31
Thanks for the references! I look forward to reading them.

Just one further thought is that part of the problem with statistics applications to individuals' natal charts so far might be that the data bytes themselves are subject to multiple interpretations. The moon in a birth chart is any and all of the following--and then some, for example. The moon might indicate one's needs, emotions/feelings, mother, subconscious, or home. Then the 4th house has some overlap of meaning here. If the interpretation of a data point is a shifting target, this might create some difficulties in trying to show a relationship between the horoscope and outcomes in people's lives.

32
Waybread - how would your practise of astrology change if statistics showed astrology worthless? If by some freak of circumstance it showed astrology useful?

Do you not believe that astrologers competent at their trade would do more for the reputation of astrology than statistical analysis?

I'm still trying to get my head around why people think that 'proving' astrology by statistics matters. To whom is it important? It isn't to me (granted, I don't believe it can be done, and would just be a red herring and a waste of time and money). It isn't to my clients. Are your clients clamouring for statistical studies proving the validity of astrology? Are you? If so, why?

To what standard is astrology to be held compared to other client-based professions? Sometimes doctors are wrong. Sometimes lawyers are wrong. Sometimes even those in the hard sciences, ones that aren't client-based, like chemistry, are wrong.

That doesn't invalidate the practise of medicine, law, or even chemistry. Or does it?

I just don't understand why trying to prove astrology by using a scientific model it doesn't fit into is important, or to whom it would be important. Help me out here. To whom would these studies make a difference, and why?

33
Hi Olivia--Just a few responses to your thoughtful question. I note that I am an amateur astrologer and that the root of "amateur" is "to love" one's subject. To me personally, astrology dwells more in the spiritual than in the material, so I cannot see my way towards charging money for my services. So to me, the issue on this thread is not what my non-existent clients or very actual and existent Internet correspondents might want, but what I see as a more panoramic issue for astrology.

I spent over 30 years in a university career in major research universities, where the very concept of astrology was an anathema. Prejudice? No doubt. But the last I noticed, scientists and engineers (amongst whom I worked) call a lot more shots than astrologers do; and deployed far more rigorous standards for their knowledge base than I have seen in 20 years of studying astrology; traditional astrology's meticulous delineations notwithstanding.

1. We are all aware of the common view, especially among highly educated people, that astrology is worthless: that its practitioners are either misguided or actually cheats.

This criticism has gone on for centuries, and has not abated. Astrologers have had enough highly publicized failures of prediction over the centuries so that all of us need to think carefully about the accuracy of our truth-claims. Proponents of astrology point to the successes (the glass as half-empty or half-full problem,) but scarcely anybody argues that astrology's glass is always full.

Basing the reputation of astrology on "astrologers competent at their trade" hardly helps matters. Mistakes abound among the mighty, ranging from C. E. O. Carter's failure to predict WW II to John Frawley's admitted misses in predicting the outcomes of sports matches.

2. Except in a very few fields like theology, truth-claims gain legitimacy with respect to objective, external validation.

A major example of external validation would be in a court of law, where an accusation requires either the "preponderance of evidence" or evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" indepently of the claims made by the prosecutor. Another example would be in the writing of history, where the historian uses internal and external criticism to ensure that the documents she studies are not forgeries, that purported eye-witnesses actually saw the events they recorded, and that multiple sources (when available) converge on the same version of events.

3. Statistics are not the only way that astrology's truth-claims could be affirmed or rebutted, but it is certainly one important way. For one thing, unless one subscribes to a spiritual, holistic, or divinatory explanation of astrology, we are still in a Ptolemaic cause-and-effect model. Insofar as I understand the applicability of statistics (admittedly, not far) this strikes me as exactly the kind of subject that should be amenable to statistical testing.

If statistical studies so far have shown no significant relationships, I am less inclined, personally, to think of astrology as worthless than to wonder how better research might be designed.

