Is there scientific evidence to support the claims of astrology?

[Kerrie]

Why should nothing simmilar be expected for astrological predictions?

As I stated before, no chart is identical. As I posted earlier, the Mars Effect was a famous astrological study of the planet Mars and where its placement in the charts of athletes. This placement however did not PREDICT the person would be an athlete because ultimately, a person must make the choice to become more athletic.

Human choices can be observed and studied scientifically. If someone says that people with obsessive compulsive disorder tend to have a certain behavior (other than the behaviors that define OCD, to make the example non-trivial), then the behavior of people with the disorder can be compared to the behavior of people without the disorder and a statistical correlation can be tested.
I'll read the link in the morning.

Astrology goes much more specific then a common disorder that can be tested, especially one that has to do with chemical imbalances. Have you seen a natal chart before? You can view your own at www.astro.com. It gives you a basic interpretation, however, the computer doesn't take into effect all of the aspects working with one another, only one placement at a time. The astrologist is trained and educated to see the aspects and placements working together.

I really think you need to read up on this subject. I have 12 years of study, but cannot summarize it in this forum. It would greatly help if you at least read on your own to familiarize with the workings of it. I am not talking about the interpretations, but just the basics. After that I am happy to discuss it.

I'm sure, however, that the trick lies in what you mean by "stubborn", since astrologers often use vague language to avoid direct falsifiability.

This is your opinion based on your preconceived idea of what you "think" astrology is. I really don't appreciate your assumption that those who are sincerely studying this subject are intentionally trying to trick others into believing what they are saying as truth. A chart is interpretated based on where placements and aspects are located, whether that person fits the chart is up to the person being read.

Psychology routinely makes predictions that are subject to human will.

The birth/natal chart is only a map or template as a starting point in our lives, showing tendencies of strengths and weaknesses. Whether we choose to act upon those or not is a matter of our exercising our free will.

 

[Kerrie]

From Understanding the Birth Chart by Kevin Burke:

Astrology is not a science, at least not by today's defintion of the term. Much of astrology, though falls outside of the very limited realm of "science" into what is loosely termed "metaphysics." Astrology is not a religion. Astrology is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is an amazingly versatile tool with a wide range of applications, but it is a tool, nonetheless; and as is the case with any tool, its use is more appropropriate in some situations than others. Astrology is a study of cycles. By observing the cyclical movements of the planets, we are able to gain a greater understanding of the cycles and patterns in our own lives. Astrology can be a powerful tool for healing and transformation, and it can be a key that can unlock a greater spiritual connection to the universe.

 

[loseyourname]

The birth/natal chart is only a map or template as a starting point in our lives, showing tendencies of strengths and weaknesses. Whether we choose to act upon those or not is a matter of our exercising our free will.

I'm kind of curious when you say that serious astrologers compile their ideas by observing tendencies in people with similar aspects in their charts. I point this out because a person can only observe human behavior and then try to correlate that with chart features. They cannot observe or otherwise determine that a person was born with a predisposition toward athleticism but never chose to cultivate his athletic talents. How could an astrologer possibly know this? It seems that the only way to ever postulate a correlation between any chart feature and athleticism in the first place is to find people with similar chart features who are all exceptionally athletic. Once this claim has been made, though, it can be tested; not through science per se, but through statistical analysis. If hypnagogue's linked study is correct and it had been found that there is no statistically significant correlation between chart features and personality features, what can astrology really fall back on?

I raise this question in light of what seems to be the great mystery of astrology. How did these ideas ever come to be developed in the first place? When the first astrologer made the claim (this is purely hypothetical, of course) that people whose moon is in the eleventh house tend toward the development of strong attachments to coworkers, what was he basing this claim on? What is the astrological method exactly? At this point it just seems to be that the correlations between chart features and personality dispositions are already established and astrologers simply refer to their handbooks and make readings. But how were these correlations established in the first place?

By the way, I know you posted links, but I don't want to run blindly through a bunch of different web sites looking for answers to these questions. If you know the answers, I would greatly appreciate it if you would simply tell me what they are.

 

[SpaceTiger]

This is your opinion based on your preconceived idea of what you "think" astrology is. I really don't appreciate your assumption that those who are sincerely studying this subject are intentionally trying to trick others into believing what they are saying as truth. A chart is interpretated based on where placements and aspects are located, whether that person fits the chart is up to the person being read.

You're not trying to trick people. Fine, but that's irrelevant. The point was that your claim:

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

is falsifiable. Your argument that it depends on the individual simply does not prevent falsifiability. If there's a tendency, there should be a correlation.

