Skyscript Astrology Forum

Quote:
If they ever did prove astrology scientifically (which of course they won't, because they can't), then I'll be glad to leave the subject well alone and let the scientists do the judgements too.

I don't believe you Deb - I don't think you could ever leave the subject alone!

Well the chances of it ever happening are so infetesimal that neither of us need worry about losing face over that comment. James will eat a thousand astrolabes before we come close to it.

I need to read up again on the anti-astrology chart but here comes a comment that links in to James? last post about Dean. I am far (I mean faaarrrrr) too young to know about the Zeitgeist of 1975, but from how I remember the presentation of astrology to astrologers in the late 80s, you would think that it was a proven objective science. I can only imagine that it was worse in the 70s, and I can completely relate to the desire of scientists at that time to say ?look, this is not a proven science you know?.

I think astrologers need to be able to take themselves out of the centre of the issue before they realise the sanity of not expecting scientific acknowledgement. So let?s forget that we are western astrologers, and let?s imagine that we are talking about the scientific acknowledgement of Chinese astrology. Is it likely to happen? No. Will it be better for Chinese astrologers or the world at large if it does happen? No. (In fact quite the opposite - surely part of the charm of Chinese astrology is that it offers a different viewpoint to that of science?) There is an immense amount of human knowledge in the system, and it can be used to great advantage, but science can evolve quite happily without understanding of the year of the pig and it is never going to acknowledge the tendencies of Taurus (or sidereal Aries, if you like). On the other hand, no one cares whether science can measure the power of human belief, because most human beings have a belief and most come to realise that it is most powerful when believed in most. So my view is that astrology gains support from the fact that we are human, not from anything that can be given or taken away by science. James nails it where he talks about our need for a sense of meaning, ... and that needing a sense of mystery.

And yet ?. At the same time I?ve noticed a real decline in the number of experiments and statistical studies of astrology, and this sort of saddens me too. I am sure that there are many more objective realities to be recognised than we presently allow for, but it seems that Dean has demonstrated that astrologers and scientists are talking such different languages that few people seem willing to make the effort anymore. (Papretis excepted of course! It is good to see some of the studies that have been mentioned in the news forum lately).


Sorry if I seem to be side-tracking here. Hope I haven?t drifted too far off topic.

I totally agree.

To me, science can never really deal with astrology because the two disciplines operate on a fundamentally different and perhaps ultimately non-reconcile systems of thought. They differ greatly in how they operate; although it is true we both use mathematics- the questions we are asking are radically different. They are entirely different orders of information. Science, while it uses notations called symbols (H2O stands for water, etc.) is not actually capable of using symbols in the real sense of symbol. The word symbol comes from the root word "symbolos" which literally means to throw together. Science separates in order to understand- symbols throw together. Science cannot deal with one thing meaning another; it cannot do what symbol systems can do. Science demands precision, control, repeatability, as well as mathematical and statistical proofs.

And despite the many years and much effort, in the main, astrological research has never produced much statistical proof. Yes, I know the Gaugelin studies are always dragged up to counter what I just said but let?s face it that work is far removed from what astrologers really do and besides that the results were less that overwhelming. One would have perhaps expected a better yield from a field so frequently plowed.

If one can write an entire book on the various meaning of the symbols of Saturn imagine what science would look like if it tried that! When I can say "well this Saturn in your chart could refer to the restrictions you felt in childhood, or it could indicate the stern Father figure in your life, or it might mean limitations in your perception, or it could indicate the testing you are going through, or it could mean death, or it could symbolize your fight with city hall, or....oh well, you get the idea.

The problem it seems to me is;
A) We are suffering (consciously or unconsciously) from physics envy. This is perhaps understandable when the sciences have been elevated to the ultimate position of authority in modern culture. There have all of the cookies so to speak- the funding, the job security, and the respect of the large majority of the culture whereas we astrologers are on the fringe and left out in the cold. Most of us do not earn our living from astrology. And God forbid that we should apply for funding to do astrological research (especially the kind I would be in favor which would be phenomenological not statistical).

B) We humans had a very difficult time dealing with paradox and even astrologers who one might think would be the most open to "both/ and " thinking are often just as resistant and insist that science will one day prove astrology and they will all be one thing. If that were to happen you can bet your astrolabe that science will be seen as the authority not astrologers.

