Astrology believers – unsinkable rubber ducks

Of all the woo beliefs, astrology seems the most persistent, the most resistant to evidence, and the most frustrating to debate with believers. I am reminded of Randi’s unsinkable rubber ducks - no amount of contrary evidence will ever un-convince the true believer in astrology.  Why does this irrational nonsense continue to flourish despite the complete absurdity of its premises and lack of evidence for its efficacy? This persistent belief in the teeth of evidence would in itself make an excellent psychological study.

I can only explain it in terms of the power of confirmation bias and the forer effect.

Confirmation bias occurs when we selectively notice or focus upon evidence which tends to support the things we already believe or want to be true while ignoring that evidence which would serve to disconfirm those beliefs or ideas. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when it comes to those beliefs which are based upon prejudice, faith, or tradition rather than on empirical evidence.

Confirmation bias is a godsend to astrology. The many different predictions of astrology, with its numerous aspects to consider, and the different possibly interpretations of the data mean it is child’s play to cherry pick predictions that match the actual characteristics of the person, and ignore those that don’t. No matter who the person is, there will be something in the horoscope that fits, and what doesn’t fit will be forgotten. Confirmation bias means the believers don’t even realize they have done this.

The Forer Effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.

Psychologist Bertram R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone.

These two biases (plus some others), convince people that astrology works. Couple this with a strange apparent need for it to be true, and you have your rubber ducks – they just keep bobbing back no matter what you say.

18 months ago I posted my Astrology Challenge. The premise was that we know how we know what we know. That is, if we look into any piece of scientific knowledge, we can always find out how the original people derived it. I asserted that astrology was not derived in the way that (for example) the speed of light was derived, it was just made-up fairy-tale fashion. And, as I wrote back then, if it was made up, it is highly unlikely to be true. At the very least, astrology’s doubtful provenance means we would need extraordinary evidence that it works, before we should accept it does. But we are only offered weak evidence. And when tested, astrology fails again and again. I challenged proponents of astrology to prove me wrong. The post is now closed, but recently I have received emails on this subject from someone calling himself Cassini. The following is his latest email, with my attempts to reason with him. I publish this as a response to Cassini, but also as a general response to astrology believers, in an attempt to get them to think honestly and critically about astrology. (I can only try.) All punctuation, spelling, capitalization and grammar are as in the original. Here goes:

But there are no hard and fast rules -you appear to be regarding astrology a a 'cookbook' its not like that  - I will spell it out for you as you have not grasped the concept at all .

ASTROLOGY IS AN EVOLVING PROCESS ,THERE WAS NO ONE MOMENT WHEN SOMEONE CRIED' EUREKA THIS ASPECT MEANS THIS.OR THAT '.

OVER MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS THE ASTROLOGERS OBSERVED AND NOTED THEIR OWN AND OTHERS PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AS TO EVENTS HAPPENING AROUND THEM .THEY OBSERVED THAT WHEN THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE THE PLANETS/STARS  IN THE HEAVENS WERE IN CERTAIN POSITIONS. OVER TIME A CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE PLANET AND STAR 'PATTERNS AND EVENTS ON EARTH THAT WERE THE SAME OR SIMILAR TO ONES THAT HAD GONE BEFORE UNDER THE SAME PLANATARY PATTERNS WERE NOTED - THIS IS HOW ASTROLOGY EVOLVED AND IS STILL EVOLVING..

But where was this process “noted”? It’s a nice myth, but you don’t have a shred of evidence that astrology evolved this way. None. The above is just your assumption – you cannot show me any data to support this claim of how the rules of astrology came about. Consequently we cannot examine the process, the data you say were used, to determine if the correct conclusions were reached. In reality, the process you say occurred is absurd. It’s absolutely absurd to suppose, without one shred of evidence, that all the detailed rules of astrology were derived from unbiased observation of hundreds of thousands of events correlated to astrological positions.

You have to keep an open mind in all things

So do you. Is your mind open enough to admit the possibility that astrology doesn’t work, that you have been fooled? If not, you are the closed minded one.

Your argument is a fallacious appeal to be open minded. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense, but if you can’t accept the possibility that astrology might be false, then you are the closed minded one. So please, examine with an open mind, these tests that astrology failed. Tell me honestly how astrology could be real if the expert astrologers recommended by the National Council for Geocosmic Research couldn’t do better than chance in the test they designed themselves?

-realise that astrology is not an exact science in the way you obviously think it is .

I don’t think astrology is an exact science, or even any kind of science. What I have said is that astrology fails when tested scientifically – ie using a double-blind protocol to control for confirmation bias and the forer effect. You appear to be agreeing with me here by saying that astrology cannot be shown to be real using science. This is just an appeal to other ways of knowing – you are claiming there are valid ways of knowing things other than the scientific method. Science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works – arguably the only reliable method.  If you claim there is a better method, it is up to you to explain your better method and justify how it is better – something you haven’t done.

It is not black and white but perceived by the individual who is experiencing a particular transit to his natal chart from his own point of view ,his own life experience .ASTROLOGY doesn't state this will DEFINITELY happen when a certain transit is affecting your chart (in the way that you can reproduce a scientific experiment the same results occurring again and again) What it does do is show you the timings when you MAY experience some of the conflicts , good things , unexpected events that life may throw at you 

How convenient to be able to say the predicted things may or may not occur.  The way you have described it makes astrology unfalsifiable – according to you it works no matter whether it passes or fails a test.  Answer me this please – are the predicted events more likely to happen than pure chance? If you answer yes, then how do you explain the fact that when tested, astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance? If you answer no – astrology is no better than chance – then if you still insist that astrology “works”, precisely what is your definition of “works”?

How they are experienced by you as an individual is unknown until they occur

Precisely – the predictions of astrology only become apparent after the thing astrology is supposed to predict, has occurred. And a prediction that is only known after the predicted thing has occurred, is a pretty useless prediction. In fact, it is not a prediction. You are fitting what happened after the fact, to some aspect of the horoscope. That’s like shooting a load of arrows at the wall and then drawing the target where most of the arrows hit.

but they will correlate with the meaning attributed to the planatary aspect taking place.

Except the evidence is that it won’t correlate, unless you know in advance what the person’s horoscope is, and therefore you know what to look for. Tell me, why is it that when astrologers try to do this blind, they perform no better than chance?

This meaning as I stated above is the result of millennia of thought and observation by astrologers –the subject is too big to compartmentalize and decimate in the way you are trying to do it .

Then it is too big to have been done at all, ever. Don’t you see this? If you can’t demonstrate now that astrology works, using any kind of test, then it would have been impossible to do in the first place, impossible for those detailed rules to have been worked out. How do you think the originators of astrology did this, and managed to come up with all the detailed rules the way you claim they did, if the subject is too big to compartmentaliz this way?

Im a computer programmer with a maths degree, not some air head new age type .I have a good understanding of scientific principles but I love astrology because it WORKS .

