It’s been a month: time for an astrology post.
Several people have suggested that even if astrology isn’t accurate, it encourages introspection and self-examination. For example a horoscope might tell a person he is rude or thoughtless of the views of others. He uses this as an aid to understanding himself better, and changes his rude behavior.
The obvious response is that most believers view astrology as real, and not a false-but-useful method of self-analysis. The thousands of astrologers charging for their services certainly make this assumption.
But let’s ignore this for now. Let’s consider if astrology could encourage people to examine themselves and change bad habits when they otherwise wouldn’t.
I can think of two arguments against this. The first is that since personality characteristics predicted by astrology bear no relation to the actual personality characteristics, astrology is not much use as an aide to self-awareness. For example, if the horoscope tells the person he is rude or thoughtless of the views of others, but his actual problem is (say) laziness, astrology will have him fixing the wrong problem. His real problem will remain.
The second argument is that most people use astrology as an excuse for bad behavior rather than an opportunity to change it. For example, for many years I thought my being a Libra meant I would always have difficulty making decisions, and used this as an excuse to delay decision making. Of course, I realize now I have no more trouble making decisions than anyone else. I don’t allow myself that excuse anymore, but that is because I stopped using astrology, not because it helped me understand myself better. Belief in astrology actually held me back for many years.
Introspection is a lame excuse for using astrology. Astrology supports magical thinking and opposes rationality and science, which is bad enough. But it also reinforces and even encourages behavior the person might not even engage in but for their chart telling them that’s the way they are.
Astrology is wrong, it doesn’t work, and in my view it’s worse than useless for self-examination.
Not to mention the core problem with the argument: how often do horoscopes actually say negative things about people? The most negative comments I've ever seen (not that I've really looked, mind) have been very mild.
Posted by: James | May 13, 2005 at 11:38 AM
It's the argument that "We're charlatans and con men, but not everything we do is loathsome and evil." Oh wait, practicing as a psychologist without a license is illegal. I guess it's the argument that "Seriously, we're not charlatans. Trust us."
Posted by: Ron Zeno | May 13, 2005 at 12:49 PM
On the topic of astrology, by the way, have you seen this?
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2820.cfm?Id=22,39669
The title is "Birth Month Linked To Menopause." Some Italian study found that there was a correlation between a woman's month of birth and the age in which she entered menopause. The woo-woo type I got this link from introduced it with the statement "But no matter what studies show, astrology will still be considered baseless."
There are at least 3 things I can think of off the top of my head wrong with trying to make this study support astrology - and that's if the study even shows what they say it shows.
Posted by: Eric | May 13, 2005 at 03:14 PM
It took scientists more than ten years to confirm Einstein's Theory of Relativity. And you will immediately scoff, you're comparing THAT to Astrology? And before you do, skip past it to the point. The point is that they needed to first understand what they were testing to test it properly and come to correct conclusions, to be sure that they indeed has a viable theory.
SO--a tip-- as you go about refuting Astrology, do learn how to use it first!! As long as you are Astro-illiterate, the very thing you are trying to undermine will (and not to play on words) go on above your head.
Posted by: Peptico | May 20, 2005 at 12:50 PM
Peptico:
It took scientists more than ten years to confirm Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Astrology has been around for about 3,500 years. How much longer do we have to wait before it can be “confirmed”? And what, exactly, has to happen before we can do this?
And you will immediately scoff, you're comparing THAT to Astrology? And before you do, skip past it to the point. The point is that they needed to first understand what they were testing to test it properly and come to correct conclusions, to be sure that they indeed has a viable theory.
The Shawn Carlson Nature test was designed by the astrologers. Are you saying the astrologers didn’t know what they were testing? If so, how come they have no compunction about giving advice and taking money for it?
SO--a tip-- as you go about refuting Astrology, do learn how to use it first!! As long as you are Astro-illiterate, the very thing you are trying to undermine will (and not to play on words) go on above your head.