4. Doctors and lawyers are sometimes wrong. But I do not subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" school of debate. A lawyer making a mistake is by no stretch of the imagination a validation of astrology.

But their professions require undergraduate university degrees, graduate programs, and practical apprenticeships (internships, residences, clerking, &c.) These people have to pass stiff board exams before they are licensed to practice; and they cannot practice without a license. If they make significant mistakes they can be removed from their professions or even jailed.

The training for astrologers, even those who complete exams through the AFA or some other certification body, does not even come close to these standards. I just had surgery last week, incidentally, and the idea that even a senior astrologer has training on the level of a specialist surgeon simply does not hold up.

In the past, before the medical profession required such extensive training and screening, medicine had serious problems with incompetant and fraudulent practitioners. I fear this is similar to the state of astrology today. Anyone can "hang out a shingle" and claim to be an astrologer with no education in it whatsoever. Believe me, I have seen such people on another astrology forum.

As I am sure you are aware, Olivia, applied astrology got turfed out of European universities, with just a couple of exceptions, by 1800; while medicine and law expanded. Part of the reason was that these fields could demonstrate successes that astrology could not match.

Rather than defending their astrological turf through exceptionalist arguments, I would rather see astrologers asking themselves the hard questions.

34
First, astrology was largely gone from European universities by the late 1500s, not the 1800s. Through the Protestant Reformation (primarily) and some other mechanisms, time had been secularised, and a new worldview was starting to take shape, one within which astrology (at least of the traditionalist variety) cannot make sense.

I didn't ask why an incompetent attorney or physician would prove astrology right. I stated that there are incompetent attorneys and physicians, even incompetent chemists, yet their errors do not call into question the entire edifices upon which they practise.

I have a genetic physical illness that was misdiagnosed (mostly as a psychiatric disorder) by no less than 37 physicians. Pretty big number. I didn't sue any of them, even the ones who prescribed harmful treatment; life's too short. Do physicians routinely misdiagnose illnesses to a far higher degree than is generally believed? Based on the literature, as well as my own experience, I'd have to say yes. Yet I don't believe medicine as a whole is invalidated because of that. Do you? I do think it could do with a serious look at how doctors view their patients, though. Even still, would you expect one physician, over the course of a career, to have a diagnostic success rate of 100%? That seems equally unrealistic, even for a very good one.

Are you claiming that all it takes is one or two astrologers to make a mistake to make the entire edifice of astrology worthless? Forgive me if I state that that's an impossible standard, and an unfair one.

I'll also mention, as you well know, that astrology is neither as ubiquitous nor as socially or politically powerful as any of those other-mentioned fields.

You say you ascribe astrology to a primarily spiritual model, and later you go on to say that spiritual models do not need to have their truth claims verified. And then you say that astrology operates by some cause-and-effect model that is amenable to statistical study.

Which is it? Or have I completely misunderstood you? Because I am quite sincerely confused over what you've written.

35
I agree with the most things you said there Waybread. Some self-reflection by astrologers would do no harm.
Waybread wrote: If statistical studies so far have shown no significant relationships, I am less inclined, personally, to think of astrology as worthless than to wonder how better research might be designed.
Better/or rather say other research has been designed though. If astrology itself, as most astrologers claim, cannot be tested then sooner the astrologers themselves should be tested, researchers say. These tests have been performed and astrologers turned out to perform no better than chance.
Olivia wrote: ? how would your practise of astrology change if statistics showed astrology worthless?
Although the question was not directed to me, I?d like to say some of my thoughts.

Since I don?t want to beat around the bush and be as fickle as a politician, I should say that while I always had a researching attitude towards astrology, my belief has decreased in the last year. Last Christmas-holidays I read the entire astrology-and-science website about researches and when I read Peter Niehenke?s researches about aspects (the main thing I applied and about few tests had been made) did?t give the expected results, this certainly affected my view/practice (as an amateur) of astrology. I started to doubt my observed ?experiences? of transits and if these would turn out to be not true either, this would mean that I had been following an illusion for years. That is quite a disillusion, not only because of the waste of time one might conclude it to be but especially from a moral point of view. I think I?m not alone in believing that almost every practitioner, whether professional or amateur, considers astrology an important guidance in life. Losing this can be a strong disenchantment. Here is it where astrology may touch the spiritual.