Sorry Cassini but you have demonstrated you have a very poor grasp of scientific principles and the scientific method. You have invented an absurd process that you think the ancients adopted to derive the rules of astrology, and yet you think modern science is incapable of replicating this process.  You do not understand the biases that are fooling you, or that scientists must control for those biases when performing experiments. You do not understand the principle of falsification that guides the scientific method. You think it is beyond the wit of humans to compare the predictions of astrology with what actually transpires. It is not. It has been done and astrology doesn’t work. Perversely, you ignore these studies because you just “know” astrology works. You have no interest in testing astrology to see if it could be proven wrong. Your reasoning is totally contrary to any scientific principle.

Im sure your an Earth sign !!

I’m sure I’m not: I’m Libra which is an air sign. However, I’m equally sure you will now be able to fit some aspect of my personality to that sign, as you would whatever my sign was. And that is why you think astrology works – it is so vague, and there are so many possible combinations of planetary aspects, that you can always find something to fit and ignore what doesn’t.

Cassini, it is a sign of intellectual honesty to answer reasonable questions arising out of what you have written. The following is a list of questions that have arisen from your email:

1. Where is the evidence the rules of astrology were derived in the way you claim?
2. How could the ancients have figured out all the rules of astrology, if astrology really is too big to compartmentalize this way?
3. Are you open minded enough to admit that astrology might not work? What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work?
4. Do you understand that you may be influenced by confirmation bias and the forer effect. If not, why not? If so, do you accept that you could be mistaken when you say “astrology works”?
5. What other method could be used to evaluate the accuracy of astrology, if the scientific method is inadequate?
6. Are the predictions of astrology more likely to happen than pure chance?
7. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that when tested astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance?
8. If you answer “no” – astrology is correct no better than chance – in what way are you claiming astrology “works”?

The comments are open below – please use them to answer the questions. Don’t be a rubber duck. If you answer the questions honestly you might learn something about what is really behind astrology.

September 28, 2006 – Edited to add:

The above questions were specifically for Cassini – they arose directly from what he had written. It is clear now that Cassini is not going to even consider these questions, and so I decided to amend this post to leave just one question for astrology proponents to consider. Here it is.

Question for astrology proponents

Look at my tests of astrology summary. Specifically read my summary of one of the tests written up by Shawn Carlson in Nature in 1985:

Test #2: 116 people completed California Personality Index (CPI) surveys and provided natal data (date, time and place of birth). One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data.

The astrologers chose the correct CPI in only 40 of the 116 cases. This is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.

Here is the question: why did the astrologers perform no better than random chance?

The comments are open for your answers.

Some advice. Don’t tell me astrology can’t be tested this way, or that astrology is somehow beyond the abilities of science to measure, unless you can explain exactly why this specific test is unsuitable as a means of testing astrology. Don’t reply that I need to study astrology more, or with a list of books I need to read. And above all, don’t reply that I need to approach astrology with an open mind, unless you can demonstrate you have a mind open enough to consider the obvious answer to the question – namely that astrology is nonsense. Ignore this advice and you will be ridiculed. For bonus points you could also tell me (with evidence please) how astrology was derived – although I won’t be holding my breath.

Over to you – answer the simple question.

Comments

[Davis]

Im a computer programmer with a maths degree...

Gah! I'm ashamed for my field that such mushy thinking survived his math education.

[Big Al]

Let's see if this can get any further than the last thread!

Although I'm not holding my breath.

[EoR]

What a profound insight: when things happen, the planets tend to be in certain positions. When things happen, the traffic in the street also happens to be in certain positions. They are also closer and therefore their woo-waves have more effect than massively distant astronomical objects. I think I'll develop a "science" of trafficology, with signs like "Ford" and "BMW" but, of course, it will have to change every time predictions fail to fit with facts (though it's obvious the facts are wrong, not the predictions).

I'd hate to see the sloppy sort of spaghetti code this sort of attitude applied to programming would produce.

[valhar2000]

He could very well be lying about his work and his education, just to make himself look good (in fact, I struggled with woo when I was a kid because I failed to understand this character of human nature).

Though, then again, he could be a competent mathematician and computer programmer, and have a separate compartment in his mind where astrology is free to roam un-compartmentalized...

[Dave]

"I'd hate to see the sloppy sort of spaghetti code this sort of attitude applied to programming would produce."

Whoa, that's scary.

for ($i = 0; $i < 10; $i++) {
$r = int rand(10);
if ($i == $r) { print "match!"; }
else { $i = $r ; print "match!"; }
}

[Big Al]

Sorry, Dave, your "else" string should be the more representative "Well, look, it just works, OK?" ;)

I love the idea that astrology arose by some diligent Sumerian scribe waiting for things to happen and then noting the relative positions of stars and planets when they did.

That rather lets out events that happened during the day, I guess.

Also, are the woos saying that when an ancient Sumerian (or whoever) acted in a certain way, these said scribes found out exactly when they were born (to the minute), worked out exactly where the stars and planets were on that day/hour/minute and found correlation with his notes on the behaviour of other people who just happened to be born at a similar celestial arrangement?

How did that get started? Did some bored ancient Babylonian wake up some morning (perhaps after his baby done left him) and decide to start assessing the planetary/stellar positions of newborns (presumably ones born during the day!), just in case the data might come in handy when they were older? Then, when he's collated thousands of data points and the babies have grown up to reveal their personalities, lo and behold!

He can group them all together according to when given splotches moving the sky happened to be passing through one of twelve arbitrarily-connected groups of other splotches in the sky! At night, of course.

Or did it actually wait until proto-astronomers happened to have given the arbitrarily-connected groups of splotches arbitrary names, along with the moving splotches?

Even so, how did he manage to take account of the effect of thousands of years of stellar movement on these new constellations?

What, you mean to say he didn't?

[Skeptico]

BigAl

Re: Also, are the woos saying that when an ancient Sumerian (or whoever) acted in a certain way, these said scribes found out exactly when they were born (to the minute), worked out exactly where the stars and planets were on that day/hour/minute and found correlation with his notes on the behaviour of other people who just happened to be born at a similar celestial arrangement?

You are absolutely right – and that is even more absurd that what Cassini was proposing, but it is what would have had to have happened.

I don’t think Cassini understands astrology as well as he thinks he does – what he was proposing would be inconsistent with the rules of astrology.

[L6]

How did the ancients see all the planets?

[Chayanov]

They didn't. In theory, as new planets have been discovered in modern times, we should be able to see precisely how astrologers use this new data to refine their predictive methods. Instead, as the recent article posted here on Eris/Xena shows, even as the names of astronomical objects change it is quite obvious that astrologers are literally making it up as they go along.

