence these factors are caused by astrological phenomenon with probable momentums, and therefore are predictable when application is correct, and probabilities taken into account.
Which then disposes of the argument #10) Incorrect predictions prove astrology invalid. (46) Ptolemy implies ability and accuracy take care of this problem, he also says that many who are trying to pass themselves off as astrologers are really some sort of fortune tellers using astrology as a cover to increase their stature, and are really making predictions based on whim, not the science of astrology, (47) which he implies cannot answer all future questions.
Greek astrology differs from early Babylonian in its concern with ordinary individuals horoscopes. (48) This evoked many arguments based on astronomical and observation failures from the limits of the technological abilities of Chaldeans, and carried over into the Roman periods. Scientific arguments against the Babylonian omina or oracular astral religion astrology are quite different, considering dreams and other forms of divination were used in conjunction with it.
Technical objections raised by Empiricus and Cicero consisted of:
1) The Ascendant Sign is not knowable because conception times cannot be ascertained with any accuracy, and of the birth process taking different times etc., were answered to some degree by Ptolemy with a discussion of the birth as being based on autonomy, and that both conception and birth only allows astrological measurements and delineation from that timing forward.(49)
2) Where exactly is the boundary point for each constellation?, was answered by Ptolemy's explanation of the importance of the equinox, not the constellation itself. Hence, whether the stars are connected by "joints" or not as Empiricus argues, the boundaries are by degrees and division of the circle based on the seasons, not constellational configurations. (50)
3) What does the symbolism of animals in constellations have to do with the lives of people?
Ptolemy explains how the different signs magnify the different aspects of the body, but does not really address this idea clearly. But he does address the coldness, and heat etc. associated with the seeds and animals, and constitutions of persons according to astrological triplicities, terms and the like. The seed of each species is discussed as if its place of astrological origin (even of people) dictates this (which he discusses in chapter 3 of book 2 in great detail as the "familiarity of the regions of the earth", and other geographical considerations). (51)
On The Religious Fallacious Objections of Saint Augustine
Saint Augustine begins his rambling discourse against astrology immediately with a begging the question (52) fallacy in the preface of his "City of God Against The Pagans" when he states that "It is evident that happiness is the sum total of all desirable things" and that "no God should be worshipped except those that make one happy."(53) This denial of reality and discounting of truth through guilt would be the hallmark of the Christian legacy. Facts and reality, sadden many people. Expectations and "shoulds" disappoint others. The realization of failings can bring on depression in some. This is an extreme subjective value judgment, which announces the prevailing influence the Christian cult would impose on a universe and world never meant to endure or be subject to such limiting proclamations by men.
This is the fatal error of astrologers of both the past and today, and indicative of the sorts of slippery slopes (54) are brought about when astrologers seek to define astrology as causal, because astrology reflects the will, it does not cause it. But Augustine immediately seizes on this most powerful psychological (and unappealing) weakness of astrological determinism, and he continues to pound on the dis-empowering and distasteful implication -- that life is pointless and denies the individual reinforcing efficacy for self application-- from the astrological view.(please see my "Fate VS Free Will discourse). This spin would last 2 millennia because of astrologers inability to remove themselves from their need to prove their craft and reevaluate it philosophically, with an expanded objective analysis.
Augustine uses this same attack to argue against, birth-times, marriage selection times, and all assertions negative, and to bury the fact that astrology actually increases choice rather than denies it. He separates the stars themselves from God and actually convinces the delusional following that God knows all that will happen, yet their is no such thing as fate!
Not only is there fate, but free will too! In this paragraph Augustine denies the same self efficacy he argues the astrologers deny, but allows free will and fate to exist at once (at least in the follower's mind) to confuse the reader into believing whichever one allows them to feel self-efficacious.
