The jetpack scientist turns to astrology

In view of the corporate manipulation of science funding and research programs in the pursuit of higher profits in the name of progress and growth, and the corresponding decline of scientific authority and credibility, here's a link to an insightful blog post with a "modest proposal." The author, John Michael Greer, suggests that science potentially could once again be supported by astrology, in the way that Ptolemy, Galileo, and Kepler practiced astrology to support their scientific efforts. Science institutions could offer astrological services to the public as a means of supporting their research programs that are now underfunded because there are no foreseeable profits to be made from them for corporate gains. This is meant to be somewhat satirical, though it touches upon interesting discussion points. Apparently, skeptics ought not attack astrology because astrology might just be the means that at some time in the near future could once again support the best innovation in science.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ca/2013/08/not-written-in-stars.html

It seems to me as if science has been suffering a slow but steady decline. There are a growing number of history of science shows on television and they seem almost nostalgic. Science has become the stuff of storytelling and legend. Scientists today are not the impressive figures of authority and respect that they once were. Scientists nowadays are just ordinary people who collect a large amount of data for statistical evaluation or who isolate pieces of genetic code for Monsanto products and the profit motive. Some of the best known scientists are turning to skepticism as a career, trying to blame the "decline of science literacy" on what they perceive as "growing superstition" and "irrationality." In reality however, the current decline may have much more to do with a growing public awareness of a lack of ethical choices and global responsibility related to corporate control of science for profit.

Here the existential astrologer

If we have been taught doctrine of heliocentric world, haven't we all obligation then to conceive disembodied, floating in space, looking down at "You are here"? Where? Or would we now need declare liberty to think wherewith in reverse, abiding in our skins? Must one then invoke license, against that wisdom, to be at one with self and a whole universe a system whirling and substantiating about us? Because they who profess could not grasp this fateful objectivity which is that all share their own oneness at the multicenter of an at-once and often unique universe that encompasses within its many spiral arms an intimate feasible embrace.

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 assertion as an argument should always be critically questioned 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 prepared 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.

Comments on Steven Forrest's "Why Astrology's Image Needs a Makeover" Editorial

Link

Thank you so much Steven for bringing up this sensitive topic. I am very grateful to have this new ANS web service available as a public platform for news and opinion on astrology, and for the opportunity to see my own work posted. Yet it may be only the beginning of a makeover that astrology has long needed and deserved. As fulfilling as astrology is in many respects, there are aspects of astrology that the public is not comfortable with and this in turn makes us feel uncomfortable with our association to astrology.

As I read through the first few articles on this website, two articles strike me as most significant. One is that old story that we are all so weary of, which is the claim, by skeptics, that the zodiac signs have changed and we are not in the signs we thought we were in. Indeed this is a straw man argument and signs should not be confused with the constellations that have the same names. But the public (and the skeptics of course) never seem to learn no matter how often and how well it is explained. The other significant development is the growing popularity of Western astrology in China. I have seen the unbridled excitement and enthusiasm over this myself, which at times threatens to run roughshod over the whole practice.

I’m completely with you pondering a makeover of astrology’s image. And we all know it just ain’t gonna happen by printing ourselves new business cards, LOL.

You know what, I admire the Chinese zodiac. It’s better than the one we’re stuck with. They’ve got some fine animals in theirs, except some of them suffer from the humiliation of human domestication (e.g. pig and chicken–the wondrous bamboo pheasant in its native habitat) or our conflicts with them (rat for example). And the dragon in the West is much different than the Chinese dragon, which is fun loving and social.

The signs are values and animals exemplify different values depending on how they have adapted. For example, elephants have strong family values, while wolves and dogs value their competition within the pack. Geese and swans value fidelity, and so on. These animal signs are strongly intuitive and user friendly.

What do we have in the West? Well, we have the twins, crab, scales, goatfish, waterbearer, and so on. Tradition and the vast literature regarding the signs is one thing, but if we weren’t so accustomed to them, we’d have to admit that the Western signs seem pretty weird, arcane, freakish, mysterious, strange, superstitious, and outright creepy. They make a lot of people feel uncomfortable and I don’t think uncomfortable is good for astrology. Maybe this is where the image of astrology needs a make over.

It represents a serious change, but It has happened throughout history. Cultures see something they like in each other and in this case it has the added bonus of terminating forever some of the stupid shenanigans and public confusion between signs and constellations perpetrated by astrology’s detractors. Adopting the Chinese zodiac, perhaps with a few modest variations to give the animals their dignity, could do wonders.

Aries becomes dog (wolf), Taurus becomes pig (bear), Gemini becomes rat (or squirrel or bat), Cancer becomes buffalo (or bison), Leo becomes tiger (or cougar), Virgo becomes rabbit, Libra becomes dragon (or swan or goose), Scorpio becomes snake (or rattler), Sagittarius becomes horse (or mustang), Capricorn becomes sheep (or bighorn), Aquarius becomes monkey (or crow?), and Pisces becomes chicken (or elk?). The suggested changes in parentheses are North American totems, but local animals would suffice wherever in the world you go. If you play around with the glyphs with a little imagination, a transformation will happen right before your eyes.

Yes, that’s what I’d call a true image makeover!

Conversation on the McGrew-McFall "Validity of Astrology" Test

Feb 12, 2011 at 1:32 PM
 Dear .....,

An astrology skeptic has brought an article to my concern. This article, "A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology," published in JSE in 1990, acknowledges some of the initial criticism of the Carlson study and presents a supposedly better test design. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_04_1_mcgrew.pdf 

In this study, six astrologers used a 61-item questionnaire developed specifically for the test by a larger team of astrologers. From this test and the 1996 Rob Nanninga test, both of which failed for the astrologers, it seems that astrologers are not so good at developing questionnaires.