[mouse]

In the intrest of playing a mild devil's advocate, I've actually met a few astrologers (definitely the minority in my experience) who have studied actual astronomy pretty heavily (one was a professor on the topic) and do adjust their woo methods according to new info. Apparently they are considered radical by their woo peers. Which I find hilarious. I should also note that all three people I am thinking of don't really believe in the predicting of the future aspect of astrology but focus on the personality trait angle instead. They were interesting and rational people to converse with. Nifty. [/devil's advocate]

[Skeptico]

Well, Cassini replied to me direct by email. For some reason he wouldn’t comment here. The following in bold is his email, with my responses:

Re: Thank you for replying and taking an interest in astrology - So your sign is Libra - there is hope for you yet as you actually know your star sign !!!

Of course I know it. I have studied astrology in some depth: that’s how I know it is bunk.

Re: Im a Libra too ! . You are trying to debunk something that can never be 'proved' in the way you wish it to be proved . Stop limiting your thinking its far to narrow - expand it to take in the possibility that there are things that cant be explained fully by science . Can science define the human soul ? I think not !!

Oh boy – appeal to other ways of knowing and appeal to be open minded. I dealt with both of these in my post. What a narrow-minded rubber duck – he just ignores what I wrote and replies as though I had not covered these already.

Re: I know astrology 'works' because I use it daily to assist me in my understanding of human nature ,it is a very useful tool in the work place a wonderful way of comprehending human motivation .

He’s ignored everything I wrote about confirmation bias and the forer effect. Again – a narrow-minded rubber duck.

Re: But I digress - Astrology was around a very long time before you were born and will be around a very long time after you die.

Ah, at least we have a new fallacy: an Appeal to Tradition:

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer.

Re: It is a good thing that you have a questioning mind ,read as much as you can on the subject there are many good books out there.Then use it yourself see how it is working in your life, how you are using the energies in your own natal chart . Most of all keep an open mind !

I have an open mind Cassini – it is yours that is closed. Too closed to even examine the points I made, too closed to consider the questions. A closed mind of someone scared to consider the possibility that his favorite bit of woo might not be real. Disappointing, but in retrospect, not surprising. Open your mind, Cassini, and answer the questions:

1. Where is the evidence the rules of astrology were derived in the way you claim?


2. How could the ancients have figured out all the rules of astrology, if astrology really is too big to compartmentalize this way?


3. Are you open minded enough to admit that astrology might not work? What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work?


4. Do you understand that you may be influenced by confirmation bias and the forer effect. If not, why not? If so, do you accept that you could be mistaken when you say “astrology works”?


5. What other method could be used to evaluate the accuracy of astrology, if the scientific method is inadequate?


6. Are the predictions of astrology more likely to happen than pure chance?


7. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that when tested astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance?


8. If you answer “no” – astrology is correct no better than chance – in what way are you claiming astrology “works”?

Answer the questions.

[outeast]

Um, is it only me that noticed that the description of how astrology was supposedly developed (observatiuon, correlation, testing...) sounds remarkably like the scientific method? Odd that it then "can never be 'proved' in the way you wish it to be proved"...

[Big Al]

Mouse, you posted In the intrest of playing a mild devil's advocate, I've actually met a few astrologers (definitely the minority in my experience) who have studied actual astronomy pretty heavily (one was a professor on the topic) and do adjust their woo methods according to new info.

I think the bottom line with regard to this is that ancient astrologers weren't - couldn't be - taking all the planetary variables into account. OK, so Pluto is now regarded as pretty small fry, but Uranus and Neptune are huge.

Presumably, lacking this knowledge would render any attempt at accurate astrological correlation impossible (assuming it was possible in the first place).

Yet we're being asked to believe that the ancient astrologers, with their incomplete data on cosmic entities, found such stunning correlation that they founded a whole new discipline that lasts to this day!

Or are we asked to believe that ancient horoscopes were stunningly accurate, but modern ones are really stunningly accurate?

And yet, although they're so really stunningly accurate, nobody can tell us how they work, or even prove to us that they do work!

As far as I can see, we have two possibilities:

Astrology is basically simple and very accurate - however, nobody can tell us how to do it or give plausible, verifiable examples of its accuracy.

Astrology is frighteningly complex and inaccessible to the layman. It takes years of study and deep calculation to come up with valid predictions - however, this rather rules out the "observant shaman" example proffered by Cassini. The supposedly ancient originator of astrology had to have some reason to start logging stellar and planetary positions.

OK, any interested astrologers out there: I was born at 10:08 on Tuesday, November 13, 1962 in St.Albans, Hertfordshire, England. I can supply other details if required.

If you're willing to put your craft on the line, please tell me something specific about myself, based solely on that info. I am willing and, indeed, eager to be convinced.

Feel free to stun me!

[Corkscrew]

I was born at 10:08 on Tuesday, November 13, 1962 in St.Albans, Hertfordshire, England. I can supply other details if required.

If you're willing to put your craft on the line, please tell me something specific about myself, based solely on that info.

Your parents are rather pedantic about dates and times?

[Big Al]

No, the midwife who delivered me was!

I just thought that an exact "science" like astrology would need that sort of level of accuracy to work its predictive miracles.

On the other hand, what is the moment of birth? When the contractions start? When the baby's head emerges? When its feet emerge? When the umbilical's cut?

[Nes]

Not the correct thread to post this in, but in one of your previous astrology threads, I think the one you linked to in this thread, someone had suggested getting a chart from astro.com which they had said was simply the best astrology site out there; the most accurate and so forth. Well, comments were closed on the thread, so I couldn't reply when I did; I hope you don't mind me commenting in this thread about it.

I'd say that *maybe* half of it could apply to me. Not very accurate at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it sounds like a complete chance result, as most of it was binary statements ("you are/tend to/like/are attracted to such and such"; either yes I do, or no I don't).

Interestingly, the Personal Portrait has this as the second paragraph (emphasis added):

As you read your short report, or any other astrological report, keep in mind that the energies interpreted here are your birth potentials. However, you may or may not choose to actualize these energies in the manner described. Your age, sex, socio-economic situation, education, environment, level of development, and many other factors contribute to the ways in which you express your natal energies. Remember, the planets do not compel you to do or be anything. They influence you, but you still have the free will to determine your own life.

Sounds to me like an admission right up front that it's BS. "This might be accurate, but it could be totally wrong, too!" Here's a couple choice quotes:

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

No way!!! I bet that doesn't apply to anyone else at all! How specific!

[I have] the tendency to completely retreat when hurt or frightened of a situation. This happens to you often because you tend to interfere in the affairs of others when you are not needed or wanted.

Erm, no, I tend to not interfere.

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

I'd strongly disagree with that one.

You are a humanist by nature and you seem to have an old-world gift for prophecy and the miraculous.

I would agree with the first half, but the second? Way off.

[I am] also very perceptive of [...] psychic vibrations.

This one isn't even out of bounds; it's left the golf course entirely.

I'd like to give the reverse of Big Al's challenge for astrologers. Can you figure out what sign I am from those quotes and my responses? You've got a 1 in 12 shot; pretty decent odds.

[L6]

Aquarius.

[Nes]

Nope.

Skeptico, would you mind deleting that post? I think it would make more sense to put it on my blog instead. I forget that I have it sometimes.

