Eddy, I can certainly understand your qualms, and I thank you for being honest. I can't much speak to the Keplerian astrology of angles and aspects, as I have no experience of it and little background in the subject, but I do understand that such an astrology may more easily lend itself to testing, if only by virtue of the fact that many variables have been stripped away from it, though even there scientific testing might prove difficult. I don't know - perhaps it could be done on an aspect-by-aspect basis or transit-by-transit basis. Perhaps not.

Waybread, here's where you've got me - and yes, I've had to cut and paste, I'm aware of that:

To me personally, astrology dwells more in the spiritual than in the material...

Except in a very few fields like theology, truth-claims gain legitimacy with respect to objective, external validation...

For one thing, unless one subscribes to a spiritual, holistic, or divinatory explanation of astrology, we are still in a Ptolemaic cause-and-effect model. Insofar as I understand the applicability of statistics (admittedly, not far) this strikes me as exactly the kind of subject that should be amenable to statistical testing.

Do you see the contradiction? Your belief in astrology is based in spirituality, therefore - does it fall loosely into the category of theology, which doesn't require objective validation? Or is that something else entirely?

You go on to say that some un-named astrology is in the realm of Ptolemaic cause-and-effect and is amenable to statistical testing.

Could you at least define the unspiritual or undivinatory cause-and-effect astrology that is amenable to statistics, and explain how it differs from yours?

I have a feeling that this may end up in yet another traditional versus modern debate, and if that's where it's going, it's probably best to stop now. I hope I'm wrong about that, though.

Hi Olivia. Actually, I've been finishing a long anticipated project of reading Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology, cover to cover. I am laid up at home with some corrective surgery for a few weeks, and am realizing that my pre-op plan of not laying in a supply of page-turner novels and DVDs was a good one. This is one very thoughtful book, but it takes the author a while to make his points. I don't agree with everything he says, but I had his book in mind when I posted.

If astrology's accuracy is in doubt (as per Eddy's post, above) then one can make one or more choices. (1) Drop astrology, (2) Pursue the Holy Grail of better technique, or (3) Do it any way because it is fun and offers an opportunity to help people through garden-variety counseling.

So let me ask, if astrology could be demonstrated to have no basis in fact, would you still practice it?

The meta-narrative underneath astrology's accuracy claims is the foundational question of how astrology works; or why it should work, if it does. I say, that we cannot now (or yet) answer these questions definitively. But the inquiry is well worth the effort.

Possibility #1A: An extrapolation of Cornelius's "daemon" or "god" at work, into which the astrologer is able to tap, might seem to deny the legitimacy of a Ptolemaic, cause-and-effect model, because if divine entities exist, they are unlikely to be constrained by mechanistic systems and reasoning. For Jews and Christians, this would expecially be the case if the divine spirit at work in accurate horoscope readings were God the Creator, who cannot be so limited.

1B. On the other hand, natural scientists prior to the Darwinian revolution believed in God and in a predictable universe. Their concept of natural history was to analyse how God's handiwork functioned. If there is a God who created a predictable universe, then statistical tests also make sense; although with the caveats that God is not constrained to the orderliness that scientists' discern. [Darwin's impact on the divorce between science and religion is a fascinating digression here.]

Possibility #2A: An atheist probably wouldn't accept this line of reasoning. But if this throws us back into a a system of measurable planets' effects on oftentimes measurable human affairs, then there is no reason why astrology should not be amenable to the methods used by the behavioural and social sciences. Namely, statistics. Otherwise, there is an exceptionalist argument for astrology to be unpacked.

Qualitative methodologies are available to explore astrology's claims, but I haven't yet seen them used to analyse astrology. (Which may reflect my sleuthing limits, not what's out there. I am discounting the typical unsystematic survey of celebrity charts and client files.)