Why should I learn how to use it? I don’t need to be a mechanical engineer to know that cars work. I can drive my car and I know it will take me to my destination. Astrologers are the ones who read the charts and make the predictions. I don’t have to know how they do that to determine if the predictions are the same as the actual. They aren’t.
If you are the Peptico who posted to “The Astrology Challenge” on 05/05/05, I asked you several questions there that you appear to have ignored. Shall I reproduce them for you?
(1) I provided a link to the forer effect. Surely someone as “open minded” as yourself can’t dismiss this explanation? Is so, on what basis?
(2) Please provide evidence for “I bet you are a victim of your confirmation bias or forer effect right now”. Make sure you read the link and discover what the forer effect is, first.
(3)Anyway, I don’t have to prove astrology wrong. If proponents of astrology want to show it works it is up to them to demonstrate it does. Where are these tests? Why don’t you suggest a better test?
(4)Re: Astrology tests and applies variables from a universal model. In other words, anything in the sky is fair game. If one were to merge it with physics (try to strain your brain on this) it might correlate with the theory of relativity, and the 'effect' the planets have on individuals (by the way it's not an effect but an observed correlation for which few have tested...oops wait a minute. It's funny as hell that you came up with this truckload of information against astrology, when it's already been scientifically proven. Ever heard of a Ham radio? The angular relationship between the planets moderates the result of communication sent from point to point, when bounced off the upper levels of the atmosphere is widely done. You can read about that and see the research for yourself.
How does that show that the positions of the planets and stars at the time of birth affect personality in the precise ways claimed by astrology? And please show your work.
(5) Re: As for its effect on people, how the ancients came up with their knowledge was lost in centuries of war.
And your evidence for this is… ?
(6) Instead of being a rabble-rouser and standing with your arms outstreched shouting 'prove it!' like a schoolboy on a playground,
Please show where I said “prove it”.
Re: why don't you get behind the wheel and help advance the science--look for the truth. Go and research this material yourself. It's got to be easy for you to stand on someone else's shoulders and assemble a long list of negative proof when you (you are even too skeptical to pull a chart off of astro.com-- you are indeed a 'believer' because you have not even taken the time to read a chart about yourself and question its validity) are in the business of spreading the dogma of skepticism.
(7) First – I did pull a chart of astro.com. It was full of generalities. Did you not read what I wrote or do you just have poor reading comprehension skills?
(8) Second – I have researched astrology. It doesn’t work. It’s crap. Why don’t you show us the evidence it does work?
(9) Please provide evidence that I don’t work for a living.
(10) Is your mind open enough to look at the evidence and accept that maybe astrology doesn’t work?
Plus, from today:
(11) Astrology has been around for about 3,500 years. How much longer do we have to wait before it can be “confirmed”? And what, exactly, has to happen before we can do this?
(12) The Shawn Carlson Nature test was designed by the astrologers. Are you saying the astrologers didn’t know what they were testing? If so, how come they have no compunction about giving advice and taking money for it?
That’s 12 questions. Suppose (paraphrasing you here) “instead of being a rabble-rouser and standing with your arms outstretched shouting 'learn how to use it first!!' like a schoolboy on a playground, why don't you get behind the wheel and help advance science: look for the truth. Go and find some evidence astrology works. It's got to be easy for you to stand on someone else's shoulders and assemble a long list of dumb points when you are in the business of spreading the pseudoscientific dogma of astrology”.
Answer the questions.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 20, 2005 at 01:36 PM
Sorry that this is not formatted to correspond with the 12. It is also not complete, I do not address all of your questions. Is it your job to maintain this blog? You drive a high pressured argument. I will support my statements with personal knowledge. That will probably cause this to continue indefinitely, but researching your individual questions is beyond my resources at the moment. Furthermore, it will take time to 'prove it,' since a proper statistical test must be crafted. You should take a course in research and research methods if you have not already. That education alone would tell you that there's a strong possibility most people, even most educated people do not possess the skills to design a construct that successfully relates a variable in a hypothesis to an actual process or event that can be measured. I doubt that there are many astrologers who can do this either. Some with degrees, even, probably have never conducted their own research. They, if they did, may have only done so to get through a course...and how well did they fare? Did they learn anything? Who knows? It's not (practically) relevant, but it does affect whether or not they have the skills needed to design a construct.
