Exasperated Astrologers

If we have been taught the heliocentric world, then don't we all have the license to think disembodied, floating in space looking down at "You are here"? Or do we now need a license to think actually the other way around, within our own skins? Must one invoke poetic license, against the teachings, to be at one with ourselves with the whole universe whirling all around us? Because those teachers do not understand that true objectivity is everyone sharing their own oneness from the multicenter of a once unique universe that surrounds.

Does astrology violate physical laws?

It is sometimes said that astrology defies the laws of physics. But what laws are these? Do we need to choose between gravity and thermodynamics? Anyone who makes this assertion should state exactly what those laws are and exactly how astrology ignores, denies, or goes counter to them. What I think you'd probably find would be an attempt to change the subject to astrology's "claims" of "influence" and "effects" and some interesting and revealing assumptions. Astrological "claims" are not so specific as to be law-like, but are complex postulations that are rather more like theories than claims.

Theory can postulate influences and effects, and these might potentially be indirectly evaluated and inferred, like the Higgs boson, through observing statistical correlations. "Influence" is just a word that astrologers have used. Like many words in the English language, the word influence has become somewhat ambiguous by the different meanings it has acquired. Astrological influence could turn out to be something more like quantum entanglement.

From the experimentation so far, entanglement seems to have no limits. If there was a primordial Big Bang, then everything was split from everything else at the beginning and theoretically there should be plenty of entanglements evident throughout the universe. Microcosms entangled with macrocosms in the astrological sense would be normal and not against natural laws. This relationship in astrology is known as the Hermetic maxim. The nearest macrocosm that everyone on Earth shares is the local environment of the Sun, Moon, and planets. Such an explanatory theory might challenge some of our conventional beliefs but does not violate or defy the laws of physics or nature.

Scientific theory allows the freedom to provide hypothetical interpretations and allows even extraordinary concepts to be seriously discussed. For example, the extraordinary principle of nonlocality is well documented through experimental research and might eventually be used to explain macrocosmic observations beyond quantum phenomena.

The "violates or defies physical or natural laws" assertion is in conflict with scientific curiosity. This argument should always be pursued because the discussion can uncover deeper beliefs and lead to a better engagement with astrology. Astrologers have learned a how to evaluate astrology fairly within scientific frameworks, and are ready to ensure fairness if given the opportunity.

As a last point, astrologers can borrow a useful term from quantum physicist David Bohm that could help overcome typical criticisms of astrology that are redolent of late 19th century classical science. Instead of "influences," we might say that there are planetary "implications" that operate between the interplanetary macrocosm and the microcosms of individuals. This suggests Bohm's concept of a deeper implicate (enfolded) order compared to the explicate (unfolded) order of our familiar existence according to the symmetry of the Hermetic maxim. Planetary implications referred to in this manner suggest archetypes and their taxonomies, which are abstract organizational concepts that have their beginnings in astrology.

How the galactic center replaced the constellations: A competing paradigm for the Great Year and astrological ages

The lack of unanimity regarding the timing of the ages in the Great Year precessional cycle has been problematic for astrology and is a perennial source of derision emanating from the scientific community, where it is sometimes incorrectly argued that Ophiuchus should be a zodiacal sign. Despite the minimal role that the precessional ages plays in the practice of astrology, this is one of the main issues today that prevents astrology from entering into modern acceptance and the potential it would otherwise offer for research. Even after many years of effort, the precessional problem in astrology cannot be educated away to the satisfaction of critics and the time is overdue for a change of paradigm. This proposal argues that zodiac meanings are derived from observations separate from the constellations and that a more modern consideration of galactic structure will resolve the issue of the astrological ages. Read the Full Article >>

The "scientific hypothesis" against astrology falsified?

