Is there scientific evidence to support the claims of astrology?

[quantumdude]

Isn't this much like any statistical statement?

I think there's a crucial difference. With QM the correlation between theoretical predictions and an ensemble of identically prepared systems is astonishingly high. If it weren't so then QM would never have been uniquivocally accepted by physicists nor passed on to engineers for practical applications. But with astrology it seems that claims of correlation between astronomical and sociological cycles survive logical and experimental scrutiny even in instances in which the "correlation coefficient" is found to be zero, because of the catch-all random variable: free will.

 

[SpaceTiger]

But with astrology it seems that claims of correlation between astronomical and sociological cycles survive logical and experimental scrutiny even in instances in which the "correlation coefficient" is found to be zero, because of the catch-all random variable: free will.

Psychological studies in which free will would be a factor have been repeated and they have given consistent results (see my quote from Daniel Kahneman's autobiography). One can always say, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, that we can't be sure whether the same trends will apply when the experiment is done again. But this is in no way limited to astrology. In fact, for all we know, the laws of QM could change the next time we do a double-slit experiment or some "extra variable" could kick into change the result, but the consistency and rationality of the natural world is one of the fundamental assumptions of not only science, but of the way we conduct our everyday lives!

So, again, I think there are philosophical escapes from this problem, but they involve either solipsism or some mysterious factor that conspires to hide the correlations from the eyes of scientists, but not those of astrologers.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

The astrology used today is actually much more specific then ages ago. A type of astrology called Vedic astrology is one branch of astrology that makes up for the "wobble" of the Earth for example, it is the branch I choose to use. The difficult thing with astrology is, there are many branches of it in calculating positions. I haven't studied all of them, there is just so much to understand. I think it is safe to say that astrology is by no means "complete" either, that is why it is referred to as "the study of cycles". It is ongoing continuously, and as we discover more and more celestial bodies, it throws in more variables. Instead of me re-explaining these points over and over, it would be much easier if you took the time and had your chart done (it can be done for free) on one of these computer programs (www.astro.com) and see what basic intepretations it came up with. You might get a slight glimpse of how it works, as it is not always easy to explain in words through a forum. Just see for yourself, then we can have similar ground to start communicating on. If you like, PM me your info and I can do it for you as well.

As far as what Ivan has stated, I can attest to what he says as true a majority of the time, but only from my own personal experience. It's not "scientific", but it is a part of my studying it-by actually calculating charts and learning the interpretation process. Technically I guess I do gather statistics, but only store them in memory, not on paper. I have the faith that it works to a degree, so I am not trying to find a way to disprove it. Had I found it to be bogus years ago after all the time and effort I have put into it, I would have stopped studying long ago. Astrology keeps me intrigued because I do see patterns and tendencies, far beyond what one would call coincidences.

There is much controversey about the validity of the Mars Effect. From the charts I have seen, I see a significant spike in the placement of Mars in accordance to how athletic one is. Would you be able to interpret what Mars means and what house it is in? Would you be able to interpret what that house is and what part of life it represents? Would you be able to search for negative or positive aspects to that Mars placement and interpret those? Then you also have to take in account that person's experience, upbringing, environment and that impact on the individual's developement-especially as a child. Does this show how complicated astrology is? Would you have known about the infinite variables to consider? Also, a progressed chart could show reflections-both positive or negatives to the natal chart. Have you any idea what the progressed chart is? It too will have the infinite variables that can combine with the infinite variables of the natal chart. Like I said, there is so much to know, and I know some basics, but not even enough to be a registered astrologist. All of these variables can make the world of difference, and learning to interpret it all together is the true art of astrology, not a science.

I tried the link you provided. I found the statements to be pretty hit-and-miss.

Your nature tends to be hard and selfish, although often you are judged as more unyielding than you really are

This was the first thing it said. It is pretty opposite to the truth. People are always telling me that I'm too nice and I need to look after myself more. One thing to notice about it, though, is that it basically says one thing and then suggests the opposite. Not that it actually says both the statement and the opposite of it, but it leaves room for a person who isn't selfish to say "yeah, others do criticize me too harshly". There are a couple of other examples of this:

Your life will be full of changes and intermittent periods of activity and relaxation.

I don't know who that isn't true for. A person whose life really doesn't change all that much, relatively speaking, could always say he's in one of those intermittent periods of relaxation and point to any major point on the transition from bottle-sucking infant to independant adult as a period of change.

Your innermost nature is sensitive and receptive, but you have erected an elaborate system of self-defense

Another example. I don't even know what it really says about a person.

This position tends to make you somewhat extroverted, perhaps in spite of your own desires

This is another, and in any case it isn't true. Maybe my position makes it advantagous for me to be extroverted, but I'm still far from it. Whenever I'm in a crowded place, I look for nearest empty place to sit down away from the crowd.