You should note that astrology has not had 3500 years to be confirmed. A rational person would be able to scan his or her enviroment, and just aggregate the information that is out there and make a judgement. There are clearly far more people who 'believe' in astrology (in western culture) who do not. There are religions that hold it as an integral part, representing larger groups of people who also practice it. Belief in astrology is such a wide concept. It's really very inaccurate. I must, on that, repeat this again. Astrology works off of observations-- there is no known effect that can be observed between the planets positions' and any person's life or personality. Please reread that if necessary, starting with the '--'. Simply put: It is correlation WITHOUT causation. And I'm telling you this because you convey an attitude of rationality, but your argument against astrology misses this all-important point.
The second point it misses is that it continues to address the entire doctrine under one blanket statement. It is like saying, I am an American...and totally forgetting the fact that we live in the United States OF America. Technically, we are North Americans (assuming you are from the states). People do this all the time, in this case it's not too important, since most accept they are referring to themselves as citizens of the USA. Please take the time to single out one author if you will...revisit www.astro.com - solicit a response to your challenge. The organization behind that web presence has history and resources, and contacts with indeed some of the best astrologers in the world...I doubt any of their writers (and I say this before checking, I wonder if it's correct) had anything to do with your 37 tests.
There are historical reasons that have little to do with whether or not it works that caused practitioners to fear for their lives. Astrology was heavily eclipsed by religion. There are many skeptical topics on your site I would join you in arguing against but astrology is not one of them. The Forrer effect is based on the principles of this cold reading or something like that. I think I read about it the day we had our first discussion. You should also take note that the number of pairs of contradictions in that cold reading would not be found in any single interpretation by a competent astrologer.
Before you argue with the above, I mean, one single interpretation, that is [planet] in [sign], or [planet] in [house], or [planet] in [aspect].
Anything more, such as 2 or more of the above, could be considered more than one interpretation, which does have the opportunity to contradict itself, because the possibilities for those symbols, are based on planetary positions. When considering a person as a whole, blending occurs. The chart is looked at from a wholistic perspective. But you have already established that you do not buy into this argument. The funny thing is that I know as I am writing this there will be no amount of proof that will change your mind...not even that link posted by 'eric' would be good enough, even if the researchers found verifiable correlation between month and year of birth and the start of menopause. I can predict that this is what they will find. There are biological cycles that run in line with the planets...you can put the signs aside...there is a way to interpret astrology without these symbols...the 12 signs are based on the 4 seasons, which is based on the tilt of the earth's axis and its rotation around the sun.
Posted by: Peptico | May 20, 2005 at 04:30 PM
In response to that last comment,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This is now my homepage, it's going to be hilarious to watch him tear that argument apart!
Posted by: Rockstar Ryan | May 20, 2005 at 05:12 PM
Peptico:
I will try one more time to explain where your reasoning is going wrong.
researching your individual questions is beyond my resources at the moment.
These are all questions that arose from claims you made. If you can’t answer the questions, on what basis did you make the claims in the first place? For example, you said “how the ancients came up with their knowledge was lost in centuries of war”. That was your claim. How do you know that, or did you just make it up? Anyone can make a claim. Anyone can claim anything. But if you can’t back up your claim it is worthless. The person making the claim has to back up that claim or withdraw it. So provide backup for “how the ancients came up with their knowledge was lost in centuries of war” (and the other questions I asked), or withdraw it (them). I don’t know if everyone else you speak to lets you claim anything without question but I won’t.
Furthermore, it will take time to 'prove it,' since a proper statistical test must be crafted. You should take a course in research and research methods if you have not already. That education alone would tell you that there's a strong possibility most people, even most educated people do not possess the skills to design a construct that successfully relates a variable in a hypothesis to an actual process or event that can be measured.
