Skeptico

Testing Astrology – Again

Can you test astrology to see if it works? If you can’t, how do you know if it does work? And how did anyone work out all the detailed rules of astrology if they couldn’t test it to see if the rules were right?

In December 1985, Shawn Carlson published “A double-blind test of astrology” in the journal Nature. The purpose was to test the fundamental thesis of astrology, as agreed by the astrologers involved, which was the proposition that:

the position of the “planets” (all planets, the Sun and Moon, plus other objects defined by astrologers) at the moment of birth can be used to determine the subject’s general personality traits and tendencies in temperament and behaviour, and to indicate the major issues which the subject is likely to encounter.

There were two tests. In the first test, subjects were asked to pick their own horoscope out of three (their own and two controls). In the second test, astrologers were asked which one of three California Personality Index (CPI) results belonged to the subject whose natal data they had been given. Astrology failed both tests – the results were no better than chance. You can read more in my write-up from February 2005 - What do you mean, “test” astrology?

Recently there has been some discussion of these tests in the comments. In response to a question from me, one commenter Apollia argues that the CPI might not be that accurate, or that the astrologers might not understand it. Her comment is here. My reply to her is here.

Testing the people

Apollia’s comment raised for me an interesting point – how do you determine the actual personality traits of a person, in a way that they can be compared with what astrology predicts they will be?

Off hand I can think of a few ways:

1. Ask the subject
2. Ask friends of the subject
3. Ask an some other third party expert to assess the subject
4. Ask the astrologer to assess the subject
5. Use a standardized test such as the CPI.

There may be others, although I can’t think of any that are significantly different from the above. There are problems with each.

Ask the subject

This is test # 1 from the Nature article. A criticism of this is that the subject may not be sufficiently self-aware to select an accurate description of himself from a group of three, and/or might be unwilling to “admit” to certain negative characteristics that he might in fact have. The Nature article agreed that this would be a problem, and concluded that because of this, test # 1 was a poor test of astrology.

Ask friends of the subject

This would get around the problem of the subject not wanting to admit to an undesirable characteristic. However, this method assumes that other people know the subject better than he or she does. While this might be true in some cases, it is likely to be less true in others. As with “ask the subject”, you would need first to determine scientifically that friends could select accurate descriptions of the subject.

Ask an some other third party expert to assess the subject

Again, you would need scientific evidence that these experts could select accurate descriptions of strangers, based on interview or other methods. In addition, you would need to demonstrate that the expert could accurately match this information to a horoscope, or that the descriptions could be accurately conveyed to the astrologers who would match them to a horoscope.

Ask the astrologer to assess the subject

This is basically Apollia’s idea. But here we would be assuming that an astrologer could select an accurate personality description more often than the subject, the subject’s friends or an expert psychologist. I don’t think astrologers necessarily have training in this area, so it’s hard to see how this would be true. But there is a much bigger problem with this method. There would be a huge possibility of sensory leakage – other ways the astrologer would have of “finding out” details of the subjects’ natal charts. Any valid test has to be securely controlled to prevent all other ways (other than astrology) for the astrologers to pick the correct chart. Any test that allowed the astrologers to spend time with the subjects would be deeply flawed and therefore invalid.

Use a standardized test such as the CPI

This is the Nature test #2. It is true that the CPI may not be 100% accurate or 100% understandable.  But the CPI was chosen for the Nature test by the astrologers “because the advising astrologers judged the CPI attributes to be closest to those discernable by astrology.” (Page 420.) Also, the Nature test was devised and run by astrologers recommended by the National Council for Geocosmic Research for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI. Even if the CPI is not perfect, you would still expect results better than chance. But chance results were exactly what they got.

It seems to me the CPI method is probably one of the best on offer, although I would be open to the friends or experts evaluations (# 2 and 3 above), if it could be demonstrated that these people could select the accurate description of the subject from two controls. But the burden of proof is clearly with astrologers to demonstrate that astrology can pass a test to demonstrate that it works, not with skeptics to show it doesn’t.

Conclusion

There is one thing I want to be clear about here. If none of these methods are acceptable, and if astrology can’t be tested, then it means that astrology is almost certainly bogus. For one, astrology’s doubtful provenance (no known method by which it is supposed to work, no known way its rules were derived, its absurd premises), mean we need extraordinary evidence that it works. By this I mean better evidence that we demand for many other things. But we are only offered poor evidence – anecdotes that are biased by the Forer Effect and confirmation bias. And for two, if astrology can’t be tested, then clearly no one would ever have been able to work out all the detailed rules astrologers use in the first place. How would they have been able to work out the rules if there is no way of ever testing them to see if they were right?