This contradiction successfully dupes the followers into believing they are acting in a free will manner all the while being led by the science of following (religion). Considering the need for Roman control of the populace while maintaining a republic, this is a very attractive resolution to that problem, hence; Christianity becomes the governmental choice of preferred belief systems because it pacifies (through illusion) the individual need for self-validation while allowing social control measures to be maintained.
The arguments against the Chaldeans and the Greek astrologers by these skeptics are obviously -- not unlike today -- based on ignorance of the subject more than logical attacks on the components or premise of the subject. Anthony Long (Science and Speculation, Studies in Hellenistic Practice) indicates that the arguments posited are in reality usually against the Babylonian astral religion (which evolves as the basic thrust of all attacks against astrology (55)), not Hellenistic or Greek astrology. This is because the factual and mathematical concerns in the Greek evolution of astrology -- as opposed to fated proclamations or oracular predictions based on star positions, omen divination, and dreams of the Babylonians -- are more difficult to refute. The complexity of calculating and erecting horoscopes for individuals based on birth times and more demanding data, lends credence to astrology from the Greek view of physics. The complexity also challenges the ignorant with having to learn it (as Ptolemy succinctly points out).
Propaganda regarding astrology has been and continues to be, so extreme to this day that astrological factual histories and contributions to the whole of human existence are excluded from academic considerations two millennia later, despite the evidence of astrology's powerful connection as foundation on the whole of modern society.
Ptolemy clearly serves with foresight with the production of Tetrabiblos, because he argues from the physics (of the day) perspective, and hence avoids the oracular divinations of the Chaldeans that propose being born under such and such a star alone indicates such and such a destiny. He therefore raises the bar in the study of astrology to the Greek physics level-- complete with mathematical complexity, and increased variables to challenge the best of his time. Hence, although he did not address critical issues of fate with certainty, he did answer in no uncertain terms the fallacious arguments of the (uninformed) cynics of his day, and like astrologers in this day, kept the valid and powerful art of astrology alive and where it belongs; in the hands of the wise and insightful true skeptics who are unaffected by defective and fallacious propagandists seeking only to control the rubes.
Ashmand, J. M., (1976) Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos or Quadripartite. North Hollywood: Symbols & Signs.
Barnett, Lincoln, (1966) The Universe And Dr. Einstein. New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc..
Barton, Tamsyn (1994). Ancient Astrology. London: Routledge.
Bruder, Kenneth and Moore, Noel Brooke (1993). Philosophy, The Power of Ideas. California: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Bury, Litt. D. The Rev, Sextus Empiricus. "Against The Professors", Against The Astrologers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Campion, Nicholas (2000). "Babylonian Astrology: Its Origin and Legacy in Europe" (Campion, extracted from Astronomies Across Cultures).
Chance, Paul, (1994) Learning and Behavior. Third edition California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Cramer, Frederick H. (1954). Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. Baltimore Maryland: J. H. Furst Company.
Culinau, Peter. (1999). "Astrology", Encyclopedia of Religion.
Cumont, Franz. (1912). Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans. New York: Dover.
De Laszlo, Violet Staub, (1959). The Basic Writings of Carl Jung. New York: The Modern Library.
Einstein, Albert, (1950) On The Generalized Theory of Gravitation. Scientific American: Volume 182, No. 4.
Fischer, Mary Pat, (1994) Living Religions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hand, Robert. (2000). Chronology of the Astrology of the Middle East and West by Period. Virginia: ARHAT.
Holden, James Herschel. (1996). A History of Horoscopic Astrology. Arizona: AFA.
Hoskin, Michael. (1999). The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Hurley, Patrick J., (1991) A Concise Introduction to Logic. Fourth edition. California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Carl Gustave Jung, (1971) Collected works, The Type Problem in Classical and Medieval thought, Vol 6, page 41.
Kaplan, J.D., (1951) Dialogues of Plato. New York: Pocket Books.
Kolak, Daniel and Martin, Raymond. The Experience of Philosophy. Second edition.California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Kuhn, Thomas S., (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second edition, enlarged. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lindsay, Jack. (1971) The Origins of Astrology. London: Frederick Muller Ltd.
