Hi James

Your photo is showing up fine ? at least on my computer.

I?m doing too much at once here, which is why I am getting confused about babies and bathwaters, and the quote I was really thinking of, which was the ?I have studied the matter, you have not?. I shouldn?t rush my words in *this* forum! It will be interesting to learn more about your ongoing research into Newton. The judicial astrology quote is intriguing. It sounds cut and dry, ? and yet, I could quite easily find myself saying the same thing! I think it compares to comments made by Alan Leo, and we might glimpse a similar motivation since both held sincere religious views:

Leo's own attitude towards horary was somewhat ambivalent. He practised horary and even wrote a book about it, [3] but he also referred to the type of horary practised in his day as "the vilest rubbish imaginable". [4] He alternates between recommending it as something best pursued in conjunction with the birth chart, to elsewhere arguing that it's real value is when the birth time is unknown. Overall it seems that Leo had respect for the concept of horary when used to answer serious questions, and on occasions he felt it could be "exceedingly useful"; but from a moral standpoint he loathed the idea of people becoming overly reliant upon it, through which he felt it would weaken rather than strengthen the individual's character and sense of free will. [5]

Prediction, Providence & the Power of the 'Self' in Horary

We need to be wary of reading too much into isolated snippets and quotes - but your guess is better than mine! It?s just that I?ve heard Dennis Elwell trash horary, and I?ve also heard him say that, used properly and respectfully, it is the purest form of astrology. I?m more persuaded by the way you put several objections together to present your view which shows that you have a more rounded and informed opinion.


Woodwater, the two URLs point to the same address, but I didn?t get the pop-up last time, so maybe someone has fixed something?

the problem with the discussion betwen skeptics and astrologers is that the last one to speak wins. Such is the law of rethorics

Deb you stated:

We need to be wary of reading too much into isolated snippets and quotes

This is really sage advice and I appreciate you reminding me of this. And thanks for the acknowledgement as well. Part of my reasoning around Newton is admittedly pure conjecture BUT it is based on reading several biographies, as well as Betty Jo Dobbs' works on Newton's alchemical papers. Besides the reasons I have given, from a psychological point of view it seems unlikely that Newton would be engaged in any a practice such as astrology (judicial) namely due to his own inflation. Newton was born on Christmas Day and felt that he was uniquely and divinely chosen to discover the secrets of the universe to further God's plan and movement toward the end of time. It s unlikely that he would have engaged in the practice of reading charts for clients ( and that would be one of the requirements for me to consider him an astrologer rather than someone using astrological symbolism). As far as an astrological connection through the alchemical symbolism, the attempt to solve the perennial problems associated with the planetary movements as well as other esoteric connections around an astrological worldview, I do not have much problem. That is the point I am trying to make when I gave the same quote from Maynard Keyes regarding his being not the first great scientist but the last great magician. The term ?scientist? was not even in use in Newton?s time and based on his modern biographers opinion as well as that of Betty Jo Dobbs, it appears that his alchemical research occupied even more of his time than his ?scientific? researches.

Hi Deb,

Thank you for answering my question. I might have imagined it, but I thought I detected a faint trace of cynicism - I wonder if that could make the reasoning unreliable? But I suppose if it's backed up by a chart.... could you tell if the cat was dead or alive?

You said previously that you are saddened by the decline in the number of experiments. Could there be a connection between that and statements by leading astrologers that "astrology can't be proved scientifically'? It seems to me that that's the same kind of reasoning that the sceptics are using - reading more into the failure of the experiments that have been done than is actually there. I remember reading the Culver & Ianna book 'Astrology: True or False' about ten years ago, and being amazed that they could draw any conclusions about astrology (rather than astrologers) from the experiments they reported. I came to the same opinion then that Geoffrey Dean has apparently expressed: that any test to demonstrate the validity of astrology has to leave out all interpretation.

As I see it, the fundamental premise of astrology is that there is a correlation between the movement of the planets and human affairs - for the majority of uninterested sceptics, that's all that needs to be demonstrated. And I think it's perfectly reasonable that people who are not instinctively drawn to the subject should expect to see some evidence before they believe it - when we see it so clearly, how can it not be possible to demonstrate it? As you say, the ones who are actively hostile to it will try to find, or invent, holes, but they're not actually important; if we can produce clear evidence the majority of people will accept it and the whole issue will disappear. But the symbolism and the mystery is not important here - there is an objective reality to the subject that we can see, so why would we believe that we can't show it to others?

