Haha, I was gonna suggest what Waybread said (Method 2), but I guess that is no longer necessary

It is interesting that you suggested a blind experiment, I forgot about that and did not really think it was necessary...but it is good to be careful not to introduce systematic bias if possible.

About the Astro-Databank sample though, can we claim that it is a random sample? I think not. The charts in the database are often those people who are prominent or infamous in some way, and if we want to gather sufficient events to rectify the charts, this may also make it less random (i.e. people whose live events are more known will be more likely to be selected).

Furthermore, we would prefer to work with AA charts for this study, so that further de-randomises the sample.

Also, is the sample representative? That's hard to answer, because the demographic profile of the sample is very heterogenous.

If we cannot have a sufficiently random and representative sample, we might be inclined to strive for a large sample instead. The problem with this is, it may exaggerate small effects.

Which brings us to the fundamental question: how should we construct the hypothesis test? Or do we really need one?

Hello Paul,

Re: "Whatever claims Atlantean makes nor what his own personal success stories are, they are not a study of the efficacy of his rectification technique that would convince others."

I think you mean to say, "...of his rectification technique that would convince all others." Many HAVE been convinced of it. (and I have done quite a few rectifications for other astrologers) I have long given up on there being any (universal) consensus among astrologers. I once was arguing with an astrologer about Primary Directions relative to events. For the event, "Death of Father", there was a Saturn-MC aspect and they (for the life of them) could not see how that aspect could relate to that event. Sometimes, it is a lost cause.

Re: "Geoffrey, why don't you examine Atlantean's methods..."

Yes, by all means! Juan Estadella has a book (FOR FREE to download from his website (in the book section)) that explains the main elements and demonstrates Polaris quite effectively. It's free...you'll only have to find time to read it and an open mind to contemplate it.

Re: "...get Polaris and you could then enact the study yourself."

Polaris is not available currently. The author is working on a subsequent version of the program and is not actively selling the current version. [He normally spent quite a bit of (his own) time to make sure that purchasers became proficient in the methods, which took a lot of time. He is reserving his time for the updated version, so buying Polaris currently is not possible.] The newer version should add functionality, but the main algorithm has already proven itself (a hundred times over, to my satisfaction).

Re: "I actually think the arena of rectification is a very interesting one with regards not just proving rectification, but astrology as a whole."

This was my approach with Rudolf Smit (skeptic) about how to prove Astrology actually functions. I have seen Polaris be able to go from an event list to a birthtime (often a well-documented, closely-timed one) so many times, that I know this is one sure method to prove it to a scientist, since said scientist would not be able to deny that the odds of just lucking into the actual birthtime within +/- 5 minutes would be 143:1. Doing it just three times in three tries implies 2,985,983:1 odds. There is MORE of a chance to flip a coin and call it (correctly) 21 times in a row!

I offered to demonstrate the methods on a test subject (a skeptical one at that) publicly. I don't know what more of a good faith offering I could have made.

Peace

James

One problem with Waybread's method #2 should be obvious...

The AA-rated database (birthtimes we supposedly can trust), is tremendously x:00, x:15, x:30, and x:45 heavy! ie. Even though AA-rated, pure mathematical probability informs us that they CAN NOT be correct. Real birthtimes do not congregate around even 15 minute intervals of time.

The AA-rated database, created to give us astrologers birthtimes we can rely on, proves its own error statistically, by having a massively disproportionate representation of births (supposedly, but not possible in reality) at the even 15 minutes. How ironic!

Some of the times are of course correct, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Anyone with even a beginner's understanding of mathematical probability should understand why this is so.

For the benefit of those who are having a bit of trouble wrapping their mind around what I am saying, let's make an analogy...

