Someone recently said to me, “Why do you believe in astrology? Everyone knows it’s nonsense.”
I gave my standard answer, one that Scott, my astrologer brother, gives: I don’t believe in the type of astrology you and most people are familiar with either.
From Scott’s Debate With an Astrology Skeptic blog post: “Time after time, the astrology skeptics are oblivious to the fact that the astrology they are familiar with—horoscopes and other superficial forms of the ancient science—have nothing to do with the authentic science of astrology. 99% of the astrology you find on the Internet includes frivolous rip-offs of reliable methodologies. Even upon learning this, though never having studied it, the cynics still reject astrology.”
From Scott’s Sun Sign Astrology Origins and Why You Should Avoid it blog post: “The unfortunate departure from authentic astrology began in the 1600s and accelerated with the advent of ‘modern astrology’ in the late 1800s. Readily accepted in the marketplace due to its lack of complexity, Sun sign and psychologically based astrology began its ascent. Although such superficial astrology does serve as an introduction to the genuine science, regrettably, it’s very misleading.”
From Scott’s Astrology is a Science blog post: “I do, however, absolutely believe in authentic astrology, recognized as complex protocols originating between approximately 300 BC and 1700 AD. This body of science was originally intended to outline the overall inclination of your future, and even precise circumstances involving money, career, family, partnerships, love life, sex, power, and much more.”
Regarding how astrology isn’t backed by scientific journals or peer review, the following is from Scott’s Debate With an Astrology Skeptic blog post:
An email to Scott: “Would you please point me to the scientific journal that you took that data on which your conclusions are base? I would be interested in the confidence levels that they used for their analysis. I’ll await the data. And scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles.”
Scott’s response: “You may be disappointed to learn that the ‘scientific journal’ (i.e., pay for play) and ‘peer review’ (i.e., pal review) approach has been corrupted beyond recognition in recent decades.”
“Here’s an article outlining how conventional science today is filled with fraud and propaganda, and how 157 peer reviews failed to catch fake cancer study.”
“…when it comes to scientific research…fraud, propaganda, and misrepresentations are now commonplace…”
“Here’s Dr. Kary Banks Mullis, a Nobel-Prize winning scientist, on why conventional scientists reject astrology and why they are wrong: ‘The reason they don’t pay attention to it (astrology) is that it would embarrass them in front of their colleagues. There’s no proven body of facts…that says human behavior does not contain elements that are related to planetary patterns at the time of birth. Instead, there’s a broad and arrogant understanding among social science professionals that folklore, like astrology, is for simpletons. Without doing any simple experiments to test some of the tenets of astrology, it has been completely ignored by psychologists in the last two centuries…Most of them are under the false impression that it is non-scientific and not a fit subject for their serious study. They are dead wrong. Whether or not the present-day practitioners of astrology are using scientific methods has no direct bearing on whether the body of knowledge they employ is true and valid.'”
“Michael Crichton, in ‘Next,’ exposes the folly of modern science and peer review: ‘…Next lesson: Peer review. All of Hwang’s (Korean scientist whose work was found to be fraudulent) papers in Science were peer-reviewed. If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode proves it. Hwang made extraordinary claims. He did not provide extraordinary evidence. Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn’t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, ‘This paper was peer-reviewed,’ or ‘this paper was not peer-reviewed,’ as if that meant something. It doesn’t.’
‘Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practitioners aren’t saints, they’re human beings, and they do what human beings do—lie, cheat, steal…sue, hide date, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That’s human nature. It isn’t going to change.’”
Here are just some of the subconscious personality red flag traits Scott can determine with his work, using comprehensive astrology and numerology, and graphology:
— Lack of a reasonable sense of discernment and critical analysis skills
— Dishonesty
— Emotional immaturity and, or volatility shows a lack of emotional development and security
— Impulsiveness, lack of control over urges, and recklessness
— Self-esteem and ego strength
— Vanity, arrogance, and narcissism
— Conflict avoidance
— Suspiciousness, or a fear of trusting people
— Fear of intimacy
— Self-consciousness
— Fear of sex or excessive interest in sex
In summary, we believe in (comprehensive) astrology because we’ve continuously observed over 20 years how it is accurate if applied correctly.
Copyright © 2019 Stephen Petullo