A good summation, which I think most of us would agree upon. It would be great to discuss more about the shaman as astrologer (and vice-versa), but it’s probably best we go further with it on the forum devoted to the subject, since that forum’s two threads have been without posts for a while (only one page to our seven here) and could use the attention.
And, we might consider splitting this particular thread into subsets if there is inspiration to, as this is really about thoughts on a physical basis (or lack of it) and not the entirety of the science and astrology forum. I note Bob Schmidt has just done that (on getting to the nature of facts). Another such subset might be a further investigation of all the mistakes of individuals on both the astrology and science sides, many of which are covered in that link to Geoffrey Dean’s site, because it is quite true that little progress has been made in the last forty years or so of sporadic and usually-defensive debate, often generating more insult than inquiry. No point in repeating any more of that, as it has indeed become boring and fruitless…some fresh, from the ground up approaches really need to be suggested.
Science is not without its new approaches in general, good because things like endless refinement of string theory and the like are getting a little tedious in the same fashion. Freshly, from the pages of last week’s New Scientist,
is something that astrologers might think to look upon, although the direct connection may not be immediately obvious. It’s at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true
and suggests a solid, fractal base beneath all that quantum weirdness that would again bring something like reliable structure to the microcosm, and it also resonates with the new holographic spinoff of gravity wave search linked a couple of posts ago, mostly because of the shared graininess element. Just more grist for the mill, reminders that how everything fits together, from large to small, isn’t sewed up by any means yet…take a look…