Science works like this:
1- Phase 1- This (whatever- fill in the blank) is complete hogwash- totally without merit, ludicrious.
2- Phase 2-Well, there are some anomalies here maybe we should take a look at just in case there is anything to this.
3- Phase 3- Ah! We have proven this is actually so.
4- Phase 4- We knew this all along, it was just a matter of proving it.

This happens very frequently in science. For example, medical doctors who performed surgery were greatly insulted when it was first suggested that they at least wash their hands before doing surgery to prevent infection. They were, in fact, outraged at the idea.

C) Astrology is nearly always defined in relationship to something else. Either it is "pseudo-science", or "alternative religion" or the reverse but always linked to something else. Why not just astrology, a mystery, and better for being so.

D) At times, we astrologers seem to have the same theoretical position that science claims, namely, that it is possible to answer all questions about life and the universe though our astrology- everything from the purpose of life to why my cat just got up and crossed the room. I find that just as disenchanting as the program of science that claims the same thing.

I apologize that I did not have time to make this shorter.

James Frazier wrote:I totally agree.

To me, science can never really deal with astrology because the two disciplines operate on a fundamentally different and perhaps ultimately non-reconcile systems of thought. They differ greatly in how they operate; although it is true we both use mathematics- the questions we are asking are radically different. They are entirely different orders of information. Science, while it uses notations called symbols (H2O stands for water, etc.) is not actually capable of using symbols in the real sense of symbol. The word symbol comes from the root word "symbolos" which literally means to throw together. Science separates in order to understand- symbols throw together. Science cannot deal with one thing meaning another; it cannot do what symbol systems can do. Science demands precision, control, repeatability, as well as mathematical and statistical proofs.

And despite the many years and much effort, in the main, astrological research has never produced much statistical proof. Yes, I know the Gaugelin studies are always dragged up to counter what I just said but let?s face it that work is far removed from what astrologers really do and besides that the results were less that overwhelming. One would have perhaps expected a better yield from a field so frequently plowed.

If one can write an entire book on the various meaning of the symbols of Saturn imagine what science would look like if it tried that! When I can say "well this Saturn in your chart could refer to the restrictions you felt in childhood, or it could indicate the stern Father figure in your life, or it might mean limitations in your perception, or it could indicate the testing you are going through, or it could mean death, or it could symbolize your fight with city hall, or....oh well, you get the idea.

The problem it seems to me is;
A) We are suffering (consciously or unconsciously) from physics envy. This is perhaps understandable when the sciences have been elevated to the ultimate position of authority in modern culture. There have all of the cookies so to speak- the funding, the job security, and the respect of the large majority of the culture whereas we astrologers are on the fringe and left out in the cold. Most of us do not earn our living from astrology. And God forbid that we should apply for funding to do astrological research (especially the kind I would be in favor which would be phenomenological not statistical).

B) We humans had a very difficult time dealing with paradox and even astrologers who one might think would be the most open to "both/ and " thinking are often just as resistant and insist that science will one day prove astrology and they will all be one thing. If that were to happen you can bet your astrolabe that science will be seen as the authority not astrologers.

Science works like this:
1- Phase 1- This (whatever- fill in the blank) is complete hogwash- totally without merit, ludicrious.
2- Phase 2-Well, there are some anomalies here maybe we should take a look at just in case there is anything to this.
3- Phase 3- Ah! We have proven this is actually so.
4- Phase 4- We knew this all along, it was just a matter of proving it.

This happens very frequently in science. For example, medical doctors who performed surgery were greatly insulted when it was first suggested that they at least wash their hands before doing surgery to prevent infection. They were, in fact, outraged at the idea.

C) Astrology is nearly always defined in relationship to something else. Either it is "pseudo-science", or "alternative religion" or the reverse but always linked to something else. Why not just astrology, a mystery, and better for being so.

D) At times, we astrologers seem to have the same theoretical position that science claims, namely, that it is possible to answer all questions about life and the universe though our astrology- everything from the purpose of life to why my cat just got up and crossed the room. I find that just as disenchanting as the program of science that claims the same thing.

I apologize that I did not have time to make this shorter.

response by rudolf smit:
I spoke to Dean, on the phone, this morning. He is aware of Frazier's writings. He should consult the issue of Correlation which is mentioned in the article on the site. This issue of Correlation can be ordered from the Astrological Association in London.

Hi Woodwater,

You've started a number of posts like this and asked for opinion. I'm curious to know what your position / opinion is, if you don't mind sharing.