Here's another Scientific American blog article (Oct 4, 2011), "Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science," By Janet D. Stemwedel. Denimbius has offered some constructive comments:

While the example of creationism can be informative, perhaps the greater challenge to the problem of demarcation is the example of astrology, which the author mentions but doesn't directly address. Astrology is worthy of much more scientific scrutiny than it has received, especially in light of the findings of the late Michel Gauquelin. How have the scientific claims against astrology held up under Popper's criteria?

Astrology presents many "indications" or "significations," which due to the complexity of the subject and the insistence of astrologers on a holistic approach, are notoriously difficult to test.

To address this complexity, the 1985 double-blind experiment done by magician-scientist Shawn Carlson, set out to test what he called the "scientific hypothesis." Even a holistic approach to astrology, he suggested, could not be supported by the tests he designed. The tests in his experiment, published in NATURE [Dec. 1985, (318), 419-425] and by far the most frequently cited detailed claim against astrology, asked astrologers to match natal charts with psychological (CPI) profiles.

Although Carlson concluded his experiment with the assertion that the astrologers failed, recent peer-reviewed reassessments of the study have been critical of Carlson's analysis, pointing to numerous flaws, such as not following his own protocol, irrelevant grouping of results, and not reporting results that could have clarified a curious "statistical fluctuation" in the study.

As it turns out, when correctly assessed according to Carlson's own stated protocol and the normal evaluations of the social sciences, the data from the study actually supports the astrologers performance significantly better than chance. This critical evaluation might be the first well-documented case where the "scientific hypothesis" against astrology has been falsified according to Popper's criteria of demarcation.

This falsification of the scientific claim against astrology is a crucially interesting development for science. Clearly, the experiment needs a fair replication, which incorporates the improvements and safeguards offered by the critics. Until this happens, the claim that astrology is pseudoscience is seriously questionable. With the hypothesis for this widely cited experiment now broken, how does science explain the results?

Here are the links to the original Carlson article and some of its criticism:

http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf
http://www.theoryofastrology.com/carlson/McRitchie_Carlson1985.pdf

Magicians, misdirection, and science: Who is fooling whom?

An older article (Dec. 2008) in Scientific American, posted on the SA blog, "Magic and the Brain: How Magicians 'Trick' the Mind" elicited the following response from reader Denimbius (comment 20, Feb. 13, 2012):

This article reminds me of a criticism I read of the "Double-blind test of astrology" by magician-scientist Shawn Carlson, published in Nature (Vol. 318, 5 Dec. 1985 pp. 419-425). The criticism seemed to suggest that Carlson used misdirection techniques in the published article. This is in addition to the criticism that the tests were unfairly designed to begin with, making them extraordinarily harder than they needed to be.

Carlson's stated protocol required the participating astrologers examine each natal chart they were supplied and to select the correct CPI from 3 supplied for each chart as either the 1st or 2nd choice. Yet, in his evaluation Carlson draws our attention to the 3rd choice, which was chosen no better than chance, and declares that the 1st and 2nd must also have been chosen no better than chance! The data in the article shows that the first two charts were actually chosen at a marginally significant rate.

Carlson's 3-choice test finding helps confirm the illusion that another test depended on its 3 groups. The astrologers rated (scale of 1-10) the accuracy of each of the 3 CPIs supplied for each chart (110 CPIs in this test vs. 116 for the 3-choice test). Applying the three bogus categories and drawing attention to the negative slope of the 1st category, Carlson declares that the result was no better than chance. However, his data shows that when ungrouped, the 10-rating test was significant for the astrologers, better than the 3-choice test.

In a control group test, Carlson found that the volunteer students could not identify their correct chart interpretation, written by the astrologers, out of 3 supplied, yet the control group successfully chose the "correct" interpretation with a high significance, which Carlson explains as a "statistical fluctuation."

In a related test, the students ranked the accuracy (scale of 1-10) the individual paragraphs within the same astrological interpretations. This test might have clarified whether the surprising "statistical fluctuation" results had somehow gotten switched. But Carlson complained that he couldn't be guaranteed that the volunteers had followed his instructions and discarded this test without giving the results.