Throughout your life, your responses will be emotional rather than rational.

Here was another big miss. I think even from our brief interaction you can tell it isn't true (except to the extent that its true of everyone).

Your liabilities include an exaggerated pride, arrogance and a tendency to rely too much on your own resources.

Me? never!

 

[Kerrie]

Assuming you used the astro.com link, the interpretations are computer generated. It doesn't take into consideration any aspects (postive/negative/squared/opposition/conjunct/etc) to the points being made. That's why ultimately astrology needs to have a human mind behind it, much like a human mind needs to be behind a work of art. You cannot generate from a computer a masterpiece unless it is straight copying what was already established by a human being. I think skeptics are looking for a simple mathematical establishment to the interpretation of it when there really isn't one. The only simple math involved (and it isn't so simple) is when the chart is actually calculated. You plug in the numbers, longitudes, latitudes, come up with the pie chart, and then from there comb through each placement, aspect and house position and how they can relate to one another. It truly is a detailed process. It is nearly impossible for those details to be exact for two people-even twins-because technically they are not born at the same exact moment.

Planets move at their own pace and it is fact that they are never all in the same position exactly ever, especially from the perspective of earth.

 

[quantumdude]

Psychological studies in which free will would be a factor have been repeated and they have given consistent results (see my quote from Daniel Kahneman's autobiography).

But I am not commenting on whether the predictions of astrology correlate well with the data. I am saying that when one is free to invoke free will as an explanation for a falsifying test, then there is no experimental result that could possibly cause an astrologer to change his mind about astrology.

One can always say, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, that we can't be sure whether the same trends will apply when the experiment is done again. But this is in no way limited to astrology.

OK so far.

In fact, for all we know, the laws of QM could change the next time we do a double-slit experiment or some "extra variable" could kick into change the result, but the consistency and rationality of the natural world is one of the fundamental assumptions of not only science, but of the way we conduct our everyday lives!

But this is a difference between science and astrology. Science does not use the catch-all random variable. If QM were to fail to predict the results of experiments, and these failures were objectively repeatable, then we wouldn't say that QM is really "right" and that there is a mysterious force at work that makes it appear otherwise. We would dismiss QM as bunkum and try to find a better theory.

So, again, I think there are philosophical escapes from this problem, but they involve either solipsism or some mysterious factor that conspires to hide the correlations from the eyes of scientists, but not those of astrologers.

I do not think that we are on the same page. I am not talking about correlations that astrologers can see and scientists cannot. I am talking about what happens when there is no correlation, and how one would respond to it. Given the use of the ultimate theoretical trump card, I do not see how even a zero correlation would cause one to consider astrology falsified.

 

[Kerrie]

So, again, I think there are philosophical escapes from this problem, but they involve either solipsism or some mysterious factor that conspires to hide the correlations from the eyes of scientists, but not those of astrologers.

No, astrologers have just taken the time to understand these cycles-which takes a good amount of time, as it is a subject that always has more to learn. Can you name any scientist that has dedicated a good deal of time and research into astrology in an objective manner? Skeptics don't do this, it is easier for them to dismiss it from what they see on the superficial level of how the subject is portrayed by other skeptics.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I do not think that we are on the same page. I am not talking about correlations that astrologers can see and scientists cannot.

I suppose we aren't, because that's certainly what I'm talking about. An astrologer would not make the claim that "X people tended to be Y" if they didn't see a trend. Even Kerrie repeatedly gives examples of seeing trends between the planets and behavior, as well as studying the cycles directly. She is not claiming to receive this information from on high, as a religious person might do, she's claiming to observe it for herself. This is why I think the free will fallback doesn't work -- the trends are claimed to be sensible, yet not capable of being studied by science. For this, the only escapes I can think of are the ones I mentioned.

 

[Vast]

That's why ultimately astrology needs to have a human mind behind it

In other words cold reading

a set of techniques used by professional manipulators to get a subject to behave in a certain way or to think that the cold reader has some sort of special ability that allows her to "mysteriously" know things about the subject.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think there's a crucial difference. With QM the correlation between theoretical predictions and an ensemble of identically prepared systems is astonishingly high. If it weren't so then QM would never have been uniquivocally accepted by physicists nor passed on to engineers for practical applications. But with astrology it seems that claims of correlation between astronomical and sociological cycles survive logical and experimental scrutiny even in instances in which the "correlation coefficient" is found to be zero, because of the catch-all random variable: free will.