The six astrologers were asked to match 23 charts with 23 volunteer test cases. For each chart, the astrologers were allowed to match a first, second, and so on choice of test case, although not all astrologers exercised this option. They were also asked to give a 0-100% confidence rating to their choices.

This gives the impression that the choices were ranked and rated, though I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. In my mind, accurately matching 23 charts to 23 cases seems like a nearly impossible task, even though the authors consider the mathematical probability.

One claim in particular stands out for me (p. 81):

"One final point should be mentioned. The experimental task probably was considerably easier and, presumably, easier to perform accurately, than the task that astrologers attempt in their counseling practices. That is, without a priori information, because each individual is unique, in practice an astrologer must use the birth information to "select' the one correct interpretation that uniquely matches that individual from nearly countless possibilities, not just from 23 possibilities. Thus, our task can be seen as a simplification of the task that astrologers routinely undertake as a part of their daily professional practice. The conclusion one can draw from this inference is unequivocal. If our task provides a simplification of standard astrological practice, and if the astrologers cannot perform a simplified task accurately, then it is not likely that they will be able to perform a more complicated task accurately."

I am skeptical of the "unequivocal" truth of this statement. Am I incorrect to think that it is a simpler task for an astrologer to interpret one chart to match one person than it is to interpret 23 charts and match them to all the possible choices among 23 cases? While it is true that there are "only" 23 cases, there are also 23 charts!

Regards,

~Ken

------
Feb 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM
Dear Ken,

"That is, without a priori information, because each individual is unique, in practice an astrologer must use the birth information to "select' the one correct interpretation that uniquely matches that individual from nearly countless possibilities, not just from 23 possibilities. Thus, our task can be seen as a simplification of the task that astrologers routinely undertake as a part of their daily professional practice. The conclusion one can draw from this inference is..."

I fully agree with you. The astrologers experimental task was not a simplification of their ordinary business. On the contrary, it was much more difficult. 

Even Carlson’s task was simpler for astrologers than that of McGrew-McFall. The reason the two authors provide for their judgment is not at all convincing.

~....

Response to Rebekah Higgitt's "'Astrology is Rubbish,' but..." Blog

February 13, 2011 at 12:34 am (link)

Hello Rebekah,

While it is good to see an effort made to put the astronomical arguments against astrology put to rest, because they have no basis, there are still many people who wish to claim that astrology is rubbish on other grounds. You yourself still want to make this assertion, but how closely have you examined those supposed other grounds? There is a body of evidence that research of astrology, when it is conducted fairly and uses methods to carefully weigh the data by rank or ratings, has shown scientific evidence in support of astrology.

Those experiments that did not use rankings or ratings, do not find evidence of astrology, but those that did use these methods (and there are a number of them) have found scientific support.

An outstanding example of this is one that you alluded to earlier, 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. These flaws are so serious that they distort the actual findings, which support 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:
http://astrologynewsservice.com/articles/support-for-astrology-from-the-carlson-double-blind-experiment/

And the original 1985 Carlson article itself: http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf

Responses to Martin Robbins' "Astrologers Angered by Stars" Blog

26 January 2011 11:52PM (link)

Reading through these comments I see a lot of misconceptions about astrology. First of all, you need to look past the rubbish.

Just to be clear, astrology is relativistic; it places the individual (not Earth) at the center of the universe, and the individual does not need to be on the Earth. Many of the commentator need to get their minds out of the "flat earth" types of criticism.

As to Forer effects and similar arguments. These are based on informal classroom demonstrations. The reason why there has never been a rigorous Forer effect test of astrology is because the samples are always cherry picked to support the hypothesis. These tests do demonstrate subjective validation, but it is an assumption that they say anything about astrology.

Evidence in support of astrology is hard to find. There is no funding, no acceptance in science journals, and a lot of resistance by people with closed minds. But published studies do exist. Here are some peer-reviewed studies to consider:

• Ertel, Suitbert (1988). "Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-varies with Eminence" Journal of Scientific Exploration, (2): 4. This study has been replicated numerous times, even with data collected by skeptical groups, and is unrefuted for over 20 years.
• Hill, Judith (1996). “Redheads and Mars: A Scientific Testimony,” The Mountain Astrologer, (May): 29-40. This study (originally done in 1988) has been replicated numerous times with data from various countries, has passed time switching tests, and has remained unrefuted for over 20 years.
• Yuan, Kathy; Zheng, Lu; Zhu, Qiaoqiao. "Are Investors Moon struck? — Lunar Phases and Stock Returns" Journal of Empirical Finance. 2006, 13(1), p.1-23. This study, which was much larger than previous similar studies and included data from 48 countries, was controlled for such factors as stock market volatility and calendar-related anomalies. It found signficant results that support astrological claims.
• Clark, Vernon (1961). "Experimental astrology," In Search, (Winter/Spring): 102-1 12. This landmark double-blind study found significant results for astrology and has led to other double-blind studies that support astrology.
• Marbell, Neil (1981). “Profile Self-selection: A Test of Astrological Effect on Human Personality,” Synapse Foundation Research Report, privately distributed. This brilliant double-blind test by the late Neil Marbell, which involved the participation of respected scientists and well-known skeptics, found highly significant results for astrology. It led to the Carlson study.
• Carlson, Shawn (1985). "A double-blind test of astrology," Nature, (318): 419-425. This well-known study, one of the most cited papers on astrology research, claimed to find results inconsistent with astrology, but contains many serious flaws that obscure the actual results (see next item).
• Ertel, Suitbert (2009). “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, (23): 2. This examination of the Carlson study by professor Ertel, shows that when the methods that Carlson initially states in the paper (but does not follow) are applied, the data from the study shows significant support consistent with the claims of the astrologer participants.