I stepped into this debate because of James's statement:

Yes, I for one would be extremely disappointed if astrology were to be ever proved by science. That would be a minor disaster in my not so humble opinion. It would mean that science would co-opt astrology.

This is a live issue for me, because I've just started work on a statistical study. When I committed myself to doing it I found myself confronting a residue of doubt - having become immersed in the subject over the last twelve years, how would I react if the study didn't show any correlation? That was resolved when I threw away the last of my scepticism - if the study does prove negative my attitude will be that the gods are playing a deeper game than I've appreciated. But, having resolved that, I started wondering about the implications for astrologers and I remembered what I had read in Arroyo and Curry - the same sentiments that James expressed - and started questioning whether in fact it I should do the study at all.

That's part of why I came to Skyscript (via Rudolf Smit's site as it happens - he describes Skyscript as "The best site for quality astrology by quality astrologers"); I was hoping to get a sense of how astrologers feel about this divide and what their expectations would be if clear evidence does emerge (reading Garry's interview with Bernadette Brady, where she talks about status, was very useful in that respect).

I asked, Deb, if your certainty was astrologically based; that question was prompted by a feeling of confidence from seeing those transits in the anti-astrology chart from 'The Moment of Astrology' (which I was inspired to get by comments on Skyscript). I felt that I had asked a question, and been led to an answer - via a book on divination. And it was seeing those transits that started me thinking that the impact on science would be of greater importance than the effect on astrology.

But of course those transits could mean a hundred things (or none at all if that interpretation of the chart has no validity) and my confidence might just be from Uranus stationing ten minutes past my Mars.

I seem to have wandered a long way from Woodwater's question.

On the quantum physics findings, James; it's a good point, but I don't think it's the strangeness of astrology that causes them problems, it's the fact that it implies a degree of order in the universe that conflicts with the foundations of their world view. My impression is that Bohr grew up in a world where the Divine was largely taken for granted - and I suspect that the findings of quantum physics played quite an important role in changing that.

Hi Malcolm,

You said previously that you are saddened by the decline in the number of experiments. Could there be a connection between that and statements by leading astrologers that "astrology can't be proved scientifically'?

I think there is a synchronous connection rather than a causal one. But even though I don?t believe that a successful experiment will change anything about the relationship between astrology and science, for the benefit of the world at large and posterity, I want to see more attempts being made to test the ancient theories. And I will champion anyone who makes the effort and applaud them if they provide clear results, whatever those results are. It?s a nice idea to think that one successful experiment will demonstrate and prove the matter, but I wonder how Gauquelin felt after everything he did, to have to keep warding off the attacks and critics for years and years? I suppose any researcher expects to have their results challenged, but I imagine there are few other subjects where the research is challenged so endlessly and so mercilessly, by a scientific community that is so openly hostile and biased against the subject as a whole. I must be a strange mix to be so full of belief and yet so cynical and sceptical at the same time! But I do wish you well with your endeavour and hope you are successful. More so, considering how big a success I would consider it to be.

Hi James,

This thread could span a dozen new ones, and I don?t want to go off at another tangent, but I just want to put on record my objection to the idea that reading charts for clients is the definition of being an astrologer. The time when I feel MOST like an astrologer is when I am alone with my astrological thoughts and research. In fact, there have been times when the process of reading charts for clients has become exhausting, and has caused me to end my involvement with astrology for two lengthy periods, and it was the indulgence of being able to study and explore for my own mental pleasure that brought me back to it. We see similar statements made about Ptolemy, even though we have no idea how many charts he may have done which ? like most of his published work ? failed to be preserved. But I think that?s irrelevant anyway. These statements have been made by astrologers who themselves have never published a chart judgement, and by some who admit to rarely doing them. I personally think that astrologers are defined by the way they think, and by their demonstrated interest in the subject. So someone like say, Al Biruni, was an astrologer, regardless of whether he drew charts for clients, or even for himself. I do believe it is possible to love the philosophy of astrology more than the actual practice of it and that, to me, is a reliable signature of an astrologer. (Thinking this through a little deeper ? yes, I do think they need to have a love of the subject rather than just an interest in it, because I don?t think it is appropriate to call someone like Geoffrey Dean an astrologer at the current time )