So either astrology can be tested – so astrologers, please tell us how. (And so far it has failed all well designed tests.) Or it can’t be tested – so astrologers please tell us how its rules were derived and how you know it works.

Which is it? Because it can’t be both.

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.

Horoscopes change – still crap

From The Bad Astronomer I just learned that the “10^th planet” UB313, formerly known as Xena has been officially renamed Eris, the goddess of strife and discord.

As I wrote here, astrologers originally speculated that based on the name Xena:

…this new planet will represent the female archetype of sacred warrior. […] The era of matriarchal or patriarchal dominance is over. We enter a period where both are celebrated together, and not one at the expense of the other.

Of course, this new name changes everything. The same astrologer I quoted above now says:

The release of ephemerides for UB313 marks the beginning of the fun for astrologers. As soon as a name is announced, we'll be spending no small amount of time divining the astrological meaning and significance of this new planet. By whatever name, you may expect this process to be fascinating.

The teaching in western astrology, the only astrological system in the world which accepts new planets, is that when a new planet is discovered and named, the archetype of that planet is available to everyone on Earth. The name of the planet counts, so does the planet's mythology and the story of the planet.

Translation – the new name will mean our horoscopes will have to change to reflect (presumably) the “strife and discord” that this goddess was named for. Funny how a group of scientists deciding on a new name for a distant icy rock can change all our individual personalities. Although, rather perversely, this astrologer ends with:

Well, regardless of the name of this planet, I am of the view that the era of matriarchal or patriarchal dominance is over. We enter a period where both are celebrated together, and not one at the expense of the other.

Which sounds like having your cake and eating it. Still, why not? Astrology is just an arbitrarily made-up set of rules, so who cares if it’s replaced with another arbitrarily made-up set of rules or if you keep the original set? It’s crap either way.

A psychobabbler comments

It seems to me woos are increasingly relying on psychobabble – “language characterized by the often inaccurate use of jargon from psychiatry and psychotherapy” – in place of the actual arguments they don’t have. This post is the first where I examine this form of “argument” – this time from someone who left a couple of (off topic) comments to my Astrology Challenge. (A second example will follow in a day or so.) I do so because (1) it amuses me, but also (2) I think it’s instructive to deconstruct these highly manipulative but ultimately fallacious arguments.

The commenter goes by the name of Kaz. He left this comment that I replied to. He then replied with another long comment that I deleted from the Astrology Challenge as being off topic. (Why do people have such a problem understanding what I am asking for in the Astrology Challenge? Oh well.) His comment is repeated below in its entirety, with my analysis and rebuttals. Here goes:

I really just want to write you a note, as one skeptic/atheist to another.

Kaz may be an atheist, but he is no skeptic. On his Simple Horse blog he states “I'm … an acupuncturist/alchemist by night, and am available for consultations at [phone number]”. I don’t know what he means by an alchemist (although it sounds totally woo), but an acupuncturist? If you real my numerous post on acupuncture you would know it’s mostly placebo. Kaz is no skeptic; he just doesn’t believe in astrology. But a skeptic is not someone who just doesn’t believe in a woo subject like astrology. A skeptic is one who arrives at such a position through the application of critical thinking – reason, logic and the scientific method. And, unlike Kaz, a skeptic doesn’t rely on fallacious reasoning:

I was just trying to point out gently that even if astrology is bogus, it has a natural history that consists of many generations of people - astronomers, astrologers, in the not so distant past these were one and the same - trying to make sense of the world. (Since you seem to like books and references, I will refer you to Richard Grossinger's excellent "The Night Sky"). So the rules of astrology weren't "just made up;" they were accumulated over millennia by people trying to impose meaning on a meaningless universe. It's just that at some point after Newton (who was heavily into the esoteric woo-woo stuff), most scientists discarded the obviously outdated baggage and moved on from astrology to astronomy.

This is the fallacy of equivocation that I wrote about before. Astronomy is not the same as astrology, even if they were practiced by the same people centuries ago. It’s completely irrelevant to whether the rules of astrology were made-up or derived.

But I don't think I need to explain that to you, who know so well the human need to try to understand things. You have seized on reason as the weapon that makes you right every time. Others seize on God.