 30 January 2011 4:52AM (last word, almost) (link)

The thing is astrologers rarely get angry; they are generally good natured, inclined to be supportive, but their critics are always self-righteously angry and very emotionally tied to their beliefs. We're used to that. So maybe that's what makes this news to The Guardian. Astrologers, who have no funding for their research, this time got a weensy bit angry about what was claimed to be "balanced." That seems newsworthy.
The problem is that where we have such strong emotional attachments to our beliefs, and a huge avoidance issue, it often turns out that there is actually something valuable in the thing we are trying so hard to avoid. We try with all our might not to listen and not to understand astrology. We want to believe that science is all done, that we completely understand science, and we are clinging to the unsullied magnificence of science for dear life.

But we are scared out of their wits that science might not be all done, that there might possibly be some undiscovered science in astrology. We rationalize, by making up a steady torrent of reasons why we should not touch the dreaded unknown, the rubbish we know as astrology. Science should never sniff, probe, or measure anything that is rubbish. Let's all agree, for the sake of science, to keep astrology in the dim past, where it belongs, where science should never go.

The good science of astrology: Separating effects from artifacts

Assumptions of causal mechanism, influence, and credulity are examined with regard to the astrological premise. The Hermetic maxim, which is widely accepted in astrology, suggests that symmetrical processes mathematically associate microcosmic and macrocosmic features and take precedence over causal mechanisms. The astrological literature suggests that influences should be interpreted as interactions within these cosmological symmetries between individuals rather than between planets and individuals. The literature further suggests that effects should be evaluated by inclination or “eminence,” which means that correlations should be ranked or rated by magnitude to objectively separate effects from artifacts. This method has proved to be successful in astrological research and should be universally adopted. In this light, classroom Forer-type tests, which are presumed to support credulity arguments against astrology, are scrutinized. It is questioned how these tests, which are typically composed of selectively assembled non-astrological artifacts found in horoscope columns, or for that matter, any of the leading empirical studies that have claimed to repudiate astrology, can rationally stand up against more objective studies that have tested for eminence effects. Read the Full Article >>

Support for astrology from the 1985 Carlson double-blind study

The Carlson double-blind study, published in 1985 in Nature (one of the world's leading scientific publications) has long been regarded as one of the most definitive indictments against astrology. Although this study might appear to be fair to uncritical readers, it contains serious flaws, which when they are known, cast a very different light on the study. These flaws include: no disclosure of similar scientific studies, unfairly skewed design, disregard for its own stated criteria of evaluation, irrelevant groupings of data, rejection of unexpected results, and an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. Yet, when the stated measurement criteria are applied and the data is evaluated according to normal social science, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provide evidence that is consistent with astrology (p = .054 with ES = .15, and p = .037 with ES = .10). These extraordinary results give further testimony to the power of data ranking and rating methods, which have been successfully used in previous astrological experiments. A critical discussion on follow-up studies by McGrew and McFall (1990), Nanninga (1996/97), and Wyman and Vyse (2008) is also included.  Read the Full Article >>

Unasked Questions

Why would anyone not want to study astrology? Astrology is ancient. People like to study ancient things. Astrology organizes the world. People like to study things that create order out of disorder. Astrology analyzes human interactions. People care a lot about relationships. Astrology examines the meanings of the past, future, and present moments. People like to study ways of regarding different circumstances.

By all indications, people should want to study astrology.Yet few people give astrology any thought beyond an occasional glance at their sun sign horoscope, even though they know there is much more to astrology than that. Astrology is not seriously studied at universities and research in astrology is rarely done. Scholarly journals and funding are not open to astrology. Professors are not clamoring for astrology to be taught. Instead, professors are more inclined to argue against astrology as if their careers depended on their ability to discourage students.

The usual academic argument against astrology is that it is not a science, as if science has a monopoly on Greek roots: astrology = star study, horoscope = time watcher. Yet why would astrology need to be a science for researchers to study it? Science studies multitudes of things, even things that are not real. For example, it would be difficult to claim that superstring theory is a legitimate science because it does not use real world values and therefore it cannot tested. Testing is the test of science. Bird song dialects are certainly real but what is the science that studies them? Is it linguistics, ornithology, psychology, musicology, or sociology? Modern science tends not to fit the old pigeonholes.

Why should science waste the immense literature of astrology? Wouldn't it be interesting to follow up on the few tantalizing bits of astrological evidence found so far? Is there some fear that science would somehow lose integrity if it ventured into the part on the map that is marked “Here be dragons”? Is there no way to study dragons, or even if there be dragons? Why would anyone not want to go there?

Is astrology a sort of Pandora’s Box that might, or might not, contain dreadful unknown stuff, and ought not to be opened for scientific inquiry? We see astrology proscribed with such labels as pseudoscience, superstition, occult, and remnants of the dim past. Is nothing ever learned from the dim past? Maybe the box of astrology, like a cursed tomb, should just lie where it is, undisturbed.

Then again, maybe astrology doesn’t need science, because astrology is technology and has always taken care of itself. Since the beginning of civilization, technology has been successfully used to build bridges, arm armies, cure diseases, grow crops, and navigate the deserts and seas, all before the arrival of what we call science. Technology was developed from whatever worked best. 

Without the aid of science, ancient mariners read the subtle signs in their environment that let them know how to best catch the winds, currents, and tides. They learned from their experience and discipline where the channels and shoals were, how the weather would change, and how to steer from one destination to the next. They developed practical techniques, and did not need formal laws and theories. Similarly, astrology developed as a technology and continues to develop to this day, with techniques being added, abandoned, and re-examined. Does astrology need to be anything more than collection of techniques for reading subtle signs?

