Captain Ginger - it's demonstrably incorrect to say the mainstream media were the SOLE reason for the resurgence of astrology in the 20th century.

Tia - thanks for that. Just to be clear,your post of 12/1 responded by saying the astrologers did the same thing and otherwise didn't deal with my point. Your 18/1 post , by contrast,did deal with my point - that's all I meant by 'sidestepping' the first time.

i never said or wished to imply that scientists were 'mental lemmings'. As you say,they do take the scientific method for granted as the route to knowledge (have I got that right?),and I'm exactly questioning that statement,(not the same thing as saying it's nonsense or useless,which I don't believe). And of course,questioning that statement is the heresy.


   There are many reasons why it simplifies unto distortion to say that a person's character can be accurately delineated (sorry,described) from the horoscope alone in a quasi-scientific manner.)Astrologers regularly fall into the trap of trying to do that in attempt,perhaps to look more 'scientific'?

Can you suggest why minds of the quality of Plato,St.Thomas Aquinas,Newton,Goethe,Kepler,Jung and Reagan would think there's something in astrology if there isn't?



   I've resisted quoting till now.

   "When all possible scientific questions have been answered,the problems of life remain completely untouched."

    Wittgenstein, Tractatus 6.52.



   I'm assuming interested parties will prefer to read previous posts rather than be bombarded with endless repetition.






       Ivor