[famjaztique]

Spot-on Skeptico! I find it endlessly fascinating that while I don't believe in astrology, I still ask people what their sign is at some point in the "getting to know each other" stage. The good news, is that I promptly forget, and don't hold the information for or against the person.

[Big Al]

In discussions about astrrology, I usually say "I don't believe in astrology - I guess that's a typical Scorpio trait."

[Belathor]

Though, then again, he could be a competent mathematician and computer programmer, and have a separate compartment in his mind where astrology is free to roam un-compartmentalized...

This is kind of off topic, and I know that many people tend to behave this way, but have pscyhologists done any experiments to confirm this?

I'm having a debate with a friend and would like to know.

Thanks!

[Big Al]

Well, Nes, we only have another signs 11 to go! Isn't it amazing that no astrologer’s got back here to tell us where our questions have gone wrong?

You didn’t tell me what you like for breakfast! Oh… OK, so you did…

Well, you didn’t indicate what sort of car you drive… all right, scratch that.

Ah ha! You never said what side of bed you normally get out of! See? We astrologers need important information that you so-called ‘scientific types’ can’t guess at! Astrology is older than your limited know-everything logic, so pooh to you!

What? The left side? Of course! What do you mean, only because your bedroom’s wall’s on your right? I knew that!

Right… um… what about your collar size…?

[mouse]

I realize this sounds a bit off topic, but trust me it isn't... Have I mentioned recently how much I lurve you guys (in that generic internet reading is often fantabulously entertaining sort of way)?

Big Al....all points taken. I was just pointing out a few contrary peeps I know of...ie people of woo who seem to go about it in a different way. Since I like to play "what if" I have a few personal theories on how the shaman's got it all laid out. Of course those imaginary hypotheticals of mine are assuming there is any validity to astrology, which if it turns out in the end there is, I sincerely doubt it will be anything like what the woosters currently think it is (a statement I make about all religions as well). That would be my ignostic streak showing - like an agnostic whith a "who really cares" twist for those unfamiliar with the term.

And finally Nes, first I want to clarify that I'm not a believer, just a person whose own astrological chart does happen to match my personality (to the point that I must be a freakish stastistical anomoly, kind of amusing). I know plenty (ie most) who don't.

That said, mind if I take a stab at guessing? I find this particular woo fascinating even if I don't believe...it's more fun than the woo I was raised with (white rascist southern baptists in the midwest...enough said).

Right. The guessing. My first guess would be Cancer...second would be Pisces. They are both "water signs" and supposed to be in tune with all the mystical mumbo jumbo but Cancers are supposedly more prone to the interfering and what not. Scorpio is water also but doesn't fit the profile that the site gave you. They say that your moon and rising are really strong personality points as well so the site may be going by those as for those descriptions you copied over (or maybe one of the other planets or some such).

My understanding is that a lot of it is intuitive (ie BS) and that planet/house indicators with opposing traits will end up cancelling each other out (again, ie BS) so some of the interpretations are a little weird to "laymen. " Have I said BS recently? Oh good.

That astronomy professor I mentioned up thread said that's part of why he doesn't believe in using astrology to predict events but does think there may be something to some of the personality trait stuff. Then he got into some quantum mechanics (I think...I'm an actor so it's out of my field of expertise) that was way over my head (singularities with origins near other planets affecting brain chemistry was his theory) and I kind of lost the train of conversation.

So how was my guessing? Only 9 more signs to go for the "true believers" to pick from.

[Big Al]

singularities with origins near other planets affecting brain chemistry was his theory...

LOL! You do meet some interesting woosters, mouse! The term "singularity" usually means a black hole. And your theorising friend is basically talking total bollocks, as I'm sure you guessed!

[Mouse]

Oh I know it. I think he knows it too but enjoys playing what if as much as I do (I lurve me some implausible science fiction novels). To be fair I could be remembering the vocabulary he used incorrectly. I think the gist was subatomic particles (or at least smaller than microscopic) wafting from planetary bodies. Honestly, my sobriety at the time was questionable so it's all a bit of a blur. It was a fun conversation with someone I only met once a million years ago.

And I'd like to apologize for the throughly rambly nature of my previous post. Again with the questionable sobriety (back pain does have it's upside) and I tend to think in parenthetical tangents and ellipses. It's actually easier to read than listen to. Go figure.

[Chayanov]

This is long, but please humor me.

Last night I was informed by a friend of mine (who had been told this by a professional astrologer) that, according to the charts, Friday, September 21, at 7:05pm (CT) would be the perfect time for conducting prosperity rituals. Therefore I should at least burn a green candle at that time. Where to begin with all this nonsense?

Okay, so I get it that green candle = money (but only if the country you live in uses green money, I guess. Wouldn't a gold candle be better?), but then if green candle = money, wouldn't burning candle = burning money? How do I become prosperous by burning money? When I ask such questions I'm told that I'm too literal and that it's all a big metaphor.

But if it's nothing but metaphor, why is the date and time so specific? Why not late in the week or early in the weekend? What happens at 7:04 or 7:15? If it's just metaphor, what are the charts for? Indeed, what charts are we talking about? What is the astrologer looking for? How is this information being interpreted? All questions that go unanswered and evaded (as this site has proven time and time again).

Another evaded question is, if the time for ritual is so specific why isn't the turn-around time given? If I burn that candle, how long do I wait for prosperity to come my way? 1 hour? 1 week? Where's the information on that?

I know people who have conducted prosperity rituals, then 3 days later when they get their paycheck (which comes every 2 weeks from the job they've worked for the past 8 years), they credit the ritual. What about all the times they got paid when they didn't perform the ritual? And we're back to those unsinkable rubber ducks.

It's faith, it's belief, it's wrapped up as part of their religion. Fine. But then they should quit acting like astrology is internally consistent, rational, and a scientific process. It's not. Scientists will always be able to show you how they arrived at their results. You may not understand the math or the theory involved, but it's all there for you to follow.

Astrologers do not do that. They can't do it because they're just making it up. If they would just admit that I wouldn't care. They could call it "an intuitive process" if they want but stop acting like it's legitimate research. Stop appealing to other ways of knowing. Stop insisting that scientists take them seriously. Go burn a candle already.

[Joseph]

Great post.

I just wanted to note that sites such as astro.com are completely testable. (Could make for a nice blog entry). Let me propose a design. You could take, say, 20 volunteers, and get their dates of birth. Then you could get 20 readings from astro.com, and number them 1 through 20. You then write a file that matches names with reading number. For trust purposes, you password encrypt the file and make it available for download. Anonymous numbered readings are made available publicly. Afterwards, you ask volunteers to either guess the best reading or rate the readings (haven't worked out the math for best methodology). After the guesses are in, you can release the encrypted file's password.

[Nes]

Hey, not too bad Mouse; Cancer was indeed the sign that went one or two of those quotes. I had to edit one with [I have] to hide the mention of Cancer. But it's not my actual sign, it was related in some way or another. I won't even pretend to understand how, though! I'd mention what the relationship was, but that might actually give away my sign. I don't know, as I don't know how they figure out how it was related.