Patterson, Gordon M. (2000). Essentials of Ancient History. New Jersey: Research & Education Association.
Ramage, Andrew, and Nancy H. (1995). Roman Art Romulus to Constantine. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Talbot, Michael, (1991) The Holographic Universe. New York: Harper Collins
Tester, Jim. (1987). A History of Western Astrology. New Hampshire: Boydell Press.
Thorne, Kip S., (1994) Black Holes & Time Warps. New York: W W Norton & Company.
Westenholtz, Ulla Koch, (1995) Mesopotamian Astrology. Copenhagen: Tusculanum Press.
1) Cramer, Frederick H. (1954). "Astrology in Roman Law and Politics".
2) Seneca, Suasoriae, 4, dealt with it in detail.
3) Arrian, 7, 18; Diodorus, 2, 31, 2.
4) Ibid. 19, 55, 6 ff.
5) Compare for example Diodorus, frgm. 21, 1, 1 ff.; Plutarch, Eumenes, 19, 2.
6) Strabo, 16, 1 6 (f. 739) Cassius Dio, ep., 68, 30, 1.
7) Cramer, F. H., "The Rise of Astrology in The Hellenistic World", page 11.
8) The basic arguments are identified in the text by "#" followed by the current number under discussion.
9) Cicero was an orator and politician of the mid first century A.D. who curiously collected art objects of Greek works in his space called "The Academy" (Cicero's gymnasium which was intended to call to mind Plato's Academy).
10) Cramer, F. H., "The Conversion of Republican Rome to Astrology", page 55.
11) Ptolemy; the Greek philosopher Ptolemy or the Ptolemies, kings of ancient Egypt. Ptolmaic System-An astronomical system maintained by Ptolemy, a Greek philosopher of the 2nd century A.D., who supposed the Earth to be fixed in the center of the Universe with the sun and the stars revolving around it.
12) Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, OR FOUR BOOKS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE STARS, BOOK THE FIRST, CHAPTER I, PROEM.
13) Please see the author's article "Compare and Contrast The Different Models of Fate, Free Will, and Astrological Determinism", September 4, 2000, Kepler University, with reference to the psychological and metaphysical factors involved.
14) "The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius", London: William Heinemann, G.P. Putnam & Sons.
15) "The Fathers of The Church", A New Translation, Roy Joseph Deferrari, The Catholic University of America.
16) "The Collected Letters of Saint Basil, to Amphilochios, on the Cannons." Vol III, CCXVII.
17) In the post-modern era, this is called "Woodenheaded thinking; assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs." (Tuchman, 1984, p. 7).
18) I must interject, that Ptolemy seems to be asserting in Chapter II, page 7, that like a physician there is a certain momentum that can be discerned through astrological prognostication, that is not necessarily unchangeable. He continues, however, to assert that there are competing influences and -- it seems -- to be arguing that we simply are not adept enough to consider all of them.
19) Anangke is necessity, that which appears to be inevitable, but its inevitability is only the result of our ignorance of alternatives. This ignorance is the result of undeveloped consciousness and awareness or Agnoia.
20) Each argument presented will be identified by the current rules of logic, the study of the science of sound reasoning, a derivation of the philosophical notions and arguments of the likes of Plato and Aristotle. A fallacy is a defect in an argument. This first fallacy is known as: "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such evidence, then the argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence." Logic, Hurley, 91. Because Cicero and other opponents of astrology had little astrological expertise, their arguments often contain this logical defect.
21) Book II, Chapter XII, Tetrabiblos.
22) It has been estimated that there are "5.3937075 x 10^58 or 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 factors. This number is infinitely greater than the population a million Earths could ever sustain, yet, according to Doris Chase Doane, it represents the smallest possible number of different astrological factor-combinations! (Astrology: 30 Years Research, page 2)." Noel Tyl, "The Guide to The Principles and Practice of Astrology" page 140, Llewellyn Publications, First edition, 1976, Noel Tyl.
