Quote:



1. I'm sorry to hear about your friends bad experiences with James Randi.
Please give them my contact information, and I promise I will be more
fair. Unfortunately, I don't have $1 million to offer them, but it will
definitely serve the higher purpose of "convincing a skeptic."



Randi, it should also be known, is a magician, not a scientist, but thanks, and most folks do know he's not the best for such tests anyway.

Quote:

3. Regarding astrology ... pick up three newspapers (or visit three
on-line astrology sites) on any given day and compare what the horoscopes
say.



I have great disdain for sun-sign astrology. To assume that the entire worldly population is comprised of only 12 types is, of course, ludicrous. There are, besides the Sun, 8 other planets and the Moon to consider. There are 12 signs, and 12 houses. Some consider asteroids, too, but I am not one of them. The topic is far more complex than your newspaper "fortunes."

Quote:

How can we conduct an intelligent examination of whether astrology
is "valid" or not when astrologists do not speak in one voice?



Here is the crux of the matter. (First, though, the accepted term is astrologers not astrologists.) If you read Gauquelin and Seymour (and a selected few others) it becomes abundantly clear that astrology is greatly misunderstood by a lot of today's astrologers, most of whom want to turn it into so much psychobabble.

Part of this might be due to the fact that there is little means for formal education in the subject, and most have little or not inclination to actually research the subject--for instance, getting a huge database of people or events over a hundred or more years, and discovering possible connections bectween planets and qualities. Gauquelin did something similar in arriving at his "Gauquelin points;" Richard Nolle did some fantastic work on the Moon and weather; other good work has been done by Jimm Lewis, the Magi Society, and others less known.

But to say, "Well I have Pluto in Virgo so that means I am picky and moody" is fairly ludicrous--it might or might not be true, but someone read it in a book so they think they know this. If it doesn't work out the way it says, then they start looking up one of the hundreds of asteroids--which really botches the picture in my opinion. Adding so many factors obliterates any real meaning (some use up to a thousand 'roids).

Quote:

Which one
am I suppose to believe? The one that appeals to me the most? Which
astrologer is the "real" one that I should listen to? On what basis
should I make that judgment?



This is the question every astrologer or anyone interested in astrology should be asking. I did. The field is like a tower of Babble, and I use the term "babble" on purpose. I answered the question by going first going back to older astrology, the kind done by John Dee and William Lilly, and even older sources. Next, I started keeping records, especially of "mundane" (i.e., wordly) events. I felt that to really understand what works in astrology, you simply must do the research. A lot of what's "accepted" is just plain wrong, if you look at the facts.

Not everyone is so inclined, especially someone who isn't that interested in the subject in the first place. That's understandable. Fortunately, there is a lot of good data that's been published by people who were and/or are that interested.

Jeanne