But many people do have such specialized skills. Shawn Carlson is one of them. You stated “the 37 tests astrology failed are flimsy tests, many of which had poor construct validity”. Do you have the necessary skills to make this observation? If so, then you have the skills to say exactly what is wrong with them, and can design new ones. If you don’t have those skills you have no business making that claim in the first place. So which is it. That’s another question.
You should note that astrology has not had 3500 years to be confirmed.
Why not? How long has it had then? You said Einstein’s theories needed 10 years. Has astrology had more than 10 years? If so, why are we still waiting? Could it be that astrology is garbage?
A rational person would be able to scan his or her enviroment, and just aggregate the information that is out there and make a judgement.
Wrong. The reason we have double blind tests in medicine is because people fool themselves. The double blind test controls for biases such as the forer effect. “Just scanning your environment”, you are subject to these biases. If you understood anything about experimental design you would know this.
There are clearly far more people who 'believe' in astrology (in western culture) who do not. There are religions that hold it as an integral part, representing larger groups of people who also practice it. Belief in astrology is such a wide concept.
Appeal to Popularity fallacy.
It's really very inaccurate.
Explain the difference between “it's really very inaccurate” and “it doesn’t work”.
I must, on that, repeat this again. Astrology works off of observations-- there is no known effect that can be observed between the planets positions' and any person's life or personality. Please reread that if necessary, starting with the '--'. Simply put: It is correlation WITHOUT causation. And I'm telling you this because you convey an attitude of rationality, but your argument against astrology misses this all-important point.
You have not even demonstrated correlation. Your argument for astrology misses this all-important point.
The second point it misses is that it continues to address the entire doctrine under one blanket statement. It is like saying, I am an American...and totally forgetting the fact that we live in the United States OF America. Technically, we are North Americans (assuming you are from the states). People do this all the time, in this case it's not too important, since most accept they are referring to themselves as citizens of the USA.
I’ll take evidence that any field of astrology works. I know there are many different flavors. None of them work.
Please take the time to single out one author if you will...revisit www.astro.com - solicit a response to your challenge. The organization behind that web presence has history and resources, and contacts with indeed some of the best astrologers in the world...I doubt any of their writers (and I say this before checking, I wonder if it's correct) had anything to do with your 37 tests.
Done it already. I will post the results when I get time, but it was garbage. I did say this nefore.
There are historical reasons that have little to do with whether or not it works that caused practitioners to fear for their lives. Astrology was heavily eclipsed by religion. There are many skeptical topics on your site I would join you in arguing against but astrology is not one of them.
On what basis would you join me in arguing against those topics? Please explain your decision making process than means you agree with me on some items but not on astrology.
The Forrer effect is based on the principles of this cold reading or something like that. I think I read about it the day we had our first discussion. You should also take note that the number of pairs of contradictions in that cold reading would not be found in any single interpretation by a competent astrologer.
You don’t understand the forer effect, do you? It means that you are given general descriptions that would apply to anybody, but you think they are unique to you. I will write a post about this too at some time, but I’m not going to bother now since you’re not even reading what I do give you. It is nothing to do with cold reading, although cold reading’s victims are also subject to the forer effect.
Before you argue with the above, I mean, one single interpretation, that is [planet] in [sign], or [planet] in [house], or [planet] in [aspect].
Anything more, such as 2 or more of the above, could be considered more than one interpretation, which does have the opportunity to contradict itself, because the possibilities for those symbols, are based on planetary positions. When considering a person as a whole, blending occurs. The chart is looked at from a wholistic perspective. But you have already established that you do not buy into this argument.
Not sure what your argument is here. I think you’re saying there are multiple things in the chart, and they all have an effect. I say there are multiple things astrologers claim effect your chart – this allows them enough wiggle room so that any prediction can look real.
The funny thing is that I know as I am writing this there will be no amount of proof that will change your mind...