The way that I see it there is the question of whether or not zero correlation can in fact be shown in a reaonable manner. I would think that any study of such complex issues is suspect by the nature of the realistic limitations in getting accurate and complete information. I also would expect that some astrologers have little faith in such studies; be it justified or not. But it does seem reasonable to assume that this is a difficult issue to address in a comprehensive manner. For example, how much variance do we see between the results of personality profiles from different tests given to the same person? This all hinges a bit on the concreteness of psychology as a science, and I doubt that you want to defend that one!

 

[quantumdude]

An astrologer would not make the claim that "X people tended to be Y" if they didn't see a trend. Even Kerrie repeatedly gives examples of seeing trends between the planets and behavior, as well as studying the cycles directly. She is not claiming to receive this information from on high, as a religious person might do, she's claiming to observe it for herself.

Of course, she did not receive it from on high. I don't doubt that astrologers see a trend. But even if the correlation coefficient is no different than that which would be observed by chance alone, one can still see a trend if one is conditioned to block out falsifying evidence.

This is why I think the free will fallback doesn't work -- the trends are claimed to be sensible, yet not capable of being studied by science. For this, the only escapes I can think of are the ones I mentioned.

Well, if you reject out of hand the catch-all I brought up, then of course you will not see it as an escape. But what does the historical record say? I mean, what is the success rate of astrological predictions? And have the predictive failures served as an impetus to search for better predictive methods? If not, why not? Everything I have read attributes predictive failures to free will or some equivalently unpredictable random variable.

The way that I see it there is the question of whether or not zero correlation can in fact be shown in a reaonable manner.

That's not really the question as far as what I've been saying. I have been talking about what would happen in principle if zero correlation were found. But if the zero correlation issue is bothering you, then let's change it. Let's just ask what would happen if astrology couldn't muster a better correlation coefficient than would be produced by chance. What then? Would astrology be modified or abandoned? Or would the failure be chalked up to free will?

 

[SpaceTiger]

But even if the correlation coefficient is no different than that which would be observed by chance alone, one can still see a trend if one is conditioned to block out falsifying evidence.

So, hypothetically, if an astrologer found a trend for something and a scientist found no correlation, you would say that the astrologer just blocked out the falsifying evidence? How is this different from debunking the astrologer? Since they're appealing only to observations, their claim is then based on nothing.

Well, if you reject out of hand the catch-all I brought up, then of course you will not see it as an escape.

Please tell me what I'm missing or explain to me why anyone (including astrologers) wouldn't find these options an absurd description of astrology:

1) The astrologers would have correctly identified a trend and "free will" (or random chance) conspired against scientists to hide the trend or
2) Astrologers would have blocked out the falsifying evidence and their random guess would have to coincidentally corresponded to actual truth.

I can't say either of these is impossible, but I don't think that's how anybody understands this catch-all "free will". If your argument only amounts to "this isn't impossible", then I can't argue with you, but that's true of any scientific theory as well and really isn't what one usually means by "unfalsifiable".

Let's just ask what would happen if astrology couldn't muster a better correlation coefficient than would be produced by chance. What then? Would astrology be modified or abandoned? Or would the failure be chalked up to free will?

I don't know what they would do, but even if they chalked it up to free will, they would still have to explain how they identified the supposed trend.

 

[Chronos]

Interesting. Unfortunately I'm still stuck on the home square and prevented, by the rule of science [the causal chain of evidence], from entering the game. Astrology is not only unfalsifiable, it fails to meet the criteria necessary to devise a meaningful test. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude astrology is not science [i.e., has no reliable, predictive power].

 

[SGT]

I went to the site proposed by Kerrie and had my chart calculated. As I expected there are hits and misses.
The hits clearly show that astrology works. The misses are due to my free will. So it is a win-win situation.

 

[quantumdude]

So, hypothetically, if an astrologer found a trend for something and a scientist found no correlation, you would say that the astrologer just blocked out the falsifying evidence?

We're still not on the same page. Consider the case in which both the scientist and the astrologer agree on the degree of correlation, and the correlation is, say, 60%. If one takes astrology sans the "free will proposition" (FWP), then this result would make astrology look like a failed theory. But if one admits FWP into the theory, then the 40% failure rate is easy to explain away: Those subjects simply exercised their free will to buck the trend predicted by astrology, and the theory survives.

This takes me back to what I said in my first post in the thread: Any theory that only offers up statements of the form "X OR NOT X" for experimental scrutiny cannot be falsified, even in principle.

And Kerrie herself indicated on the previous page of this thread that she views free will as a way to explain failed predictions. That's just another way of saying that astrology (as described by Kerrie) has a feature built in that can filter out falsifying evidence, and it effectively makes this strain of astrology unfalsifiable.

How is this different from debunking the astrologer? Since they're appealing only to observations, their claim is then based on nothing.

Whose claim is based on nothing?