[kehrsam]

I'm not a woo-slinger, but my ex-wife was, so let me have a turn. By the way, you missed the third leg of the triangle. Together with Confirmation Bias and the Forer Effect you skipped psychology. Keep in mind that until very recently, all astrological consults were done in person. A very great part of the astrologer's (tarot card reader, palmist, etc) skill was to read the subject properly so as to turn the reading to the subject's interests. This is fascinating to watch in action.

The other point being passed over was that astronomy was, indeed, cutting-edge science: In 300 AD. There is more than sufficient surviving literature to support Cassini's contention that astrology grew out of centuries of observation. The fact that it was all driven by Confirmation Bias doesn't change that it was an attempt to better understand the universe based upon observation and noting patterns.

Also keep in mind that astrology has been protected through most of its history by the fact that natal charts (one's "star sign") have not been very important except for princes. After all, for the better part of history, most people did not know the day of their birth, much less the time. Rather, the focus has been on "horary astrology," ie when is the ideal time to undertake an important task. Think Nancy Reagan here. If the astrologer is merely chosing the appropos time for a given endeavor, the confirmation bias is ratcheted way up, as most people do not set out to fail.

So I understand where Cassini is coming from. But he's a couple of millenia behind the times.

[mouse]

Well of course I guessed well Nes. I'm a pisces and prone to understanding mystic crap.
At least I crack myself up.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to kehrsam

Good point about the personal consultations – add cold reading to the reasons people think astrology works.

Re: There is more than sufficient surviving literature to support Cassini's contention that astrology grew out of centuries of observation.

Where can I see this? Clearly the astronomical data were derived this way, and much of it is extant (eg Galileo’s observations of Venus). But astrological data – the detailed rules of astrology? Where can I see the astrological equivalent of how Galileo derived that the planets orbit the Sun and not the Earth?

Where is the data that shows how they derived that Librans can’t make decisions, or that Virgos are neat and tidy, or that Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing? Where is all that?

[Big Al]

In my local pub a few years ago, I pretended I could read palms. People who'd known me for years didn't find it strange that I'd never mentioned this before.

I started to do a few people, and quite a crowd gathered round. People were wide-eyed at my accuracy. Some of my "hits" involved the fact that I actually knew some of the people quite well; things like "Let me see... you have two kids" were counted as eerily obtained info, although if I'd actually named the kids it might have spoiled the effect!

In the end, I fessed up that I was reading the people, not their palms, and a few wouldn't believe me! They insisted I must have some magical power, even if I wasn't aware of it!

[Big Al]

In my local pub a few years ago, I pretended I could read palms. People who'd known me for years didn't find it strange that I'd never mentioned this before.

I started to do a few people, and quite a crowd gathered round. People were wide-eyed at my accuracy. Some of my "hits" involved the fact that I actually knew some of the people quite well; things like "Let me see... you have two kids" were counted as eerily obtained info, although if I'd actually named the kids it might have spoiled the effect!

In the end, I fessed up that I was reading the people, not their palms, and a few wouldn't believe me! They insisted I must have some magical power, even if I wasn't aware of it!

[Big Al]

I also developed the power to post twice!

[kehrsam]

Skeptico: I didn't say the evidence led directly to the silly predictions of modern astrology; I claimed that there was evidence of observations accreted over time. Some of the hermetic literature from ancient times has survived; much of it has not. But there is no doubt that there was an ongoing body of work updated over time. Consult any good social history of the ancient world. Robin Lane Fox' Pagans and Christians has an excellent discussion of ancient "technologies" such as this.

In the same way, ancients recorded spellcasting technology and dream interpretations and developed them over time. Although they actually led to something useful, the Hippocratic Books can be thrown into the same class; they were no more or less scientific.

None of this has much of anything to do with the claims Cassini is making about modern astrology. But he is correct to claim that astrology started out as a "science" in the sense that it involved observations over time.

[Skeptico]

But the “science” part – observations over time - refers to what we now call astronomy. Nowhere was it “observed” that Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing.

[Skeptico]

Cassini replied again by email. His comments below in bold:

Re: No not 'closed' minded at all I actually came to the subject with a skeptical but open mind , in all my years of experience with astrology ( Im 45 by the way) I have come to the conclusion that it does work,

But you won’t tell us how you square that with the fact that astrology fails test after test. You have fooled yourself. Saying “I have come to the conclusion that it does work” despite all the evidence to the contrary is idiotic. You are closed minded – you won’t even consider, even hypothetically, my question “What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work?”

Re: I use it as a psychological tool its a wonderful way to understand human nature .Remember Jung used astrology well in his psychiatric practice and Copernicus, Isaac Newton and Einstein are just three great thinkers that gave it credence. If you read up on the history of it you will discover many fascinating facts about the great scientific minds in history that used astrology .

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Who cares if Newton was a believer? Irrelevant.

Re: Because of the esoteric nature of the subject and as you are well aware even astrologers disagree amongst themselves about the way it should be 'interpreted',

Very convenient – if one interpretation doesn’t fit, try another. And another. Until something happens to fit. Yes, they all come up with different answers. Trouble is, they’re all wrong.

Re: I am of the opinion that 'scientific proof' in the way you are seeking it is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack of contradictions and myth .

Straw Man: I am not looking for “scientific proof”. Where have I ever used the word “proof”? I am looking for evidence. But the evidence shows it doesn’t work. You are just too closed-minded to look at it.

Re: Therefore to answer any questions you should look for the truth of astrology literally 'in yourself ' study your own chart see what it reveals about you.Thats why I say keep an open mind because until you yourself 'delve' deeply into astrology to see how it is working in your life to dismiss it as unproved rubbish is an unscientific and rather childish approach.

Childish, because the evidence shows it doesn’t work? That’s a new one. Looking for evidence is “childish”. This is just another appeal to other ways of knowing. You are the childish one.

Re: May I suggest a good starting point is The Fated Sky: Astrology in History by Benson Brobick !

You can suggest all you want. I’ve already read numerous astrology books, and I’m not going to take notice of anything else you write until you ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

1. Where is the evidence the rules of astrology were derived in the way you claim?
2. How could the ancients have figured out all the rules of astrology, if astrology really is too big to compartmentalize this way?
3. Are you open minded enough to admit that astrology might not work? What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work?
4. Do you understand that you may be influenced by confirmation bias and the forer effect. If not, why not? If so, do you accept that you could be mistaken when you say “astrology works”?
5. What other method could be used to evaluate the accuracy of astrology, if the scientific method is inadequate?
6. Are the predictions of astrology more likely to happen than pure chance?
7. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that when tested astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance?
8. If you answer “no” – astrology is correct no better than chance – in what way are you claiming astrology “works”?

Why are you so scared of these questions?