Why read subtle signs? Isn’t it true that paying heed to subtle signs and recording them is the most effective way to prevent problems and assure success? Is there any better means of adaptation and survival? Why ignore early warnings and wait until problems become obvious and unavoidable? 

A concept in chaos theory known as the butterfly effect suggests that the subtle flap of a butterfly’s wings in Africa can stir the wind with an effect that can accumulate the force of a hurricane when it reaches the Caribbean. Powerful effects had to begin somewhere. But why stop at the butterfly? Where did the wing flap begin? Was it due to some urgent necessity within the butterfly? Going even further, was it perhaps something that might have issued from the quantum realm? What exactly is the quantum realm, where does it begin and where does it end, and how can it possibly affect things that we experience in our everyday world?

Quantum effects can be illustrated by the famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. This experiment involves another sort of box that Pandora might have been tempted to open. In this experiment a cat is placed in a box with an isotope that has a known probability of decay. The decay of the isotope will be detected and this will trigger the release of a poisonous gas, which will kill the cat. Observers would need to open the box to determine whether the cat is alive or dead at any point during the experiment. Without observation, the cat is said to be in a state of superposition, also referred to as a wave function, meaning all possible states at once, with a probability calculated for each state.

This thought experiment illustrates that the quantum realm of microscopic radioactive decay, though extremely subtle, can affect the familiar macroscopic realm in which we live, and that there are limits to what science can and cannot predict. Science can predict the state of a large number of Schrödinger’s cat boxes with a high level of certainty but it cannot predict a single case with certainty. The concepts of superposition, uncertainty, and observation in this thought experiment have interesting implications for astrology.

Hello Worlds

I’ve written mainly about the development of theories that are consistent with the major features of astrology as described in its literature and applications. Most of this work is available in my book Environmental Cosmology and on my website at http://www.theoryofastrology.com/. The theories that I have postulated in these publications can sit on the shelf waiting to be tested. Eventually they will be supported by evidence or at least they will contribute to creating better theories.

This blog will go beyond theory and delve into the more philosophical interpretations and metatheories that would be consistent with the experience of astrology. A special type of metatheory can be found in my theoretical writings, specifically the organizing principles postulated as the foundation of the astrological paradigm. These principles are the understandings that I believe everyone would need to agree to in order to study astrology as a discipline.

The workings and the experience of astrology are difficult to understand. It is fairly well accepted among astrologers that astrology is not compatible with classical (early modern) science. This view of science, which began in the seventeenth century, was grounded in belief in dualism between mind and matter, that effects had causes that preceded them in time, and that causes could be understood as physical forces acting on matter as mechanisms. These beliefs left no room for consciousness and because astrology deals with consciousness, astrology was left aside while scientists turned their attention to areas that were easier to study.

Times have changed and the tables have almost completely turned. Evolutionary science, beginning in the nineteenth century, developed theories of adaptation and selection, and this began to include the suggestion of consciousness within the disciplines of science. As statistical mathematics developed, it became possible to measure and model all sorts of observations beyond mechanisms and to discover tendencies, and this could include the influences of consciousness.

Today, quantum mechanics is phenomenally successful to the extent that it dominates research in physics. But quantum mechanics is largely a statistical science that appears to reject, despite its name, any general mechanism, and it is inextricably linked to the conscious influence of the observer. Being mindful of these momentous changes in science, it would seem reasonable to expect that astrology would more closely resemble quantum interpretations than the mechanical-causal interpretation of classical science that is devoid of consciousness.

In this blog, I shall endeavor to present and discuss in random or discursive manner with interested readers certain areas of quantum mechanics compared to astrology such as (I) the quantization of quantities and qualities, (II) wave function and collapse vs. many worlds, (III) the uncertainty principle, and (IV) quantum entanglement. My intention is not to explain quantum mechanics, but rather to review the terminology and interpretations of quantum mechanics for parallels to astrology. There are striking similarities and curious differences.

Freudian basics for astrologers

What exactly are the ego, superego, and id? Even though these Freudian concepts have had an enduring influence on the psychology of personality, they have always seemed rather ambiguous to me. They could mean different things depending on who you read. They didn’t seem to have any firm relationship to astrology. Many astrologers tended to identify them with certain planets or combinations of planets, but there were always a lot of approximations being made and a lot of loose ends left over. No one had a good grasp it seemed. Consequently, I tended to ignore them in favor of socially structured models of personality developed in more recent times by Maslow, Mitchel, Goleman, Gardner, and Erikson. I found that these later models fit quite nicely into a simplified structure of astrological concepts, as I have postulated in Environmental Cosmology and subsequent writings. The fit is not exact, but astrology seems to have a power to unify these various modern models and suggests how they all work together.

Recently, I’ve returned to the old stomping grounds of the ego, superego, and id, which dominated early psychoanalysis. In general, the ego is thought of as the self-conscious part of personality that makes choices. The superego is the inner voice that tells the ego whether its choices are good or bad. The id is a reservoir of raw impulses that needs to be restrained for society to exist. Much of the work of the ego (the conscious self) is to balance the drives of the id against the controls of the superego. There is certainly drama in this model, but what does it mean?

I’m going to take a different approach. Let’s not start with the psychoanalytic model and work towards astrology, as everyone seems to want to do, but instead let’s start with astrology and work toward the psychoanalytic model to see if the psychological model can be made to fit the astrology. I tend to prefer this contrary view of the world. It’s easier.