Please tell me what I'm missing or explain to me why anyone (including astrologers) wouldn't find these options an absurd description of astrology:

1) The astrologers would have correctly identified a trend and "free will" (or random chance) conspired against scientists to hide the trend or
2) Astrologers would have blocked out the falsifying evidence and their random guess would have to coincidentally corresponded to actual truth.

For the life of me, I can't see how answering on either of those options will help you understand what I've been saying, which is quite simple really. Hopefully my first paragraph in this post will clear up my point for you.

I can't say either of these is impossible, but I don't think that's how anybody understands this catch-all "free will". If your argument only amounts to "this isn't impossible", then I can't argue with you, but that's true of any scientific theory as well and really isn't what one usually means by "unfalsifiable".

When you say, "this isn't impossible", I have no idea of what you mean.

What is "this"?

 

[SpaceTiger]

For the life of me, I can't see how answering on either of those options will help you understand what I've been saying, which is quite simple really.

I understand fully what you mean, Tom, but I don't think you're getting my objection, because it's more subtle than what you're saying. Perhaps if we back up and return to this part of the discussion:

An astrologer would not make the claim that "X people tended to be Y" if they didn't see a trend. Even Kerrie repeatedly gives examples of seeing trends between the planets and behavior, as well as studying the cycles directly. She is not claiming to receive this information from on high, as a religious person might do, she's claiming to observe it for herself.

This is crucial. Yes, you can always invoke "free will" (or some other unknown) to explain away observations by anyone, scientist or astrologer. This is obvious. But what I'm trying to highlight is the peculiar properties of this "FWP". If scientists consistently failed to find trends that astrologers claimed to have observed (emphasis because you've already agreed that there is no divine intervention), the astrologer is then faced with the challenge of how they observed the trend. In order for the astrologer to consistently observe trends that scientists miss, "free will" must conspire in their favor.

Now, like I said, it is possible that some unknown does conspire in favor of astrologers. I don't object to that being a possibility. What I question is whether any reasonable person would say that "free will" has such a property.

Now, I raised the issue of astrologer's observations before, and you responded with:

But even if the correlation coefficient is no different than that which would be observed by chance alone, one can still see a trend if one is conditioned to block out falsifying evidence.

Suggesting that the astrologers did not in fact see a trend, they just thought they did. This is the origin of my assertion that their claims "came from nothing" and that they might be making random guesses.

Does that clear up my previous post for you?

 

[Kerrie]

In other words cold reading

it always amuses me when someone would rather quote a "skeptics" word rather then find out on their own what could be truth or not...it's just plain lazy.

 

[quantumdude]

This is crucial. Yes, you can always invoke "free will" (or some other unknown) to explain away observations by anyone, scientist or astrologer. This is obvious.

Then I am still at a loss as to how you maintain that astrology as described by Kerrie is falsifiable.

But what I'm trying to highlight is the peculiar properties of this "FWP". If scientists consistently failed to find trends that astrologers claimed to have observed (emphasis because you've already agreed that there is no divine intervention), the astrologer is then faced with the challenge of how they observed the trend. In order for the astrologer to consistently observe trends that scientists miss, "free will" must conspire in their favor.

I understand that, but it still doesn't make astrology falsifiable. It makes it inexplicably confirmable, which is not the same thing.

Now, like I said, it is possible that some unknown does conspire in favor of astrologers. I don't object to that being a possibility. What I question is whether any reasonable person would say that "free will" has such a property.

I don't think that any reasonable person would say that either. But you are talking about using FWP to explain positive results, and I am talking about using FWP to explain negative results.

Now, I raised the issue of astrologer's observations before, and you responded with:

(snip)

Suggesting that the astrologers did not in fact see a trend, they just thought they did. This is the origin of my assertion that their claims "came from nothing" and that they might be making random guesses.

This opens up another can of worms entirely, but I do think that astrological claims are are in fact vague enough to make it plausible that no trends were observed at all. But I'll leave that alone until we get the falsifiability thing sorted out.

Does that clear up my previous post for you?

No, because the only thing I was unclear about is how you reasoned from what you have been saying, to the conclusion that astrology is falsifiable, when you agree with me that the only statements it offers up for testing are not contingent statements.

 

[Kerrie]

Interesting. Unfortunately I'm still stuck on the home square and prevented, by the rule of science [the causal chain of evidence], from entering the game. Astrology is not only unfalsifiable, it fails to meet the criteria necessary to devise a meaningful test. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude astrology is not science [i.e., has no reliable, predictive power].

Chronos, this is EXACTLY what I am saying! And I am so unsure as to why there is so much debate about it not being a science. Astrologers see the interpretation portion of it as an art.

 

[Kerrie]

I went to the site proposed by Kerrie and had my chart calculated. As I expected there are hits and misses.
The hits clearly show that astrology works. The misses are due to my free will. So it is a win-win situation.