If read uncritically, with the bias that typical readers of Nature have against astrology, then the reader sees exactly what he or she expects. Yet if read critically, it is another story. Was Carlson inadvertently fooling himself?

Read the Carlson article: http://1.usa.gov/e2dTGc

Psychological manipulation and the questionable ethics of professor Chris French

Another Chris French blog article (Feb 7, 2012) appeared on the website for TheGuardian.  "Astrologers and other inhabitants of parallel universes: Followers of pseudosciences such as astrology often draw spurious parallels between their beliefs and established science" This posting elicited the following response (Feb. 9, 2012) from reader Decloud:

This is a disturbing blog post, as are some of the responses. The post is reminiscent of a lecture I once attended where the professor, who had just launched into his arguments against astrology, suddenly remembered some important details of the upcoming exam that he needed to impart to his students. As we all know, students fear exams and this interruption by the professor perfectly illustrates how students can be psychologically conditioned to associate astrology with fears.

As I spoke to the students after the lecture it became apparent that the struggling students who sat near the rear of the lecture hall were the most at risk to being affected by those fears. The professor in that case was a philosopher and as I spoke to him afterward it quickly became evident that he was not aware of the potential psychological harm he was inflicting on his students and he apologized. He might simply have been passing on his own fears in much the same way that he had learned those fears himself.

However, in the present case Chris French is a psychology professor, and an excuse of unintentional psychological manipulation on his part would be far less convincing. Administrators at Goldsmiths, University of London, should take note that French, in an article on "Astrologers," leads with descriptions of abhorrent practices of ritual abuse, exorcism, racial differences, devil worship, sexual perversion, human sacrifices, forced abortions, and cannibalism. Considering the responsibility of his position as a psychology professor, we should all question the ethics of the way French has framed his arguments and whether he or his department should receive funding to further this agenda.

The arguments that French makes are far less serious than the way he has packaged his delivery. They are the same tired old arguments that show little knowledge or understanding of the discipline that he is trying to refute. Astrologers generally do not claim that astrology works by physical forces as he suggests. Where are the references? His opposition to that view, which is not supported by astrologers, even conflicts with Laplace's demon, which was typical of the mechanistic optimism of the same period in early modern science from which French draws his paradigm. His straw man argument even has its own internal problems.

If French would study the literature, he would have to argue against the "as above, so below" concept that has guided astrology from its beginnings. There are countless symmetries in nature, from snowflakes, to pine cones, to galaxies and quantum entanglement. It is a mystery why nature prefers symmetry and astrology is part of the natural curiosity of observing and attempting to correlate and understand that mystery.

Let's hope that French's "anomalistic psychology" is indeed a psychological anomaly as its name suggests and is not typical of the sort of ideas that psychology or the public should accept as being ethically or reasonably supportable.

Featured on journal Nature blog - response to Chris French and the Shawn Carlson double-blind study of astrology

Yesterday, I was searching for a way to get some mainstream science attention for the criticisms published by various authors and myself of "A double-blind test of astrology" from Shawn Carlson, published in the highly-regarded science journal Nature in 1985. I found that the Nature website has a new guest blog section called "Soapbox Science" and one of the featured short articles is a recent piece named "The rise of anomalistic psychology - and the fall of parapsychology?" by University of London Professor Chris French. Because French mentions astrology and this is the Nature website, I thought it might be a good place to bring up the Carlson issue and I added my comments. All comments are subject to review and at this point I don't know if my comments will make it onto the blog.

Here is the URL: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/12/19/the-rise-of-anomalistic-psychology-%E2%80%93-and-the-fall-of-parapsychology#comment-110

Here is what I wrote:

Chris, Before you get too cozy with this emerging discipline, it is interesting to reflect on how modern skepticism is transforming itself to become anomalistic psychology. First we have the transformation of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation into Claims of the Paranormal) into CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). CSI dropped the pretense of being scientific in the wake of the Dennis Rawlins "sTarbaby" exposé of the committee's unscientific shenanigans regarding their tests of the Mars effect discovered by the late Michel Gauquelin. (BTW, in 1988, this effect was elevated by Suitbert Ertel through objective data ranking to the status of the Mars eminence effect). This more recent anomalistic psychology approach seems to favor skeptical rhetoric  and lawyering under the guise of "critical thinking" over the scientific evaluation of evidence.

