CAUSALITY. NEWTONIAN MECHANICS
Galileo and Newton introduced the scientific method, a way of interpreting reality which was completely different from that of medieval times, with its affinities and holistic correspondences. The scientific concept of force could be quantified accurately and related mathematically to changes in movement. Science, aided by mathematics, was capable of describing and predicting the universe in quantitative terms. By using the scientific method, it was possible to isolate and analyze even the most complex phenomena under repeated conditions, until they were reduced to known elementary units whose behavior could be predicted as a result of the interacting forces.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Newtonian mechanics had become a model for all other sciences, and it was believed that all phenomena could be explained in terms of a handful of physical laws, initially reducing the most complex fields of biology and chemistry to the certainty of physics. Technological advances kept up with scientific developments, and led to the discovery and controlled use of caloric and electric power, as well as to chemical activity, to name a few. J. C. Maxwell’s most significant achievement was aggregating a set of equations in electricity, magnetism and inductance into a unified model of electromagnetism, while wondering what kind of influence or force planets exercise on us.
The only known force which might have any influence at all is the gravitational one. This is how the attraction occurring between a nurse or doctor and a newborn is much bigger than that between the child and the planets. By way of example, the doctor’s gravitational force is 400,000 times larger than that of the Moon. This clearly shows that astrology does not work on the basis of gravitational forces. If we analyzed astrology from a causalist point of view, we would have more to lose.
If we took it to the physical material field, we should analyze it with the right tools, i.e. the scientific method. Only a few successful cases can demonstrate a direct relationship between the cosmic and terrestrial life influences, which shows once more how complex astrology is. I do not intend to undermine the scientific method, though I am convinced that it is a way of reducing – and therefore perverting – our object of study. Gauquelin’s well-known statistical study has led us to sensitive sectors of the astral chart (the endings of cadent houses) which were ignored in the past.
As Brazilian astrologer Alexey Dodsworth puts it, the successive repetitions of evidence led to different results from those outlined by Gauquelin; Astrologically-based statistics shows results which are way above the “pure coincidence” average. The trouble is that evidences are not “confirmed”; they only show outcomes which change considerably from one researcher to the other. Dodsworth himself proved it by repeating some research on male homosexuality, originally performed by the American astrologer Karl Roberts, and later by Dodsworth in Brazil. Roberts raised statistics comprising two thousand maps of men who defined themselves as “homosexual”, from which he perceived an incidence of over 75% having more aspects between Venus and Uranus.
However, when Dodsworth repeated this experience in Brazil, the major aspects between Venus and Uranus were only 25%, quite “by chance”. What is surprising is that a considerably large percentage (75%) was found in connection with major aspects between Venus and Saturn of the same order: squares, oppositions or conjunctions. Acausal explanations.