Free will that can based on your experiences you have learned from, the environment you were raised in...perhaps. Astrology does not claim to be an exact blueprint of how you will be or who you will be. But it shows tendencies of how you can be potentially. The whole purpose for people to consult with an astrologist is to get to know some of these tendencies.

Again, a computer isn't the best place to have these interpretations, a person who has experience in recognizing patterns (such as in relationships, careers, education) can point out to the person events in their life that can be strengthened (as an example).

 

[SpaceTiger]

Then I am still at a loss as to how you maintain that astrology as described by Kerrie is falsifiable.

...

I understand that, but it still doesn't make astrology falsifiable. It makes it inexplicably confirmable, which is not the same thing.

Then perhaps our understanding of the word "falsifiable" is not in agreement. In science, we say something is falsifiable when it can be tested by experiment. Technically speaking, no experiment can definitively say that a theory is wrong because there will always be observational error, so if a theorist proposes something and the experimentalists show it to be wrong within some uncertainty, the theorist can always come back and say that the errors conspired against them. Thus, if we required a 100% certain rejection of the theory, then nothing would be falsifiable. In practice, "falsifiable" usually means that the theory can be falsified beyond reasonable doubt.

And that's exactly the kind of hypothetical situation I'm suggesting. If science rejects every correlation that an astrologer has ever claimed to observe, would that not be beyond reasonable doubt? If the "variable" they claim to be causing the problems turns out to have observable properties that nobody would accept as being associated with that variable, is that not falsification beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't think that any reasonable person would say that either. But you are talking about using FWP to explain positive results, and I am talking about using FWP to explain negative results.

I'm not following you here. Negative results for whom? The situation I'm describing is one in which scientists are getting negative results, but astrologers aren't. One can imagine situations in which it's reversed or in which both are getting negative results, but neither of those situations would constitute a test of astrology.

This opens up another can of worms entirely, but I do think that astrological claims are are in fact vague enough to make it plausible that no trends were observed at all. But I'll leave that alone until we get the falsifiability thing sorted out.

I will certainly agree that, in practice, astrological claims are extremely difficult to prove or disprove. At the moment, however, I'm only talking in theory.

 

[Kerrie]

I will certainly agree that, in practice, astrological claims are extremely difficult to prove or disprove.

I would have to agree with this simply because the complexity of variables in a chart are never identical to any other's chart. I would think in order for astrology to go through scientific testing, both subjects being tested must be born at exact times, exact places, and have exact experiences. Without this, the test would technically be invalid because you aren't comparing two identical charts, which leaves room for variances.

 

[quantumdude]

Then perhaps our understanding of the word "falsifiable" is not in agreement. In science, we say something is falsifiable when it can be tested by experiment.

No, I agree with you on that. Where I think we differ is in our understanding of what Kerrie is saying. You say that her claim to observation of "trends" is falsifiable. But I don't think you are understanding the claim in the way she means it. If an astrologer does a natal chart and makes predictions, it would be with the following understanding:

I predict based on your natal chart that you possesses personality trait X. This prediction may or may not hold for you. If it does, then you should not be surprised because your chart reveals that you have a tendency to possesses trait X. And if it does not hold, then you should still not be surprised because it remains possible that you exercised your free will not to possesses personality trait X.

It is impossible to fail to satisfy that prediction, and we have both agreed on that. But that is precisely the type of prediction that Kerrie keeps telling you that she makes when she practices astrology.

And that's exactly the kind of hypothetical situation I'm suggesting. If science rejects every correlation that an astrologer has ever claimed to observe, would that not be beyond reasonable doubt?

If we let statement X be the "raw" prediction from the natal chart, and NOT X be its negation (purportedly due to free will), then I agree completely with you that X is falsifiable. Either the trend is there, or it isn't.

My only point is that while X alone is falsifiable, astrology is not falsifiable, because it doesn't make claims that are as risky as the contingent statement X. In fact, since it claims X OR NOT X, it doesn't take any risks at all.

If the "variable" they claim to be causing the problems turns out to have observable properties that nobody would accept as being associated with that variable, is that not falsification beyond a reasonable doubt?

Well, the variable is free will and the observable effects are (to the best of my knowledge) psychological or behavioral in nature. People use "free will" all the time to restrain their urges, which could be interpreted as "tendencies". So I think that the variable is very closely associated with the observable consequences (which in the case of astrology would be the failure of an individual to adhere to his "tendencies", as determined from the natal chart).

I'm not following you here. Negative results for whom? The situation I'm describing is one in which scientists are getting negative results, but astrologers aren't.