Deb

http://www.astrology-research.net/rgcsa ... ?offset=90

as usual with european sites, we have to pay to read those articles

Deb wrote:Hi Woodwater,

You've started a number of posts like this and asked for opinion. I'm curious to know what your position / opinion is, if you don't mind sharing.

Deb

to be frank i dont have one yet.
I dont know enough people of my sign to know if they identify with certain traits more than other signs or whether they apply to anyone

by the way you can find the charts of all these skeptics at www.astrotheme.fr

dean and smit are capricorns

I think astrologers need to be able to take themselves out of the centre of the issue before they realise the sanity of not expecting scientific acknowledgement.

The sanity of not expecting scientific acknowledgement is something I wouldn't argue with, Deb, because it clearly won't come without some kind of proof, but I have doubts about the sanity of expecting none. I can see that a huge amount of what astrologers do wouldn't be susceptible to the processes of science, but I think there is a definite overlap between them - I can't see any reason to think that no part of it at all can be proved. I'd be interested to know where your certainty comes from; is it just a belief you've formed or is it astrologically based?

James, I don't see any danger at all of science taking the mystery out of astrology - any more than they could empty the oceans with a bucket. But I do see their disconnection from Meaning as a serious problem, which would be transformed if they were obliged to recognise the existence of phenomena that are outside the scope of the scientific method. But I don't expect science to prove astrology; if it happens it will be astrologers proving it to scientists and it will have a much greater impact on them than it will on us.

Deb wrote:Hi Woodwater,

You've started a number of posts like this and asked for opinion. I'm curious to know what your position / opinion is, if you don't mind sharing.

Deb

your question reminds me that gemini ascendants like me are often said to be neither fish nor meat, avoiding giving opinions and simply showing what others say, like a journalist

Oops, it seems I owe another apology to Mr. Smit for misspelling his name. I also want to thank him for sending the message that Geoffrey Dean is aware of my writings...I do hope he read the part where I expressed my sincere admiration. I meant every word I said and it was not a tongue in cheek remark.

response by rudolf smit:
I spoke to Dean, on the phone, this morning. He is aware of Frazier's writings. He should consult the issue of Correlation which is mentioned in the article on the site. This issue of Correlation can be ordered from the Astrological Association in London.

As to the Correlation issue, I will have to ask if anyone has a copy of the article they could send to me since I am assuming Mr. Dean is saying that his references are located there.
Does anyone have a copy they could perhaps scan and send to me?

Dean G (1996). A Re-Assessment of Jung's Astrological Experiment. Correlation, 14(2), 12-22.

What I am most interested in is the evidence to back up this claim:

"But the charts had come from the files of an astrologer, whose advice to the couples had nudged the sample into detectable conformity."

This appears to contradict what Jung reported.

Lets examine this statement again.
1) It states plainly that the charts had come from an astrologer-that is one astrologer. Now unless this astrologer had residence in Zurich, London, Rome, and Vienna, then it seems highly unlikely that these charts came from a single astrologer. What possible reason would Jung have for lying about this detail especially considering the results of the experiment, and Jung went to great lengths to affirm the experiment did not bode well for astrology.

It is true that Jung's daughter appears to be the main person who calculated the charts so if this is what Dean is referring to maybe the words of his statement are better understood but I would still need to see evidence that she "fudged" the charts. If she did do that, given that she was a professional astrologer one would think that the results would have been fudged toward "proving" astrology, which I claim they did not. It seems incredible that an astrologer would ?nudge? the evidence against astrology!

2) the astrologer then gave the advice to the couples which "nudged" the sample into detectable conformity.

Again this seems impossible as the charts came in at different times and were grouped into three different batches rather than analyzed together. So how would the astrologer know when to send which horoscopes to make them have a statistical correlation? Especially difficult is the fact that the three batches all show a different results as far as the most frequently observed planetary aspects. This is the part that completely throws the evidence for an astrological proof right out the window in terms of mathematical and statistical ?proof?. I ask how could any astrologer have had pre-knowledge of how to accomplish this super human feat? It also contradicts what Jung stated in terms of when the charts were gathered.
The claim that this experiment showed a statistically significant result for astrology is simply wrong or, at least, I can say that this statement about the experiment contradicts my, admittedly, limited understanding of how statistics should be used. Jung's method is completely out of alignment with normal statistical studies and to my way of thinking absolutely did not "prove" any astrological results. The experiment did demonstrate synchronicity but was not a statistical victory for astrology. It was very symbolically stunning but not statistically meaningful what-so- ever.