There are three major frames of reference, or environments, used in astrology: tropical signs, diurnal houses, and synodic aspects. These natural frames of reference, in their most simplified and practical terms, astrologically relate to values, skills, and beliefs respectively. These three concepts do not come from psychology, but are arrived at by distilling and reducing the astrological model down to essential meanings. This is the main thesis of Environmental Cosmology.

Values are related to what interests us and gives life meaning. Values are an inner part of the personality, which are to some extent inherited from our parents. Some values are shared with other members of our generation. It seems to me that the superego maps pretty well to values, which in astrology are the zodiacal signs.

Skills are what we do well, or hope to do well, to become a self-actualized person in our outward life. We may succeed and feel good, or we may fail and feel bad, but we are always learning as we try to improve ourselves and make a difference in some area of the world we live in. It seems to me that the ego maps to skills, which astrologically are the diurnal houses.

Beliefs are the way we try to resolve the natural conflicts between our inner urges, represented by the planets. We are fine with our beliefs until they are challenged and tested by the circumstances of the world we live in. We change many of our beliefs as we grow and develop as persons. It seems to me that the id maps to the challenges and conflicts of our beliefs, which astrologically are the framework of our planetary aspects.

So there you have it, the basics of Freudian psychoanalysis interpreted for astrologers. The superego can be thought of as values, which are the signs, the ego equates to skills, which are the houses, and the id relates to beliefs, which are the aspects.

Convergent Evolution

The greatest wonder of the scientific enterprise is that it allows us to boldly explore unknown and dangerous places with the wisdom of angels. The rod and staff of science comfort by giving us the ability to measure, stabilize, and record our observations. They are the tools that enable us to extend our trajectories through the shadowy valleys of spacetime, to prepare and protect ourselves from the harms of potential evils, and to adapt to the goodness and mercies of our environment. Science makes us aware of our choices and the impending consequences of both our actions and our inactions, for better or for worse.

Irrational Fears of Astrology in Universities

Some students at universities have an irrational fear of astrology and there can be many reasons for this, but as with anything irrational, the reasons are often unknown to the thinking mind. The unknowns are felt as apprehensions and unease. The intellect, which is at its most robust when operating in an educational institution, diligently rationalizes and packages the unease. The feelings of apprehension and fear do not go away, but are cloaked by the obscurity of mysterious labels such as “pseudoscience,” “superstition,” "magic," and "the dim past." By means of these rational conventions, the intellect associates the uneaseful feelings with mistakes and failings, which it does not tolerate. The rational mind then, of its own accord, allows the unconscious mind to project the uncomfortable feelings to some unfamiliar place or unfamiliar people, to in a sense be rid of them and remain forever ignorant.

I can share a few examples from my own experience of how this psychological mechanism can operate. Maybe some of you have experienced something similar yourself.

I once sat as a guest in a philosophy lecture on science and pseudoscience, where the topic was astrology. While describing the popularity and appeal of astrology to his students, the professor suddenly remembered that he had forgotten to mention the term exam. Abruptly, he interrupted his lecture, described instructions and warnings for the upcoming exam, and then resumed his lecture on why astrology is irrational.

Now, as I'm quite sure you all know, students fear exams. It is a natural dread among students and can be an ideal instrument with which to inflict a degree of pain. One does not need to be an expert on classical conditioning to understand that the professor's interruption associated astrology with anxiety and dread. Many of the students likely left that lecture with a new fear of astrology. And they would not be likely to know, if they were to reflect upon it, where that fear actually came from. They will likely pass that fear on to others, just as it was passed on to them, and they will not even know that they are doing so while they are doing it.

On another occasion I was in a planetarium show with a class of students. The lights went low and the theater seats rumbled as they elevated and reclined to a horizontal position. For several minutes our eyes gazed at the domed ceiling in the semi-darkness waiting for the show to begin. Once everyone was settled, however, one of the planetarium directors stepped onto the theater floor and began to passionately denounce astrology. He challenged anyone there who believed in astrology to reveal themselves and debate the issues.

Stretched out and cradled in those quadraphonic seats, reminiscent of dentists' chairs in space, one could scarcely lift ones head, let alone heave ones body into a position to see who was talking. No one was going to argue in those circumstances, as of course the producer knew. It was safer just to lie low and cozy, out of the line of expected fire. The theater was the perfect setting for a psychological reinforcement of learned helplessness and the producer used it as an effective deterrent against dissent.

To continue with another example, I was at one time enrolled in a course given by a very popular psychology professor with a class of thousands. Strangely, one day a personal letter arrived from the professor, posted from another country. When I read the letter, a briefly scribbled note, I was surprised to see that it was a warning against astrology. It said that an interest in astrology would ruin my academic advancement and my hoped-for career. That was the full extent of the note. No reasons or explanations were offered, just the professor’s own word. Students have every reason to take this sort of warning very seriously.

A further incident was even more disturbing. I had been invited as a guest to join a small philosophy class one evening in which astrology would be discussed. It was at a university that had a couple of highly vocal anti-astrology professors. As I listened to the lecture, however, I found this particular professor was quite fair to astrology. He used astrology as an example to develop a thread of ideas on how personal beliefs are formed. After his speech, he then asked the class to divide into three or four groups for discussion among themselves.

An astrologer companion who had accompanied me joined one of the groups and began to teach what astrology is really about. I watched the faces of the students. Some students showed interest, some showed puzzlement, and some reflected signs of growing irritation and hostility. I quickly intervened and turned the discussion to how confirmation bias and the Barnum (Forer) effect can operate in astrological consultations to affect personal beliefs. These were things that I expected the students would need to know.