Of course, science doesn’t make anyone “right every time”, it is just the most reliable method we have for explaining how things are. It’s true that with reason and science I will probably be right more often than people who rely on other ways of knowing. But that isn’t what I want to focus on. The point is, it is here that the psychobabble starts. Note the interesting wording: “the weapon that makes you right every time”. Kaz has reversed the order of things. His argument goes that I have decided astrology is bogus, and have a need to be right about this. I have chosen reason as the weapon to back up my pre-conceived belief - to “make me right”. The corollary is I am “making wrong” anyone who disagrees with me – clearly a pejorative action. It is expressed this way so that it appears my “need” to be right is a weakness, and “reason” is my “weapon” to cover up this weakness. But he has it exactly back to front – it was by using reason and science that I determined astrology was nonsense, not the other way round. Of course, I am trying to find out what is “right” – that is the purpose of critical thinking – but it is not to “make [me] right”, it is to arrive at what is right. That is the crucial distinction that Kaz has (ironically) wrong.

The reason I go into this in so much detail is that I have noticed this type of reasoning – skeptics have a need to be right etc - is utilized a lot by woos to put skeptics down and obscure the fact that the woo has nothing to justify his claim. I’m not sure where it comes from, although I suspect it’s an argument used in woo circles that sounds good so is picked up and repeated without much (any) thought. It’s classic psychobabble. It’s certainly highly manipulative and as used here is fallacious.

Speaking of which, I find that you are a little too quick to call your readers' comments "moronic" etc. Your strident tone reminds me of fundamentalist Muslims and others who have "seen the light" and have a very low tolerance for other people's opinions. You mention that you once believed in astrology. Did you have some kind of conversion experience that left you the strident rationalist that you are now?

Here we have another fallacy - the false analogy. I don’t insist people accept my views on astrology the way that religious fundamentalists insist the world adheres to their religious beliefs. Anyone is welcome to practice astrology to their heart’s content as long as it doesn’t directly affect me (as for example, when a US President consults an astrologer before making decisions). I just post facts about astrology on this blog and ask proponents who visit this site to answer questions and justify their silly beliefs. This is a blog set up to promote critical thinking, so if you’re going to post claims on this blog I am going to ask you to back them up. You can go away and do whatever you want – just don’t expect me to believe in your nonsense.

Finally, re: astrologers vs skeptics, I challenge you to demonstrate why "it matters if it's right or wrong." Or to make it a little easier for you, why you think it's so important, indeed why you even have this website. Will the sky come tumbling down because people believe in astrology? Will an eventual human extinction be avoided because a critical mass of humanity embraced rationality and skepticism a la Skeptico? I severely doubt it. So why does it matter? I think this question gets to the crux of why Skeptico is such an angry and vehement rationalist.

My “moronic” comment was in response to Kaz’s claim “It doesn't matter whether you or the astrologers are right or wrong”. Well, of course it matters. If someone makes decisions based on astrology it matters if astrology is right or not. But it is wider than that. This blog was set up to promote critical thinking – to demonstrate how to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to evaluate claims. If it doesn’t matter if the conclusions of critical thinking are right or wrong then it doesn’t matter if you use critical thinking or not. So for example, it doesn’t matter if an alternative therapy will cure your cancer or not – you may as well take the altie therapy even if in reality you will die without the evidence-based therapy.

Yes, saying it doesn’t matter if something is right or wrong is moronic. And if you disagree then I have a bridge to sell you. Bring your check book.

I am no proponent of astrology, so I will stop here and leave space for those astrologers who wish to enter into verbal fisticuffs with you. But really, why are you so invested in being right? Why the need to lash out at anyone who so much as slightly disagrees with you? I think you should consider the possibility that there are some not-so-rational reasons for your insistent position, and that some psychotherapy, astrological or otherwise, might be in order.

Again note the psychobabble – I am “invested” in being right. “Invested” – an interesting word, implying I have a need to be right – I wouldn’t want to give up an “investment” after all. But as I pointed out earlier, rationality leads me to the right answer, I do not start with an answer that I have “invested” as being right. But the fact that Kaz thinks this is a good argument implies that is the way his mind works – he is invested in this discussion for some reason. So much so he has a need to post a second 400 plus word comment on astrology. Pretty funny for someone who doesn’t believe in it and who claims I have an “insistent position” that might need therapy to sort out. I think he's talking about himself.

What gets Michael Behe’s goat?

Last year I wrote that Michael Behe, in sworn testimony, agreed that astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same standards as he wished Intelligent Design to be judged.   I also wrote that I was unaware of Behe’s astrological sign. Claus Larsen of Skeptic Report just advised me that Behe is a Capricorn (born January 18^th) – the Goat – and suggested I should look into the characteristics of Capricorns and see how they fit Behe.

