What aspects or planetary placement would characterize a "professional skep!

I think it is the way they are taught what to believe.The subject never really rose in my house hold as we grew up. I remember reading a horoscope out of the paper as a child my mother said it was a lot of nonsense, that was the only thing said about the subject. As I got older I got more curious. I think if it isn't scientifically proved, people just don't believe. When they pass over they are in for a shock.

---

---

great question dee emm. star for you again.
slow genius- great, insightful answer- as usual...

o ye skeptics- care to share your birth charts here? or....care to even take one?

(couldnt resist it.....but im curious to know too..=P)

chainlightning- yea yeah, someone recommended me reading descartes when my virgo friend tried suiciding (it helped in some ways), most peeps thought i was a head case for taking in the astrology factor over something serious (but hey, astrology helps- only if you know what to do with it).

i understand what is 'cogito, ergo sum' but i rather like to think skeptics mostly as 'cogito, ergo dubito, ergo sum'. perhaps this fulfills another category, not horoscopes.

personally, some things in life, are just 'ego futurus, ergo sum'. but thats just me. =)

---

---

I doubt the actual skepsis has anything to do with the planetary placements; I believe that skepsis is nurtured by the way we are raised.

But I do think that the intensity in which we exhibit that skepsis - or openness for that matter - can be found in the natal chart. And of course, I would think that it can be found in the 3rd-9th house axis (house of mind, education and house of philosophy, higher education), the signs in which those houses are and the position and aspects of their ruling planets, the planets in that 3rd-9th house axis, the position of mercury and its aspects.

---

---

I wouldn't say being skeptical is necessarily a bad thing. Some people start with doubt then investigate metaphysics and end up believing things that can't be proven physically. Jung did that with astrology and other things. Doubt is good if it is accompanied by curiousity. Coupled with ignorance it is useless and annoying.

When I was 19 I had a boss at a Summer job who knew astrology. I gave her what I thought was my birth info but the time was wrong. She told me all about Libra rising. It was completely wrong. Of course, I am really Leo rising. I didn't give it any more thought till ten years later.

I've always had a need to trust in something but I was very sheltered in my childhood home and had no idea what that might be. I was raised Catholic. I questioned things occationally, starting with the idea of confession but mostly was a good little girl. Then around 17 I had had enough. Too many things didn't make sense. The straw that broke the camel's back was a priest lecturing a group of us about the "evils" of masturbation, but that's another story.

So began my search for truth. As a good little Virgo I read everything. My progression included... Religion, Philosophy, Psychology, Metaphysics, Biographies, Mythology, Joseph Cambell, Jung. I started seeing alot of references to astrology in Jung and other places. I think the thing that actually pushed me to investigate it further was reading in a book by Anais Nin that she would draw the charts of her friends on the walls of her home. I got free charts off the internet based on my reall time of birth. I found a New Age bookstore and spent alot of time there finding out whatever I could from the owners and others. I've discovered that the same basic truth can be found everywhere if you have an open mind and can interpret the symbology. We're all connected and a part of God. The is a reason for everythign that happens. Books that I needed to read actually started falling off shelves and hitting me in the head. I knew from Jung that it was Synchronicity. I've read and read and read and found all the proof I needed. The key is to realise the proof is not always something you can touch. Proof can be found inside of you, in that part of you that is a part of God and part of the universe. We know everything. We just have to remember. It's in the last place anyone thinks to look.

My goal was to understand myself because I disagree with the things my family and the world in general told me about myself. Astrology has been my greatest tool in acheiving that. I'm almost there. ;)

So my point is that just because someone understands astrology today doesn't mean they did not begin as a skeptic. It is possible to start as a skeptic and end as a "believer".

I would say I was an open minded skeptic. I have a Virgo stellium including Pluto, Sun, Uranus, and Mercury opposed (widely) by Saturn. My Saturn is in Pisces just inside my 9th house cusp. It has a lovely trine from my 12th house Jupiter in Cancer. Using orbs that I consider a bit wide, a Grand Trine is formed with my Neptune and S Node in Scorpio. Neptune sextiles the Virgo stellium. It all fits so nicely together.

---

---

I think I know what (who) is on your mind with this question.

Well, for starters, I think an Aquariun sun is highly likely. A Uranus which is aspected with lots of squares and oppositions, especially to Mercury and maybe to 9th house inhabitants. There could also be some challenges between 10th house (authority) and the ascendent. Also, I think that Neptune might not be very visible or Pisces might be buried in one of the houses. The possibilities are endless.

Good luck in figuring this out - I'll be back to check out other answers to enlighten myself on this very good question.

Thanks for the links to Randy, Penn & Teller. Now I know.

---

---

just a wild guess

mercury in virgo with a hard angle to saturn

---

---

Good morning!

Most people do not understand what is skepticism.
What follows explains well:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, SKEPTICISM IS A METHOD, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think.

---

---

---