Possibility #2B: Science does move beyond simple cause-and-effect into more holistic systems. See the thread on this board about fractals. Nevertheless, my understanding of such interactive systems in the physical sciences is that mathematics is the primary language for understanding them (by experts, that is!) But who in astrology has really developed these theories, to the point that we might deploy them or try to substantiate their truth claims?

Some spiritual truth claims are amenable to empirical investigation. Social scientists have found, for example, changes in brain activity among meditating Buddhist monks, and increased longevity for Orthodox Jewish men, compared to the general population. Others are not amenable to empirical investigation: the "Does God exist?" question, for example.

So as an individual with a deep appreciation of what science I do understand and what spirituality I experience, I continue to keep the above options open.

Thanks for being understanding.

Peter Niehenke, the astrologer I wrote about and who got negative results after statistically researching aspects, remarks:

Peter Niehenke wrote:As a professional astrologer, I recognise that the negative results are a reality. But the evidence of my success in counselling is also a reality. A world in which astrology exists is surely more enjoyable than one without it. This remains for the moment even true for me!

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/d-rese2.htm , ?4. Aspects

His reaction was neither one of objection to statistical research, nor of quitting astrology. Here is an article in which he explains his views. It's a nice article and I can recommend it because it discusses the points that often are discussed in astrology research threads.
http://h1743330.stratoserver.net/onlinetexte7.html
Most of his website is in German but the article is in English.
Here are some quotes from the article:

Peter Niehenke wrote:For more than ten years now I have been preoccupied with the question how it fits that we, in the counselling session, are able to impress our clients again and again, that again an again I get this deep feeling of proof when reading a chart, but that nearly every test to objectively prove the correctness of chart interpretations in scientific studies failed in the end.

..., it could well be that scientific methods in general, and statistical methods in particular, are not appropriate to prove astrology as a whole but they are in fact appropriate to prove the statements made in astrological textbooks and announced in astrology courses. It is not very helpful to explain these facts away or to deny their existence. We all too often try to wriggle ourselves out of our problems with various justifications, downplaying our failure, finding thousands of explanations after the event -- instead of getting a deeper knowledge of astrology by taking up these facts.

Because the ability to "see" similarity depends on empathy or willingness only real counselling situations should be taken, for: If someone knows participating in a study his approach to the situation is completely different from a real counselling situation. He will for instance be more "critical" handling the interpretations and most probably will not really let himself in for the process. In other words: It is not possible to learn about the processes going on in a real counselling situation by investigating artificial situations. This necessity of real counselling situations of course evokes serious ethical problems: If I want to find out whether wrong birth dates yield the same evidence as correct birth dates neither the astrologer nor the client should know whether the chart in question is based upon the correct or the false birth time. For the time being I have no idea how this ethical problem can be solved.

If you have BBC4, then the following tonight has been highly recommended to me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wgq0l

"I kid you not, statistics is now the sexiest subject on the planet" says Hans Rosling, presenter of The Joy of Stats.

Peter Niehenke sounds like a thoughtful person! How refreshing to see someone exploring the terrain between the two camps of rigid support and rejection of astrology. I loved his statement:

"As a professional astrologer, I recognise that the negative results are a reality. But the evidence of my success in counselling is also a reality. A world in which astrology exists is surely more enjoyable than one without it."

One point that can explain astrologers' success with advisees, is the so-called Barnum Effect, named after the 19th American century showman PT Barnum. Basically he got customers at his circus sideshows to believe in all kinds of hoaxes through the power of suggestion. If I suggest, for example, that someone exhibits traits of envy, it is easy to get an affirmative from him, because everyone experiences envy from time to time.

On the other hand, sometimes astrology operates at a more empirical level. Two days ago on another astrology Forum, I did a chart reading for a woman asking about her mother. Mom has Saturn in Capricorn smack-dab on her ascendant. I asked the woman whether her mother is physically small or very slender. She responded that her mother is 4'10"!!

On the other hand, I've had my share of misses in chart readings, which I chalk up to my lack of knowledge or haste. But I had such a strong feeling about this chart, more of a sense that I could "get under the hood." This is where the Moment of Astrology comes in, I think.

