We are astrologers?

Hi,

There is something that I don't understand about the meanings of
"astronomy" and "astrology". Are they correctly applied today?

If you look at the Greek roots of the suffix "-logy" it means a
doctrine, a theory, a science. So "astrology" means science/theory of
the stars/planets.


The suffix "-nomy" means "nomos", in english law, so "astronomy" means
laws of the stars/planets.

So, why is the meaning of the word astrology not applied as in biology
or
archaeology? Are we astrologers?

Regards,

John Lewis.

In article ,
JuanL wrote:

There is something that I don't understand about the meanings of
"astronomy" and "astrology". Are they correctly applied today?

How do you define "correctly"?

Human language is full of logical inconsistencies. Consider for
instance the words "sunset" and "sunrise" -- we still use them even
though we know the universe isn't geocentric with a stationary Earth.
Or consider the word "solar eclipse" -- the Sun isn't really
eclipsed, it's occulted -- only objects which shine by reflected
light can be eclipsed. But it works anyway, because people agree on
the meaning of those words.

If you look at the Greek roots of the suffix "-logy" it means a
doctrine, a theory, a science. So "astrology" means science/theory of
the stars/planets.

The suffix "-nomy" means "nomos", in english law, so "astronomy" means
laws of the stars/planets.

So, why is the meaning of the word astrology not applied as in biology
or archaeology? Are we astrologers?

In the strict logical meaning, we are. However, those people who use
the planets (they rarely use the stars; to them the Sun is a
"planet") to draw horoscopes and use them try to predict the future
or to find out people's personality, have hijacked the world
"astrology". Therefore, the word "astrology" is currently unusable
as a label for the science about the planets and stars. And to
distinguish the science of stars from the superstition of stars,
another word was chosen to label the science: astronomy.

The evolution of human language don't follow strictly logical paths.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/

On 28 Jul 2003 00:08:54 -0700, (JuanL) wrote:

There is something that I don't understand about the meanings of
"astronomy" and "astrology". Are they correctly applied today?

Astrology was practiced before astronomy. When the science evolved out of the
former, a new word was needed. It is a bit inconsistent with the names of other
sciences, but perfectly correct. Many words are constructed from roots that only
partially reflect the current word usage, after all.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:12:38 -0400, bwhiting wrote:

In the same view, why do we still call it Einstein's "theory" of
relativity....when time and time again direct experiment shows that
it's actually a "LAW" of science. (And is accorded as such in scientific
circles).

There are no "laws" of science. That term is generally applied (incorrectly, but
by tradition) to old concepts, and dates from a time when it was believed that
there really were laws. We explain our world with theories, and these theories
are never proven. So Einstein's theory is just that- a theory- and it is only
good scientific practice to call it such. I'm a physicist myself, and have never
referred to the "law of relativity" and I don't know any other physicists who
have done so. Relativity is a theory that is widely accepted as largely accurate
in "scientific circles", but that doesn't make it a law.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Brian,

You wrote:

snip
My most frequently used example of that is "nice,"
unsnip


.. . ."Precisely." I know "exactly" what you mean.


Martin

I (Brian Tung) wrote:
My most frequently used example of that is "nice,"

Starstuffed wrote:
. . ."Precisely." I know "exactly" what you mean.

Yes, right. But that is only one of the more recent meanings. The
original etymology is from "nescius," a Latin word meaning ignorant.
Roughly speaking, the transition of meanings went as follows:

ignorant -- foolish -- senseless -- wanton -- showy --
elegant -- refined -- delicate -- reserved -- fastidious --
precise -- subtle -- sensitive -- accurate -- deft --
satisfactory -- agreeable -- pleasant

Of course, it isn't nearly as linear as I've made it out to be, and
there are many dead ends (evolved meanings that went extinct, so to
speak). But it does go to show the tremendous range of meanings the
word has had.

As you might have guessed, "nescius" contains the same root as Latin
"scire," to know, from which we get our word "science."

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Another astronomy term that has been hi-jacked is 9 mm....it used
to mean an eyepiece......
And I don't understand why they stole it...weapons already had
3 terms...inches, gauge, caliper....I mean how many do they need?
AND if they wanted to switch to metric, why didn't they call it a point
nine centimeter (0.9 cm) rather than pick mm??
FWIW,
Tom W.




The evolution of human language don't follow strictly logical paths.


Precisely. There is absolutely no logical reason why "gay," which
used to mean "happy" only 30 years ago, should now mean "homosexual."
The two are not necessarily synonymous. (I use that example merely
because it is the one linguistic change I can claim to have definitely
seen in my lifetime).


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
bwhiting on Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:25:09 -0400,
which said:

Another astronomy term that has been hi-jacked is 9 mm....it used
to mean an eyepiece......
And I don't understand why they stole it...weapons already had
3 terms...inches, gauge, caliper....I mean how many do they need?
AND if they wanted to switch to metric, why didn't they call it a point
nine centimeter (0.9 cm) rather than pick mm??
FWIW,

I dunno. But try not to take it so personally. ;-)


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

Chris,
I was under the assumption that a theory advances to a "law" when it
holds true under any and all circumstances, like Snell's Law or
Ohm's Law or the Law of Universal Gravitation?.....so what would be
wrong in declaring it the Law of Relativity?
Tom W.




Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:12:38 -0400, bwhiting wrote:


In the same view, why do we still call it Einstein's "theory" of
relativity....when time and time again direct experiment shows that
it's actually a "LAW" of science. (And is accorded as such in scientific
circles).


There are no "laws" of science. That term is generally applied (incorrectly, but
by tradition) to old concepts, and dates from a time when it was believed that
there really were laws. We explain our world with theories, and these theories
are never proven. So Einstein's theory is just that- a theory- and it is only
good scientific practice to call it such. I'm a physicist myself, and have never
referred to the "law of relativity" and I don't know any other physicists who
have done so. Relativity is a theory that is widely accepted as largely accurate
in "scientific circles", but that doesn't make it a law.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Tom Whiting wrote:
I was under the assumption that a theory advances to a "law" when it
holds true under any and all circumstances, like Snell's Law or
Ohm's Law or the Law of Universal Gravitation?.....so what would be
wrong in declaring it the Law of Relativity?

There is no "official" distinction in calling it a law. The Three
Laws of Planetary Motion are no more sacred than the Theory of
Relativity.

Besides, there's nothing fundamental about, for example, Snell's Law.
It is merely the result of delays in the electromagnetic field of a
transparent substance combining to make it seem *as though* light
travels slower through the substance.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt