Here's Geoffrey Dean's response - to a large degree this duplicates what Woodwater already reported from Rudolf Smit:

The necessary references are given in my cited 1995 article, namely A re-assessment of Jung's astrological experiment, Correlation 14(2), 12-22, which is very detailed and has 24 references. Unfortunately it
now exists only on paper otherwise I would be happy to send it by email.
However, according to the RGCSA website www.astrology-research.net, any Correlation article is available on demand from the AA (use the form
given on the website). Readers might also want to read de Vries-Ek &
McGillion, A further look at Jung's astrological experiment in the
context of his theory of synchronicity, Correlation 14(1), 15-15, and
the long section on synchronicity in Theories of Astrology, Correlation
15(1), 17-52. All have something different to say.

The link to get hold of a copy of the article in question is below:

www.astrology-research.net

But perhaps someone is about to announce that they have a copy? I don't unfortunately.

James Frazier wrote:Deb,
Just in case, I lose this one, if you know of any sources of digestible astrolabes, I would be most appreciative if you would pass them on.



"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours that's relativity." -- Albert Einstein

Rudolf: Tell Frazier that, since I was the Editor of Correlation at the time, I still possess alle copies of that period (1993-1999). He should send me his home address and I send a xerox of the mentioned articles to him. My mail adress: rhs@rudolfhsmit.nl

I do advise the participants of this forum to visit my site: www.astrology-and-science.com because then they will know what scientific study of astrology is all about.

I am working on a recipe for baked astrolabe right now James.

At this point I should probably decide to say no more as, what do I know? But I can?t help noticing so much prejudiced perspective in the cited article, that the issue of Dean?s sources seems like one drop in an ocean of the things that cause could controversy. I mentioned earlier that I don?t have any particular problem with Dean and this kind of assessment, but it?s left no great impression on me either. I feel no reason to be grateful to Dean, nor do I feel threatened by his arguments. Nor do I feel that the articles on that site demonstrate a scholarly approach or open-minded enquiry. I have no academic background in science, but isn?t it obvious that Dean is a professional debunker and about as impartial towards astrology as I am? The only difference may be that I am willing to admit my own prejudices. (My prejudices are based on the fact that I have reliably found astrology to be useful and meaningful when allowed to be what it is; just as Dean?s are based on the fact that he has reliably found it to be useless and meaningless when forced into being something it is not).

Mortal life is finite, and these arguments go on forever, so the bottom line for me is this ? is there any point in further studies of this kind when the possibility of personal intuition is used as an argument against astrological effect? Astrology without the possibility of intuitive reasoning is called astronomy. Intellectuals of all ages have acknowledged that there is a physical and a spiritual, and although they interpenetrate, they are not the same thing and cannot be treated as such. Astronomy measures the physical cosmos and physical effect, astrology seeks the spiritual meaning of it. I agree that astrologers should not treat astrology as a science. Neither should the scientists try to dissect its bits and reduce it to something that bends to experiment in artificial conditions. This ignores the traditional requirement that an astrologer approach the study with a mind that is open enough to receive and transmit inspiration (aka intuitive responses). Until science can find a new way to consider and allow for that then the whole ?scientific study of astrology? exercise is as worthless as the scientific study of whether there is, or there isn?t, life after death. So yes, we are dealing with hopeless evidence, but it is hopeless evidence in a pointless study.

Garry, Thanks for relaying Deans message. I have read Frank's article (which pretty much backs up what I have been saying and is the source of some of my thoughts on this- I would also mention Maggie Hyde's Jung and Astrology as another source).
Smit has offered to mail me a copy of Dean's original Correlation article. So I have sent him my address. If anyone can scan a copy and get it to me faster then I would be most appreciative. Until then, I will patiently wait to see the original article with all of its references.

Deb,
Personally, I have never been interested in astrological research to "prove" or "disprove" astrology. It would be like applying the rules of golf to a game of soccer and concluding that soccer does not work. They are simply different orders of information and cannot, in theory, be reconciled. The difference is that I don't try to debunk "science" just "scientism?. I am perfectly happy with the paradox and with mystery. I can let science have its domain, I just argue that there are other ways to view the universe and although these different approaches may be completely opposite they can both be right. This is where we part ways because in science that cannot be so (although apparently some of the quantum phenomena appear to be exactly that).
My admiration and gratitude to the critics has more to do with the fact that they have caused us to really think about astrology and to stop accepting things without question. Here is an example: You will still find today the oft repeated story that Newton was an astrologer. When I first got into astrology this story was so ubiquitous that I simply thought it WAS true and, of course, it added ammunition in my growing arsenal for defending astrology. I repeated the story myself having faith that it was factual given how many astrologers repeated the story. Then I did some research and guess what? It isn't true. Admittedly, as I show in my article on this, he was an alchemist and so, in effect, familiar with astrological symbols and ideas but he was not a card carrying judicial astrologer as is often claimed. Newton was no William Lilly. He did however start his mathematical career trying to understand judicial astrology enough to calculate the charts. (my article can be found at: http://www.astrozero.co.uk/ The title is Contested Iconography: Was Newton an astrologer, a rational mechanistic scientist, or neither?)
So the critics have forced me to get more rigorous in my research and that is a good thing. Have they converted me? No, but I am not trying to convert them either. With symbolism you either get it or you don't. I am perfectly in agreement with them anyway, for me (and I stress that this is for me not a claim on some universal truth) astrology is an art; it is not and never has been a "science" in the way that we normally think of "science". Again I repeat, ?for me?.
I can understand, for reasons that you have mentioned, why astrology drives scientist up the wall. If I had their worldview I would be driven to that place as well. The big difference is that I can tolerate others having a completely different worldviews without trying to prove mine is the correct one to hold.
Perhaps it is my 20 years of experience working with people in deep psychological and spiritual processes that has given me part of my worldview. I have also seen that, in the field of psychology, the things that lend themselves to scientific study are often far removed from the things that help people heal. For example, if I wanted to get a grant to study and measure the increase or decrease in number of eye blinks when someone is informed that their loved has just died, I could, in all likelihood, get funding for such a study because it is ?scientific?. But if I really wanted to study say a comparison of psychotherapy to initiatory process and better understand grief as an initiatory process, I might well be laughed out of the room (at least, the academic department of psychology, in the Religious department they might be tolerant but there would be little funds available because science gets the bulk of research money).

