Is there scientific evidence to support the claims of astrology?

[LeonhardEuler]

I doubt that even people who believe in Astrology think that all the matter in the universe is the equivalent of the leaves in their tea cup. The idea is quite opposite. They are not so egotistical but so humble to realize(believe) that all the universe has a profound effect on them. I'm not saying I necessarily believe it but I think the quote above is inaccurate of what these people believe.

I do not mean to say that people who believe in astrology are necisarily egotistical, but I do believe they hold one egotistical belief. Think about what it takes for a person look at a lunar eclipse and while wondering about why it happens, think to themselves "well, it must have something to do with me."

This doesn't prove anything about astrology. It's like using carnival Kirlian cameras to show that Kirlian photography is fake when we already know that the carnival cameras are fake Kirlian cameras.

I wasn't claiming this was a mathematical proof that astrology is wrong. It just demonstrates an important point: people can be fooled into believing that something is a remarkably accurate description of themselves when in fact it isn't. It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

It would be nice to see thurough research done using the real deal. The experiments I have read about even CSICOP wouldn't accept as being scientific, except that they don't mind because they agree with the results.

There has been a lot of research on this topic and not really any evidence to lend any credibility to astrologer's claims. Look at the bibliograpohy of this paper for many examples of research that has beeb done on the subject. http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf. It may sound nice to say that it doesn't have to meet the same standards as a scientific theory, but what that really means is that when astrology makes a claim that there is a statistical correlation between two observables, astrology should not be discredited if this correlation is shown time and again not to exist. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory. And, most importantly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Why should I believe it? Why should I give it any more credibility that any other arbitrary hypothesis? The burden of proof is not on me to show that astrology is wrong any more than I need to prove that the migratory patterns of beluga whales don't predict the stock market. Why would anyone believe it in the first place? The fact that people believe it is no real evidence. If you took that as the evidence, then how do you separate it from augery, or oracle bones, or prophetic hallucinations from smoking a peyote cactus, or any other now discredited popular delusion?

 

[Kerrie]

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf. It may sound nice to say that it doesn't have to meet the same standards as a scientific theory, but what that really means is that when astrology makes a claim that there is a statistical correlation between two observables, astrology should not be discredited if this correlation is shown time and again not to exist. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory. And, most importantly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Why should I believe it? Why should I give it any more credibility that any other arbitrary hypothesis? The burden of proof is not on me to show that astrology is wrong any more than I need to prove that the migratory patterns of beluga whales don't predict the stock market. Why would anyone believe it in the first place? The fact that people believe it is no real evidence. If you took that as the evidence, then how do you separate it from augery, or oracle bones, or prophetic hallucinations from smoking a peyote cactus, or any other now discredited popular delusion?

it looks as if you don't want to consider the "human factor"-human beings have choices in who they become, astrology merely points out tendencies that can be in place. it seems you are trying to convince yourself more then anything it could never be valid. astrology does not promise some sort of definite equation of who you are based on geometrical aspects, so please, do throw this expectation out.

have you had your own chart done by a reputable astrologist? or do you just take what others tell you as possible fact? i suggest you find out on your own to be ultimately sure.

 

[SGT]

there is already speculation that a woman's menstrual cycle coincides with the moons cycles (which circles the Earth in the same time). as i stated before, the force that moves the planets move us as beings, and is what the astrological theory is based on. what it is called, i don't know, it's not something i really dived into because i am more interested in the correlation of it, not what it is referred to.

As I stated before, there is no coincidence between women's menstrual cycle (average 28 days, but varying from woman to woman and from month to month for the same woman) and the lunar cycle (29,53 days). Besides, this is a very anthropic point of view. Why does the Moon not affect other mammals?

i am no expert on astrology, although 12 years is a long time to study anything. i suggest you do some further reading on your own if you feel the need to have more extensive answers. i am beginning to feel that you are just testing me rather then being sincerely inquisitive.

If 12 years of study don't allow you to answer a simple question: (Wich are the human cycles that you mentioned in a previous post?), how do you expect I could obtain the answers by further reading?

 

[hypnagogue]

I never settled on a strong opinion on astrology because I wanted to see some rigorous and definitive statistical analysis done on the topic. I never saw an analysis like that until the Geoffrey Dean paper, which is pretty devastating in its thoroughness and finality. All this talk about through what mechanisms astrology could possibly work and so on is at best secondary-- what really matters is whether astrological methods can accurately predict some effects that are statistically distinguishable from chance, and the Dean paper seems to close the door rather firmly on that possibility.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do not mean to say that people who believe in astrology are necisarily egotistical, but I do believe they hold one egotistical belief. Think about what it takes for a person look at a lunar eclipse and while wondering about why it happens, think to themselves "well, it must have something to do with me."

You seem to have missed my point. You are mixing up the perceived cause and effect. People who believe in astrology do not believe that their lives influence cosmological events. They believe that these events influence their lives. They don't see an eclipse and think that it must have something to do with them. They see the events in their lives and think it must have something to do with the cosmological events that they observe. Your example would be similar to saying that when Newton saw an apple fall he believed that the apple attracted the Earth rather than the other way around.

