Then why do astrologists, when were doing astrology with these new worlds, quality qualities of the Vesta or Sedna or Chiron (and many other) myths over the results these planets? How do we know that astrologically Chiron, the hero of the injured healer myth, is constantly present in injured therapist type circumstances and events (Im teasing Chiron here) when we didnt have any long term historical astrological data to support the identifying in the very first location- it was simply selected at random by astronomers? Am I missing something? Arent we doing this a bit backwards and potentially with some nasty verification bias?
Hmmm, that red world is over in this part of the sky once again, simply like last time. And sure enough, when we do astrology utilizing Mars, the interpretations can come out quite accurately!
Hmmm, that red planet is over in this part of the sky once again, just like last time. Then why do astrologists, when were doing astrology with these brand-new worlds, characteristic characteristics of the Vesta or Sedna or Chiron (and lots of other) myths over the impacts these planets?
Then in present day, it looks like astronomers just kept classifying worlds we find with other mythological rulers, without verifying the astrological effects first. Thinking about most astronomers are not likewise astrologers, that does not surprise me.
Hmm that brand-new one over there? We have not used Vesta yet. Lets call it Vesta.
I hypothesize that the factor the worlds were so named/classified was due to the observation of the results they had over time.
[And on another note: the fairly new body Pluto wasnt called by astrologists, but it appears to match the mythological meaning of the Pluto character so completely. How did that occur??]
The custom of astrology returns rather far in history. The importances for Mercury, Jupiter, etc all come from the past. I assume that the factor the worlds were so named/classified was due to the observation of the impacts they had more than time.