[Infophile]

Why are you so scared of these questions? (Skeptico)

Because answering them would be opening up the possibility that he might be wrong, and that is what he is really afraid of. He's afraid of a world where he can be fooled by the confirmation bias, where he's been spouting off unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) rubbish as facts, and where he's believed for most of his life in something that's untrue.

When you look at it that way, you can almost sympathize with these woos; they're just sticking to their woo out of fear. (Of course, this doesn't apply to those who have never heard skeptical arguments against their brand of woo.)

[Chayanov]

RE: Calling someone childish

This has gained a rather disturbing popularity. Anytime you disagree with someone's actions, opinions, or beliefs you can call them childish and this is apprently supposed to be some sort of supreme insult. I know far too many Pagans and Buddhists who use it to describe Christians, mainstream Americans, and scientists pretty much indiscriminantly.

For example, Pagans call Christians childish because Christians worship an authoritarian father figure. Pagans see nothing odd about how they worship an earth mother figure.

What's even more peculiar is that these groups have taken to calling themselves childlike as some sort of supreme compliment.

If you're childlike, you have all the wonder, awe, and creativity of children. If you're childish, you pout and throw tantrums, holding your fingers in your ears and shouting "I don't hear you" over and over.

Personally, I think the whole thing is pretty childish.

[BronzeDog]

Re: Chayanov's comments on "childishness"

You've got that right. Although I get a great deal of enjoyment out of imagining, say, Loosers (9/11 conspiracy nuts from Loose Change) as teenage pseudo-gothlings working at McDonalds, saying or doing anything for attention and to feel special, I avoid saying it, sticking to pointing out the absurdities of their hypotheses.

Even if the woo I'm arguing with really qualifies as "childish," it's still irrelevant to the arguments they make: Fallacious arguments are fallacious arguments.

[Big Al]

What's really childish is to believe something based only on hearsay and without any evidence.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

[Skeptico]

Just FYI, Cassini replied with more of the same drivel. I’m not going to waste time reproducing it and debunking it line-by-line again. It could easily have been written by taking his previous emails and rearranging the word order – there was nothing new.

Cassini is the quintessential rubber duck – no matter how many times I refute an argument he bounces back with the exact same thing as before, as if I had never already written the rebuttal. And he will not look at the questions that arose from what he wrote. He is completely impervious to contrary evidence or logic – nothing ever penetrates the wall of insulation that protects his belief in his precious magic pictures-in-the-sky-fortune-telling system. Nothing! As I wrote before, this persistent belief in the teeth of evidence would in itself make an excellent psychological study. But that’s for someone else, not me.

I reproduce the questions again, with a number 9 added (since Cassini apparently thinks I need “proof” of astrology). Answer the questions:

1. Where is the evidence the rules of astrology were derived in the way you claim?
2. How could the ancients have figured out all the rules of astrology, if astrology really is too big to compartmentalize this way?
3. Are you open minded enough to admit that astrology might not work? What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work?
4. Do you understand that you may be influenced by confirmation bias and the forer effect. If not, why not? If so, do you accept that you could be mistaken when you say “astrology works”?
5. What other method could be used to evaluate the accuracy of astrology, if the scientific method is inadequate?
6. Are the predictions of astrology more likely to happen than pure chance?
7. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that when tested astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance?
8. If you answer “no” – astrology is correct no better than chance – in what way are you claiming astrology “works”?
9. NEW QUESTION: Where have I ever said I needed “proof” of astrology?

Last chance.

[gregory]

Hello.
I am a rational and pragmatic person who has complete faith in science, and next to none in religion or any other number of "woo" subjects as you folks call them, yet at the same time, I manage to find something less than random in the personality traits of individuals as correlated to the positions of the planets at the time of their birth. Additionally, in daily life, I witness correlations between the cycles of the solar system and the events of life on Earth.

I believe I can offer you some more meaningful debate than 'Cassini' who seems rather incoherent, as do many of the skeptics out there who dismiss astrology out of hand with all the intellectual curiosity of a housewife reading her horoscope. if you are truly a skeptic, (as I consider myself to be!) than you will undoubtedly rub your hands with glee at the prospect of finding a proponent of astrology who claims to be rational. I'm up for the game.

The key word here is correlation. I certainly don't believe that the planets "cause" things to happen on Earth. (apart from their verifiable physical influences of course.) I don't envision some system of proactive deified orbs. Yet the entire universe functions in cycles, and the earth is certainly no exception. There are many, many natural cycles which affect life on earth; I couldnt list a fraction of them. The lunar cycle, the solar radiation cycle, el nino, the glaciation cycle, insect breeding patterns, infintely complex weather patterns, the precession of the equinoxes... these are all cycles which have a very definite influence on our bodies and lives, and they all follow steady rhythms. At the same time, the planets circle the sun, and their motion to we on Earth is also steady. I envision the planetary motions, hence astrology, as a clock by which to monitor the cycles of life, including those of which we are not yet aware. I have no difficulty believing that there could be a correlation between these cycles, even if it is only to measure the passing of time.

Here's a little analogy:
Every day at 6am the church bells ring.
Across town, at the same time every day, a guy named jim gets up and he immediately takes a piss. Thats just his natural rhythm, he gets up around 6am as he always has, and he immediately empties his bladder. And the church bells always ring at 6am, as they have since the church was built 500 years ago. Now if you were an observer watching jim for 50 years, you would not be foolish to make a correlation between the sound of the church bells in the morning and the flush of Jim's toilet. The two events do not have a causal relationship, yet they have a relationship none the less, and one could tell you information about the other.

I am aware of the "Confirmation Bias" phemomena, and you will undoubtedly be interested to hear that I have caught myself exhibiting it when reading astrological charts. Immediately after seeing the positions of the planets in a persons chart, I start trying to understand them according to the patterns and characteristics I've come to accept from years of observation. On several occasions I have misread a date, or read the wrong line in the ephemeris, yet with the inaccurate data, and come none the less to conclusions that seemed appropriate for the person whose chart I was evaluating. Upon recognizing the mathematical error, I could come up with an evaluation, that while possibly contradictory to the first, would still be appropriate. I have always been aware of this confirmation bias and give it much thought when I encounter it in my own thinking. However, you should understand that it is much more likely that when I have a data error and a persons planets come up incorrect, then Ill look at them and say "Thats strange, this doesn't seem right."

Lets get some other things clear: Im not talking about the ridiculous horoscopes in the paper. Thats not astrology, in my opinion, any more than the Flat Earth Society is an example of Geology. (though they do have their merits!) There is one astrologer with a column in some city's free papers that I've read who I am sure is legit. His names Rob Brezny, and he is really on the ball as far as I'm concerned. He's hilarious too. But most of the astrology out there is useless or worse, and it would be disingenuous to let these kinds of astrology represent the science in your skeptical analysis. I personally have serious disagreements with many of the beliefs and methods of serious astrologers. I dont pay any attention to Horary astrology "predictive astrology" and I don't even pay attention to the Houses, which would sound sacreligious to many astrologers. Just as in conventional science, people have different ideas of how things work. In astrology, since there is such a lack of empirical evidence and "standardization", there are a lot of differing opinions, methods, and results, and they are undoubtedly still developing. It is interesting to note, however, that there are basic astrological beliefs concerning certain alignments or planetary influences which have endured for thousands of years.