Bullshit. You are the one who refuses to look at the evidence, refuses to even consider the possibility that this silly magic fortune telling system is nonsense. I keep asking you for evidence and you keep whining “it’s not been long enough” or “I can’t design experiments – it’s hard”, or “those experiments are no good although I can’t say why”.
not even that link posted by 'eric' would be good enough, even if the researchers found verifiable correlation between month and year of birth and the start of menopause. I can predict that this is what they will find. There are biological cycles that run in line with the planets...you can put the signs aside...there is a way to interpret astrology without these symbols...the 12 signs are based on the 4 seasons, which is based on the tilt of the earth's axis and its rotation around the sun.
There is a huge difference between saying there is a correlation between the month (not the year as I recall) of birth and the start of menopause, and saying that the huge number of precise predictions of astrology are real.
Peptico, I’ve had enough of your evasions. There is a reason I ask questions arising out of your posts. Reasonable questions arising out of the discussion, that are avoided, show your intellectual dishonesty, and show where the weakness is in your position. Additionally, your occasional answer to a question reveals your ignorance of an aspect under discussion. Both categories of answer / non-answer are instructive. I have reached the point where I will no longer answer the increasingly evasive repetitious (and debunked) points you raise, and I will soon consider just removing your posts to a new section I am creating for continued worthless responses. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me – in fact I welcome disagreement – but if you are going to disagree you are going to have to back up your disagreement with some data.
If you start to try to honestly answer the questions, I believe you will begin to understand the weakness of astrology. But you need to honestly try to answer them and you need to keep your mind open to the possibility that astrology isn’t real. You need to try and learn.
Here are the questions, including new ones from your past post. I have culled a couple of the less important ones to make it easier. Do not, repeat, do not just reply with more of the same. Either start to answer these questions or admit you are not interested in honest investigation.
1. The Shawn Carlson Nature test was designed by the astrologers. Are you saying the astrologers didn’t know what they were testing? If so, how come they have no compunction about giving advice and taking money for it?
2. I don’t have to prove astrology wrong. If proponents of astrology want to show it works it is up to them to demonstrate it does. Where are these tests? Why don’t you suggest a better test?
3. You stated “the 37 tests astrology failed are flimsy tests, many of which had poor construct validity”. Do you have the necessary skills to make this observation? If so, then you have the skills to say exactly what is wrong with them, and can design new ones. If you don’t have those skills you have no business making that claim in the first place. Which is it?
4. How does the (supposed) correlation between the month of birth and the start of menopause show that the huge number of precise predictions of astrology are real?
5. Show evidence that the way the ancients came up with astrological knowledge was lost in centuries of war.
6. Show where I said “prove it” about astrology (or anything for that matter).
7. Did you not read that I did pull a chart of astro.com? I said it was full of generalities.
8. Why has astrology not has 3,500 years to be confirmed? How long has it had then? You said Einstein’s theories needed 10 years. Has astrology had more than 10 years? If so, why are we still waiting?
9. Explain the difference between “it's really very inaccurate” and “it doesn’t work” (“it” being astrology).
10. On what basis would you join me in arguing against some other topics I argue against on this site? Please explain your decision making process than means you agree with me on some items but not on astrology.
11. Is your mind open enough to look at the evidence and accept that maybe astrology doesn’t work? What evidence, hypothetically, would ever convince you that astrology doesn’t work?
12. If you can’t answer the questions, on what basis did you make the claims in the first place?
Posted by: Skeptico | May 20, 2005 at 06:25 PM
Bravo!
Posted by: Ryan | May 23, 2005 at 06:25 AM
All repeat now: the plural of anecdote is not data
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | May 27, 2005 at 02:08 PM
I do not have data to prove astrology's viability, but I do have some well thought out answers to your questions, which I will be posting in the near future...
Posted by: Peptico | June 02, 2005 at 05:00 PM
I do not have data to prove astrology's viability, but I do have some well thought out answers to your questions...
If you don't have any data/facts, what the hell are you basing your answers on? It's silly stuff like this that's like a steering wheel in my pants...it drives me nuts.