So where statistics might come in is whether Saturn in Capricorn conjunct ascendant, adjusting for ethnic/genetic differences, routinely produces small people. If it doesn't, then my "hit" with the mother's stature could be explained either as a lucky guess--or, as the Moment of Astrology where one makes more of a psychic or even spiritual connection with the native. And this Moment doesn't happen with every reading.

Back when I registered for my sole (required) university statistics course, it scared the bejeesus out of me. I had a very weak high school background in math. A few weeks into the class, I realized that statistics is all about logical thinking. At the elementary level of statistics, where one is learning about simple tests rather than creating them, indeed, the math seemed secondary. So logical thinking seems entirely compatible with astrology.

Looks nice. Unfortunately I have no connection to TV at all.


Waybread, you just clicked the 'submit' button a second before me I see. And speaking about the Barnum effect, this is one of lot of such effects indeed. Another thing might be the intuitional flash of insight. Combined with the devotion to a special technique, intuation can lead you to the right way.

Perhaps this is also what happens in horary reading which therefore requires a sincere mind in asking questions. Although technique might be seen as of secondary importance from the intuition theory point of view, the necessity of detailed technical application of the rules could be related to intuition in which this search is a kind of ritual. Since there are many details required, many outcomes are possible for one reading, however if the intention is sincere intuition could lead one to the path of details which lead to the correct answer.

This view (I'm not sure if this is how the horary practitioners themselves see it) could explain why the use of technique alone won't lead to a correct answer and would be just a dead ritual. Just like in religious rituals then there has to be some 'soul' in it. Performing the rituals in detal in many religions are meant to lead to the required concentration and devotion to lead to a certain state of mind, not just for the sake of the performance. Rather than reflection of technique alone the answer reflects the state of mind of the questioner as well. In howfar this is a psychological effect or an intuitional effect, that's the question.

I'll explain now that the link I placed a few posts above was sent to me coincidentally by my son, who works as a Research Fellow in the Discipline of Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin. He obtained his PhD in mathematics and the probability of decision-making analysis (where, BTW, the issue of subjective instinct was shown to play a positive role in the effectiveness of decision-making anlysis; which argues statistical support for intuitive reasoning - that was treated as a minor point in his PhD but it is the only point that I remember !)

He recommended the BBC program to me so that I would understand more about some statistical arguments he is currently involved in, and in my reply I mentioned that it would be a timely addition to a discussion we were holding here about the general value of statistical evaluations - then I sent him a copy of the link which opened this thread.

This morning he emailed me his opinion of that paper, and since he is professionally involved in research into the foundations of statistics and their use in society, I think his opinion is worth quoting. I asked if he would mind me quoting him publicly and he said no, so what follows is the part of his personal email which has relevance to this discussion:

----------------------

"I became aware of that article when it first appeared and I agree with the author. The problem is that engineers, sociologists, psychologists etc, are only given a basic introduction to statistics, and they then go off and are encouraged to perform multiple ?significance tests? (often because Journal editors require this) without actually being aware of the underlying assumptions that are necessary for those tests to provide valid conclusions.

An all-too-common misinterpretation that occurs, as highlighted in the article, is the assumption that a ?significant probability? means an hypothesis is true (or holds strong probability of being true). This is simply a fallacy. The tests that are derived are based on determining the probability of observing the data conditional on the assumption that a specified hypothesis is true, yet they are NOT the probability of the hypothesis being true given the observed data (which in practice is what we would actually like to know).

The actual formula, which is a derived mathematical fact (known in the community as Bayes? Theorem), is that the probability of observing the data under the assumption of the hypothesis P(Observed Data | Hypothesis True), is equal to the probability of the Hypothesis being true given the observed data P(Hypothesis True | Observed Data), multiplied by the ratio of the probability of observing the data P( Observed Data) and the probability of the Hypothesis being true P( Hypothesis True).
[Snip - *]

But to use this formula we need to hold an a priori probability of the hypothesis being true (in the absence of any data), and an a priori probability of observing the data (in the absence of any model). These are often difficult to determine, and usually require some subjective input from an expert. Yet, far too often this aspect is ignored.