Shortly, the professor reassembled the class. He announced that the astrology content of the class was finished and proceeded to draw an unusual figure on the board. The figure consisted of a circle with lines drawn from points on the perimeter to other points on the perimeter. This he called the "web of beliefs." It was a concept he had developed to describe the necessity of beliefs in daily life. I was very interested by this, because seemingly without knowing it, he had drawn a natal chart, and he even thought, as I did, that the lines within the circle represent beliefs.

I wondered if the professor knew what the points on the circumference were, that they were urges, represented in astrology by the planets, and that it is the interactive aspects of urges that give rise to beliefs. I wanted to ask him about it after the class. But when the class ended, many of the students gathered around him with their questions. I waited for about 20 minutes as the professor answered questions, but none of the students were leaving and as I didn't have any more time to wait, I finally left myself without speaking with him.

The next week, I learned that the university had removed the professor from the course, apparently because his tolerance of astrology. The fact that he was well liked by his students didn't seem to matter. The student who I knew in the class, who had been instrumental in setting up my invitation, was deeply affected by the professor's departure, for which he felt partly responsible.

In these examples, fear of astrology seems to be a self-perpetuating irrationality that feeds on itself. Students may not even know why they fear astrology. It is just something they learn through their feelings at a tender age. The people they learn it from had learned it themselves in a similar way at a tender age and had passed the fear on to them.

These are reasons why I wrote "The students' critical thinking guide to science and astrology.” In that essay, I tried to reach the audience of students while speaking in the kind voice of a caring teacher. I mention the rational fallacies that are often used against astrology and the need for discourse based on thoughtful evaluation. Astrology is by far the biggest and most enduring study ever undertaken of the mind grappling with environmental realities. It has a vast literature and a fascinating history of applied intellect. It has survived and evolved over millennia with each step of civilization around the world and has an active adaptation to modern life. Astrology is simply too interesting and important to be rejected and vilified out of fear and ignorance.

As a final footnote, while my essay for students was being peer-reviewed for publication, a reviewer wrote back to me that his daughter was in fact enrolled at that time in a course on critical thinking in which astrology was attacked. Even though this reviewer, who was anonymous to me, was undoubtedly a leading astrological thinker, his daughter had felt threatened and avoided any association with astrology. For university students, the stakes are high and fear is a strong motivator.

Reappraisal of 1985 Carlson study finds support for astrology

*See the update* Support for astrology from the 1985 Carlson double-blind experiment.

After nearly a quarter of a century, a small group of dedicated astrologers who participated in a scientific study that reached a devastating verdict against their craft may have something to feel good about. The study, published in 1985 in the journal of scientific record, Nature (vol. 318), launched its author, Shawn Carlson, who at the time of the study was an undergraduate student at the University of California at Berkley, to instant celebrity among the community of scientific skeptics. A new assessment, however, “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests” in Journal of Scientific Exploration (vol. 23:2) by Suitbert Ertel, professor of psychology at Göttingen University, has found serious flaws in the study's analysis. In an surprising turnaround, Ertel finds that, when correctly analyzed, according to the method that Carlson initially states but then changes, the study's data actually provides support for astrology. It now appears that the reputation of the Carlson study as a definitive test against astrology is unjustified.

Suitbert Ertel is known for his analysis and criticism of statistical research on both sides of the science/astrology controversy. He is also known for his 1988 discovery, and later replications, of planetary eminence effects, which had been predicted by the late astrology researcher Michel Gauquelin. These eminence effects strongly support the traditional astrological properties of the tested planets and have presented an irrefutable conundrum for astrology skeptics.

In the introduction to his study, “A double-blind test of astrology,” Carlson states his intention to design “an experiment that would meet the tight specifications of both the scientific and astrological communities.” The main test in the study challenged the 28 astrologer participants to match the birth charts of 116 volunteer students with personality profiles from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), a standard personality questionnaire.

In Carlson’s assessment, the astrologers could not match birth charts to profiles any better than chance and therefore failed in their task. He concluded, “We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers.” In Ertel's reassessment of the study's data, however, the astrologers were able to perform the matches significantly better than chance, even though they did not perform as well as they had predicted.

Because Carlson’s study was published in a highly regarded scientific journal, it is exceptional among astrology research papers. It has stood at the pinnacle of scientific recognition and easily ranks as the most frequently cited study of its kind (500+ Google links). A major contributor to the study’s credibility was the participation of qualified astrologers, all members of the National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR), an organization that was active in astrology research.

When Carlson’s article appeared in Nature, it immediately drew fire from critics. Some of the astrologer participants protested that Carlson ignored their suggestions, contrary to his stated intention. Carlson had refused to supply the gender identities of the CPI profiles, a necessary consideration because the CPI makes crucial distinctions between male and female responses. The eminent psychologist Hans Eysenck, late author of the book Astrology: Science or Superstition, argued that the CPI explicitly states that it should be interpreted only by trained and experienced users, and the astrologers lacked the necessary training and experience. Other critics questioned whether the CPI and astrology evaluate personality in the same ways, and whether there was enough common ground for astrologers to make valid matches. Many critics have noted that the student subjects failed to recognize both their CPI profiles and their natal chart interpretations, yet the CPI was given a pass while the astrology results were declared a failure. Over time the controversy subsided with neither side being dissuaded.

Eventually, certain aspects of the Carlson study drew Ertel’s scrutiny. Normally, articles in Nature, or any scientific journal, are peer reviewed before publication. The peer review process subjects scientific beliefs and claims of fact to critical analysis by qualified experts. Yet, even though the Carlson study makes claims of scientific fact, doubts had been raised by others as to whether it had been adequately peer reviewed. Nature had published the article in the Commentary section, and this seemed to characterize it as editorial content, where peer review might be less rigorously applied. Moreover, despite the outcry over the Carlson study voiced elsewhere, Nature had never published any responses to the study and no thorough reanalysis had ever been done, and this, Ertel believed, was cause for concern.