Consider the popular claim that astrology works by cognitive bias. This is a widely held belief among intelligent people, but no one has ever demonstrated it. Although classroom Forer-type tests have been performed hundreds of times, and are widely assumed to disprove astrology, they only demonstrate the Barnum effect, and cannot legitimately claim to refute astrology. The reason is because the sample of "astrology" to be evaluated by the students is carefully cherry picked to maximize the Barnum effect. This is not a scientific test of astrology with proper samples and rating of choices. Nothing of the sort has ever been published. Yet it is always trotted out in discussions against astrology. Is this an example of anomalistic psychology that you teach your students?

It is interesting to find this "soapbox" in the online pages of Nature. Research in astrology is done by interested amateurs, funded from their own pockets, as Gauquelin had done. There has not been a mainstream scientific forum for them to exchange ideas.

For example, In 1985 Nature published an article by Shawn Carlson entitled "A double blind test of astrology.” This article brought instant fame to its author and is still one of the most frequently cited studies to have claimed to scientifically refute astrology. Yet this article was not properly vetted by peer review because it contains design and methodological flaws that should have been caught, if perhaps they were not so well concealed. When evaluated against the actual design of the experiment (which Carlson sets out but does not follow) and the normal evaluations for significance used in the social sciences, the data marginally supports the participating astrologers.

It is frustrating to astrological researchers to see such a prestigious study as Carlson's go unchallenged in mainstream media. For those who wish to pursue the Carlson controversy, and Chris I strongly suggest that you do, please refer to the following links for references to the original article by Carlson and the ensuing peer reviewed discourse by Ertel and myself. My article includes a discussion of follow-up studies. The Carlson study needs a replication that incorporates the many useful suggestions that have been made through the discourse of these and other authors to make a fair and scientific study.

"A double-blind test of astrology": http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf
"Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests": http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/full/jse_23_2_full.pdf#page=7
"Support for astrology from the Carlson double-blind experiment": http://www.theoryofastrology.com/carlson/McRitchie_Carlson1985.pdf

Astrology and the social sciences: looking inside the black box of astrology theory

Astrology texts provide details of astrological practice and interpretation, but astrology theory has not been well described. One approach to theory is to consider astrology as a study of natural symmetries rather than a study of causal interactions. Simplified versions of astrological frames of reference bear a suggestive resemblance to various patterns of personality and behavior that are identified within the social sciences, particularly those that deal with shared values, skills, and beliefs. Astrological operations within these frames of reference similarly suggest identifiable patterns of love, development, and a mechanism of psychological projection. A research program of further study should confirm and account for these similarities through a cross-disciplinary analysis and correlation of empirical findings. Read the Full Article >>

Comment on Nevard's Philosophy, Science and the Philosophy of Science

Comment posted Feb. 17, 2011, 12:46 AM

I don’t think your example of how astrologers would test science by interpreting a horoscope of some scientific event is accurate. Astrologers are modern thinkers and admire science as much as anyone else. A failed test of astrology is not evidence that astrology is outside of scientific discourse, but is simply a failure of science to design a proper (and fair) experiment that will capture the results.

It is not unusual for science to fail and it is surprising to think otherwise. Most major discoveries happen by accident. Astrology may well be outside the “standards of science” but this where any scientific discovery comes from, and again this is not at all unusual.

Some scientific tests of astrology do actually succeed and researchers are finding ways to rate or rank the data to hone in on the astrological effects. I won’t list them, though there are good examples, but there is one in particular you should look at, the controversial Shawn Carlson double-blind experiment, published in 1985 in Nature, which has actually been reversed in favor of astrology.