Posted by: Rockstar | June 03, 2005 at 07:26 AM
Wstern astrology does NOT work because of four reasons:
1) Errors in the Gregorian Calendar
2) It has become (Astrology) overly complicated by the western mind-set.
NOTE: Astrology's main problem arose when the discovery of the telescope revealed that the Earth was not the center of the solar system, as all western astrological charts indicate.
3) Astrology is a tool of self-transformation and NOT a method of divination.
4) The human ego expressing "personal will" is continually at war with the natural flow of the cosmos rather then attempting to merge with "what is".
Anyone who has experienced an astrological "Saturn Return" (occurs from 28 1/2 years of age to 30 1/2 years of age) has no issue believing that there is some correlation between astrological truths and the human condition.
As a metaphor.... The human ego is tuned in to "AM" (a radio metaphor) and the astrological teachings are being broadcast on "FM".
To make some sense out of astrology one must gradually switch idendification from physical body to indwelling spirit, because the astrological cosmology deals with the evolution of the origination point of consciousness and its place in the universe.
Astrology was originally designed as an evolutionary tool for the disection and re-assembly of our consciousness. It was (and is) Man's first "religion"... a it provides a method of hmmmm... "putting Humpty Dumpty (the fallen ego/animal consciousness) back together again.
In fact, the entire New Testament is an astrological/astronomical allegory of The Sun (Son) and the Twelve (apostles) signs of the Zodiac. However, the allegory is deeply veiled and lost to the profane mind.
The essence of the astrological teachings is simple but profound: When you take action as an individual ego (divorced from natural cycles) your power is crippled and weak; when you take action in tandem with cosmological cycles your power appears to be great. It "appears" to be great because it is not your power but rather a power that comes through you because of being "attuned", in a flow, connected.
So, if anyone is wondering why you wound up here on "death row" (the underworld when life ends in death) then you may want to truly investigate astrology and gradually experience its majestic core that holds the secrets to spiritual enlightenment and ultimate liberation from death. Its not about "Should Aunt Bozo sell the Volvo, and when"? Astrology is about spiritual enlightenment, restoring the consciousness to its "Original Condition" (deathless).
So, instead of tuning your mind to the astrological archetypes (Mars, Venus, Pluto, Jupiter, etc.) you can simply remain in the underworld with 10 million images of the crucified Christ destroying your will to evolve.
Posted by: john charles webb, jr. | June 09, 2005 at 02:42 PM
Two questions:
1) How was it derived?
2) Where is the evidence it works the way you state it does?
Posted by: Skeptico | June 09, 2005 at 03:12 PM
It was derived by the Chaldeans (Pre-Egyptians), practiced by The Magi (Sect of powerful High Priests) and the ancient Egyptians (Sun Worshippers). The most convincing evidence is encoded in The New Testament, Gospel of Matthew in the account of the birth of Christ which is synonymous with the "birth" of the Sun into a new Great Astrological Year (Age of Pisces).
Additional proof can be gleaned from the observed "fact" that the way that western astrology is presently practised (divination) is subject to much scorn and criticism.
A more in depth discussion (essays) can be found at
http://www.templeofsolomon.org . The work has been continually nominated for a Templeton Prize in Religion.
Posted by: john charles webb, jr. | June 10, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Evidence please for how it was derived. I need you to show your work.
Also, evidence please that it works.
Religious prizes mean nothing, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Skeptico | June 10, 2005 at 03:46 PM
Its all at the site, you just have to read it.
No handicapped ramps here, my friend.
Posted by: john charles webb, jr. | June 10, 2005 at 09:45 PM
Sorry, not good enough. It was your claim; it’s up to you to back up your claim. Saying “read my whole website” doesn’t cut it.
I’ll ask again:
1) How was it derived? (Note “how”, not “when and by whom?” And with evidence please.)
2) Where is the evidence it works the way you state it does?
Posted by: Skeptico | June 11, 2005 at 12:10 PM