On the other side though, I?ve always felt the incompatibility of the spiritual side and the pure mechanical-physical side which forms the base of every calculation in astrology. Sun Moon and planets are nothing more than huge spheres, of gasses, rock and/or ice to be eternally subject to the laws of physics. Somewhere deep inside I felt it would be more ?spiritual? to search for life detached from astrology (another one of the reasons I wouldn?t observe my transits or any astrology for a while).

I think somewhere here lays the main objection against of most astrologers against statistical research. Astrology gives life ?meaning?, like a religion does. Just like a religion doesn?t need to be provable astrology wouldn?t be either. Here you see the objective versus subjective, fact vs. meaning tension that always pops up. This tension should be well taken into account attentively in discussions, otherwise we find ourselves discussing different things and as a consequence usually endlessly.

I believe making the comparison of the mistakes in astrology with those in medicine and other fields of science is an unfortunate one. First, most medical scientists agree about essential issues (how the heart works, how bones grow in childhood and when things go wrong), whilst astrologers don?t (like in sidereal vs. tropical). Second, mistakes occur but not that frequently as in astrology. Even if 5% in medicine is a mistake, it?s many times better than the majority of mistakes in astrology. Third, the reactions in medicine about negative results are usually not one of strong resistance. It urges scientists to develop new methods which do work. This is something that doesn?t seem to happen in astrology, otherwise there might have been changes and developments in astrology, like in science.

Research and statistics were not developed to be a pain in the neck to practitioners. They are used as a mean to verify if what they believe to work really does. If not then other causes may be at stake (like the effects in psychology). And indeed, scientists submit themselves to more rigid standards than astrologers do. I believe because of the amagamate nature of astrology serves itself to be researched by scientific models because part of astrology is based upon sheer facts. A birth time is a fact and the corresponding planetary positions are facts too. This can be verified by observation. In astrology, meanings are given to these factual positions and therefore these can be checked as a science, just like medical meaning can be given to a red spot on the body. Contrary to meaning in medical cases, meaning in astrology is based not upon research but on analogy. This served well in a community (like the Babylonian omens) that didn?t understand its environment but later proved to be wrong in most cases. Analogy isn?t accepted anymore and can even be contradictory. The mediaeval doctrine of signatures proved to be wrong and if we would advise black coffee to an insomniac simply because of the analogy; coffee = black = dark = night = sleep, then sure we would be at the wrong track here. So some research is required to test the assertions which were based upon analogy, which have their roots in Babylonian religion, otherwise we will never be sure what works and what doesn?t.

I?m glad that in modern society testing is required, it serves to find the truth. Although medicine still has no answers to many diseases, I?m glad that a doctor?s reply to my question if something works would not be something like: ?Well, many people disagree with me and all tests have been negative but it works for me and I have happy clients.?.
I'll also mention, as you well know, that astrology is neither as ubiquitous nor as socially or politically powerful as any of those other-mentioned fields.
Thank goodness this isn?t the case anymore. Read Keith Thomas? Religion and the decline of magic, in the astrology chapters he illustrates the disastrous impact which erroneous predictions had on society.