The situation I am describing is one in which both the scientist and astrologer examine the same data set and find the same degree of correlation between the data and astrological predictions. The negative results are not "for" anyone. They are for the experiment. The negative results are the fraction of the sample that failed to conform to the prediction from their natal charts.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I predict based on your natal chart that you possesses personality trait X. This prediction may or may not hold for you. If it does, then you should not be surprised because your chart reveals that you have a tendency to possesses trait X. And if it does not hold, then you should still not be surprised because it remains possible that you exercised your free will not to possesses personality trait X.

If one deems the above claims to be the only ones that Kerrie (or astrology) has been making, then I agree that they're not falsifiable. However, this is not the only sort of claim that I've seen in the thread. Examples:

for example, i have found that those with the moon in leo when they are born TEND to be extremely stubborn in their ways, and can "scare" those when their anger is ignited.

The Mars Effect was an experiment done on the correlation of the placement of Mars (symbolized with energy, force, physical movement) to those who were considered "champion athletes".

If one goes and defines astrology only to be claims of the sort you're referring to (and ignores the rest), then astrology will not be falsifiable, BUT the methods by which they're obtained will be, and we return to option 2 of my old post:

2) Astrologers would have blocked out the falsifying evidence and their random guess would have to have coincidentally corresponded to actual truth.

In other words, if there are no correlations to be observed, the astrologers would have nothing to base their charts on, despite their lack of falsifiability.

So, in that case, I would agree with you that the claims themselves wouldn't be falsifiable, but would any astrologer want to accept the above description of their practice? For all intents and purposes, that seems to me to be a debunking.

 

[Kerrie]

I use the key word TENDENCY because it is not a guarantee, but more of a possibility. I have known people (as an example) with the Leo moon who are very gentle and doscile too. Other parts of the chart MIGHT indicate why the placement is "softened", or simply that the person realized the negative traitsof the placement, and utilizes awareness and free will to "overcome" that negative tendency. I am not sure what the difference is between Tom's statement and what I have been saying is.

 

[quantumdude]

Well, it seems that we've reached some kind of understanding. Claims made from natal charts--without the typical disclaimer--are falsifiable.

So, in that case, I would agree with you that the claims themselves wouldn't be falsifiable, but would any astrologer want to accept the above description of their practice?

But that is the message that I consistently get regarding astrology. You can refer to claims made by Kerrie until your heart is content, but I think that you are taking them out of context if you ignore quotes such as the following.

From The Physics of Astrology?

my only proof that it does work are the many people (that i do not know on a personal level) have done natal charts for and have named specific tendencies they possesses more so then others...

There is no reference to the total number of data points or the total number of sucesses and failures. All that is mentioned here is that positive cases do exist. This, together with many other quotes I have read either written by Kerrie or from links she has provided, clearly indicate to me that what is meant by a "trend" is sufficiently many positive results to make the individual astrologer feel like there is a trend.

This reminds me of a quirk of my own. I happen to know that I was born at 12:57 am on the day of my birth. Since I can remember I seem (by my own reckoning) to see "12:57" a disproportionate number of times when I randomly check a clock to see what time it is. So am I predisposed to looking at clocks at 12:57 just because I was born at that time? Or is it just the case that I take notice of that time of day such that it makes an impression on me, while almost instantaneously forgetting the experience of seeing other times on the clock?

I "feel" like there is a trend, but I have no doubt that a statistical analysis would show that there is none.

Another quote, which is a direct response to you in this thread:

Space Tiger
I do think astrology could have value, just as any spiritual endeavor can, but if it makes claims that science can test, then you'd have to deal with the possibility that it can be proven wrong.

Kerrie
That's why I say, those who exercise free will may not "fit" their charts, and astrology isn't always accurate. Experiences and environment certainly play a role in a person's psychological development. Astrology does not claim to be a science. I have never claimed that astrology is always right, so I am unsure why you thought I was claiming so?

There you have it in black and white! The FWP has been invoked specifically in response to the falsifiability charge. And yet you continue to hoist Kerrie's claims up apart from the context of the FWP, as though she doesn't think that FWP should be taken into account.

Very stubborn of you! Are you a Leo by chance? (just kidding!)

 

[SpaceTiger]

But that is the message that I consistently get regarding astrology. You can refer to claims made by Kerrie until your heart is content, but I think that you are taking them out of context if you ignore quotes such as the following...

I've addressed the content of that disclaimer numerous times already. If one accepts the philosophical foundations of science, astrology may not be a science, but it is still answerable to it. If one does not accept the philosophical foundations of science, then they need to consider what that implies for their philosophy, because it can screw with a lot of the things we take for granted in our everyday lives, such as objective reality and the consistency of experience. If this is the case, I should like to know exactly what they're denying. As for any claim that "logic" cannot be used in debunking astrology, I should wonder why any astrologer should bother trying to enter a discussion/debate about it, since logic is pretty much required to communicate its ideas.

