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?

Comments

[Bronze Dog]

I'm curious why a craft needs no solid foundation. All of my crafts involve one.

[Big Al]

The usual reasons, Dog:

1) "There are other ways of knowing."
2) "You're not open-minded enough to appreciate astrology."
3) "Look, it just works, OK?"
4) "Deepak Chopra just wrote this really great book about it..."
5) "They laughed at Einstein, too!"
6) "Scientists don't know everything."
7) "You believe in science, I believe in astrology. What's the difference? Science is just another faith."

Without the aid of a crystal ball, scrying-bowl, Tarot cards or astrological charts, I predict that someone, somewhere will be advancing at least one of these statements to defend astrology within the next hour.

[jfarm]

Lynne Palmer was right! "Avoid terrorist attacks" is advice to the TERRORISTS to attack another day. One of the airplanes did not reach its intended target--surely it would have if only the terrorists had heeded Palmer's advice. Astrology really does work! (end sarcasm)

[Ingrid]

I'd like to know HOW to avoid terrorist attacks. How is this pamphlet helpful? Shouldn't you avoid attacks every day of the year?

[Big Al]

It was a typo. She meant to say: "Great day for terrorist attacks. Commit all the carnage you want with a light laugh.
"Security forces: you can take a day off. Nothing you can do anyway.
"Fantastic day for conspiracy nuts. You can help the terrorists with your unfounded scandal-mongering and draw the authorities off their scent."

[kickstand]

Well, I think about it this way: September 11 definitively disproved astrology and psychic abilities.

It's the most significant disaster in the history of the country. Anybody with a modicum of supernatural predictive ability would have seen it coming (if you can't forsee that, then what CAN you forsee?). Anybody who had seen it coming would have been morally compelled to do anything and everything within their power to alert the media, rescue forces, airline security, etc etc.

Since nobody came forward with their prediction, then psychics/astrologers are phonies (or heartless bastards, I guess).

[Bronze Dog]

I'd say it doesn't disprove all that stuff, since there might have been shilleleigh emanations or something interfering. ;)

But it does add a few buckets to the ocean of negative confidence.

[grw]

"It begs the question though – how does he justify practicing as one and (presumably) charging money for his services?"

Is that the correct usage of 'begs the question'? Shouldn't you say 'raises the question'?

[Skeptico]

Modern usage:

More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question"

I guess I'm a modern usage kind of guy. ;-)

[Ethan]

The justification for charging for astrology services is that reputable astrologers will issue a caveat up front that their services are provided solely for "entertainment". If an astrologer won't make such a claim, avoid that person. (Or maybe you can sue for fraud.) Beyond that, and reputable astrologers will say this too, it's all up to you to decide how to run your life.

[The Ridger]

I've never believed in astrology - my extremely dissimilar twin sisters born 5 minutes apart on NO cusps or whatever were enough. (Augustine disbelieved it on discovering the slave born in his father's house at the exact same time...)

And I rather like the new meaning of beg the question. It fits with English usage, and "beg the question" was a crappy translation of "petitio principi" in the first place, which just begged for misuse. If we can say "ad hominem" or "post hoc" we can just say "petitio principi", can't we?

[Big Al]

I actually believe that using all these Latin phrases like "a priori" "a fortiori", "post hoc" and "ad hominem" could be seen as like the woo's hopeful use of "quantum entanglement", "paradigm shift" or "sterile neutrino emissions": the obfuscation of a lack of substance by using an impressive, "official"-sounding phrase that few people really understand.

Fair enough when we actually are using existing and well-known Latin phrases, but "begging the question" is the more common usage of the fallacy. I think it would be best to use plain English where the term is commonly used that way.

One of the woo's standard weapons is to claim that the evil cabal of Big Science deliberately hides behind big words to befuddle the audience. That's how "plain-speaking, down home boys" like Joe Newman draw in so many people.

[Carmen]

You could never understand anything about astrology because you have already stated you don't believe it in. You probably wouldn't believe that anyone has had a near death experience or was contacted by a deceased loved one either. Ancient Astrologers were not scientists, they were Priests, but you probably have no religious beliefs either. Someday in some way, something profound will happen in your life and it will shake your soul up in such a way that you will be writing about how your experience has changed your views...and how you still don't understand it all, but now accept something that has never been explained by science, theory, or man.

[Bronze Dog]

Nice of Carmen to stop by and drop some doggerel.

You could never understand anything about astrology because you have already stated you don't believe it in.

Translation: We don't shoehorn everything, so of course the predictions are wrong.

You probably wouldn't believe that anyone has had a near death experience or was contacted by a deceased loved one either.

NDE: Okay. Nothing all that special about them, but they do exist.

Contact from dead loved ones: Of course not. All the mediums fail the tests. Always turns out to be cold reading and other tricks. The only times they succeed are when they've rigged the stage, so to speak.

Ancient Astrologers were not scientists, they were Priests, but you probably have no religious beliefs either.

As if that changes anything. Science is the only reliable method of learning about the world around us. If you've got a better one, you should educate us all about it.

Someday in some way, something profound will happen in your life and it will shake your soul up in such a way that you will be writing about how your experience has changed your views...

Unlike you, we don't blindly trust our senses. Plus, I could claim that you'll have the inevitable let-down that'll convert you to skepticism. Doesn't really say anything, does it?

and how you still don't understand it all, but now accept something that has never been explained by science, theory, or man.

And then science and man will investigate it, and then we'll understand. We've been doing it for years, and with the scientific method, we've been doing it all faster and faster.

Of course, with astrology, there's nothing to understand: It's all Forer effect, and all other mundane things. One of the things that I find surprising is that woos think that the things they describe are special: They're ordinary. In fact, for me, they're downright boring. We've gotten a good long look at all the men hiding behind the various curtains.

[Carmen]

Dear Bronze Dog,

Why would a skeptic of Astrology post his Astrological Sign of Cancer under his profile?

"Unlike you, we don't blindly trust our senses."

If you don't trust your senses, what can you trust? That sounds worse than the blind leading the blind!

[Bronze Dog]

Why would a skeptic of Astrology post his Astrological Sign of Cancer under his profile?

'Cuz I don't know how to get rid of it. It's automatically put up there when I leave my birthday in my profile.

If you don't trust your senses, what can you trust? That sounds worse than the blind leading the blind!

I trust them, but not blindly. I seek verification. I learn the limits of my senses' capabilities as well as the parts of my brain that process sensory information.

Whenever I see something weird, I get a closer look, or ask someone else to tell me what they see, if possible. Then it usually turns out to be something perfectly normal, just my eyes playing tricks on me.

Is that so unreasonable?