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.

The birth/natal chart is only a map or template as a starting point in our lives, showing tendencies of strengths and weaknesses. Whether we choose to act upon those or not is a matter of our exercising our free will.

Again, that's irrelevant. Correlation is correlation, regardless of whether it involves free will, determinism, or quantum uncertainty. If you're right that people in leo tend to be stubborn, then those in leo that haven't had their "birth/natal chart" done should show a statistical excess of stubbornness (in whatever sense you meant it).

 

[SpaceTiger]

Once this claim has been made, though, it can be tested; not through science per se, but through statistical analysis.

I agree with what you've said, but I'm wondering why you don't include statistical analysis in the practice of science...

 

[Kerrie]

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.

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?

If hypnagogue's linked study is correct and it had been found that there is no statistically significant correlation between chart features and personality features, what can astrology really fall back on?

From what I scanned, Dean's paper had the common misconception that planetary positions AFFECT us, not REFLECT. So, with this in mind, the study was already doomed. I found the article to be very biased in tone as well and making astrologers out to be some sort of mystic or psychic. And there are so called astrologists who might follow this, but there are those who have a serious outlook on it and wish to cast off these silly stigmas-such as myself. I do not claim to be psychic when I do basic interpretations, I just look at the placements and say, "Based on this placement, you might have this tendency".

At this point it just seems to be that the correlations between chart features and personality dispositions are already established and astrologers simply refer to their handbooks and make readings. But how were these correlations established in the first place?

There is a research foundation that "sets the standards", and many of the serious astrologers continuously study these correlations and strive to shake off the stigma attached and make the art of astrological interpretations respectful. A lot of the garbage you see on the internet, newspapers, magazines really and truly exploit what some of us are trying to shake off. For example, I would NEVER recommend a website such as www.astrology.com. This is not the sort of stuff we would refer others to.

It is unfortunate that all that is easily available to see and learn about astrology is absolute trash. Linda Goodman's sun signs for example (a popular astrology guide)-garbage, yet many people think that the generalizations sums up astrology. I suppose that is why I am so diligent to do my part in educating those who have seriously unfounded opinions on the subject.

 

[SpaceTiger]

That's why I say, those who exercise free will may not "fit" their charts, and astrology isn't always accurate.

I'm suggesting that it might never be accurate. Surely, some people in Leo are stubborn, but your claim was for a tendency, so that's not enough. There must be a correlation for your claim, or any similar claim, to be accurate. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Astrology does not claim to be a science.

I'm well aware of that, but if it makes predictions (and what you stated is a prediction, whether you want it to be or not), it is still answerable to science.

 

[Kerrie]

I'm suggesting that it might never be accurate. Surely, some people in Leo are stubborn, but your claim was for a tendency, so that's not enough. There must be a correlation for your claim, or any similar claim, to be accurate. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The phrase "people in Leo are stubborn" is not what I stated. I said that those born with the moon in Leo (different then the sun in Leo) have stubborn tendencies, more so then other moon placements. The intensity of the placement is dependent upon where in the chart it appears at. I get the feeling you have never seen a natal or horary chart. I also get the feeling that no matter what I would say, you have made your mind to reject any credible research about astrology due to your own personal biases. That's fine, and that's your choice, but please do not state your biased opinions as fact when you are unwilling to do some objective research into why so many do study it in a sincere manner. By the way, the NCGR stands for National Council for Geocosmic Research. They have a strict code of http://www.geocosmic.org/about/ethics.shtml#c .

 

[SpaceTiger]

The phrase "people in Leo are stubborn" is not what I stated.

Nor is it what I claimed you stated. Read the post again and think about the meaning, don't just look for words to pick at.

I said that those born with the moon in Leo (different then the sun in Leo) have stubborn tendencies, more so then other moon placements. The intensity of the placement is dependent upon where in the chart it appears at.

That first sentence is just another claim to a correlation that would be falsifiable by science. Do you understand why correlation is measurable by scientists? Do you understand why your discussion of free will and individuality don't change that fact? That's really the main point here and if you don't follow me, we should discuss that rather than my prejudices and familiarity with natal charts.

I also get the feeling that no matter what I would say, you have made your mind to reject any credible research about astrology due to your own personal biases.

It's interesting that you keep saying that about people. It sort of implies that you have already assumed the correctness of your position. I certainly get that impression from debating with you because your responses spend more time trying to discredit me than they do actually addressing my concerns.