There is no reference to the total number of data points or the total number of sucesses and failures. All that is mentioned here is that positive cases do exist. This, together with many other quotes I have read either written by Kerrie or from links she has provided, clearly indicate to me that what is meant by a "trend" is sufficiently many positive results to make the individual astrologer feel like there is a trend.

Again, using basic logic and disregarding supernatural intervention, that's not a valid method of deduction. I assume you are both accepting the validity of logic or else you wouldn't be trying to convince me of anything.

There you have it in black and white! The FWP has been invoked specifically in response to the falsifiability charge.

I never denied that some of astrologers' claims were unfalsifiable. In fact, I specifically stated it in my first response to you:

You're right that some claims from astrologers don't fit that characterization, so I shouldn't say that all of astrology is falsifiable.

I think that one can construct a definition of astrology (using logic, mind you) that is not falsifiable, but I'm not convinced astrologers would accept the consequences of dodging falsification. I've stated from the beginning that there are loopholes, but I'm trying to show that those loopholes imply things for the universe that even an astrologer would not accept. It would seem that I'm failing to convince those that aren't already converted (not surprisingly), so perhaps it is time that I just bow out.

 

[quantumdude]

Again, using basic logic and disregarding supernatural intervention, that's not a valid method of deduction. I assume you are both accepting the validity of logic or else you wouldn't be trying to convince me of anything.

Speaking for myself: Absolutely, I accept the validity of logic. Kerrie can answer for herself, but I would not be surprised if she were neutral on the matter, neither explicitly accepting nor denying the validity of logic.

I never denied that some of astrologers' claims were unfalsifiable. In fact, I specifically stated it in my first response to you:

I am aware that you acknowledged that. But I am talking about Kerrie's claims, the intended meaning of which I think I have a better handle on than you do just from having more experience at PF.

When you read her claims of seeing such-and-such a trend, you expect that she means that she has observed definite "statistical excess". But I doubt very much that any statistical analysis was ever done, let alone an excess found. What I think she means by "trend" sits closer to the quote from her that I provided: The trend is found by a satisfactory number of positive cases, "satisfactory" being subjectively determined (by 'feeling'?). You are attributing a "hardness" to her claims that I seriously doubt is intended by her. With that in mind, there is no need to suggest that free will is conspiring to hide correlations from scientists. Because there's no statistical reason to think that the correlation even exists in the first place. But that fact is not going to change the mind of someone who feels that there is a correlation, and who relies on feeling as the basis of her reasoning.

And I seriously doubt that any of her claims are intended to be interpreted apart from the FWP, even if that proposition is not specifically stated. I am confident that if you take her to task on any claim she has made which you consider falsifiable, then the FWP will resurface immediately.

Now I know what you're going to say: “I’ve already covered that.” But that does not mean that the point has been exploded.

Here’s another quote by Kerrie, from the thread Astrology.

logically, what keeps me motivated to continue to study and learn it is the fact that MOST people do match up to their chart because (in my opinion anyway), most are on auto-pilot..

You want an explanation for any positive correlation between astrological predictions and observational data? There it is: When people match their charts it is because they have not chosen to actively participate in shaping their own lives. They are just "following their own geodesics".

I think that one can construct a definition of astrology (using logic, mind you) that is not falsifiable, but I'm not convinced astrologers would accept the consequences of dodging falsification. I've stated from the beginning that there are loopholes, but I'm trying to show that those loopholes imply things for the universe that even an astrologer would not accept.

Well, in the past 24 hours I've learned that there are astrologers who say that cycles in the heavens affect cycles in humans, and some who do not. I've learned that there are some who say that the astrologer plays an active role in determining the natal chart, and some who do not. These and several other differences lead me to think that it is best if we don't lump all astrologers into a single bin, but rather just focus on one variant at a time. Right now, in this thread, that variant is Kerrie's. She can certainly answer for herself, but I really can't imagine that she would be at all bothered by any of the consequences of avoiding falsification that you have brought up.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Thank you Tom, and Kerrie, for taking the time to discuss and research the issue. I think I do see both of your points and I will register partial agreement, but in the interest of getting some work done and preventing personal conflict, I think I'll stop here. Suffice it to say that I think the contradictions are bad enough that I would never want to be an astrologer. But then, I doubt that either of you thought I would.

 

[quantumdude]

Suffice it to say that I think the contradictions are bad enough that I would never want to be an astrologer.

Me neither. In fact, I am squarely in the "Astrology is Bull****" camp.

But based on my experiences here I'm as certain as I can be that you're never going to pin down any of Kerrie's claims that you cited as either true or false. There just always seems to be a handy way out of it.