A lot of your questions are disingenous, or perhaps merely assuming. That is, you don't seem to understand how astrologers gather information, and you definitely don't seem to have any idea of the relevancy of the history of astrology to your most beloved sciences. Astrology can properly be called the first science. Ancient astrologers didn't wave their hands in the air and make guesses as to the locations of the planets, they charted them with extreme accuracy. For 3000 years, astrology was astronomy. Ptolemy, Gallileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, all astrologers, and not merely in relation to their astronomy, on the contrary, their astronomical discoveries were often made in the process of their study of astrology. Now, granted, these scientists had a flawed vision of how the universe looked, and we can only put so much weight on the value of their understanding, but consider this: Knowing of the genius of some of these men, of the powers of reason they made such good use of, isnt it likely that if there was nothing at all to Astrology that they wouldn't have studied it? We aren't talking about religion here, we aren't talking about a simple belief that you either hold or you don't, and for which you never expect evidence. These men were scientists and they studied astrology. They spent their entire professional careers pursuing it, as a science. I find it hard to believe that someone as brilliant as Gallileo would study something intently which was completely baseless.

I don't profess to understand the fundamental mechanisms of how the world works; neither does any physicist worth his salt. I have no ideas about the world that cannot be changed by either evidence or experience. My experience has shown me time and time again a correlation between the positions of the planets in relation to the nature of events on earth. That doesn't mean that I can explain it to you. Perhaps you should try explaining the dual nature of light to someone with no scientific experience. Hell, just try explaining the mechanism of gravity, forget about quantum physics. There are many things that we only understand the fundamental science of at a very basic level, yet we believe because our experience tells us there's something to it. Your entire experience with real astrology is most likely quite limited, and you most likely had a smirk on your face throughout the entire experience. Perhaps you'd be a little more hesitant in your dismissal of Astrology if you had experience telling you otherwise.

I have to go, but Ill check up on any responses here.

[BronzeDog]

These men were scientists and they studied astrology. They spent their entire professional careers pursuing it, as a science. I find it hard to believe that someone as brilliant as Gallileo would study something intently which was completely baseless.

The problem with argument from authority: You don't need to drop names. What was Galileo's basis for believing in astrology? The arguer is irrelevant to the arguments. So, what were Galileo's arguments in favor of astrology? Just like Newton's belief in alchemy, human beings are fallible: Some scientists are fully capable of acting on unscientific faith.

My experience has shown me time and time again a correlation between the positions of the planets in relation to the nature of events on earth.

Did you document your experiences, as well as times when correlations didn't occur?

Perhaps you'd be a little more hesitant in your dismissal of Astrology if you had experience telling you otherwise.

I'm willing to put aside my biases, but if Astrology keeps failing tests, I'm not about to change my conclusions.

So, do you know of a way to test astrology that you can pass?

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Gregory

Re: I manage to find something less than random in the personality traits of individuals as correlated to the positions of the planets at the time of their birth.

Then how do you explain the fact that when biases are controlled for astrology performs no better than chance?

That was one of my questions to Cassini. He continues to ignore it. Will you?

Re: Ancient astrologers didn't wave their hands in the air and make guesses as to the locations of the planets, they charted them with extreme accuracy. For 3000 years, astrology was astronomy.

Yes, that was what we now call astronomy. What does that have to do with (for example) Saturn conjunct the Moon in the Fourth House indicates a difficult early life and the likelihood of a parent who was not very nurturing?

Re: A lot of your questions are disingenous, or perhaps merely assuming.

I take exception to that. These were reasonable questions that arose directly from what Cassini wrote. He is intellectually dishonest by ignoring them.

Re: Knowing of the genius of some of these men, of the powers of reason they made such good use of, isnt it likely that if there was nothing at all to Astrology that they wouldn't have studied it?

Argument from authority logical fallacy. I did cover that with Cassini too.

Re: Perhaps you should try explaining the dual nature of light to someone with no scientific experience. Hell, just try explaining the mechanism of gravity, forget about quantum physics. There are many things that we only understand the fundamental science of at a very basic level, yet we believe because our experience tells us there's something to it.

False analogy. I am not asking for an explanation of the mechanism. I am asking for:

1) Evidence of how astrology was derived
2) Evidence it works.

Those two questions could be answered easily for gravity. Answer them for astrology please.

[Sotek]

I'd like to note that I'm a PhD student in computer science, and if I hadn't gotten a physics minor back when I was an undergrad, I would have had no exposure whatsoever to the scientific method.

Comp Sci/Math are pretty much purely deductive. We don't touch the scientific method at all, because induction is inferior to deduction any time both could be applied.

The only reason the scientific method is so much more useful is that it's really hard to deduce about the world, because we don't have the right premises... >.>

[Infophile]

Hello.
I am a rational and pragmatic person who has complete faith in science, and next to none in religion or any other number of "woo" subjects as you folks call them, yet at the same time, I manage to find something less than random in the personality traits of individuals as correlated to the positions of the planets at the time of their birth. Additionally, in daily life, I witness correlations between the cycles of the solar system and the events of life on Earth.

This is getting more and more common, it seems. Woos think that by simply claiming they're a skeptic and rational we'll be more likely to believe their claims. In a way, it's like argument from authority. It doesn't matter who you are; it matters what your argument is.

We should really come up with a name for this practice...

[gregory]

Hello

Below I tried to answer some of the questions that were posed to Cassini.

1. Where is the evidence the rules of astrology were derived in the way you claim? n/a

2. How could the ancients have figured out all the rules of astrology, if astrology really is too big to compartmentalize this way? The ancients didnt "figure out the rules of astrology". They observed, made statements, false and accurate, adopted their beliefs to the culture of their day, recognized archetypes, explored the human psyche. Astrology isn't science. Our knowledge isnt adequate on astrology to call it science, and to date noone has discovered a way to accurately test astrological premises, so the "rules" will not be to your satisfaction. Its more like, say, psychology, than chemistry. There are tendencies, not rules. When a person is diagnosed with a psychological disorder there isn't a concrete list of behaviors that can be tested scientifically. Yet

3. Are you open minded enough to admit that astrology might not work? What evidence, if any, hypothetically, could ever convince you that astrology does not work? Yes, I could certainly have my mind changed concerning my belief that there is something to astrology, I personally don't have so much invested in it that I couldn't dismiss it It isn't my 'woo religion'. ( Perhaps unlike yourself and the way of the skeptic? The scientific method can indeed become a religious doctrine as well )

However, I don't think it makes sense to speak of astrology "working". I mean, its not a steam engine. Nor is it a yes or no equation. Astrology for me could best be defined as "the correlation of the cycles of the solar system with cyclical events in the life of men". If you can think of a way to disprove that, i'm certainly ready to accept it. I can think of a way to test astrology that i would expect to do better than chance at. I actually take this test every day that I meet someone new. It involves the guessing of a persons dominant signs (the 'sun sign' isnt the only factor in a horoscope) If I can observe a person for awhile, then i can make a guess at their dominant signs, which is most often the sun sign. But i really need to get to know someone to make a good guess, it is rare that I can spot identify someone's signs based solely on their appearance (though there are some folks who are quite obvious).