I wasn't claiming this was a mathematical proof that astrology is wrong. It just demonstrates an important point: people can be fooled into believing that something is a remarkably accurate description of themselves when in fact it isn't. It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

The same can be said of theories in Psychology. The whole phenomena of MPD has been linked to psychologists impressing the idea on their subjects. That's just one example. People also have a tendency to not see certain qualities about themselves. I once told someone skeptical about astrology that he possessed a particular quality that is often associated with his sign. He flat out denied that he possessed the quality even though it was a major aspect of his personality. Most of the expiriments regarding Astrology I have seen have relied on either the person themself making an honest evaluation of their own personality or someone who doesn't even know a person making an evaluation of that persons personality. Neither of these would hold water if applied to psychology so I don't see why they should with regard to astrology. And I haven't even touched the surface of whether or not a proper astrological method was even used.

There has been a lot of research on this topic and not really any evidence to lend any credibility to astrologer's claims. Look at the bibliograpohy of this paper for many examples of research that has beeb done on the subject. http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

I'll take a look at it. I'm sure there are probably plenty of studies out there I haven't seen.

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf... ect.

Astrology isn't about concrete things. It's about influences. Is it very easy to plot out mathematically the various psychological influences in a persons life? Wasn't Psychology at one time considered a bunch of hocus pocus that didn't really mean anything? If you don't apply a pyschological test or method appropriately or somehow for some reason manipulate your subjects responses won't you taint the entire process and produce invalid results?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I do not mean to say that people who believe in astrology are necisarily egotistical, but I do believe they hold one egotistical belief. Think about what it takes for a person look at a lunar eclipse and while wondering about why it happens, think to themselves "well, it must have something to do with me."

Your generalization isn't based on solid logic. Is it egotistical to believe when the temperature drops to 20° and my body turns cold, that my coldness is related to the environment's drop in temperature? Just because someone relates a personal condition to conditions of the universe doesn't make them egotistical since changing environmental conditions have demonstrated to us over and over again that they can affect us.

I wasn't claiming this was a mathematical proof that astrology is wrong. It just demonstrates an important point: people can be fooled into believing that something is a remarkably accurate description of themselves when in fact it isn't.

But so what? I can do the same thing with a collection of scientific facts. Does that demonstrate something about people's gullibility and lack of logic skills, or scientific facts?

It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

No it doesn't. It illustrates a mechanism by which people can be fooled. Your example demonstrated absolutely nothing about astrology. It could have been psychic readings, genetic programming, or anything else that has been generalized to the point of broad applicability.

There has been a lot of research on this topic and not really any evidence to lend any credibility to astrologer's claims.

Let's say I tell you there is a gene which can make a person smile. You demand to know why people with this gene aren't always smiling. I explain that the gene only provides a weak inclination, but because genetics are at the very root of a human, that weak inclination is situated in such a way to exert influence only if nothing stronger gets in the way. However, there are LOTS of stronger influences, especially environmental influences as one grows up.

You, as a hardcore empiricist, have to test it. How will you test it? First, do you listen to the most serious advocates of the genetic theory who say the influence is basic, but weak? Or do you listen to the crackpots who publish columns in the newspaper everyday predicting how much smiling is going to happen among those who have that gene?

Trying to prove the crackpots wrong, you set up test after test looking for something so strong as they say it is, which isn't really what the original idea was at all. So when you fail to find evidence in support of crackpot stuff, you proclaim a genetic basis for smiling is bogus.

But who has the problem? Is it the smiling gene theory, or is it your lack of proper research into the issue because you assumed a priori it was all bullsh*t anyway, so why bother understanding it?

All of this, though is beside the point. My point is that astrology makes a truth claim about something observable and is therefore on science's turf. It may sound nice to say that it doesn't have to meet the same standards as a scientific theory, but what that really means is that when astrology makes a claim that there is a statistical correlation between two observables, astrology should not be discredited if this correlation is shown time and again not to exist.

See, you just can't imagine that a scientific investigation might start off improperly. You ASSUME that because nothing shows up in the research, the subject has nothing valid to offer. It couldn't possibly be that the research isn't even looking for the right thing in the right way could it?

Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory.

You have to distinguish between the popular crap and serious thinkers about this. You have it all lumped together. That's what Kerrie has been trying to get you to do, but you just keep coming back with generalities. You ask why astrology should be given leeway. Fair enough. But why should you be excused from doing your homework, and then get to come here and speak from an uninformed opinion about astrology? Does that represent the standard for science and scholarship?

If you took that as the evidence, then how do you separate it from augery, or oracle bones, or prophetic hallucinations from smoking a peyote cactus, or any other now discredited popular delusion?

Oracles and peyote experiences haven't been discredited by anyone other than those who set up experiments without a clue about what they are investigating.

And, most importantly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Why should I believe it? Why should I give it any more credibility that any other arbitrary hypothesis?

How do you know it is arbitrary if you haven't studied it? Your a priori assumption is showing again.

Why would anyone believe it in the first place?

By now you might think I believe in astrology, but I don't. I am just open. I am skeptical about most of the pop stuff, and wouldn't have an opinion at all except for the fact that I grew up around a bunch of Tauruses (and married one). Now, until I was in my 30s I didn't know anything about astrology, but I'd noticed years earlier certain similarities in my sisters, aunt, grandfather, and family friends. But it was a couple of years after I married my wife that I first thought about cycles because she shared personality traits with the people I mentioned. I was really surprised when I first found out they were all Tauruses, and that is what made me start to look at it.