Again, the idea of me arguing against Dean arguing that there was a statistical validation for astrology, albeit one that was due to an astrologer "nudging" the result, is making my head want to explode.

Malcom you stated:

But I do see their disconnection from Meaning as a serious problem, which would be transformed if they were obliged to recognize the existence of phenomena that are outside the scope of the scientific method.

Couldn't agree more. Except that it would be difficult to know exactly what astrological "proof" would be large enough to accomplish that.

As to your statements about the scientist being so shocked by astrological proof, I can only state that if they are not shocked out of their scientism by the findings of quantum physics then I do not think any astrological evidence will do so.

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." Niels Bohr

Hi Malcolm

I'd be interested to know where your certainty comes from; is it just a belief you've formed or is it astrologically based?

It seems only fair to admit that I not only have very little knowledge of how scientific experiments are and should be conducted, I have even less interest. The only excuse I can offer for anything I say is that I can?t keep my opinions to myself (as you noticed earlier).

But to answer your question more directly, it is both. Here?s a demonstration of the problem as I see it according to reason, followed by my astrological insights of what the future holds:

First we need to have clear differentiation between the symbolic elements of astrology, and the objectively verifiable elements. The symbolic elements have meaning according to context, and for all the reasons James mentioned earlier science is not equipped to measure the merit and reliability of a symbol. So we probably need to strip away the terms, faces, and dignities generally, including the zodiac, because these are primarily based upon symbolic reasoning. Many astrologers, including Morin, John Gadbury and Kepler, have tried to differentiate between the ?natural? and ?judicial? elements of astrology, but they are so interpenetrated that this task alone is a very difficult ? possibly impossible.

Looking at something like ?the Mars effect? comes close to the kind of thing that seems worth examining. I?d like to see more examination of say, effects that appear with the Moon opposite Mars, as opposed to what we get with the Moon VOC or sextile Jupiter, etc. But even then there are all sorts of variables to be considered, like the orb used and whether latitude has an effect, and should we consider aspects in longitude or in mundo? But let?s just imagine that we have a clear approach and then get a good result. Two things will inevitably follow.

1) Firstly, the scientist who validated the claim will say ?this seems to show that there is some sort of effect here, but this is certainly not a verification of astrology or anything to do with the astrological system, which our experiments also show is complete rubbish?.

2) Then, the claim will either be:

A) (Extremely unlikely) taken seriously - in which case it will not be treated as an astrological principle but as an astronomical/ meterological/ geological one. In the same way that the lunar cycle is now proven to be connected with floods, no one will consider this to be of astrological concern. Science will snap the principle up, and titter about astrologers busying themselves with zodiac signs. (It?s catch 22 ? if the principle is heavily symbolic it can?t be tested, if it?s not heavily symbolic it won?t be counted as astrological).

Or,

B) (This is far more likely). All sorts of reasons will be proposed as to why the effect seems to exist but is not really there. Geoffrey Dean will suggest that we need to suspend our belief until at least 80 years after our own deaths to give science time to come up with a good excuse,... sorry artefact. Then we will be told that the parents involved (consciously or unconsciously) may have faked the times of birth to get good astrological results. It will be proposed that the only reliable study of natal effects are those where the birth does not involve a parent being present. In order to demonstrate the risk of accepting the apparent results, and to ensure that the enquiring mind is properly prepared for the kind of serious subject matter we are dealing with, references will be made to the Cottingley fairies and how we all nearly fell for that one, and also the Loch Ness Monster. (See, for example, the cited article).

In the meantime, and looking at my chart of where this all leads .... James will be trying to figure out who wrote what, how to spell his name, and where to buy digestible astrolabes; everyone will continue to argue over Barack Obama, whilst Dean suggests that even if the birth certificate is legitimate, the birth data may have been influenced, since it demonstrates a small tendency to be allowed to run for president. Oh and there's something about some poor cat being stuck in a shoebox; and some bloke surfing in Hawaii (who quite frankly doesn?t give a damn).

Now we have to get James a copy of the Correlation article. The details are: Dean G (1996). A Re-Assessment of Jung's Astrological Experiment. Correlation, 14(2), 12-22. Personally, I think this is a ploy by Dean to make sure that we read more of his work. (He loves the astrological attention really).

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