The birthtimes (in the AA-rated database) have way too many birthtimes at (say) 3:00, 3:15, 3:30, and 3:45 and not enough birthtimes at 3:02, 3::17, 3:29, etc. An analogous situation would be for someone to go and measure the heights of trees in nature and if they reported that MOST trees were an exact number of feet tall, wouldn't you be skeptical, since it's obvious that there should be many more trees with irregular heights than even ones, to the foot? Same with the birthtimes... it is IMPOSSIBLE that significantly more birthtimes center on these even times. It is obvious the time was rounded. What does a rounded birthtime mean? IT'S WRONG!!!! The problem is...no one (except an expert rectifier) has the possibility to determine which were rounded... or from Paul's point of view, no one. (period)

We have a supposedly reliable database of birthtimes that a quick observation quickly shows us is not worth the paper it's not printed on.

James

@Atlantean:

I understand what you are saying, but are the birth times really skewed to those values? How did you find out about this? I can't really see this from my own experience, but experience is of course, non-representative.

Can someone get some summary statistics on the AA Astro-Databank charts? I might be able to do it if I know of a way to download all the data...



That's why we need to check the data before we collect them and do the analysis. If what you said is true, then the data will have a lot of random errors.

In this case, method 1 may be better, but the problem is again, the sample may not be random and representative. Whether you are using a simple, clustered, stratified or convenience sample, you will have to face the communicative, geographic or ideological limitations of the different types of sample.

This means the study will have to be repeated over and over to overcome these limitations...sigh. lol



On a personal note, I can't believe there are still places where your birth time is not recorded on the birth certificate. I happen to be one of the victims

Hello larxene,

Re: "I understand what you are saying, but are the birth times really skewed to those values? How did you find out about this?"

I thought it was common knowledge.

To see it for yourself, just go pull up a bunch of individual records and write down the given birthtimes' minutes. You will have more x:00, x:15, x:30, and x:45 (proportionally) represented than any other times, even though odd-times should dominate approx. fifteen to one...

James

Geoffrey wrote:the fact that Polaris has an efficient pattern recognition algorithm and has found matches between life events and planetary positions is not proof of rectification, or that prediction using that information has been successful.

true that! this salient fact seems to evade the attention of some for whatever reason..

Boys, boys.... Could we cut to the chase?

1. Rounded birth times. An interesting point has been raised, that a lot of hospital and birth certificate times appear to be rounded. Mine is spot-on a 10-minute interval, so perhaps I was born a minute or three earlier or later. But frankly, we could allow for some small margin of error and still conclude that the Polaris (or some other rectification) system has merit if it got within x number of minutes of exact. I'd propose a 5-minute acceptable margin of error, to account for hospital rounding in the data set.

2. Sample bias. Larxene raises an interesting point about the Astro-Data bank celebrity charts being a biased sample.... but frankly, anybody who wants his/her chart rectified to get a more detailed astrological reading is part of a biased sample of the larger population. We are not talking about a Gauquelin-type study of eminent people, merely whether Polaris (or some other rectification system) can accurately pinpoint birth times.

Also, a lot of "scientific" research includes biases of one sort or another. The relevant question is whether the bias is liable to throw off the results. Whether a newborn infant later becomes an adult known for singing and dancing, or throwing a football, seems irrelevant to testing a chart rectification method.

An advantage of celebrity charts is that so many of their life history details are public.

3. Locating accurate known birth times. I read natal charts for people on two other astrology forums, and I have rnoticed that people from India know their birth times down to the minute. Probably this reflects the greater respectability of astrology in India. It should be possible to get a sample of India natives, but might take more effort.

4. "Blind" research seems critical to eliminate potential bias by the astrologer conducting the actual rectification tests. Even an unbiased astrologer like the Atlantean would still be charged with bias if he knew the birth times before-hand.

A research partner could pre-screen and eliminate any celebrity charts that seem rounded more than a 5-minute interval; or a willing group of participants could be pre-screened to exclude any with suspect birth times.

Geoffrey wrote: Waybread, for what it is worth, I have my ascendant in the first degree of Leo. (I am lucky, my mother had the presence of mind to look at the clock as I let out my first cry!) But I have the feeling that I was more Cancer like in my younger days and it was as I grew older that Leo type qualities came to the fore. With your ascendant near a sign cusp, perhaps you have the same impression - that you have evolved from Virgo to Libra as you got older?