Astrology online gives the usual list of vague Forer statements that are really too tedious to consider, but I was interested in the lists of likes and dislikes of Capricorns. First we have:

LIKES

Reliability

Professionalism

Knowing what you discuss

Firm Foundations

Purpose

Some problems there, you might think. But it was the dislikes that struck me. It seems to me that, for a Capricorn, he might be in the wrong job:

DISLIKES

Wild Schemes

Fantasies

Go-nowhere jobs

Ignominy

Ridicule

Oh dear, he dislikes fantasies, go-nowhere jobs, ignominy and ridicule? The last nine months must have been pretty miserable for him then.

Not that I believe in any of this. As regular readers know, astrology is a load of arbitrary made up rules that when tested do not work. Still, Behe apparently believes in it, and I’m sure he has studied astrology as assiduously as he studied that other science, you know, intelligent design. So, in light of the above, perhaps he is considering a change of careers. Sure enough, a little further up the page at astrology online, there is a hint of Behe’s future employment prospects:

The wit and flippancy which is characteristic of certain Capricornians may make some turn to entertainment as a career.

I’m sure we all wish him well in his new career in entertainment. Notwithstanding many of us thought that already was his current job.

Astrologers did not predict Sept 11

I got an off-topic comment to my Astrology Challenge last week. The commenter clearly thought he had demonstrated astrology is real because he thinks an astrologer predicted the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Of course, no one predicted any such thing with astrology. Still, we should take a look at the claim in the linked article entitled Prophets of doom:

In June 2000, Lynne Palmer, a 69-year-old Las Vegas resident, published her Astrological Almanac for 2001 (Star Bright Publishers). On page 95 of the book, buried among advice on the best days to go to the movies and worst days to lend people money, Palmer had written, in an odd combination of the obvious and the prophetic: "Avoid terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

I’ll come back to that in a minute. But before I do, a little further down the article is a comment that I find more revealing about the true nature and value of astrology for predicting future events. The quote is from Robert Hand, the professional astrologer who told me last April that if I wanted to know how the rules of astrology were derived I was going to have to figure it out myself (ie this professional astrologer had no idea where the rules of astrology came from). In this latest article Hand (unintentionally) reveals that astrology did not predict 9/11:

"Only one person predicted the date of the attacks, and that was Lynne Palmer," says veteran astrologer Robert Hand, a relatively highbrow practitioner of the art. "I don’t know how she did it. Things looked chaotic, but I could not have foreseen September 11. I looked and looked and I don’t know how anyone could have predicted it to the day."

(My bold.)

Think about that comment for a bit. Can you imagine a scientist saying he had no idea how a fellow scientist arrived at a valid conclusion? Such an idea would be absurd because in science, the method would be known and the results (if valid) could be replicated. Top astrologer Hand – even with the benefit of hindsight – can’t see how Palmer predicted 9/11. If you needed proof that Palmer didn’t predict 9/11 with astrology, surely this is it from Robert Hand himself?

Fortunately we don’t have to rely just on Hand’s view: we can go to TruthOrFiction for a deconstruction of what Palmer really did:

Palmer's book is an exhaustive astrological guide that lists nearly 500 different categories of activity and thousands of dates that ought to be avoided. It advises the best days for everything from cutting cloth to having surgery.

Under the category of "Avoid: Terrorist Attacks" she listed more than 130 dates in 2001.

For September, she listed 16 dates for avoiding terrorist attacks.

(My bold.)

It’s the scattergun approach – make enough guesses and some are bound to turn up correct. Mind you, Palmer’s approach is a bit wild even by the normal standards of this kind of guessing – 16 dates in September and 130 in the year for avoiding terrorist attacks? That’s so blatant I’m surprised she doesn’t blush. But it gets worse. Get a load of this:

Just out of curiosity, we looked up "Avoid Travel by Air." She listed 13 dates in September to be avoided. September 11 was not one of them.

Need I say more? Honestly, anyone who thinks Lynne Palmer’s claim validates astrology simply isn’t interested in the truth. Perhaps they should listen to Robert Hand. From the original Prophets of Doom link:

"Astrology is not a science," says Hand. "It’s a craft. It has no solid foundation.

Astrology “has no solid foundation”. What he means (confirmed by several other astrologers), is that astrology was just made up.  For once I can agree wholeheartedly with an astrologer. It begs the question though – how does he justify practicing as one and (presumably) charging money for his services?