Deb,
You have given me reason to pause for thought and admit that my definition would appear to be far too restrictive. I was more or less comparing Newton to the likes of Kepler or Galileo where we have evidence of them drawing charts. Actually, in practice, I would allow that anyone who considers themselves to be an astrologer to be one (that does not mean I would be in agreement with their views necessarily). This would extend to anyone who even had a connection to the night sky (and yes even G. Dean could be considered as somewhat of an astrologer, albeit a skeptical one). His long time involvement with the subject might be construed as such. After all, he did publish a book titled, "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology" which is more than I have done. I certainly don't pretend to set myself up as an authority on who is and who is not an astrologer; although I can see that my statements might be read that way. That was not my intention.
On the other hand, you have people like David Pingree who spend their entire academic and professional career studying astrology and yet would never think to have their own chart cast. Supposedly, Pingree was asked once if he had ever had his chart read by an astrologer and his response was, "Why should I want to do that?"

I can see that I need to think through these posts a bit more than my flying off the cuff so to speak. I will make an effort to be clearer and to consider my statements with greater care.

I will say to you again how much I appreciate this website and the ability to engage in lively, respectful debate. It sharpens the mind and forces one to evaluate their views more deeply. So thank you.

Malcom you stated:

On the quantum physics findings, James; it's a good point, but I don't think it's the strangeness of astrology that causes them problems, it's the fact that it implies a degree of order in the universe that conflicts with the foundations of their world view. My impression is that Bohr grew up in a world where the Divine was largely taken for granted - and I suspect that the findings of quantum physics played quite an important role in changing that.

I would certainly agree that the whole problem with the idea of the Divine or a creative intelligence behind the visible world would present a major to many in the field of science (not all, of course) but to the Richard Dawkins strain this is just too much to handle. So, likely, you are correct it is not strangeness per se, just a particular type of strangeness that they cannot accept.

Could there be a connection between that and statements by leading astrologers that "astrology can't be proved scientifically'?

I don't know about proving astrology scientifically, in the broadest sense of the word "scientifically", but if scientifically means statistically then I think this statement must be true if astrology really does work.

Let me explain what I mean. In order to apply general statistical theory we start from a couple of clear fundamental assumptions;

So that we can identify correlation between the subjects we are investigating, we are assuming that there is no underlying correlation between events in the universe -i.e in the absence of the correlation that we are specifically looking for (or any that we know about that we have controlled for) we are assuming randomness. Whilst, as an astrologer, that already makes me a little nervous, it is the second assumption that is the killer.

Statistical theory also assumes that if you pick a sample time after time after time - such an experiment will always be equally representative- i.e an equally random sample from an assumed ( prior to any correlation being demonstrated) random population. Clearly any astrologer, particularly those well versed in horary or electional astrology, will see the flaw here; the outcome of the experiment is dependent on the time that it occurs- e.g. the time a sample is drawn will influence its makeup

So one cannot by definition prove astrology by conventional statistics. The problem is not that statisitics cannot demonstrate the validity of astrology but that an acceptance of astrology implies that practical application of statistics to anything is flawed.

Note that I am not questioning the underlying mathematical theory of statistics here- I am merely saying that it can't be applied in a universe which is in any way deterministic - as astrology obviously states the universe is.

As James said

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.

Deb said

I think there is a synchronous connection rather than a causal one

Exactly.

I don't want to get involved in the debate about the original article as I have not read all the material referred to but the following comment seems to suggest that the experiment confirmed the sort of thing I would expect an astrological experiment to demonstrate: - no more; no less

What the experiment did show was synchronicity in that in three separate batches, the three most common indicators for marriage came up BUT in each of the three a different factor was significant

While I find myself being rather flippant when talking about the impact of astrology on statistics, I occasionally remind myself of the horrendous implications: as most safety tests of drugs, foods, engineering reliability etc depend on astrology not working... so even if the experiments are not worth pursuing the debate certainly is.

Amelia,
I appreciate your comments but I the interest of friendly debate, I would take issue with this statement:

I don't know about proving astrology scientifically, in the broadest sense of the word "scientifically", but if scientifically means statistically then I think this statement must be true if astrology really does work.

This quote seems to say that if astrology really does work it would have to be demonstratable with statistics (which is Dean's position as well as apparently many astrologers).

If I am understanding you statement correctly, then it reflects what I believe is a widely held unconscious recognition (belief) that for anything to be real ("work") then it would have to be able to be demonstrated by statistical studies. Perhaps that is not what you meant, although this idea is consciously or unconsciously held by a vast majority of the population due to the dominance of the 17th century mechanistically orientated scientific paradigm as well as the tremendous undeniable successes of science.