So yes, I have my doubts about astrology, and I might face some opposition. However, my remarks are not meant to take a p? on astrologers, and I don't have the intention to torment people who believe in elements of astrology I don't believe in. I thought it would be better to tell where I stand at the moment. If I might have a change in ideas I will tell. Since I started astrology with the Keplerian belief that most things in astrology don?t work, I was left with only planet/angles positions and transits to them. The last few years I had the increasing idea that transits are very unreliable of indicating of what is happening and much less about what will happen in a few months or years from the moment, on the mental level (not to mention the materiel one). This somewhat made astrology less meaningful and here may be another indication why I never felt the inhibitions about researches, especially when the results were negative. In the years after the tests it seems that astrology went different directions. Some left astrology. Others in first instance as a result, escaped the factual level and got more and more psychologically with the accompanying unverifiable vagueness. Further I have the impression that as a reaction to this vagueness, astrologers returned to the basis of astrology in the more concrete traditional direction. Maybe others have stood on the same crossing of dissatisfaction as where I stand now, and chose for the more richly detailed of classical technique, but I don't think I will go that direction either. On the other side, in case if the results were/will be positive, my resistance against the idea of mental matters being related or subject to just material cyclical events, might even be stronger. If in such case I would abandon astrology, I would do because it works not because parts of it don?t.

36
Olivia wrote:Which is it? Or have I completely misunderstood you? Because I am quite sincerely confused over what you've written.
Yes, Olivia. Apparently you have misunderstood me, and I regret that I did not explain myself more clearly.

Eddy has explained things much better than I could, so I'll simply support his post.

Just a few corrections: (1) I am aware that astrology disappeared from most universities prior to the 1800s: this was a generous "benefit of the doubt." Since many universities dismissing astrology were in Catholic countries with minimal Protestant intrusion, however, something other than the Protestant relationship to time was afoot. (2)Your argument about astrology vis `a vis medicine and law sounds similar to one made by astrology's apologists in the past. It doesn't wash. I would like astrology to stand on its strengths, not on the possibility that its mistakes are excusable in comparison to law or medicine, or on par with them. While medicine cannot cure everyone and law cannot ensure equal justice, these fields' successes in western democracies clearly outscore their failures. (3) No, I am not "...claiming that all it takes is one or two astrologers to make a mistake to make the entire edifice of astrology worthless." (4) Your paragraph on spiritual astrology misinterprets what I wrote.

I am sorry that your health and experience with the medical profession have been so difficult. Best wishes for an improvement in your health; and optimally, a cure.

37
Eddy, I can certainly understand your qualms, and I thank you for being honest. I can't much speak to the Keplerian astrology of angles and aspects, as I have no experience of it and little background in the subject, but I do understand that such an astrology may more easily lend itself to testing, if only by virtue of the fact that many variables have been stripped away from it, though even there scientific testing might prove difficult. I don't know - perhaps it could be done on an aspect-by-aspect basis or transit-by-transit basis. Perhaps not.

Waybread, here's where you've got me - and yes, I've had to cut and paste, I'm aware of that:
To me personally, astrology dwells more in the spiritual than in the material...

Except in a very few fields like theology, truth-claims gain legitimacy with respect to objective, external validation...

For one thing, unless one subscribes to a spiritual, holistic, or divinatory explanation of astrology, we are still in a Ptolemaic cause-and-effect model. Insofar as I understand the applicability of statistics (admittedly, not far) this strikes me as exactly the kind of subject that should be amenable to statistical testing.
Do you see the contradiction? Your belief in astrology is based in spirituality, therefore - does it fall loosely into the category of theology, which doesn't require objective validation? Or is that something else entirely?

You go on to say that some un-named astrology is in the realm of Ptolemaic cause-and-effect and is amenable to statistical testing.

Could you at least define the unspiritual or undivinatory cause-and-effect astrology that is amenable to statistics, and explain how it differs from yours?

I have a feeling that this may end up in yet another traditional versus modern debate, and if that's where it's going, it's probably best to stop now. I hope I'm wrong about that, though.

38
Hi Olivia. Actually, I've been finishing a long anticipated project of reading Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology, cover to cover. I am laid up at home with some corrective surgery for a few weeks, and am realizing that my pre-op plan of not laying in a supply of page-turner novels and DVDs was a good one. This is one very thoughtful book, but it takes the author a while to make his points. I don't agree with everything he says, but I had his book in mind when I posted.