Ertel, in his peer-reviewed reappraisal, finds the Carlson study to be flawed in test design, test power, effect size, and sample size. The design of the study violates the demands of fairness, Ertel says, and even Carlson’s own stated protocol. Instead of presenting the astrologer participants with pair choices, which is the normal format for such tests, and the format followed in an earlier well-known astrological study by Vernon Clark (1961), Carlson presented a three-choice format, an unusual method that consists of one genuine object and two selected at random. This three-choice format, Ertel notes, is less powerful than a two-choice format. Furthermore, Carlson’s random selections of the comparison objects (students of relatively the same age) produced avoidable similarities between the objects, which reduced discrimination and further elevated the three-choice problem. In fairness, he says, dissimilar objects should have been used throughout.

Ertel is also critical of Carlson’s "piecemeal" analysis of the sampled data, in which only sub-samples are examined instead of the total effects. The accepted analysis of a three-choice format, as Ertel cites from a standard textbook, is to calculate the proportion of combined first and second choices against the third choice. Carlson initially states his intention to do this but then disregards this method for no given reason. Re-analysis of the published data by using the standard procedure shows that the astrologers correctly matched CPI profiles to natal charts better than would be expected by chance with marginal significance (p = .054). This positive result, Ertel found, was replicable with even better results (p = .04) for the astrologers’ ten-point rating of profiles fit to birth charts, a test that Carlson had requested of the astrologers but the significance of which had eluded him in the end.

In Ertel’s assessment, the proper evaluation of the test data, according to research methods that are commonly accepted to be the most fair and precise, gives two significant test results in favor of the astrologer participants, although there are numerous flaws in the study that cast doubt on any reliable conclusion. “The results are regarded as insufficient to deem astrology as empirically verified,” Ertel warns, “but they are sufficient to regard Carlson’s negative verdict on astrology as untenable.”

*Update* Support for astrology from the 1985 Carlson double-blind experiment
Famous Test of Astrology is Seriously Flawed
A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments

Nostradamus 2012 End of Time

Nostradamus 2012 is a TV program about December 21, 2012 prophesies. That date, or thereabouts, is said to be the end of the Mayan calendar. The program reels through all sorts of recent natural and man-made disasters, pointing to the ticking time bomb of anticipated earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, climate change, global famine, pole shift, and other disasters that await humankind. The program attempts to support its predictions of these disasters with the writings of Nostradamus and the symbolism in some recently discovered drawings attributed to Nostradamus.

According to this program, the main event that would trigger these disasters is the alignment of the galactic center with the Capricorn solstice, hence the December 21st date. The sun would "eclipse" the galactic center at the solstice point.

I agree with the program's use of the galactic center for the accurate measurement of the 25,800 cycle historically known as "precession of the equinoxes" and the Great Year. In astrology, however, the equinoxes and solstices, as the defining points of celestial longitude, should represent a fixed frame of reference in the sky. Everything should be seen as moving within celestial longitude, including the galactic center and the constellations.

It should not be relevant which constellation is at the Aries equinox because constellations, unlike individual stars, are irrelevant in astrology. The main point of interest in the great-year cycle should be the movement of galactic center, a precise point like each of the planets, within the framework of celestial longitude. The so-called Age of Aquarius, which attempts to use constellations as aggregate bodies, is a departure from any sort of reasonable or traditional astrology.

The Nostradamus 2012 program commits the astronomical error of using the 2012 date as the critical alignment. The galactic center does not actually align with the Capricorn solstice until the year 2295. The program tries to extend the initial concept of the end of the Mayan calendar into all sorts of unrelated areas in an attempt to connect them to the major changes we currently see on our planet.

Climate change is already wreaking havoc and will continue to do so until humankind does something to stop it. It is much too big a stretch to associate the year 2012 end date of the Mayan calendar with the galactic center alignment to the Capricorn solstice, which will not happen until 2295, almost three hundred years hence.

The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism

A recent newspaper carried an article, "The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism," which contrasted the different views of what the vernal equinox means to an astronomer and an astrologer. The article, posted on the newspaper's web site, drew criticism from some members of the public for taking astrology seriously and giving it credibility. I would like to attempt to clarify and amplify the astrological view.

The vernal equinox is one of two places in the sky near which the planets spend an equal amount of time above the horizon as below during the course of a day. Astronomically, the equinoxes represent points of equilibrium. Astrologically, the equinoxes represent an axis of equality. This axis of equality is to be contrasted with the axis of extremes or hierarchy, which is represented by the summer and winter solstices. These two axes are natural symmetries that define the framework of tropical signs used in Western astrology.

When the planets in their cycles cross this axis of equality, the planetary urges, acting from within individuals and collectively in society, are thought to express values of equality, as distinct from the values of hierarchy, which are represented by the solstices. There are two ways in which values of equality can be expressed. We can value cooperation and we can value competition among equals. The vernal equinox is thought to be the point where competition is most highly valued, whereas the autumnal equinox is thought to be the point where cooperation is most highly valued.

Planets near the vernal equinox tend to reflect the values of competition in our corresponding interests and desires, which are to break down old hierarchical values to create a new order, whether on the personal, social, or collective level, depending on the planet involved. Initiatives for the new order may potentially be expressed through fitness programs, performances, competitions, innovations, explorations, or any pioneering effort. As a planet passes over the vernal equinox, a new hierarchy of values begins through competition. This emerging hierarchy will later peak for that planetary urge when it arrives at the summer solstice.

Is there good in the recession?

Recession is not all bad and we can learn from the history of past recessions. Recessions happen because we resist change and persist with habits that have become harmful. With recession, the economic growth for certain things comes to an end and the receding economy makes us painfully aware of exposures and areas of neglect that need our attention and responsible effort.