There are many areas of human endeavor that "work" without any statistical proof nor any conceivable way to set up an experiment to demonstrate statistical proof. Art, for example, no one I know has seriously proposed that we "prove art" with statistics. Love, emotions, and even psychotherapy, philosophy, and religion just do not lend themselves to statistical treatment. Are these things not real? Of course they are, (well maybe not to Richard Dawkins types). Much of this is due to the biases we have promoted since the 17th century that values the "objective" over the "subjective", which is a bit of a joke since we never really deal with the objective world except through the subjective. Thus we place less trust in what is actually closer to us. I am not denying the objective but to quote Gregory Bateson, "There are no pigs and coconuts in the brain".
It seems to me that the unconscious shadow we have, as I have mentioned, is ?physics envy? we have been trapped into the belief that the validity and ?proof? of astrology lies in reconciling it with science and scientific methodology.

Consider this, you are standing out on a pier overlooking the ocean and enjoying a spectacular sunset. Someone comes along and begins to ?explain? that this is really an optical illusion that the sun is not really setting, that Copernicus has proven that the sun does not rotate around the earth but rather the other way around. Now this is true and can be (and was) proven by science but if I were that person enjoying the sunset, I would likely throw the know-it-all off the pier because he would be ruining my experience. Not because he was incorrect, nor due to any disbelief in science and the scientific explanation but rather because at that moment I was just to enjoy the experience without any need for scientific refutation or validation.

I am not saying that astrology is not real just that I (again for me) am more interested in the information I get from astrology, the experience of enchantment in the sense of participatory consciousness, the symbolism, the mythic dimension, and the metaphor.

?Metaphor also means ?to see as?: to see something as something else.??.?The point in not to believe in a metaphor, but to see the light of it??..?Finally metaphors can be profoundly true, even though they are not literally true. Metaphor is poetry plus, not factuality minus. That is, metaphor is not less than fact, but more. Some things are best expressed in metaphorical language; others can be expressed only in metaphorical language.?
from Borg, M. J. (2001). Reading the Bible Again For the First Time, New York, New York, Harper Collins/ Harper San Francisco. P 41

This quote seems to say that if astrology really does work it would have to be demonstratable with statistics

No, what I was saying was "I am restricting my following argument to statistics", not that I was retricting all or any scientific proof of astrology to statistics. I thought that's what my words were stating but it is indicative of the multiplicity of meaning that you interpreted them differently.

As you say, statistics is what most people think of as scientific proof, and what many think of as scientific evidence- and indeed most experiments of astrology so far have attempted to show statistical correlation. But I was not closing the door on other scientific methods if they were proposed. However, you are correct in your belief that I was implying that some sort of scientific proof was required to convince the broader population etc, (though not me personally) for the reasons that you mention.

But the primary purpose of my post was not to explore whether or not astrology should or should not be proved but to explain why astrology and statistics must be incompatible and the broader implications of this for society.

But since you have raised the question of metaphor etc I find myself unable to resist addressing it. ( Must be all those pigs and coconuts in my brain). I think there is a difference between the examples that you quote- sunsets, philosophy, art, etc and astrology. I think the reason people want astrology proved is because they want to use it/apply it in differnt ways. Sunsets, art, even philosophy in its purest form, just are there, as you say, to be experienced. Of course if no-one wanted to apply astrology and just wanted to experience the enchantment as you do you are 100% correct that no proof would be necessary for anyone.


BTW, I am not sure art is a very good example of something that does not require scientific proof- as no two people seem to agree what it is . But probably wise not to go there- that debate would make the astrology one look tame....

Thanks for clearing that up.

Of course if no-one wanted to apply astrology and just wanted to experience the enchantment as you do you are 100% correct that no proof would be necessary for anyone.

By this you appear to be implying that as long as I don't want to apply astrology I can stay in my enchantment. Perhaps we have a different definition of the word enchantment. I apply astrology every day, with real people and real situations. And yes, I do value it precisely for its potential counter effect for the disenchantment that the marriage of science, technology, extreme capitalism, and certain forms of Protestant religion have accomplished as a byproduct of their polygamous marriage since the 17th century. I have no blame for science, or the other afore mentioned systems-. Science is but one of the many things that humans do. It has its own framework, its own rules, its own methods, and its own worldview, and if astrology does not fit that frame work it is no fault of either system. They are just different. I just do not hold out much hope (or desire) that astrology will ever be proven by science for all the reasons that I have stated in this thread ?BUT, I do not think that astrology is less than because of that- in fact, as I have stated I think even more of it. Perhaps it will turn out that I am completely off the rails with this and that just around the corner waits a scientist (or team of them) who will uncover the evidence to once and for all prove astrology. Maybe. So far the results have been less than overwhelming. But it this happens, I will be the first to acknowledge that I was way off the mark.

