No rogue should be without studying matters such as quantum physics. Why? Because it represents a boundary-blurring, head-spinning, paradox. It’s one of the few places science kisses mysticism. Science, as typical with most first kisses, runs away and tries to hide from the implications. (not all scientists do this, mind you) It seems like the observer might influence the results of an experiment–that reality is probability as opposed to outright concrete. Duh. Any astrologer could have told them that.
Oh, but wait! Astrology is not something that can be demonstrated, right? There’s a prize out there and NO one has ever claimed it! Nobody can make accurate predictions! I have a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate that DNA exists. The only catch is that you can’t draw blood, you can’t use anything that relies on carbon dioxide or air, nor can you use anything that ever did. If I award you the prize, it doesn’t mean I accept that DNA exists either. Ready to claim your prize? No?
The problem with all this is that intuition is fundamentally a different sort of energy than reason. Reason is good. It handles concrete conceptions well. Intuition, though, is the driving force. The two must be in balance. You cannot expect intuition to play by the rules of reason anymore than you can expect reason to play by the rules of intuition. They both work in tandem.
Astrology will not predict the future anymore than statistical analysis will predict the future. However, just as with statistics, one can suspect one outcome is going to be more likely than another. The reason people have issues with astrology is that it doesn’t follow “their idea” of how it should work. It doesn’t behave “as they’d like it to” in order to be “proven” to them. Does any science work in the way we’d “like for it to”? Isn’t it more the case that we had to “understand the thing on its own terms?” How easy would it be for someone to prove the existence of something like quantum physics with a mistaken set of assumptions about what quantum physics must be or do?
Any “psychic” scenario is not going to be a neat and tidy affair. Sometimes a person may not yet know what they psychic knows. Sometimes the psychic is full of shit–sometimes the psychic isn’t but is also human. The same goes for science. Sometimes the scientist is full of shit. Sometimes he isn’t–and sometimes he’s a mixture of both. The idea is that peer review will catch those who are full of it, but in reality, if there is money to be had for some claim versus another, the community will moderate itself accordingly to get whatever money it needs or doesn’t need.
How do you test out something psychic? You evaluate the truth for yourself in light of your own experience. It’s no different than science. If you find value in it, you believe it, and if you don’t, you don’t. Of course, your underlying assumptions are going to make a big difference on how you perceive what is said. If your underlying assumptions are that a prediction should be made about the human psyche that is absolutely deterministic, you are kidding yourself. The same is true of nature. It can be “generally deterministic” or “really, really unlikely to be otherwise” but it is NOT absolute. Everything is in flux. What has come to be will come not to be. The “laws” and predictions of now are just a snapshot of a moment–one moment had dinosaurs. Still another probably had Earth with no life on it at all.
True Rogues try all ideas on for themselves to test the truth of them. Otherwise, if they let everyone else define what is true for them, they are no kind of rogue at all.