I don't know what (if anything) might be the basis of it. I can merely say I have noticed certain tendencies. I think Ivan might have suggested that it doesn't mean there is a causal relationship between the shape of the universe and personality, it might be simple correspondence. Why is it so farfetched to imagine that? After all, think about the number of celestial cycles that took place while life evolved over billions of years. And aren't we subject to cycles ourselves? Might not there be some correspondence between biological and celestial cycles, and might that not be reflected in personality? In fact, that seems quite physicalistic to me, so I fail to understand the empiricists' knee-jerk and often venomous rejection of even
considering if there might be some (however minute) legitimate basis to astrology.

 

[SGT]

I don't know what (if anything) might be the basis of it. I can merely say I have noticed certain tendencies. I think Ivan might have suggested that it doesn't mean there is a causal relationship between the shape of the universe and personality, it might be simple correspondence. Why is it so farfetched to imagine that? After all, think about the number of celestial cycles that took place while life evolved over billions of years. And aren't we subject to cycles ourselves? Might not there be some correspondence between biological and celestial cycles, and might that not be reflected in personality? In fact, that seems quite physicalistic to me, so I fail to understand the empiricists' knee-jerk and often venomous rejection of even
considering if there might be some (however minute) legitimate basis to astrology.

I have tried to make Kerrie mention what are those biological cycles, but she refuses to. Would you please cite some of them (besides circadian and menstrual)?

 

[Moonbear]

there is already speculation that a woman's menstrual cycle coincides with the moons cycles (which circles the Earth in the same time).

That really doesn't make sense or else all women would have the same cycle. We'd all menstruate starting the same day, ovulate the same day, etc. There are some relationships between circadian rhythmicity and time of day of ovulation that are theorized, but that has nothing to do with the moon. And, actually, what makes a circadian rhythm circadian is that in the absence of time cues (i.e.,constant darkness, random feeding times), rhythmicity continues, but the period becomes different from 24 hours (this is termed a free-running rhythm). The period varies among individuals (even individuals housed in the same room), indicating the rhythm is internally generated, not caused by external cues. What the external cues do is to entrain the rhythm, or in other words, reset it daily so it is synchronized to the light dark cycle. But since this synchronization is lost as soon as we withhold just a few environmental cues (lights on or off, feeding time, temperature), and because we can entrain these rhythms to artificial light, we know this has nothing to do with things like phases of the moon or other planets.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have tried to make Kerrie mention what are those biological cycles, but she refuses to. Would you please cite some of them (besides circadian and menstrual)?

Do you know the difference between generalistic receptivity and and a mind focused on (obsessed with) details? Say you are a robot I am trying to teach the sense of balance. You want to know the exact coordinates for every step you take, I want you to generally "sense" something about balance.

The cyclic thing is so weak, in my opinion, you have to "sense" it generally at this point. I do think if it is real someone could find a way to test it's very broad and subtle influence, but I've not heard of such a test yet. If the theory is correct, so many stronger factors can alter things you can't approach it empirically so exact and precise as you want to and find out anything.

 

[Les Sleeth]

That really doesn't make sense or else all women would have the same cycle. We'd all menstruate starting the same day, ovulate the same day, etc. There are some relationships between circadian rhythmicity and time of day of ovulation that are theorized, but that has nothing to do with the moon. And, actually, what makes a circadian rhythm circadian is that in the absence of time cues (i.e.,constant darkness, random feeding times), rhythmicity continues, but the period becomes different from 24 hours (this is termed a free-running rhythm). The period varies among individuals (even individuals housed in the same room), indicating the rhythm is internally generated, not caused by external cues. What the external cues do is to entrain the rhythm, or in other words, reset it daily so it is synchronized to the light dark cycle. But since this synchronization is lost as soon as we withhold just a few environmental cues (lights on or off, feeding time, temperature), and because we can entrain these rhythms to artificial light, we know this has nothing to do with things like phases of the moon or other planets.

I still say whatever is there is (if anything) would be obscured by demanding detailed predictions.

Say the Earth is covered by a pool of chemicals which heat causes to form crystals. The crystals are affected first by how much sunlight is present, and then also by gravity, atmospheric pressure, humidity, temperature, wind speed, dilution, asteroid impacts, internal turbulence, and lots of other factors.

Now, because the first thing to affect crystal formation is the sun, its changing intensity throughout the day creates phases. But even though it is the first influence, it is the weakest; yet even though the weakest, it is the broadest (being first). Because so many "narrowly" stronger influences can interfere, it isn't easy to see the broad, subtle basic thing at the rear.

You know, it might be that some minds can look at things so broadly and openly they detect some sort of pattern which those focused on minutia can't see. You might want to keep such minds out of the lab, but just because they don't care to translate everything into an empirically testable model doesn't mean they don't "see" or sense something.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Your generalization isn't based on solid logic. Is it egotistical to believe when the temperature drops to 20° and my body turns cold, that my coldness is related to the environment's drop in temperature? Just because someone relates a personal condition to conditions of the universe doesn't make them egotistical since changing environmental conditions have demonstrated to us over and over again that they can affect us.

I see your point. However, starting one's inquiry from the assumption that an event must be linked to you with no evidence is still something I consider egotistical.

Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? Why should astrology's truth claims be given any more leeway than any other set of truth claims, i.e. another scientific theory.