That said, a good sound statistical analysis, performed by a knowledgeable individual who holds many years of training of the necessary axioms, assumptions and consequences, would still appear to be the best way to make inference in areas of uncertainty. The following parody gives examples of our daily problems:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6878253/ [How not to collaborate with a biostatistician]

Yet it is the charlatans that attract the media attention, because they claim ?statistical evidence? of news worthy situations. That said, they won?t (I sincerely hope) be obtaining any statistics tenure at a reputable University."

-------------------

* I cut some of the mathematical details of the actual equation used in Bayes? Theorem, but have them if anyone wants them. The point I find of interest is in the last paragraph "it is the charlatans that attract the media attention". I wonder how often it is these kinds of charletans that try to make charletans out of us?

Deb

Great post, Deb!

Is there any chance that you and a couple of experienced astrologers could collaborate with your son on a statistical study of some of astrology's truth claims?

If so, it would be interesting to introduce some qualitative research elements: (1) modeling the reasoning of astrologers as they evaluate a nativity, and (2) getting input from fellow astrologers and statisticians about the research design before the data analysis begins.

(1) I could be way wrong (due to ignorance) but my sense is that statistical studies in astrology to date input variables the way a statistician or behavioural scientist might use them, but that the usual methods might be a very poor fit with the way a good astrologer actual reads a chart. One example here might be heirarchies of astrological data: what does an astrologer look at first? If a planetary configuration with a typical interpretation doesn't fit the native's life experience, what else in the chart might explain that experience?

(2) I think oftentimes the researchers do their best to design a sound methodology, but if they have overlooked or misinterpreted something, the criticisms start flying after the completed study is published. It would be better to solicit some critiques during the methodology development phase, when legitimate problems could be corrected prior to the actual data analysis being conducted.

Finally, it seems astrologers through the ages have claimed that good astrology in the hands of a knowledgeable practitioner really works; and that astrology's predictive failures are due to bad astrology. Probably the subjects in (1), above, could be carefully pre-screened.

Another way of looking at the Bayes probability system to which Deb?s son refers is in the manner in which people tend to think, as a personal probability

prior probability ? data ? posterior probability

meaning that one starts with a prior set of probabilities in one?s mind. Next, one observes or produces data. The data are then used to modify the prior probabilities, producing a posterior set.

Consider last summer?s World Cup football matches. There were 64 games in all. As a prior probability a skeptic might say that the location of the Moon above or below the horizon makes no difference in whether or not a favored country will win a match.

We examine the data. In 44 matches the Moon was above the horizon at kick-off and in these games 22 of the countries with a FIFA ranking that was higher than their opponent?s rank won their games (that?s 50%). 10 of the remaining above-horizon games were drawn and in 12 the non-favored country won. These results confirm the prior probability.

However, in the remaining 20 games the Moon was below the horizon when the match began. In 15 of these (75%) the favored country won; in 4 the match was drawn; and in only one (Brazil vs. Netherlands, in which the # 1 ranked country lost to the country FIFA ranked # 4) was the favored country defeated.

The observed difference is meaningful. 75% of 20 favorites win when the Moon is below the horizon against 50% of 44 when she was above it. This difference is statistically significant with odds of 19 to 1, the 95% standard scientists normally accept as indicating a valid difference.

The prior probability of no difference, the value of 50%, which is in fact a null hypothesis, when the Moon is below the horizon can now be modified to become a posterior probability of 75%. It remains at 50% otherwise.

Cheers.

37CENNED, you would definitely be on my short list of candidates for the mother of all statistical astrology studies!

Just a couple of issues, though, re: your observations.