If astrology's accuracy is in doubt (as per Eddy's post, above) then one can make one or more choices. (1) Drop astrology, (2) Pursue the Holy Grail of better technique, or (3) Do it any way because it is fun and offers an opportunity to help people through garden-variety counseling.

So let me ask, if astrology could be demonstrated to have no basis in fact, would you still practice it?

The meta-narrative underneath astrology's accuracy claims is the foundational question of how astrology works; or why it should work, if it does. I say, that we cannot now (or yet) answer these questions definitively. But the inquiry is well worth the effort.

Possibility #1A: An extrapolation of Cornelius's "daemon" or "god" at work, into which the astrologer is able to tap, might seem to deny the legitimacy of a Ptolemaic, cause-and-effect model, because if divine entities exist, they are unlikely to be constrained by mechanistic systems and reasoning. For Jews and Christians, this would expecially be the case if the divine spirit at work in accurate horoscope readings were God the Creator, who cannot be so limited.

1B. On the other hand, natural scientists prior to the Darwinian revolution believed in God and in a predictable universe. Their concept of natural history was to analyse how God's handiwork functioned. If there is a God who created a predictable universe, then statistical tests also make sense; although with the caveats that God is not constrained to the orderliness that scientists' discern. [Darwin's impact on the divorce between science and religion is a fascinating digression here.]

Possibility #2A: An atheist probably wouldn't accept this line of reasoning. But if this throws us back into a a system of measurable planets' effects on oftentimes measurable human affairs, then there is no reason why astrology should not be amenable to the methods used by the behavioural and social sciences. Namely, statistics. Otherwise, there is an exceptionalist argument for astrology to be unpacked.

Qualitative methodologies are available to explore astrology's claims, but I haven't yet seen them used to analyse astrology. (Which may reflect my sleuthing limits, not what's out there. I am discounting the typical unsystematic survey of celebrity charts and client files.)

Possibility #2B: Science does move beyond simple cause-and-effect into more holistic systems. See the thread on this board about fractals. Nevertheless, my understanding of such interactive systems in the physical sciences is that mathematics is the primary language for understanding them (by experts, that is!) But who in astrology has really developed these theories, to the point that we might deploy them or try to substantiate their truth claims?

Some spiritual truth claims are amenable to empirical investigation. Social scientists have found, for example, changes in brain activity among meditating Buddhist monks, and increased longevity for Orthodox Jewish men, compared to the general population. Others are not amenable to empirical investigation: the "Does God exist?" question, for example.

So as an individual with a deep appreciation of what science I do understand and what spirituality I experience, I continue to keep the above options open.

39
Thanks for being understanding.

Peter Niehenke, the astrologer I wrote about and who got negative results after statistically researching aspects, remarks:
Peter Niehenke wrote:As a professional astrologer, I recognise that the negative results are a reality. But the evidence of my success in counselling is also a reality. A world in which astrology exists is surely more enjoyable than one without it. This remains for the moment even true for me!
http://www.astrology-and-science.com/d-rese2.htm , ?4. Aspects