You have to distinguish between the popular crap and serious thinkers about this. You have it all lumped together. That's what Kerrie has been trying to get you to do, but you just keep coming back with generalities. You ask why astrology should be given leeway. Fair enough. But why should you be excused from doing your homework, and then get to come here and speak from an uninformed opinion about astrology? Does that represent the standard for science and scholarship?

What are you saying, that the popular stuff must be subjected to experiment, but the stuff put forth by so called experts is immune to being disproven by actual data? I have already explained what gets me out of doing my homework. I will not assign a significant probability to the correctness of an arbitrary hypothesis without a reason for doing so. I will not waste my time studying a theory based on nothing. I first need to know that it is based on something so that I know its plausible enough to be worth my time. Likewise I hope you will not waste your time researching my beluga whale/stock market theory.

How do you know it is arbitrary if you haven't studied it? Your a priori assumption is showing again.

I strongly suspect that it is arbitrary because every time I ask for the basis of astrology I get an answer which is highly evasive, nonsense, or no answer at all. Once again I will invite someone to explain to me what it is based on.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I strongly suspect that it is arbitrary because every time I ask for the basis of astrology I get an answer which is highly evasive, nonsense, or no answer at all. Once again I will invite someone to explain to me what it is based on.

I'll do my best even though I am not an astrology believer. I am advocating being open to a different way of understanding reality, not astrology.

If you are predisposed to studying details, taking things apart, investigating relationships between components, infatuated with the mechanics of things . . . you might look primarily at that aspect of the universe your entire life. You might go to school and study only that, you might only think about that, watch specials on that, read books on that, have friends who have similar interests.

Your particular way of understanding--the reductionist, empirical method of inquiry--might eventually seem to you as the only valid way to know anything for sure. With that epistomological standard in place, you then judge everything else against that standard, never questioning if it is the only way to know. So if you catch someone claiming they think something might be true, your automatic reaction is to demand they provide information which satisfies YOUR standard of knowing.

If they try to explain they have a different method of knowing, you can't hear them. You insist they put it your way. But they haven't understood it your way.

Now, are you so sure your way (assuming it's the empirical way) is the only way to know? Can people "sense" something is true before they can demonstrate it? Can they personally investigate the truth of what they sense through their own method and still come know something?

 

[LeonhardEuler]

It illistrates the mechanism by which astrology gains undeserved credibility.

No it doesn't. It illustrates a mechanism by which people can be fooled. Your example demonstrated absolutely nothing about astrology. It could have been psychic readings, genetic programming, or anything else that has been generalized to the point of broad applicability.

I agree that it is broadly applicable, but that doesn't make it any less of a mechanism for astrology gaining undeserved credibility.

Let's say I tell you there is a gene which can make a person smile. You demand to know why people with this gene aren't always smiling. I explain that the gene only provides a weak inclination, but because genetics are at the very root of a human, that weak inclination is situated in such a way to exert influence only if nothing stronger gets in the way. However, there are LOTS of stronger influences, especially environmental influences as one grows up.

You, as a hardcore empiricist, have to test it. How will you test it? First, do you listen to the most serious advocates of the genetic theory who say the influence is basic, but weak? Or do you listen to the crackpots who publish columns in the newspaper everyday predicting how much smiling is going to happen among those who have that gene?

Trying to prove the crackpots wrong, you set up test after test looking for something so strong as they say it is, which isn't really what the original idea was at all. So when you fail to find evidence in support of crackpot stuff, you proclaim a genetic basis for smiling is bogus.

But who has the problem? Is it the smiling gene theory, or is it your lack of proper research into the issue because you assumed a priori it was all bullsh*t anyway, so why bother understanding it?

First off, let me state the most gigantic difference between astrology and genetics: evidence. If actual scientific researchers had come to the conclusion that a certain gene had an effect on smiling under certain circumstances, that must have been based on a direct experiment or a theory well established by experiment. If it was done by direct experiment, then as long as the experiment was well designed and executed, I have a good reason to believe it. If it is based on a well established theory, then I also have a reason to be inclined to believe it, although most likely, since it is a complex biological system, there will exist the possibility that other factors, considered unlikely, could eliminate the effect of the gene on smiling. To really verify it, It would be best to have a direct experiment. Let's say I try the experiment under certain conditions and it doesn't demonstrate the correctness of the theory. I then try more and more conditions and find no correlation. Sure, there could be a correlation under certain situations, but eventually the conditions become so restrictive that theory becomes almost completely vacuuous and useless. Astrology is not based on an experiment or experimentally verified theory. That raises a flag right away. It has also been demonstrated to make incorrect predictions in many circumstances. You can keep arguing that the conditions are not strict enough and that the effects are ever more subtle, but the theory eventually becomes useless. So you have a useless theory not based on any experimental evidence, other than anecdotes. Why believe it?!

 

[LeonhardEuler]

I'll do my best even though I am not an astrology believer. I am advocating being open to a different way of understanding reality, not astrology.

If you are predisposed to studying details, taking things apart, investigating relationships between components, infatuated with the mechanics of things . . . you might look primarily at that aspect of the universe your entire life. You might go to school and study only that, you might only think about that, watch specials on that, read books on that, have friends who have similar interests.