I fully recognize that many astrologers feel very differently about this than I do. I know many astrologers who desire scientific proof (I do think that their ideas that science is going to completely transform when it finally proves astrology is a wishful fantasy).

On the surface, it would be easy to think that I am saying astrology is somehow ?less real? because it does not lend itself to scientific analysis, whatever the scientific method used. That is simply not true, I think there are many, many things that humans do that are very real but not demonstrable by science. That fact does not diminish their value to me nor does it make them less real.

I am not anti-science. I am anti-scientism. I am against privileging science over all other ways of viewing the world and I, frankly, see this as dangerous because then science has no counter position capable of pointing out its shortcomings. We must remember that not all science is good nor without long term problems that develop from their endeavors- pesticides destroying our water supply comes to mind. As do stock piles of weapons capable of destroying all life on earth. Science is not without its own set of limitations.

I do feel that lively debate between us is very valuable because it forces one to refine and organize one?s views. I may not agree with you but I will defend your right to express how you feel.

... the outcome of the experiment is dependent on the time that it occurs- e.g. the time a sample is drawn will influence its makeup

Thank you for reminding me of this, Amelia; I have no trouble reminding my conscience of the importance of timing, when it reproaches me for not getting down to things, but I don't always remember it in other contexts.

I've been struggling to reconcile my belief that the essential validity of astrology can be conclusively demonstrated, with the apparent failure of the experiments that have been done. I'd concluded that those failures could be partly explained by the resonance that astrologers report between their own issues and those of the charts they analyse; both by the disruption of that resonance when an outside researcher is the conductor and also, perhaps, by the limits it puts on personal experience. I certainly wasn't happy with that - but perhaps time is the key to it.

As an aside (though closer to the original topic than most of what I've written) a month or two ago I wouldn't have said apparent failure. I had taken it for granted that the meta-analysis of results that Dean refers to could be trusted, but then I came across this from Garry Phillipson's interview with The Researchers: "... charts will tend to be of two kinds, those that fit their owners (call these red) and those that don?t (call these black)" juxtaposed with an analogy with a pack of cards suggesting equal numbers. Until I've read that meta-analysis (currently number 673 on my mental to-do list), I have to assume their reasoning there is sounder than this, but ....

I often find myself drawing parallels between the life of the individual and the life of the race. I see Mankind's relationship with the Divine as being analogous in some ways to a child's relationship with its parents, and I think the process of rejection that has taken place over the last few centuries can be understood that way; I believe it is like the period of rejection that a child goes through in order to break out of the instinctual relationship, and develop a conscious understanding of their nature, thereby allowing a deeper relationship. And, just as there are particular times in an individual's life when certain developments take place, and fate throws up obstacles to thwart attempts to make them happen earlier, I'm sure that Mankind's development is governed by similar rules.

James said earlier:

It has forced me to really think about astrology and to refine my views. It has forced me to investigate what I had formally taken for granted and accepted without question.

Perhaps in order to get the most out of astrology, to fully appreciate the mystery, we need to approach it with the rigour that is more usually associated with science - in which case perhaps we have needed time out in the cold to develop the necessary habits of mind.

I hadn't thought of it in these terms before, but it could be as simple as that - those experiments failed simply because it wasn't yet time for the process of reconciliation to begin. But that's something I would certainly expect the sciencists* to resist!

I think I've probably given James the wrong idea of what I expect; I do think science will be transformed if the fundamental premise of astrology is proved, but only on the same sort of timescale as it was transformed in the last century by the findings of quantum physics. But on a personal level I want to see astrology proved so that I can mention my interest in it without the response of "That rubbish" that I got recently from someone who admitted to knowing nothing at all about it.


* The word 'scientist' is so well established as 'a practitioner of science' that I don't like to use it for 'someone with a scientistic mindset'. I've used 'sciencist' in my own mind for a while, but this is the first time I've used it in communication. If there is an established term, I'd like to know it, but I can't think of one.