For many years, this study was held up as the definitive test against astrology. However, a detailed assessment of this study published in 2009 by Professor Suitbert Ertel is forcing scientists to rethink their claims against astrology. The flaws in the Carlson study are very tricky to find, making one wonder if they are not intentional, but they are so serious that they distort the actual findings, which are that the data supports the claims of the astrologers. Once the flaws are pointed out, this is easy for anyone to see.

I invite you and your readers to read my article on the Carlson study and Ertel’s assessment:
Support for astrology from the Carlson double-blind study

And the original 1985 Carlson article itself:
A double-bind test of astrology
 
There is perhaps a philosophical problem for scientists who had believed Carlson’s claims, and believed others tests such as the McGrew and McFall test, which was so extremely difficult, and misrepresented as “simple,” that astrologers should never have participated in it. Scientists who conduct a test of astrology cannot allow a finding that supports astrology or their careers as scientists would be over. Astrology research is a very uncomfortable place to be. They may need some sort of philosophical solution that can rescue them if they need it.
 -------------------

I added on Feb. 17, 2011 8:24 PM

Your example of astrology, based on Brian Cox’s lecture, is a very good one. Science does not need philosophy as long as it can dismiss astrology as a superstition and then not examine what superstition is. This is where the philosophy is supposed to come in.

From Popper to Kuhn to Feyerabend, astrology has benefitted from philosophical discourse, because it is a challenge to describe it without resorting to ridicule and straw man arguments as Cox has done. Isn’t this the test of philosophy, to engage in discourse without the rational fallacies? Isn’t that why you chose Cox?

It is a very shallow view that modern science from astronomy and Darwin evolution would need to be thrown out if astrology works. There are tests that show that astrology does work and both scientists and philosophers have work to do. But even if the tests didn’t work, isn’t your statement an assumption?

Astronomy is the foundation of astrology. Without it, astrology would not exist. Social evolution is the main discourse in astrology today. If you throw out astronomy and evolutionary concepts, you would be throwing out modern astrology. If you scientifically change them, you would also change modern astrology.

Response to The Kindly Ones' "Astrology and its problems: Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend"

February 15, 2011 at 15:07 (link)   

In your conclusion, you said:

“In summary, the philosophical problem for astrology is thus not that it can always explain failures (Popper) or that it does not attempt to solve problems (Kuhn) but instead that it has stagnated (Feyerabend) – assuming that this progression in criticisms is fair, of course.”

How fair are these criticisms? Does not science too always find a way to explain its failures, sometimes by alternative theories? If you read the articles Deborah has suggested, you will see that the more sensitive methods where data is ranked or rated do result in findings that support astrological claims. These methods have been applied to the Gauquelin data by Professor Suitbert Ertel. This shows not only that scientists are willing to solve astrological problems, but have explained the reasons and methods that separate its failures from its successes.

Deborah makes a critical point about why astrological research has stagnated. This is not a scientific issue so much as a social phenomenon. There is an opposition to astrology that is so overwhelming that it is a very uncomfortable area in which to do research.

I invite you to read my soon-to-be-published peer-reviewed article “The Good Science of Astrology: Separating Effects from Artifacts.”

----------

Added: February 15, 2011 at 15:47

Paul,

In case you are not familiar with them, let me just add two relevant articles:

Gauquelin’s last published article, “Is There Really a Mars Effect?” in which he describes how Ertel solved the problem he was having with the “Mars effect.”


Ertel’s published article on this was: “Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes’ Mars Effect: Association Co-varies with Eminence”

---------------
Added February 15, 2011 at 19:17

Sorry Paul, but my comments did not do justice to your analysis of the criticisms as a progression from Popper to Kuhn to Feyerabend. It is difficult to argue against a certain stagnation in astrological research in that it has not captivated the imaginations of people who could develop it. I can think of a couple of contributors to stagnation.