4. Do you understand that you may be influenced by confirmation bias and the forer effect. If not, why not? If so, do you accept that you could be mistaken when you say “astrology works”? Yes, as I pointed out in my previous post, I have witnessed confirmation bias in my own thought processes before. I have never fallen for the Forer effect, I am too vain for that. As for being mistaken, well my friend, I accept that I could be mistaken on absolutely any subject at all that I should turn my attention to. How about you?

5. What other method could be used to evaluate the accuracy of astrology, if the scientific method is inadequate? I am not convinced that the scientific method is not applicable here. I think a test by the scientific method could be devised to observe astrological influences, the difficulty is in identifying what you are looking for. There is no tool or device to measure astrology. What we are dealing with, as in Psychology, are people and their perceptions. I think the sort of test I mentioned earlier would be in the right direction... the sort of thing where there are 120 random people, the astrologer is allowed to meet them, and see them go about their lives for a day, he gets to observe their behavior, is given a history of their life, and then has to guess their sign. You would need a perceptive astrologer. (I would say 'intuitive', but I wouldn't want to sidetrack your skepticism with another subject) I think I could score much better at this test than 1 in 12.

6. Are the predictions of astrology more likely to happen than pure chance?
I don't believe in astrology as a tool for prediction.

7. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then how do you explain the fact that when tested astrology doesn’t perform better than pure chance? My answer was no, however, I've yet to hear of a scientific test that sounded like an good way to measure astrological influence. I would love to see one, yet all those I have heard of seemed incapable of identifying what I know of as astrology, and I wasn't suprised that they failed. For instance,Michel Gouquet

8. If you answer “no” – astrology is correct no better than chance – in what way are you claiming astrology “works”? I find it useful as a method of character analysis and as a method of monitoring the cycles of life on Earth, by correlating them with the motions of the planets. I also find astrology to be an elegant and accurate archetypical symbology, a language by which to recognize patterns and tendencies in something as elusive as the human psyche.

By the way, I do feel compelled to point out that the patronizing tone of many self preofessed skeptics is tiresome. I don't mean to make a personal attack here, but for one to suggest that they understand every concept in the universe would be quite a laughable proposition, correct? Well, if you are assuming that you can identify every misconception in the universe, then that amounts to the exact same arrogance. There are unknowns in this life that you and all you wits can't come close to explaining; do you best, by all means, but do it humbly.

yours,
gregory

[Big Al]

Gregory,

You said: Astrology for me could best be defined as "the correlation of the cycles of the solar system with cyclical events in the life of men". If you can think of a way to disprove that, i'm certainly ready to accept it.

You can't prove a negative. I can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't live in London, but you could easily prove he does by giving me his address and phone number.

Please tell me what cyclical events are to your knowledge correlated with celestial events.

I know of the circadian rhythm, but that's only approximately daily (which is what it means - about 26 hours if I remember rightly). However, it's known to be based on the very real and measurable phenomenon of sunlight/darkness. Prolonged periods under artificial light mess up the body clock.

If there are other bodily rhythms dependent on distant stars or planets, can you please say what they are, how well they correlate, and what evidence there is that they do?

for one to suggest that they understand every concept in the universe would be quite a laughable proposition, correct? Well, if you are assuming that you can identify every misconception in the universe, then that amounts to the exact same arrogance. There are unknowns in this life that you and all you wits can't come close to explaining

This is an appeal to "other ways of knowing" and a Straw Man argument too. I don't think any skeptic here has even remotely claimed to know everything. However, if someone tells me they can fly by flapping their arms, I want to see them do it before I'll believe it. If the self-claimed flier keeps putting off the demonstration and keeps making excuses for why he cant do it right there and right then, I'm hardly likely to believe him; I don't think you would, either.

Before I believe something, I want to see evidence. As far as I'm concerned, that's an important part of being a half-way intelligent, adult human. If someone I've never met before comes up to me in the street and says "Close your eyes and open your mouth", I don't, as simple as that!

What are these celestial rhythms you mention, and what convinces you that they are real?

[gregory]

Al, everything you say makes sense to me.
I agree the burden of proof is on the positive. That after all is what skepticism's all about. I am sure I don't have that evidence, and I think we are all agreed here that it doesnt currently exist. But I am unwilling to dismiss the phenomena simply because noone has come up with a way to scientifically test it. My personal experience tells me there is something to it.

I think I can identify one of the crux issues which most critics don't understand concerning natal astrology: The focus isnt on the planets, the focus is on the person. It's really a study of people, using the planetary positions as a clock, or a map, of character. The archetypes that astrologers are looking at are the exact same that Jung spent his life analyzing, they are the same which are at the heart of Greek Myth, almost all classic literature, and the myths and legends of tribal peoples the world over. Thats really the part that fascinates me, the fundamental characterists of our lives, and the roles we play. The hero, the virgin, death, birth, expansion and contraction, feast and famine, male and female. These are the things I am looking at and remarking on the interplay of. When it's called Psychology noone here would argue with it. When people use the positions of the planets at birth as a set of symbols to describe the psyche, it suddenly becomes 'woo'. Well, so be it. It certainly isnt a science, but it works for me.

I was just looking at the post from Feb of last year listing all the studies that seem to disprove astrology, and they are substansial. Some of them seem inherently flawed to me, since they depend on some text to serve as the "authority" which determines what exactly the researchers are looking for. I personally have a very, very different set of symbols in my mind than the average astrologer. I break the astrological archetypes into dualities: sun and moon, mars and venus, and jupiter and saturn. Were I to go into detail about what these symbols represent for me, what behavior or the characteristics of events that I expect from their influence, the resulting lecture would differ greatly from every single text that all of those tests skeptico listed used in their studies. There are texts out there that do take a more Jungian approach to astrology: Works by Dane Rudyar and Marc Edmund Jones come to mind. Liz Greene, Mark Arroyo and Jeff Green are three living astrologers who could perhaps be considered as carrying on this school of astrology. I don't know what would be the result were these astrologers used in those tests, perhaps the same. As I said before, I think if we could do the test that I suggeste din my post, I think I would score higher than random.

Want to set it up? : )

I can give an anecdote from my life, of a pretty personal nature, that would be hard to dismiss away as random... give me a couple days and I'll write it up.

In the mean

I'm not claiming I can fly.
I'm making a very small claim:
I have recognized, in 15 years of observation, a correlation between the positions of the planets and events in life. In this same period of time,