23) Sextus Empiricus. "Against The Professors", Against The Astrologers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
24) Marcus Tellius Cicero, Brutus, page 436; 44.
25) The planets are Matutine when being oriental from the sun, they are above the earth when he rises; Vespertine, when they set after him.
26) Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance" (Argumentum ad ignorantum). When the premises state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment).
Example: "People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." Logic, 4th Edition Hurley, University of San Diego, Wadsworth Publishing, 1991, page 128, "Informal Fallacies".
27) Saint Augustine, "City of God Against The Pagans", II "Similarity and dissimilarity in the health of twins", page 139.
28) Book I, Chapter III, page 10.
29) A valid and sound deductive argument (fate/determinism) is one that has a true premises and a true conclusion. To be deductive, means that it contains nothing new in the conclusion (like math). Inductive arguments (free will) are weak or strong if they have a true premises and true conclusion (strong and cogent) or true premises and (probably) false conclusion (weak uncogent). In this way they are determined to be cogent or not based on strong argument+true premises. Sound argument=valid deductive argument + true premises=definite true conclusion. Cogent argument=strong inductive argument + true premises=probably true conclusion. Inductive indicates the conclusions are based on probabilities, deductive, the conclusions are facts.
30) Which Christianity consumes and uses with greater logical defect than astrology ever did historically.
31) Straw man fallacy, is a fallacy (defect in an argument) that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an opponent's position for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then concludes that the original argument has been demolished. "A Concise Introduction to Logic", Hurley, 1991.
32) Aries - ruler of beginnings and birth demands that the physical autonomy of "whatever" is under astrological scrutiny be present before "pioneering" of that separate "thing" can ensue.
33) This is my term I coined to indicate the defective and uncritical thinking that ignores the insight that somehow even if we could predict with profound accuracy all events discernable, would we know what to do with such understanding. Prediction is not the key, utilization of the information extracted is, and is why philosophical notions are far more "real" necessities than is empiricism. This assertion by Cicero is also a fallacy.
34) I have defeated the twin argument, by demonstrating accurate projections are only possible by incorporating and blending the aspect that free will and the development of the identity brings -- with psychic momenta (the horoscope) which redirects and reforms the momentum itself. This is in accord with the physics notion that an object remains in its trajectory or motion unless acted upon by another force. Thus, psychic energy also has a momentum or force through belief (the Cardinal points and signs) which creates identity definitions, reinforcing logic, and experiential reality. Free will decisions through the alteration of perspectives are this psychic force.
35) This argument is asserted by cynics of today, but assumes that astrologers are convinced that conventional theories and constructs of gravity has the slightest thing to do with astrological correlations. What is gravity to begin with? Where does gravity exist? This is a hypothesis to explain the phenomena we label "gravity." This is another fallacious defect called the "Fallacy of False Cause": "The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist. Whenever someone is suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all." Hurley, 1991, 4th edition. Quantum mechanics has illuminated the powerful question as to whether our everyday reality is really the result of Newtonian physics at all. We now know that even supernova millions of light years away are "felt" by earth, and bombarded with neutrinos by them. But the point is moot, because in the holistic or holographic construct perspective of the universe, the whole logically organizes the parts, time and space are illusions, and no "system" is an island. There has never been any evidence that gravity has any measurable connection with psychic states to my knowledge, except the obvious stress induced by Gs.
36) Anthony Long asserts that Geminus was probably Cicero's contemporary, see G. Aujac's Bude' edition of the Eisagogc (Paris, 1975).
37) Transl. A. H. Armstrong. Leob ed.
38) Science and Speculation, Anthony Long, "Astrology: Arguments Pro and Contra", page 174.