Your particular way of understanding--the reductionist, empirical method of inquiry--might eventually seem to you as the only valid way to know anything for sure. With that epistomological standard in place, you then judge everything else against that standard, never questioning if it is the only way to know. So if you catch someone claiming they think something might be true, your automatic reaction is to demand they provide information which satisfies YOUR standard of knowing.

If they try to explain they have a different method of knowing, you can't hear them. You insist they put it your way. But they haven't understood it your way.

Now, are you so sure your way (assuming it's the empirical way) is the only way to know? Can people "sense" something is true before they can demonstrate it? Can they personally investigate the truth of what they sense through their own method and still come know something?

All of this sounds very nice, but what I am saying boils down to this: If a theory makes testable predictions, you should not believe it if a test contrdicts those predictions. How can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions? Doesn't that contradict the definition of a theory being valid?

 

[Les Sleeth]

All of this sounds very nice, but what I am asking boils down to this: If a theory makes testable predictions, you should not believe it if a test contrdicts those predictions. How can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions? Doesn't that contradict the definition of a theory being valid?

Hmmmmm. I always worry when someone says, "all of this sounds very nice BUT . . ." because it usually means they didn't really listen and are just going on with their own point of view.

You aren't being careful enough. Look at what you said, "how can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions." Does the theory make the predictions or do people made predictions? How do you know what theory is being applied in astrological predictions if you don't understand the theory? There are a lot of crackpots doing astrology it seems. But that is an entirely different issue from if there is anything valid about some relationship existing between the shape of the universe and the shape of one's personality.

Here's the sort of prediction I've felt comfortable with.

People born between 2/19 and 3/20 are predisposed to being more sensitive than normal if other more strongly influential factors don't interfere.

Now, what does "sensitive" mean? Well, it can mean unusually sensitive to sensual stimulation; it can mean over-sensitive to criticism; it can mean sympathetic to other's problems; it can mean intuitiveness; it can mean physically over-reacting to physical stress to the point of weakening one's health . . .

To understand the predisposition to sensitivity, one has to understand all the ways it might manifest, as well as what happens when extra-sensitivity is suppressed, sublimated, transferred, denied, etc. The human psyche is very complex, and so any subtle, background influence isn't going to show itself in the gross, mechanistic, cynical tests devised by researchers who think it's all a crock to begin with.

 

[Kerrie]

That really doesn't make sense or else all women would have the same cycle.

I said there was speculation
never expressed this as my own opinion.

I have tried to make Kerrie mention what are those biological cycles, but she refuses to. Would you please cite some of them (besides circadian and menstrual)?

perhaps your reading is a little bit biased...i admitted i don't know, and stated what i focus on. so please excuse me for not getting an answer sooner since I do work full time, raise 2 children and happen to be 8 months pregnant. maybe you have the luxury of sitting around all day thinking about this, but i certainly don't.

the link i provided is redundant to this thread in my opinion. i think you will find some great answers if you sincerely have an interest to know (which i doubt now at this point). i have found many members here get off by just arguing instead of having a sincere interest in the question of why. but hey, whatever boosts your ego, i won't judge you, nor will i argue with you any longer.

astrology is a subject that needs to be studied in order to understand. it is not a simple equation, as sir isaac Newton says, "Sir-I have studied the matter. You have not." debating this topic with people who refuse to learn something valid about it is like debating with a 3 year old about a division problem.

 

[Kerrie]

Hmmmmm. I always worry when someone says, "all of this sounds very nice BUT . . ." because it usually means they didn't really listen and are just going on with their own point of view.

You aren't being careful enough. Look at what you said, "how can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions." Does the theory make the predictions or do people made predictions? How do you know what theory is being applied in astrological predictions if you don't understand the theory? There are a lot of crackpots doing astrology it seems. But that is an entirely different issue from if there is anything valid about some relationship existing between the shape of the universe and the shape of one's personality.

exactly the feeling i get too Les. it gets me frustrated when you can see plain as day folks who would rather argue then step over the line and be unafraid of finding out on their own what the truth is. for them, perhaps it is easier to just believe what a group of people they think they can trust says on any subject matter. a true skeptic will branch off and find out for themselves. as einstein said, "The important thing is not to stop questioning". he was a pisces as well Les

 

[hypnagogue]

By now you might think I believe in astrology, but I don't. I am just open.

As I said, I consider myself open on this subject as well, but the Dean paper (http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf ) has forced me to lean quite heavily towards skepticism. Anyone who has been reading this thread should most definitely read the paper, because it cuts through all the relatively superficial discussion and gets straight to the heart of the matter: Is there any statistically significant correlation between birth time and personality traits? The answer Dean and Kelly come to is a pretty resounding no.

In a little more detail, the paper uses meta-analysis on a variety of tests that have been performed to assess astrological methods. Astrology is actually given every chance to succeed in this paper by Dean and Kelly: They look at conditions most amenable to validating astrological predictions clearly and powerfully (people born minutes apart in the same hospital); they look at conditions in which subjects lie at the far, far extremes for some personality traits, such that these traits unambiguously exist and are most amenable to being detected or predicted by astrological methods; they look at cases where astrologers try to match a list of personality traits with the corresponding natal charts; they ask astrologers to rate their confidence in making various astrological judgments and see if the confidence level is correlated with a higher degree of success; they check astrologers' evaluations for consistency with each other; etc.