Hellenist astrologers did not make a clean break from the constellations when they adopted the tropical zodiac. They continued to use the names of the constellations for the signs (tropes), which are more weird, arcane, freakish, mysterious, strange, supernatural, and outright creepy than they need to be. No doubt, this has contributed to millenia of confusion and hostility towards astrology. The Chinese adopted a more modern interpretation of values with their zodiac, although it is not attached to the tropical reference frame.

Astrologers also missed out in early modern science, when material things were said to have “properties” and this concept did not spread to astrology. Astrology continued to develop its system of “rulerships” where there is no reason why these studied characteristics could not be described as “astrological properties.” This also contributed to stagnation and a resentment against a sort of planetary subjugation that astrology seemed to suggest.

Modern astrologers are modern thinkers; they see through these problems and are not bothered by them. Perhaps if they were a little more reflective they would be willing to make some changes.
 -----------

February 16, 2011 at 14:41 (by me)

Your description of Feyerabend’s position (from your personal email) is:

“Any system of investigation which explains away failures instead of seeking to replace itself via the pursuit of ways to solve the problems it encounters is a system which assuredly mires itself in stagnation.”

In other words, if astrologers, instead of explaining away failures, would try to solve the problems by proliferating theories, then they would not be mired in stagnation.

By “explaining away failures” we would have to mean the criticism against numerous scientific tests of astrology as “unfair” such as Rawlins has done with regard to the Gauquelin “Mars effect” studies, as Deborah has pointed out, or such as Ertel has done with regard to other “Mars effect” studies, or as Eysenck has done with regard to the Shawn Carlson double-blind study.

Rawlins, although he recognized the unfairness and explained away the results, did not try to provide alternative theories. Eysenck tried to apply his own theories of personality to astrology, which I don’t believe was successful. Ertel, however decided to use a very sensitive method of ranking and rating, and produced positive results for astrology using the gathered Mars effect data. No new theories were required.

Clearly it is possible to find flaws in scientific tests of astrology and argue the tests are “unfair,” and this cannot be judged as “explaining away failures.” Unfairness is the leading criticism of the scientific tests that fail. In some cases astrologers just don’t know what to think, in which case they do not try to explain the failures. It is an assumption that they do.

Astrologers do proliferate theories, but they are exactly what you might think. If new asteroids or planetoids are discovered, astrologers will proliferate theories and the theories are developed among the community. Theories are proliferated for the astrology of historical events. The work of Richard Tarnus comes to mind. If astrology is stagnant, then why is it attractive to so many enthusiastic people? I don’t think “stagnant” describes it.
 -------------

February 18, 2011 at 02:22 by me.

Those critiques only apply to the “scientific tests of astrology”; consequently, those critiques in and of themselves produce no improvement in the astrological approach employed by astrologers.

The improvement is in the scientific methods used to test astrology. This is an improvement in science today and it is an assumption that these improvements would never lead to improvements in astrology. Otherwise, why would the astrologers themselves participate in the studies and wish to help design the tests? Again, I don’t think this is stagnation, especially if they are involved in the design of experiments.

Ertel, however decided to use a very sensitive method of ranking and rating, and produced positive results for astrology using the gathered the Mars effect data. No new theories were required.

Sorry if this was not clear. Ertel did not need new astrological theories to scientifically demonstrate a correlation between the rankings of sports champions and Mars placement. This one instance does not lead to the conclusion that astrology never needs new theories. New theories are developed in astrology, but in this instance were not needed.

If the addition of newly discovered astronomical objects has improved astrological practice, and if astrologers (for whatever reason) want to be thought of as part of the scientific research community, then maybe astrological theories can be put forth that both improve astrological practice and anticipate/predict astronomical (or physics) discoveries yet to come.

Yes, this comes close to what some astrologers want to do, except such research would not anticipate astronomical discoveries (how could it, and why should it?) as much as shed light on what astrology may be able to further discover, which is more in the nature of psychological and social understanding.