39) This analogy used by Plotinus is fallacious, not unlike many used today by other uninformed cynics against astrology. This fallacy is called "Weak Analogy" and affects inductive arguments from analogy. An argument from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends upon the existence of an analogy or similarity, between two things or situations. Weak analogy fallacies are committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
Entity A has attributes a, b, c, and z.
Entity B has attributes a, b, c,.
Therefore entity B probably has attribute z also.
Because location is a primary factor in astrological analysis, the analogy used is completely fallacious as there is no similarity or validity.
40) It is well known in post-modern society that observation can be an unreliable tool, but in Empiricus' time, one of the more reliable ones.
41) Which Einstein would later reinforce in stating "....it is the theory (construct) that determines what we observe."
42) It is my view that Anangke is the reason for the overcoming of astrologically implicate limitations, which are really self-imposed through belief and reflected in astrological signature.
43) Here again, modern statistics evinces that this assertion is fallacious, because variables have degrees of effect that are measured through analysis of variance (co-variance). In statistics, we measure the strength of variables.
44) Plato asserts that the purpose of living is to discover the purpose of living.
45) Again, modern scientific academic exercises are the measuring of probabilities. All inductive arguments contain only probable conclusions.
46) Weather, production projections such as the GNP, and stock market projections are very often wrong, does this discount the usefulness of these tools? If we applied this fallacy to all paradigms dozens would fall into the "superstitious" realm, including physicians predictions of illness, cures etc.. We never really prove anything, we only measure the truth premise of inductive logical hypothesis through confidence intervals and tests of significance -- which still doesn't prove anything. Thus, i.e., we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions -- that it is not flat (in relative terms). Please see the requirements to assert "cause."
47) What really has changed? Ptolemy-- 1800 years ago -- clearly describes the 1-900 psychic line scams that exist today.
48) Science and Speculation, Studies in Hellenistic theory and Practice, Anthony A. Long, Cambridge University Press.
49) Modern computer technology now defeats this argument. This objection exists to some degree in modern times because of the practice of not believing the birth time of major importance by the general public, hence, hospitals and other birth places do not ensure accurate birth times are recorded. Methods of rectification and other procedures to help correct this are used by most professional astrologers.
50) Space, as we now know in modern cosmology, is not "empty" or necessarily "evidence" of disconnection.
51) Carl Jung defines the archetypal references that are found to permeate civilizations around the world and through time as archetypes and patterns of behavior, page 70, "The Basic Writings of Jung". In my view, DNA is the biological evidence for collective archetypal combination and recombination of an infinite array of archetypal reference that astrology delineates.
52) "Begging the question" fallacy occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise. If the reader or the listener is deceived into thinking that a key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound, when in fact, it may not be." Hurley 1991, 4th edition, Logic.
53) Guilt arises psychologically from the"Tyranny of the shoulds", see Personality Theories, Bem P. Allen, Allyn & Bacon 1994, Chapter 5, Karen Horney, page 118.
54) "The fallacy of slippery slope reasoning is a variety of false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place." page 134, Logic, Hurley 1991.
55) Observe the insistence in modern society of continued propaganda to keep astrology as a sunsign column "for entertainment purposes only" in the newspapers and outrageous tabloids as "evidence" of the silliness and futility of believing in or seriously investigating astrology. This has been very effective in duping the general public and allowing most who are ignorant of astrology to voice unfounded beliefs or disbeliefs in it with conviction, because of their assumption this is all it ever can be, or was.
" It is daily seen that even most illiterate persons, with no other aid than their own
experienced observation, are capable of predicting events which may be consequent on the
more extended influence of the Sun and the more simple order of the Ambient, and which may not be open to variation by any
complex configurations of the Moon and stars towards the Sun. There are, moreover, among the brute creation,
animals who evidently form prognostication, and use this wonderful instinct at the changes of the
several seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, and winter ; and, also, at the changes of the wind."
Ptolemy, Book I, Chapter 2, page 4.