Whern I tried this link www.astrology-and-science.com I got some popups that had nothing to do with astrology or science. You might want to check to make sure your site has not been high jacked.

Hi James,
I don?t think there is anything I disagree with in your post, except I have had a very different experience of the Newton story. It always seemed to me that Newton was presented as an opponent of astrology, and that his quote about the bathwater was only ever pesented out of context. But I am also aware that Newton, like Kepler, was interested in alchemy and astrological reasoning. It doesn?t take much imagination to realise how quickly they would have differentiated between the features and uses of astrology. I am sure that both believed that there was a marvel in astrology until the day they died, and that this fired their inspiration for their scientific achievements, but how they must have loathed the prospect of drawing horoscopes to offer judgements on daily affairs. I am not sure if you are aware of this but there is also good article on Newton on this site by Sue Toohey ( www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html ). Sue leaves the impression that it is wrong to think of Newton as an astrologer, but it is also wrong to discount him from the list of people who have done great things with astrological ideas. I need to read your article, which I will.

I mainly wanted to add that I also found the commercial pop-up distracting, and I found the congratulatory quote on the introductory page off-putting too, and slightly out of character for a site that aims to take itself so seriously. I hope Mr Smit understands that I am not saying this to undermine his efforts but to offer constructive feedback (at least in this instance). I realise that the pop-up may be sponsoring the hosting costs, but it gives the flavour of the site having an angle or something to sell, so this, and the quote, detracts from its sense of impartiality.

Deb,

It always seemed to me that Newton was presented as an opponent of astrology, and that his quote about the bathwater was only ever presented out of context.

I am not familiar with any bathwater quote from Newton, are you perhaps, referring to the one by Kepler about throwing out the baby with the bathwater? If not, then you will have to share the quote with me. My paper is about the exchange between Newton and his friend Halley. Supposedly, Halley disparaged astrology and it is claimed that Newton rebuked him by stating ?Sir, I have studied the matter, you have not.? It turns out that this remark concerned religion not astrology.
At any rate, after you read my article I think you will find that I try to show that Newton was steeped in astrological symbolism via alchemy. (and, yes, many of his ideas may in fact have astrological origins; we should keep in mind that in Newton?s time astrological and astrologically friendly cosmological models were not so removed from the prevailing worldview as they are today). What I am trying to show however that is the idea that he was somehow a card carrying practicing astrologer (as Kepler was BTW) is not believable. First, Newton was a recluse; one does not become a judicial astrologer without practice on usually hundreds if not thousands of charts; given his personality and taste for seclusion that would simply have not been possible. Secondly, Newton's library only contained three books of astrology and one of those was a refutation of astrology. Compare this with Lilly's library. One does not in my opinion become a judicial astrologer with such a limited library. Finally, we have no horoscopes drawn by Newton?s hand as we do in the case of both Kepler and Galileo.
I think we have to reflect that there may have been (as still are ) many people who would accept a certain type of astrology and astrological symbolism at the same time be appalled by the way astrology was (is) practiced. Ficino comes to mind.
I am actually still doing research on Newton and I have run across some more interesting information that connects him to a deep understanding of astrological symbolism which I hope to publish; but I still think that predicting the future would have insulted his religious beliefs and I cannot imagine him doing horary astrology in the Lilly tradition.

Deb
Thanks for pointing out Sue Toohey's very fine article. I had not seen this before but it appears that we cover much of the same territory. I would comment on this statement however.
Sue writes:

In an unpublished biography by his nephew-in-law John Conduitt, Newton is quoted as saying "I was soon convinced of the vanity and emptiness of the pretended science of judicial astrology." It is unconvincing to perceive this statement as an outright condemnation of astrology.

I don't know, it sounds pretty convincing to me. I don't know how he could have made it much plainer. He states Judical astrology is vain and empty and that it is "a pretended science".
Now, of course, it is possible that this was simply Newton presenting his public face; I do not think it would have been above him to hold ideas that he would keep secret as he did with all of his alchemical writings. The problem is we cannot know that since, unlike the alchemical writing which have survived, we have no refuting evidence other than the fact that alchemy and astrological symbolism are quite emesshed (and a few hits I am presently working on). So we have to rely on what evidence we have and my best guess is that the above statement concerning judical astrology would be more closely alighned with what we do know about Newton's religious, albeit, unorthodox beliefs.

James Frazier wrote:Whern I tried this link www.astrology-and-science.com I got some popups that had nothing to do with astrology or science. You might want to check to make sure your site has not been high jacked.

try

www.rudolfhsmit.nl

Woodwater,
Thanks for that additional link. The popups are still annoying.......

Has my photo been removed to protect the public? Or me, after this series of posts?