By Katya Faris, M.A.

This is the transcript of the information presented in this video below.

This is the first in the series, The Philosophy of Jyotisha: Methodology in Vedic Astrology.

Jyotisha, or Vedic Astrology, translates as the Science of Light, and therefore the methodology used to analyze a chart is usually the Scientific Method, something that is utilized in the hard sciences, such as math and astronomy. I propose that there is an art to interpreting a chart, and that other methods should be employed along with the Scientific Method in order to get a fuller picture and accuracy of the truth. As astrologers we must not lose sight of the individual’s experience, or in looking at an event or a country, what actually happened in history. As astrology is the soft science of astronomy, I think we should learn how the other soft sciences approach methodology and employ some of their techniques. The danger of only using the Scientific Method is that you will miss so much other truth in trying to make the point of your hypothesis. Participant Observation is a qualitative research method in which the researcher not only observes the research participants, but also actively engages in the activities of the research participants; most will take on the role that they are studying in order to know it better. At the heart of Participant Observation is letting the information emerge, and not going in with an hypothesis. It is the opposite of the Scientific Method in which you start with your conclusion, then work backwards in order to prove it. In Participant Observation you are “hanging out” with the informants, and letting the story unfold. Now this methodology is not always time efficient, and in reading a chart you usually have an hour or less with a client. This type of methodology is more suitable to long term research projects. As astrologers we have to be very careful of making broad sweeping generalizations when it comes to charts unless we have used both types of methodology. Also, the aim of both methods is to be impartial, but I believe in the Scientific Method it is harder to stay impartial, because you are starting with an hypothesis that is based on your beliefs. For instance, in the US Presidential Election of 2016 99.9% of astrologers go the prediction wrong because they let their personal beliefs get in the way.

Below is the difference between the two methodologies:

The Scientific Method

At the core of biology and other hard sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Scientific Method

Advantages

1. It is based on empirical evidence
2. It is proof and verification
3. Found by reasoning and observation
4. Reliable at finding the truth
5. Scientists are impartial
6. Cautious – with theories that are backed up

Disadvantages

1. Nothing has full knowledge of the world
2. Senses can deceive us – science only provides us with an incomplete picture of the world
3. Scientists can never be completely unbiased
4. Science isn’t free from error
5. No way of knowing what is real – some things could be illusions
6. Theories have to sometimes be interpreted e.g. data is interpreted
7. There is danger in assuming the outcome before you start the research; you could be missing a lot if you’re only focused on your hypothesis.

Evaluation
The scientific method is good as it is based on fact. It is based on empirical evidence and is reliable at finding the truth. Science cannot be free form error and nothing has full knowledge of the world, however. For these reasons not everything that science does is the full truth.

Participant observation
Participant observation is a qualitative type of research strategy. It is a widely used methodology in many “soft science” disciplines, particularly, cultural anthropology, but also sociology, communication studies, and social psychology. Its aim is to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given group of individuals (such as a religious, occupational, or sub cultural group, or a particular community) and their practices through an intensive involvement with people in their natural environment, usually over an extended period of time.

The goal in this type of methodology is to stay objective and not to inject the researcher’s personal opinion into the analysis. Good research is discursive, indexical, and emergent.

From Duke University, a thorough overview of participant observation.

What is participant observation?
Participant observation is a qualitative method with roots in traditional ethnographic research, whose objective is to help researchers learn the perspectives held by study populations. As qualitative researchers, we presume that there will be multiple perspectives within any given community. We are interested both in knowing what those diverse perspectives are and in understanding the interplay among them. Qualitative researchers accomplish this through observation alone or by both observing and participating, to varying degrees, in the study community’s daily activities. Participant observation always takes place in community settings, in locations believed to have some relevance to the research questions. The method is distinctive because the researcher approaches participants in their own environment rather than having the participants come to the researcher. Generally speaking, the researcher engaged in participant observation tries to learn what life is like for an “insider” while remaining, inevitably, an “outsider.” While in these community settings, researchers make careful, objective notes about what they see, recording all accounts and observations as field notes in a field notebook. Informal conversation and interaction with members of the study population are also important components of the method and should be recorded in the field notes, in as much detail as possible. Information and messages communicated through mass media such as radio or television may also be pertinent and thus desirable to document. (Duke)

Strengths and weaknesses of participant observation

Strengths :

1. Allows for insight into contexts, relationships, behavior
2. Can provide information previously unknown to researchers that is crucial for project design, data collection, and interpretation of other data

Weaknesses :

1. Time-consuming
2. Documentation relies on memory, personal discipline, and diligence of researcher
3. Requires conscious effort at objectivity because method is inherently subjective.

Sources Cited
Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology

Get Revising. https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/the_scientific_method.

Duke University. Participation Observation Field Guide. https://guides.library.duke.edu/ld.php?content_id=11691400