 

[Vast]

it always amuses me when someone would rather quote a "skeptics" word rather then find out on their own what could be truth or not...it's just plain lazy.

But that’s just it; I’ve already learned to discriminate between that which is true and that which is false, something which you on the other hand have spent 12 years doing so and still not learned that astrology is pure nonsense.

 

[Chronos]

I think Kerrie has assumed the burden of proof in this claim. I argue she does not have sufficient evidence to asset a claim.

 

[Kerrie]

I think Kerrie has assumed the burden of proof in this claim. I argue she does not have sufficient evidence to asset a claim.

"Sufficient evidence" to scientific standards-correct. But, there is plenty of personal justification for the millions who continue to study this complex subject. There is no denying that fact, numbers don't lie . I think most educated astrologers are more then willing to admit there is no (at least by current standards of science) "sufficient evidence" to call it scientific, that is why the NCGR was established-for objective research. I really don't see anything wrong with this so long as a code of ethics is set in place. Again, many skeptics take the superficial image of astrology as what it is rather then take a deeper look at why so many people find it intriguing. I think this is the lazy and easy way out, let some other biased mind do the thinking for you. I am not the type of person to ever shove astrology down anyone's throat, but I do feel a certain obligation to shatter the wrong image it has to the best of my ability.

 

[Kerrie]

But that’s just it; I’ve already learned to discriminate between that which is true and that which is false, something which you on the other hand have spent 12 years doing so and still not learned that astrology is pure nonsense.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions

 

[Curious3141]

"Sufficient evidence" to scientific standards-correct. But, there is plenty of personal justification for the millions who continue to study this complex subject. There is no denying that fact, numbers don't lie . I think most educated astrologers are more then willing to admit there is no (at least by current standards of science) "sufficient evidence" to call it scientific, that is why the NCGR was established-for objective research. I really don't see anything wrong with this so long as a code of ethics is set in place. Again, many skeptics take the superficial image of astrology as what it is rather then take a deeper look at why so many people find it intriguing. I think this is the lazy and easy way out, let some other biased mind do the thinking for you. I am not the type of person to ever shove astrology down anyone's throat, but I do feel a certain obligation to shatter the wrong image it has to the best of my ability.

"Millions continue to study it" : classic argument ad populum. There are plenty of misinformed and badly deluded people out there. Just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn't mean it's right. If that were the case, the Earth would still be flat, by popular decree.

Without starting a debate on the philosophy of science, I will just say this : science is, at its core, common-sense formalised. We use inductive reasoning in our daily lives, it is a subconscious process. Babies learn that things dropped without support fall. Adults learn that if you take a corner too fast on bad tires you spin and crash. These are object lessons in applied physics that we learn through experience and repetition; they are repeatable and consistent observations.

Science uses the same backbone in its philosophy. Observe, theorise, experiment then decide on the worth of any hypotheses that you've drawn up. And thereby refine understanding of the Universe. Formal science is a rigorous refinement of the same rationality and common sense that we take for granted. If you deny that science is valid, or even claim that something can be valid without being scientific, then you might as well discount your own sensory data, your cognitive processes and common sense too.

There are plenty of irrational beliefs that people still continue to cling on to. I would have no problem with this were it not to be sometimes harmful to the health or happiness of the believers (and even those they influence). Astrology is one of those things I despise because people are often harmed by its belief and practice. Politicians and business leaders stand to lose millions because of foolish postponements of summits and meetings on the say-so of modern soothsayers. In some countries (like India), unhappy marriages result because some astrologer looked at some palms and natal charts and pronounced his blessings on an arranged union between ultimately incompatible partners.

Most of all, I abhor things like astrology (and even religion) because they provide an illusory crutch to people. We live in the putative age of reason, yet I cannot say that we have advanced significantly from the dark ages if people still continue to believe in these superstitions. There should be no need for invisibe sources of (false) support, mankind should be able to survive by its wits alone. The sooner we consign ideas like astrology to the scrap heap of bad ideas, the better for all of us.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Technically speaking, no experiment can definitively say that a theory is wrong because there will always be observational error, so if a theorist proposes something and the experimentalists show it to be wrong within some uncertainty, the theorist can always come back and say that the errors conspired against them

No, that's wrong. There will "always be observational error" but it can be quantified. If a theory says that "the amount of Carbon in the sample should be 1 kg", the experiment testing it has an possible error of "plus or minus10%, and the experiment shows that, in fact the amount of Carbon was 2 kg, then the theory is wrong.

If, under the same conditions, the amount of Carbon was 1.05 kg, that is within "experimental error" so it doesn't prove the theory was correct. Theories can't be proven but can be disproven. That's why scientists (or, more correctly, "meta"-scientists) focus on "falsifiability".