It has often been observed that the fashion of women’s hemlines moves up and down with the economy. Over this past winter hemlines on evening wear worn by fashion leaders dramatically hit the floor. But everyday wear for most women in America today is jeans or pants and dresses and skirts are not normally seen. So what happens this time? The fashion trend seems to suggest modesty and responsibility. Does this mean that tight jeans are out and the relaxed fit is in? Will more men start wearing suits and fully brimmed hats again as in previous recessions? Long dresses and coats and big hats are not convenient for driving cars, but they are ideal for waiting at the bus stop and walking on foot. Will walking and taking public transit increase during the recession?

It has been said also that people eat healthier diets during recessions and that national health improves. This is a very good thing, and it is much overdue because so many Americans are overweight and don’t exercise enough. Better diet is adopted during recessions because more meals are prepared from scratch. Although less convenient, home cooking is more economical than serving packaged foods or dining out. As more food is prepared in the home, more attention is paid to the quality of food ingredients. Instead of high-calorie fast food with artificial ingredients, healthier, locally grown food is desired. More people are even buying seeds and planting their own gardens. The more that good meals are planned and become a relaxed social focus of the day, the more family values could improve. Can you picture Michele Obama planting a vegetable garden at the White House for her family's use? Yes, this is happening, and the President himself will be expected to pull weeds. Food is of crucial importance to health and maybe it’s good to have a real involvement in how it is grown and prepared.

One of the big questions during the current recession is whether economic stimulus should be given to the big corporations that are dramatically failing. Shouldn't these corporations be left to fail because they didn't pay attention the economic patterns and they ignored the indicators of necessary change? Didn’t the leaders of these corporations fail to keep their corporations secure? If the corporate leaders failed, then why should those leaders still receive fat bonuses, paid for by government? Aren't these the people who some Canadian politicians in the 1970s identified as "corporate welfare bums?" If these corporate leaders don’t get their bonuses and want to leave their current positions for positions elsewhere that they believe will pay them better, why not let them just leave? Isn't it only by the failure of irresponsible corporate governance and policy that the more responsible governance and policies, which are more in tune with the current economic needs, will have a chance to succeed?

Are environmental pressures are at the root of the recession? Doesn't the global economy need to urgently create and introduce now the programs and products that have been neglected, and should have been developed for sustainability? There seems to have been a profound shift away from the policies and politics of claiming and securing scarce resources, which is the old unsustainable way, to developing alternative and more sustainable resources. Why stimulate the continuation of large corporate growth when that growth is unsustainable? Why not restrict that growth and channel investment into the emergent economy of sustainable development?

Recently, there seems to be renewed interest in smaller houses and higher population densities. It appears that more people actually want tiny houses, whether they live in the city or in the country. Tiny houses are more affordable. If the community is planned accordingly, small houses could allow people to live closer to where they work, shop, and do other activities outside the home. People could walk or bicycle to these places, as well as to transportation nodes that connect then to other communities. Don't family values in the home need to be sustained by strong social networks outside the home? Moving housing closer together could strengthen social and community bonds. With the Internet and mobile phones, we have new electronic means of interacting with family, friends, and business contacts, but there’s really no substitute for actual face-to-face interactions. Isn't it better for people to be nearer to the people they would normally socialize with?

Separating astrological effects from anomalies

In a scientific exploration you might not have preconceptions, but you still make assumptions. For example you might be looking for relationships between the planets correlated to some world events like market prices and you don't care what relationships you find. There's still an assumption or hypothesis that you might find some.

What’s missing in exploration is not assumptions but theory, and this is intentional. Someone once saw something weird out there that just didn't make normal sense, and you’re going hunting for it and others like it. It doesn't bother you that it doesn't make sense.

The interesting findings you make, if they are consistent but without theory, are anomalies.

But all astrology, as it has been handed down to us with all its concepts, may be an anomaly, or maybe not. If we agree on mapping principles then we have paradigms and structure, and we can build theories, but of course these theories need to be reliable.

Let’s say we've found anomalies. Either they fit a theory (and are predictably reliable), or they are nothing.

If we don't think these anomalies we’ve found are nothing, because we've found a lot of them, then we'd better think of ways to show that the findings are reliable and predictable. Can we replicate? Can we compare to a control, either physical controls or simulated controls created by shifting the appropriate pieces of data? Can we rank the findings based on eminence, severity, affinity, etc. to see if there is a rule, mathematical function, or a constant that supports it?

If we have an astrological finding that is reliable and predictable (replicable, independent of controls, and co-varies in strength with known factors) then the finding is not an anomaly. It’s a "response," "species," "pattern" or "effect."

It is confusing to some people to say something is an "effect" when effects are taken to be direct and strong physical influences and not just statistical tendencies, and so they have problems with astrology. An effect is not the same as a theory because a theory needs to explain why the effect happens as a feature of nature.

What normally happens with unexpected effects is to embrace the weird by building theory that is consistent with our various effects and our original paradigmatic principles. The findings of these effects might never stop being weird but the effects would begin to make normal sense, at least to some people.

Astrological theory might be different than current standard physical theory, or it might be an extension of it. For example, if we live in a fractal universe, which implies patterns with a mathematical function, then we should have no problem considering such astrological concepts as synchronicity and cosmic symmetry. In a fractal universe, there could be some conceivable cause and effect relationship in astrology through the operation of fractal functionality, which may determine some behaviors, such as planetary movements, but only govern but not determine other behaviors, such as the lives of people as well as the lives of non-living and non-physical entities, which traditional astrology concerns itself with, but standard theory does not.