Thankfully nobody here has recommended determining (aka guessing) the rising sign based upon physical appearance, because you would expect progressions to exert some influences. If anybody thinks they can spot rising signs based on appearance I recommend the astrofaces site:
http://www.astrofaces.com/astrofaces/index.html

Also, different planetary positions can really throw off the stereotypes of the rising sign. A strong moon might make the native feel more like Cancer rising. I exhibit Virgo rising traits through my mental outlook, not through my appearance. I do modern astrology and with Uranus closely square my ascendant there is no way my physical appearance could fit the neat & tidy Virgo stereotype, especially when I was young. And I say this as someone who never glanced at astrology prior to turning 40.

The funny thing is that when I used Efrein's book to try to rectify my chart, I could see Libra rising pretty easily. By that time progressions could have taken effect, so they are something to watch out for with more subjective rectification methods.

This is what makes the Polaris software so exciting, if it could be conclusively demonstrated on a bigger sample.

The implications would be huge, because how could it work if the astrology-scoffers are correct? And mightn't it shed some light on the house systems that most effectively clock transits?

Hi all,

I got Polaris a while ago. The program showed a time, very close to my real birthtime, under the first 10 scores.

On the contrary to find the time for two other family member was very difficult although I had many events to use. I am not a professional astrologer and don't use the program often. People who use it every day will certainly find it much easier to figure out the correct birthtimes on a regular basis.

Hello Waybread,

Re: "Larxene raises an interesting point about the Astro-Data bank celebrity charts being a biased sample...."

I believe that was my point that the Astrodatabank is skewed towards even 15 minute intervals. If Larxene made the point earlier, I apologize.

Re: "The relevant question is whether the bias is liable to throw off the results."

How would you propose it be done where it wouldn't throw it off? If the birthtime was actually 10:18 am, but the AA-database has it from the birth certificate as 10:30 am (happens much more often than one might think), it will be rated AA; HOWEVER, the MC is off by a whopping 3?. Most would look at the faulty-recorded 10:30 am and see Polaris' results as 10:17:44 am and think it was WRONG by over twelve minutes, when in fact it might very well be 100% correct. I don't see an easy way around this problem and it casts serious doubts about using the AA database, since a sizable error in a specific case implies a likely error in the general case!

THE way to see if it is (actually) correct is by the coordination of several reliable systems that together have such a high odds against them agreeing across all events that it dispels coincidence. (for those that studied probability and statistics)

Take care

James

Hello Southern Cross,

Thank you for sharing your experiences with Polaris!

Beyond having chart-casting software, I can't think of any software more important than Polaris, since ALL we do with astrology depends on the accuracy of that initial birth info. (which is OFTEN in error, whether from Mother's memory OR from Lois Rodden's AA-rated database)

Re: Some rectifications being more difficult

Strangely enough, I have had this circumstance several times and asked for one or two more events from the client. Often these extra couple of events have made ALL the difference in seeing the result clearly and/or in Polaris rating the birthtime much more highly than surrounding birthtimes...

Peace

James

Hi there,

interesting topic here!

I am just replying to say that a few years ago (I think 2010), I've worked with Luis Ribeiro and Helena Avelar on a project to try to find statistical evidence on a rectification method described in William Lilly's Christian Astrology, namely the Syzygy method.

Basically, we tested two real data-sets, one from people submitting their data to our webapp, and other with 100+ births of a maternity hospital in Lisbon, Portugal. The data were very accurate, and seemed to support the validity of the syzygy method. However, when we tested against a random control data-set with fictitious birth data, we also had strong support for the syzygy rectification method. Careful analysis showed us that the syzygy method was crafted in such way that was biased to give a majority of very good results, independently of the data veracity.

So we had to conclude that nothing could be concluded about the veracity of the method, although the statistical real data seemed to agree. Again, only when we compared with random data we could detect the problem..

I've published the article with our findings in The Tradition journal, you can find the article here if you're interested in the subject: http://www.skyplux.com/init/static/animodar_effect.pdf


Jo?o Ventura
http://www.skyplux.com/