In each and every case, no statistically significant result is found. Because meta-anlysis is used, the statistical tests used are quite powerful. For the tests looked at in this paper, if we suppose that some astrological effect did indeed exist and was just not detected for whatever reason, the statistics rules out that such astrological effects could account for anything more than 1% or 2% deviation from chance. In other words, even if astrological effects did exist in these experiments, they were so small as to be negligible. Certainly if astrological effects elude such a powerful and rigorous statistical analysis, they cannot be the sorts of things that are actually noticeable in everyday people. If we believe we have some anecdotal evidence that astrological methods work, then, the statistics strongly suggests that that evidence is most likely misguided in some way or another.

This paper also eludes a number of the objections that have been raised in this thread. Judging by the subject matter of the paper and the way in which they approach the subject, the authors certainly seem to have 'open minds' and certainly don't seem biased or actively hopeful of discrediting astrology. Indeed, they actually seem to bend over backwards to give astrology some chance-- any chance-- to try to empirically support itself in some manner or another. Much of their discussion on astrology is based on published work from serious astrologers. The work of literally hundreds of astrologers has been incorporated into the meta-analysis. The statistical power of the tests is substantial enough to come to very strong conclusions with very high confidence. And the nature of the study makes no assumptions about underlying mechanisms-- all that it looks for is to see if some statistically significant correlation exists between birth times/places and various human traits, as is the central tenet of astrology.

 

[Kerrie]

Hyp, when I get some time, I will read over the paper. I read the first couple of paragraphs, and I am intrigued.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As I said, I consider myself open on this subject as well, but the Dean paper (http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf ) has forced me to lean quite heavily towards skepticism. Anyone who has been reading this thread should most definitely read the paper, because it cuts through all the relatively superficial discussion and gets straight to the heart of the matter: Is there any statistically significant correlation between birth time and personality traits? The answer Dean and Kelly come to is a pretty resounding no.

In a little more detail, the paper uses meta-analysis on a variety of tests that have been performed to assess astrological methods. Astrology is actually given every chance to succeed in this paper by Dean and Kelly: They look at conditions most amenable to validating astrological predictions clearly and powerfully (people born minutes apart in the same hospital); they look at conditions in which subjects lie at the far, far extremes for some personality traits, such that these traits unambiguously exist and are most amenable to being detected or predicted by astrological methods; they look at cases where astrologers try to match a list of personality traits with the corresponding natal charts; they ask astrologers to rate their confidence in making various astrological judgments and see if the confidence level is correlated with a higher degree of success; they check astrologers' evaluations for consistency with each other; etc.

In each and every case, no statistically significant result is found. Because meta-anlysis is used, the statistical tests used are quite powerful. For the tests looked at in this paper, if we suppose that some astrological effect did indeed exist and was just not detected for whatever reason, the statistics rules out that such astrological effects could account for anything more than 1% or 2% deviation from chance. In other words, even if astrological effects did exist in these experiments, they were so small as to be negligible. Certainly if astrological effects elude such a powerful and rigorous statistical analysis, they cannot be the sorts of things that are actually noticeable in everyday people. If we believe we have some anecdotal evidence that astrological methods work, then, the statistics strongly suggests that that evidence is most likely misguided in some way or another.

This paper also eludes a number of the objections that have been raised in this thread. Judging by the subject matter of the paper and the way in which they approach the subject, the authors certainly seem to have 'open minds' and certainly don't seem biased or actively hopeful of discrediting astrology. Indeed, they actually seem to bend over backwards to give astrology some chance-- any chance-- to try to empirically support itself in some manner or another. Much of their discussion on astrology is based on published work from serious astrologers. The work of literally hundreds of astrologers has been incorporated into the meta-analysis. The statistical power of the tests is substantial enough to come to very strong conclusions with very high confidence. And the nature of the study makes no assumptions about underlying mechanisms-- all that it looks for is to see if some statistically significant correlation exists between birth times/places and various human traits, as is the central tenet of astrology.

Most of what the paper discusses is precisely what I find unbelievable about astrology. Little of what they criticize is anything I would defend.

Let's try a different example. Say we acknowledge that creation appears to engender polarities, and we generalize the two sides of all polarities yin and yang. Now, it is true that polarity is a common occurance in the universe, but what can we infer from that? Can we infer that every aspect of life, from diet to furniture arrangement, can be analyzed by some yin-yang method?

Similarly, some people have sensed that there is some correlation between the shape of the universe and the shape of the personality. If from that simple observation fanatics go on to try to predict all sorts of nonsense, that doesn't mean the orignial insight was incorrect.

If we are to ponder the basis of astrology as I've suggested, then the Dean-Kelly paper made mistakes. The "time twins" for instance isn't a good test because being born at the same time only gives a weak, general tendency, and doesn't override the power of an individual's circumstances nor even whatever individuality someone might be born with.

If you want to take apart and criticize the practices of astrologers, that's one thing. But that is an entirely different subject from whether or not there is correspondence between the shape of the universe and one's personality inclinations.

 

[hypnagogue]

Well, for one thing, the astrological methods studied in this paper did not operate on the fine grained level of diet and furniture arrangement and so on, so that amounts to a strawman. I also found no indication that the astrologers tested, or their general methods, constitute fanaticism in the field of astrology-- that seems to be another strawman. (Perhaps Kerrie can weigh in with her opinion here.)