Really, I'm not even challenging the truth of astrology, I'm challenging your claim that it's not falsifiable. You seem to be dodging the main issue (intentionally or otherwise) and, consequently, any personal biases I have are just being reinforced.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree with what you've said, but I'm wondering why you don't include statistical analysis in the practice of science...

I only said that because the data being analyzed was already collected, by the astrologers. The statistician would just be running a check. It seems a little glorifying to call that science. That isn't to say that statistical analysis isn't a huge part of science. Heck, it virtually constitutes the whole of many social sciences. I just usually think of collecting and analyzing data as a process of science.

 

[quantumdude]

Really, I'm not even challenging the truth of astrology, I'm challenging your claim that it's not falsifiable.

Isn't it unfalsifiable though? Everything I've ever bothered to read about astrology has been either on or through Physics Forums, so I'm certainly not an expert in it. But astrological "predictions" always have a catch-all disclaimer that there are factors (in this case, free will) that are not included in the model. So astrological "predictions" are not contingent statements X, but rather tautological statements X OR NOT X. If that's really the case then astrology is always "right"...even when it isn't.

 

[Kerrie]

Nor is it what I claimed you stated. Read the post again and think about the meaning, don't just look for words to pick at.

If you understood astrology, you would understand the big difference between the two. It shows you have a true lack of understanding of the subject, nor do you care to understand it or what I am saying. And I did give you an example of a test done with astrology specifically done in the 70's, called the Mars Effect. Did you take the time to read up on it?

It's interesting that you keep saying that about people. It sort of implies that you have already assumed the correctness of your position. I certainly get that impression from debating with you because your responses spend more time trying to discredit me than they do actually addressing my concerns.

I suppose I do feel I am correct, especially after 12 years of studying a subject and trying to debate it with someone who has zero knowledge of any real truth, nor who is willing to be open to it (at least what it appears to be). I think you might feel the same about a subject you have vested a lot of time and effort to understand, and then have someone who is ignorant on the topic challenge you. I get this constantly by skeptics, and 99% of the time, they are completely misinformed of what it is because they accept at face value what they think it is instead of finding out for themselves what it is. This only impounds the negative stigma it has been given, and no one ever understands it for what help it can give.

Really, I'm not even challenging the truth of astrology, I'm challenging your claim that it's not falsifiable.

That's exactly what you are doing, you admitted you have a grudge earlier in this thread against it. Astrology has been tested, however, when it is tested by those who don't have a grasp of what it is and how it works, then the test is flawed. Again, read up on the Mars Effect, it shows a correlation of the position of Mars in athletes. Two studies show very similar results. The problem with testing astrology again though is there are infinite possibilities because the chart is unique for each individual. Astrology is much like a language you need to learn in order to understand what it is communicating.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

If you understood astrology, you would understand the big difference between the two. It shows you have a true lack of understanding of the subject, nor do you care to understand it or what I am saying. And I did give you an example of a test done with astrology specifically done in the 70's, called the Mars Effect. Did you take the time to read up on it?

He clearly does understand the difference between the two, and he is not arguing with you over it. The only person claiming that astrology predicts exactly what a person does is the straw man you are arguing with.

I suppose I do feel I am correct, especially after 12 years of studying a subject and trying to debate it with someone who has zero knowledge of any real truth, nor who is willing to be open to it (at least what it appears to be). I think you might feel the same about a subject you have vested a lot of time and effort to understand, and then have someone who is ignorant on the topic challenge you. I get this constantly by skeptics, and 99% of the time, they are completely misinformed of what it is because they accept at face value what they think it is instead of finding out for themselves what it is. This only impounds the negative stigma it has been given, and no one ever understands it for what help it can give.

If you know so much about astrology, then why can't you say what the first astrologers based their statements on? I could find nothing in the link you provided.

Astrology has been tested, however, when it is tested by those who don't have a grasp of what it is and how it works, then the test is flawed. Again, read up on the Mars Effect, it shows a correlation of the position of Mars in athletes. Two studies show very similar results. The problem with testing astrology again though is there are infinite possibilities because the chart is unique for each individual. Astrology is much like a language you need to learn in order to understand what it is communicating.