His reaction was neither one of objection to statistical research, nor of quitting astrology. Here is an article in which he explains his views. It's a nice article and I can recommend it because it discusses the points that often are discussed in astrology research threads.
http://h1743330.stratoserver.net/onlinetexte7.html
Most of his website is in German but the article is in English.
Here are some quotes from the article:
Peter Niehenke wrote:For more than ten years now I have been preoccupied with the question how it fits that we, in the counselling session, are able to impress our clients again and again, that again an again I get this deep feeling of proof when reading a chart, but that nearly every test to objectively prove the correctness of chart interpretations in scientific studies failed in the end.
..., it could well be that scientific methods in general, and statistical methods in particular, are not appropriate to prove astrology as a whole but they are in fact appropriate to prove the statements made in astrological textbooks and announced in astrology courses. It is not very helpful to explain these facts away or to deny their existence. We all too often try to wriggle ourselves out of our problems with various justifications, downplaying our failure, finding thousands of explanations after the event -- instead of getting a deeper knowledge of astrology by taking up these facts.
Because the ability to "see" similarity depends on empathy or willingness only real counselling situations should be taken, for: If someone knows participating in a study his approach to the situation is completely different from a real counselling situation. He will for instance be more "critical" handling the interpretations and most probably will not really let himself in for the process. In other words: It is not possible to learn about the processes going on in a real counselling situation by investigating artificial situations. This necessity of real counselling situations of course evokes serious ethical problems: If I want to find out whether wrong birth dates yield the same evidence as correct birth dates neither the astrologer nor the client should know whether the chart in question is based upon the correct or the false birth time. For the time being I have no idea how this ethical problem can be solved.

41
Peter Niehenke sounds like a thoughtful person! How refreshing to see someone exploring the terrain between the two camps of rigid support and rejection of astrology. I loved his statement:

"As a professional astrologer, I recognise that the negative results are a reality. But the evidence of my success in counselling is also a reality. A world in which astrology exists is surely more enjoyable than one without it."

One point that can explain astrologers' success with advisees, is the so-called Barnum Effect, named after the 19th American century showman PT Barnum. Basically he got customers at his circus sideshows to believe in all kinds of hoaxes through the power of suggestion. If I suggest, for example, that someone exhibits traits of envy, it is easy to get an affirmative from him, because everyone experiences envy from time to time.

On the other hand, sometimes astrology operates at a more empirical level. Two days ago on another astrology Forum, I did a chart reading for a woman asking about her mother. Mom has Saturn in Capricorn smack-dab on her ascendant. I asked the woman whether her mother is physically small or very slender. She responded that her mother is 4'10"!!

On the other hand, I've had my share of misses in chart readings, which I chalk up to my lack of knowledge or haste. But I had such a strong feeling about this chart, more of a sense that I could "get under the hood." This is where the Moment of Astrology comes in, I think.

So where statistics might come in is whether Saturn in Capricorn conjunct ascendant, adjusting for ethnic/genetic differences, routinely produces small people. If it doesn't, then my "hit" with the mother's stature could be explained either as a lucky guess--or, as the Moment of Astrology where one makes more of a psychic or even spiritual connection with the native. And this Moment doesn't happen with every reading.

Back when I registered for my sole (required) university statistics course, it scared the bejeesus out of me. I had a very weak high school background in math. A few weeks into the class, I realized that statistics is all about logical thinking. At the elementary level of statistics, where one is learning about simple tests rather than creating them, indeed, the math seemed secondary. So logical thinking seems entirely compatible with astrology.
Last edited by waybread on Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

42
Looks nice. Unfortunately I have no connection to TV at all.


Waybread, you just clicked the 'submit' button a second before me I see. And speaking about the Barnum effect, this is one of lot of such effects indeed. Another thing might be the intuitional flash of insight. Combined with the devotion to a special technique, intuation can lead you to the right way.

Perhaps this is also what happens in horary reading which therefore requires a sincere mind in asking questions. Although technique might be seen as of secondary importance from the intuition theory point of view, the necessity of detailed technical application of the rules could be related to intuition in which this search is a kind of ritual. Since there are many details required, many outcomes are possible for one reading, however if the intention is sincere intuition could lead one to the path of details which lead to the correct answer.

This view (I'm not sure if this is how the horary practitioners themselves see it) could explain why the use of technique alone won't lead to a correct answer and would be just a dead ritual. Just like in religious rituals then there has to be some 'soul' in it. Performing the rituals in detal in many religions are meant to lead to the required concentration and devotion to lead to a certain state of mind, not just for the sake of the performance. Rather than reflection of technique alone the answer reflects the state of mind of the questioner as well. In howfar this is a psychological effect or an intuitional effect, that's the question.