I'll grant that the paper does not definitively rule out some ambiguous, unspecified notion of some sort of correlation between personality traits and some wider features of the universe, but it does apply to the specific kinds of correlations postulated by astrology. This includes, e.g., your personal observation that Tauruses tend to behave in such-and-such a way. If that sort of observation held, one would think e.g. that astrologers would be able to match natal charts with the actually corresponding personality traits with at least some degree of success above chance, or that astrologers' professed degree of confidence in making astrological evaluations would at least weakly correlate with a higher degree of success-- but none of these held in the study. Modulo the specific claims and methods of existent astrology, it's not at all clear what substantive residue is left to constitute your general notion of correlation between personality and the universe, or why one should believe in such a thing in the first place.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, for one thing, the astrological methods studied in this paper did not operate on the fine grained level of diet and furniture arrangement and so on, so that amounts to a strawman.

I don't see the strawman. In my opinion "fine grain" is exactly what they did. They focused on the current "experts" in the field, most of whom are convinced they can predict all sorts of things. At least, that's been my experience with dedicated astrologers.

All I was talking about is judging the fundamental astrological concept of correspondence between personality and the shape of the universe by the antics of practitioners. And that is exactly what the paper critiqued. It is the same way people criticize the concept of God by tearing apart religion. In either case, the practices of believers have little to do with either the proposed principles of universe/personality correspondence or God.

I also found no indication that the astrologers tested, or their general methods, constitute fanaticism in the field of astrology-- that seems to be another strawman. (Perhaps Kerrie can weigh in with her opinion here.)

We'll just have to disagree. I thought they were focusing on the cult of astrology, which I do believe deserves criticism.

I'll grant that the paper does not definitively rule out some ambiguous, unspecified notion of some sort of correlation between personality traits and some wider features of the universe, but it does apply to the specific kinds of correlations postulated by astrology. This includes, e.g., your personal observation that Tauruses tend to behave in such-and-such a way. If that sort of observation held, one would think e.g. that astrologers would be able to match natal charts with the actually corresponding personality traits with at least some degree of success above chance, or that astrologers' professed degree of confidence in making astrological evaluations would at least weakly correlate with a higher degree of success-- but none of these held in the study. Modulo the specific claims and methods of existent astrology, it's not at all clear what substantive residue is left to constitute your general notion of correlation between personality and the universe, or why one should believe in such a thing in the first place.

Well, one can't convince someone focused on stats to sense generalities. You might admit that detail freaks who insist the universe is a only a collection of parts are often going to be at odds with generalists who sense there are underlying unities. Regarding my Taurus observations, remember I saw that before I knew anything about astrology. In fact, that's the only reason I took a look at astrololgy.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Hmmmmm. I always worry when someone says, "all of this sounds very nice BUT . . ." because it usually means they didn't really listen and are just going on with their own point of view.

You aren't being careful enough. Look at what you said, "how can a theory be valid that makes incorrect predictions." Does the theory make the predictions or do people made predictions? How do you know what theory is being applied in astrological predictions if you don't understand the theory? There are a lot of crackpots doing astrology it seems. But that is an entirely different issue from if there is anything valid about some relationship existing between the shape of the universe and the shape of one's personality.

Here's the sort of prediction I've felt comfortable with.

People born between 2/19 and 3/20 are predisposed to being more sensitive than normal if other more strongly influential factors don't interfere.

Now, what does "sensitive" mean? Well, it can mean unusually sensitive to sensual stimulation; it can mean over-sensitive to criticism; it can mean sympathetic to other's problems; it can mean intuitiveness; it can mean physically over-reacting to physical stress to the point of weakening one's health . . .

To understand the predisposition to sensitivity, one has to understand all the ways it might manifest, as well as what happens when extra-sensitivity is suppressed, sublimated, transferred, denied, etc. The human psyche is very complex, and so any subtle, background influence isn't going to show itself in the gross, mechanistic, cynical tests devised by researchers who think it's all a crock to begin with.

What I said was that there was that you should not believe a theory that makes testably false predictions. Do you agree or is that closed-minded? Like I said people can keep on altering the definition of terms to make claims ever harder to disprove in experiment, but the theory becomes empty. If no experiment has ever demonstrated astrology, how is there even any difference between an expert and a crock?

 

[SGT]

Do you know the difference between generalistic receptivity and and a mind focused on (obsessed with) details? Say you are a robot I am trying to teach the sense of balance. You want to know the exact coordinates for every step you take, I want you to generally "sense" something about balance.

The cyclic thing is so weak, in my opinion, you have to "sense" it generally at this point. I do think if it is real someone could find a way to test it's very broad and subtle influence, but I've not heard of such a test yet. If the theory is correct, so many stronger factors can alter things you can't approach it empirically so exact and precise as you want to and find out anything.

I don't say there are cycles. Astrologers do! If the amplitude of those cycles is so tiny that they are indistinguishable from background noise, how do astrologers know they exist? Have they sensed their own cycles? How can they be sure I have cycles too?
I am not asking Kerrie to prove me that cycles exist. I only ask her to name them. Is that so difficult?

 

[Nylex]

Astrology sounds like BS to me.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't say there are cycles. Astrologers do! If the amplitude of those cycles is so tiny that they are indistinguishable from background noise, how do astrologers know they exist? Have they sensed their own cycles? How can they be sure I have cycles too?
I am not asking Kerrie to prove me that cycles exist. I only ask her to name them. Is that so difficult?