This example does not prove your point. You are claiming that astrology is not a science, so one should not interpret experiments that go against its predictions as disproof. Now you are saying that this is experimental evidence of astrology. What are you saying, believe experiments that prove astrology, but not those that don't? No one has been able to reproduce the results of this experiment, in spite of many attempts. Should we dismiss all of the experiments that have shown no Mars effect and accept only the one that has (even though there is some evidence of selection bias in that experiment)?
http://www.planetos.info/marchron.html
http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html

 

[SpaceTiger]

So astrological "predictions" are not contingent statements X, but rather tautological statements X OR NOT X.

Any statement that allows for either possibility without preference is, of course, unfalsifiable. Any claim for a tendency or correlation is, however, falsifiable, whether it be for stubbornness, struggles with stubbornnes, impressions of being stubborn, or what have you. I quoted one such claim from Kerrie. You're right that some claims from astrologers don't fit that characterization, so I shouldn't say that all of astrology is falsifiable.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If you understood astrology, you would understand the big difference between the two...

You didn't address a single point of argument in that entire post, you just continued with red herrings and ad hominem attacks. I respect your position as moderator and respect you as a person in many ways, but I can't stand that sort of thing. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time arguing with you on this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't it unfalsifiable though? Everything I've ever bothered to read about astrology has been either on or through Physics Forums, so I'm certainly not an expert in it. But astrological "predictions" always have a catch-all disclaimer that there are factors (in this case, free will) that are not included in the model. So astrological "predictions" are not contingent statements X, but rather tautological statements X OR NOT X. If that's really the case then astrology is always "right"...even when it isn't.

Isn't this much like any statistical statement? I can't predict the behavior of any single particle any better than astrology claims to predict the actions of any single person [or whatever the proper language may be]. Why is this any different? In fact that reminds of me a joke. My upper div quantum professor always used to joke that the actions of individual particles are not really random, the problem is that the particles are intelligent.

It has always seemed possible to me that there are tendencies related to astrological claims that are buried in the noise, but, if this is true, I would expect that the connection between any potentially significant statistics and astrology is coincidental. Again, I like the idea that astrology could simply be a complex bookkeeping system that will unavoidably coincide with other real cycles in nature. In fact there have been a number of diseases and conditions cited in the medical news that suggest a connection to one's date, or even time of birth. Just the other day I heard a report indicating that babies born during the night tend to have more difficulties than those born during the day.

In fact, if there are cycles in nature [as is suggested by astrologers], wouldn't it seem inevitable that some would coincide with astronomical cycles? Perhaps some natural cycles in the population have been loosely identified though astrology?

 

[LeonhardEuler]

In fact, if there are cycles in nature [as is suggested by astrologers], wouldn't it seem inevitable that some would coincide with astronomical cycles? Perhaps some natural cycles in the population have been loosely identified though astrology?

This is true, and it might be possible to find correlations between astrological cycles and natural ones by chance, but not forever. Astrology is very old, and if this is the mechanism it operates on then there is no reason to believe astrological claims made hundreds of years ago because the inevitable slight difference in cycle time adds over the years and eventually the error becomes a significant fraction of the cycle(of course, then it becomes a complete cycle and the prediction is true again).

 

[SpaceTiger]

In fact, if there are cycles in nature [as is suggested by astrologers], wouldn't it seem inevitable that some would coincide with astronomical cycles? Perhaps some natural cycles in the population have been loosely identified though astrology?

Exactly, and this is why I wasn't saying that astrology is necessarily wrong, just that it's testable. Your post describes my feelings on the issue almost exactly.

 

[Kerrie]

This is true, and it might be possible to find correlations between astrological cycles and natural ones by chance, but not forever. Astrology is very old, and if this is the mechanism it operates on then there is no reason to believe astrological claims made hundreds of years ago because the inevitable slight difference in cycle time adds over the years and eventually the error becomes a significant fraction of the cycle(of course, then it becomes a complete cycle and the prediction is true again).

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.

 

[Kerrie]

Here is a link/image of my personal natal chart. It is basically a picture of the placements and geometrical aspects to one another at the time of birth. Of course, the picture is much different today becaue time has progressed and I live somewhere different. Every chart is unique, except if two children (or more) are born and begin breathing at the same moment in the same room. Seconds and distance can affect the degrees of placements. How do you gather statistics if these placements are always different? How many people in this world do you think have the sun in scorpio in the 8th house opposite the moon in the 2nd house in taurus, especially born on the same day in the same room? These are the variables that can skew general results of masses of people. You can make generalizations about someone with the sun in the 8th house in scorpio opposition to moon in taurus in the 2nd house, but if that placement varies by one degree, you aren't comparing exact charts anymore, thus how scientific is it?

 

[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?