1. "prior probability ? data ? posterior probability." Sadly the views of a lot of people remain unaffected by new data. Oftentimes the new data are ignored, or simply explained away.

2. The results of your moon and soccer study are really interesting. Yet I don't see an explanation for the correlation. And what might it be like? Causal? Synchronicty? An artefact of the data that might evaporate the a larger study? Then astrologically, how do we explain the cases that don't fit the pattern?

Hi Waybread

I don't want to speak for my son without speaking to him, so I'll wait until I see him over Christmas. But (so you understand) I don't feel any desire or inclination to justify astrology. I have a personal conviction in astrology (as I understand it and use it) because my experience has shown it to have a multi-faceted value which cannot be doubted. But I also think its most worthwhile principles are heavily dependent upon Platonic philosophy which doesn't stand up well to purely objective analysis. Some elements are probably of more value to science than science is currently able to recognise; but such reliable principles can afford to wait for attitudes to change. So I don't feel any motivation to prove astrology; I'm just happy to have the opportunity to explore it and use it.

But I will report back later,
Deb

Deb, thanks for your response. I hope your son is interested! In my case, astrology is my passion, whether or not it actually works.

I would like to distinguish between (1) the natural and physical sciences and (2) the social and behavioural sciences. I am not saying you or anyone on this thread conflates them, but these are very different branches of knowledge with very different subject matters. Any statistical test of astrology's claims would belong in the latter category.

The term "behavioural science" would belong primarily (though not exclusively) to psychology. Psychology and some sub-fields of sociology, I believe, are the types of social/behavioural science most heavily invested in quantitative research methodologies of the sort that would best relate to astrology.

Other branches of the social sciences with some relevance to astrology (such as cultural/social anthropology) are increasingly moving into qualitative methodologies, in which the researchers recognize the Procrustean Bed effect of many quantitative research designs. Even with a survey instrument that has been pre-tested, the study oftentimes doesn't capture enough of the subjects' own experiences.

Coming from a qualitative background myself, this is why I think it would be important for researchers who are statisticians to talk to experienced astrologers about how they actually sit down and read a horoscope. (Books on horoscope interpretation steps should also be consulted.) And then I think a statistical research design could combine the best of both qualitative and quantitative procedures.

But I personally do not feel that simply because I am convinced that astrology "works" that it therefore makes sense to sidestep the issue of why correlations between horoscope placements and subjects' personality traits or life experiences have consistently failed, in study after study. I should think this is a particular problem for astrological techniques that appear to be objective, rather than those based upon some kind of loose pop-psych intuition.

To my way of thinking, the anti-statistics response among astrologers has been mostly one of simply ignoring the more thoughtful critics, rather than facing them openly. [I am not speaking here, of the committed antagonists like Richard Dawkins.]

Worse yet, some astrologers imagine the more outrageous critics, in a leap of logic, to stand in for the entire body of scientists and social scientists. This leads to an anti-science bias among some astrologers that totally belies our reliance upon science in our everyday lives. It also puts astrologers in the bind of effectively saying that the scientific methodologies that allow us to drive a car, take beneficial medications, or send e-mail-- necessarily and inexplicably are worthless insofar as astrology is concerned.

I don't see why. If astrologers argue that (A) there is a strong correlation between certain horoscope placements and human events, but (B) statistics are incapable of demonstrating it; then we are stuck with an exceptionalist argument for astrology--which I have not really seen astrologers make in much depth or persuasiveness, beyond Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology. And then divination of a spiritual sort is not what many astrologers think they are doing. Some even argue for explanations (like gravity) that are fundamentally scientific in character, even where they are highly implausible.

So unless an astrologer has a more spiritual or theological explanation for why astrology "works", I cannot fathom why a better research design, devised by a team of knowledgeable experts of good will, would not be worth conducting. Because otherwise, look what we are left with!

Thankfully, with a visit from your son over the holidays, you are likely to get an open-minded hearing.