Tia. Thanks,I made a mistake thru relying on memory. I meant that the source of the profiles could easily belong to the 90% of astrological sources who aren't much good.

Astrologers have to distort what they do to fit scientific tests.

Owing to the general tendence not to look at oneself and explore same (hence the fear of counselling/therapy), people have highly variable and inconsistent and distorted views of themselves,of friends, of family members,often.

And I hope we can agree that any number of scientific experiments in history have been shown to be flawed by other scientists. That's part of how science develops,I thought.

Science has many assumptions and blind spots and beliefs embedded in it, many of which practitioners may be unaware of,having bought the package in oder to get on with their job.(There is a respectable subject of study called The Philosophy of Science which explores these things. [I did it at uni.] There are 2 other disciplines relevant - the sociology of science, and the psychology of science.)

Astrology has some major obstacles insofar as its own exponents seek solid foundations. One is that there is little money available to put into the task. Mainstream science which has the bulk of the money isn't going to do it. Another is that the scientific and main press, being against astrology, by and large gives space only to opponents. A third is that astrology that might be given some credence can be suppressed (much of Kepler's astrological stuff,e.g.)

We all learn a great deal about the world thru experience and instruction from parents and friends as distinct from via the scientific method,e.g.th't cars are dangerous,the sun is hot,you mustn't eat just anything etc. ad infinitum.

That is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that the scientific method is valueless;of course it is valuable.

The best I can do briefly about the "Well it's true for me" line is not "That's an inherently mistaken view" , but "It depends." (Many of the questions our discussion raises could be chewed at book-length.In no way do I want to go on and on like .......... so
to save bandwidth, virtual space and time,I won't repeat earlier points I've made that are being ignored. I do understand the ignoring - we all do it.

And I now how difficult it is when anything we are stone-cold certain about is disputed. All of Mudcat if nowhere else shows how we can be prone to think we've made the points that settle the matter,obviously, and then find others disputing them together or severally.






       Ivor