On the Recent News of an Astronomer’s
Comments on Zodiac Signs
David Cochrane
January 14, 2011
I have received several emails and FB messages about the
recent news that an astronomer in
1. This idea is not new and astrologers already know about
it. There are many zodiacs: there is the tropical zodiac which is the main one
in use in the western world, the sidereal zodiac which is usually preferred by
astrologers in
2. The 27 nakshatras are arguably the best zodiac that has a close association with star groups and constellations and is a more reasonable choice than Kunkle's suggested 13 zodiac signs. For an example of an excellent astrological analysis based on nakshatras see http://astrosoftware.com/Nakshatra.htm and to see modern renditions of imagery for the 27 nakshatras see http://astrosoftware.com/nakshatrasymbol.htm
3. Anyone can call himself or herself an astrologer. If you want to be sure that you are talking to an astrologer who knows at least the basics of astrology, consult an astrologer who has been certified by ISAR (International Society of Astrological Research) or who has Level III or Level IV certification from NCGR (National Council of Geocosmic Research). There are qualified astrologers who do not have either of these certifications but these certifications do set reasonable standards that many self-proclaimed astrologers do not meet.
4. Of most concern to me about this news item is the poor scholarship of Mr. Kunkle. Universities turn out many thousands of graduates and the vast majority of them, in my opinion, are well-trained and understand the importance of basing statements on careful scholarship, especially if they have a graduate level degree as Mr. Kunkle has. However, there are rare exceptions and Mr. Kunkle’s pronouncements regarding zodiac signs are an example of this. I suggest that universities require 1 credit hour of training in academic ethics to help ensure that statements made authoritatively by M.S., M.A., and Ph.D. graduates are responsible and ethical to help prevent the rare but serious cases of incredibly poor scholarship as exemplified by Mr. Kunkle. Historical research clearly indicates that astrology as we know it was originally formulated around 500 BC to 100 BC (probably over less than 200 years within this time range) based on Babylonian omens and conceptual paradigms, and at this time the zodiacal constellations and tropical zodiac were very similar and both are quite different from a constellational zodiac such as the one that Kunkle suggests. Kunkle’s statements regarding the historical basis of astrology are very flawed and are an embarrassment to people like me who hold in very high regard the high standards of scholarship and excellence that normally are maintained at upper level universities and colleges and by the graduates of these educational institutions. He makes a suggestion regarding “new” information on the nature of zodiac signs that is already part of the basic knowledge of any certified astrologer.
5. In astrology there has been a growing movement over the past several decades for astrologers to see astrology as a form of divination or psychological/mythological language that is not capable of providing factual information but rather provides meaning or understanding only. These are rather abstract ideas compared to the simpler notion that the stars incline human behavior in particular directions and also affect human personality in clearly observable and measurable ways. Some of these astrologers are not so completely different from astronomers in their skepticism of the ability of astrology to provide definitive and measurable effects. How many times have you heard that Mercury is retrograde so communication is bad or no wonder this person travels a lot because he is a Sagittarian? Some of these astrologers believe that statements like this should not be made because astrology is not capable of providing this kind of objective information.
6. There are also approaches to astrology that do not use zodiac signs at all. For example, there is an approach to astrology known as cosmobiology that became popular in the 1980’s and is still practiced and some cosmobiologists do not use zodiac signs.
7. My own approach to astrology is based on a complex analysis of patterns formed by the arrangement of celestial objects, especially planets. The system that I use puts very little emphasis on zodiac signs and removing zodiac signs entirely from the analysis based on this system does not greatly affect the interpretation.
8. If astrology is capable of measurable effects, they have not yet been discovered. Nothing in astrology has been scientifically validated and, as mentioned above, even some astrologers do not think this is possible. I have conducted research that suggests that complex patterns may have measurable effects but more research is needed. My research may be more threatening to astrologers than skeptics of astrology because little emphasis is placed on the astrological factors that astrologers normally use and the system is based on a sophisticated pattern analysis that requires a different way of thinking about astrology both philosophically and in practical terms, and the research is directed towards finding measurable effects and is quantitative in nature, and some astrologers agree with non-believers in astrology that quantitative research in astrology is a waste of time. For more information on my research and perspectives on astrology you can visit http://astrosoftware.com/AstrologyArticle.htm
So for all those who have asked me if their zodiac sign is
correct, the answer is yes, it is correct. The news item on Mr. Kunkle’s insights into zodiac signs does not shed any light
on anything. However, it might be helpful to keep in mind that the sidereal
zodiac used in Vedic astrology (astrology that evolved in