If I tell you you have to still your mind to hear something very very sublte, and if you try to figure out if my statement true by thinking about it, do you believe you ever will find any evidence of what I'm talking about? The cycles (if they exist) aren't tiny, they are subtle. Big difference.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What I said was that there was that you should not believe a theory that makes testably false predictions. Do you agree or is that closed-minded? Like I said people can keep on altering the definition of terms to make claims ever harder to disprove in experiment, but the theory becomes empty. If no experiment has ever demonstrated astrology, how is there even any difference between an expert and a crock?

I think there are two issues involved. You have several times "why should I believe it?" To me that means you haven't had any experiences which makes you suspect there might be some sort of correspondence between the shape of the universe and personality development. In that case, I agree with you. I don't believe much of anything myself I haven't personally experienced, and certainly a good test is to evaluate claims of theorists.

Yet I am not sure anyone has understood what I am defending. It isn't the "science" of astrology. I have a few friends into it very deeply, and I've never understood that (no offence Kerrie). I have never seen it predict well enough to warrant all that attention. To me, it's been a very sublte general sense of trendencies I see in some people born at certain times of the year.

I have no doubt I've seen/felt these tendencies. But I have also seen people completely unlike what their astrological chart would predict. My working hypothesis is, if there is some general correspondence (and correspondence is all I am willing admit) between the shape of the universe and the shape of personality, it is a weak correspondence that can be overshadowed by conditioning and personal choice.

For example, I have a lot of Virgo friends right now and to a person all of them are tight with money, some to the point of being cheap. But one friend, in his words, "fights being cheap every day of my life." If anything he sometimes overcompensates (at least in social situations), and another friend is what I would call "careful" with her money rather than cheap. So are all Virgos frugal or cheap? No way. Does that trait seem more common among people born under Virgo than other signs? I think I've noticed it.

Remember, we are only talking about personality. To me, that is a relatively superficial aspect of consciousness anyway (another reason not to give astrology, even if true, much attention). I think human consciousness goes a lot deeper, and there are therefore much stronger influences on conscious development. But precisely because personality is superficial is why I think our physical development, in a physical universe that is subject to the cycles of celetial bodies, might somehow develop in correspondence with those physical cycles. In other words, it is a physical thing, not a spiritual thing.

 

[SGT]

If I tell you you have to still your mind to hear something very very sublte, and if you try to figure out if my statement true by thinking about it, do you believe you ever will find any evidence of what I'm talking about? The cycles (if they exist) aren't tiny, they are subtle. Big difference.

If they are so subtle, how do astrologers know they exist? And if they are so subtle how can they influence our behavior?
In my opinion, since the known forces that act at a distance:gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear interactions can be dismissed as connecting planetary motions to human behavior, astrologers made up the idea of cycles. They can't even name one cycle and they certainly don't know how planetary cycles relate to the postulated human cycles.
Until someone can point me at least one such cycle, subtle as it is, I will give cycles the same credibility I give to your hypothetical smiling gene.

 

[Kerrie]

If no experiment has ever demonstrated astrology, how is there even any difference between an expert and a crock?

In order to experiment with astrology, you must learn how it works thoroughly first. This can take considerable time. And yes, there have been "experiments" with astrology, just look at the Mars effect.

What can you tell me about how astrology works? What do you truly understand about it?

 

[Kerrie]

Remember, we are only talking about personality. To me, that is a relatively superficial aspect of consciousness anyway (another reason not to give astrology, even if true, much attention). I think human consciousness goes a lot deeper, and there are therefore much stronger influences on conscious development. But precisely because personality is superficial is why I think our physical development, in a physical universe that is subject to the cycles of celetial bodies, might somehow develop in correspondence with those physical cycles. In other words, it is a physical thing, not a spiritual thing.

Very good point Les...I think some folks here think that those who understand astrology necessarily believe that astrology is the underlying factor in everything. No, I don't believe that, but I do believe it is one factor in a general scheme of things.

As an example, the 3 week span of July 22 to August 15 Mercury "was in retrograde". The planet gives the optical illusion of going backwards when really it is just a part of its orbit traveling around the sun to our perspective. This illusion happens roughly 3 times a year. What generally tends to happen I find is there are more problems with communications modes-My boss's computer crashed completely during this time, we couldn't get our DSL at work to function correctly, my car began to make a noise which concerns me. Issues like these seem to be more pronounced and frequent during this time. One experiement I wish would be done is the rate of divorce of those who marry during this time, many I have known who divorce seem to have been married during the Mercury Retrograde.

Also during the Mercury Retrograde that is very significant to me (and this is all in the thread link I provided) is President Bush was elected in 2000 and we had the huge fiasco of counting ballots-another example of a communication fiasco. Mercury was in the sign of Scorpio during this time, which is a sign traditionally represented by power and control.

When I see events like these happening, I see a correlation or REFLECTION of cycles that seem to repeat themselves between the events and choices of humans to the placements and aspects of celestial bodies within our solar system. Subtle they are to those who are untrained to notice it, but speak volumes to those paying attention.

If the amplitude of those cycles is so tiny that they are indistinguishable from background noise, how do astrologers know they exist? Have they sensed their own cycles? How can they be sure I have cycles too?

Read above. Not having a clue about how real astrology works will make you unaware of the correlations.