Astrology.Con

(Not a typo.)

I’m in the wrong business. Catching up with some old emails I came upon this article sent by reader Matthew. A couple of “internet entrepreneurs” (the article’s description, not mine), are suing the buyers of their business for “improper use of [one of the couple’s] name, likeness, persona and credentials” – ie implying she still worked for the company when she had left. Not the sort of thing to interest Skeptico, you might think, except the business they had sold was Astrology.com and they sold it for (wait for it), $40 million! Jeez – there’s money to be made in woo. No wonder they’re not interested in Randi’s poultry paltry one million.

The funniest part of the article was this comment from the plaintiff, astrologer Kelli Fox:

The way my persona is currently misused by iVillage and Astrology.com is obviously misleading innocent consumers…

Well yeah I see her point – that’d be stealing her job. But from what I can tell, iVillage still features, (strangely looking much younger in the picture), Kelli Fox as your iVillage Astrologer.

Funny – you’d have thought she would have seen this coming.

Astrology in Science Daily

You may have seen in Randi’s column yesterday that the Science Daily website has an astrology section. 

I emailed Dan Hogan, editor of Science Daily:

I'm surprised to see your Science Daily site has a horoscope page.  I've written about astrology a few times: surely you know that astrology is made-up pseudoscience that fails every scientific test?  It's already hard to get people to understand what science is, and how it is different from pseudoscience.  Aren't you making this job more difficult by encouraging belief that astrology somehow belongs in a scientific publication?  I'm assuming you can't seriously believe astrology is anything but nonsense.

I'd be interested to know why you have an astrology page, and if you would consider removing it from your scientific journal.

He replied:

I hear you -- and the dozens of others who have written to me about this recently -- and I'll remove the astrology items from ScienceDaily immediately.

What happened was that we recently licensed a commercial newsfeed from UPI -- not just their science news, but everything -- general news, science, business, sports, entertainment, you name it. I thought that would be OK to offer our readers, even if not all of the content was necessarily science-related. However, I didn't realize that the "Quirks" feed in particular included horoscopes.

Having said that, I realize that astrology is particularly offensive to a large number of our readers, and so I'll work to explicitly exclude anything to do with astrology in the scripts we use to display the UPI feeds on ScienceDaily.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks Dan. I can easily understand how something like this can slip in under the radar. Kudos to Dan and Science Daily for recognizing the error and offering to correct it. 

Intelligent Design as good as Astrology

Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe, giving testimony yesterday, agreed that astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same standards as he wished Intelligent Design to be judged. (Via Rockstar’s Ramblings and elsewhere. Btw, see Rockstar’s ID exam at the link.)

Actually, I think that’s a little insulting to astrology. Unlike ID, astrology makes testable predictions. Of course, the predictions of astrology fail to correspond with reality, but that’s a separate issue, at least astrology makes predictions and can be tested. ID doesn’t predict anything that I am aware of. Still, it’s interesting to see what Behe includes in his (re)definition of science.

Anyway, via Secular Blasphemy I found this hilarious write-up of the day’s testimony. Behe certainly seems confused about a lot of things, including things that he (Behe) had written or was currently working on:

Every time Rothschild would ask Behe about a statement, some he wrote himself, he'd say he'd have to disagree that it said what it said.

I expected Rothschild to ask Behe whether he was able to read and understand the English language.

At one point during Rothschild's cross-examination, the lawyer asked the scientist whether he was co-authoring a book, a follow-up to "Of Pandas and People," with several other intelligent design moolahs. He said he wasn't.

The lawyer showed him depositions and reports to the court, quoting two of the other authors as saying he was a co-author.

Behe said that he wasn't a co-author of the book but that the statements by those guys weren't false. He said one of the authors was "seeing into the future."

Rothschild asked, "Is seeing into the future one of the powers of the intelligent-design movement?"

Behe didn't answer.

He didn't have to.

Seeing into the future is the province of that other science — you know, astrology.

Michael Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and he holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. I am unaware of his astrological sign. 

No pandering to silly beliefs

Great quote from the Economist this week:

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page.

I am reminded of Michael Shermer’s recent comment that most people think “skepticism is fine as long as it is someone else’s codswallop under the microscope”. Of course, there’s about as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for Astrology. That is to say, no evidence.

The rest of the article is pretty good on the current legal challenge in Dover, and does not report equally on “both sides” for “balance”.