Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:47 pm**

I liked this article a lot. Some of it seems like common sense, even for quantification-phobes like myself. I think it does have relevance for astrology.

For example, oftentimes scientific studies cannot be safely generalized beyond the limits of the study parameters, yet this happens all the time. For example, a medical study might show that young white males eating guavas show a statistically significant drop in harmful blood cholesterol levels. Yet when you read the study, actually the researchers looked at only a very small sample of men (like maybe 2 dozen) for a very short period of time (like maybe 2 weeks.) Nonetheless, we're out there buying guavas, in the hope of a miracle cure!

Another problem, is that a statistical study itself only shows a correlation between variables at a level higher than chance. If two variables constantly co-varied by the identical amount, you'd have a candidate for a scientific law, not a hypothesis in a statistical test. You normally get all kinds of data points that don't fit the curve or model. Yet the study design really cannot explain the data that don't fit snugly into the correlation. The scientist might attempt to do so, but only by conjecture or referal to other studies that may or may not be a good match with her research. In the above hypothetical example, it would not explain why some of the men in the guava study did not show a drop in triglyceride levels. This is similar to the "well-fed, barking dog" in the article's example.

Some of us have talked a bit about Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology. He argues against wide-spread statistical studies, partially on the grounds that some big studies in the past showed no significant results. A major example was a study of suicides in New York, where neither statistical tests of horoscope placements, nor astrologers' delineations, produced results beyond random chance. He makes the point that a horoscope, like a life, is a complex and highly individualistic thing.

So this is why I think one might possibly get astrology to the point where a really large, sophisticated statistical study of horoscopes might produce meaningful results. But then the problem would be, how do you explain the outliers in the data? If 80% of the data behave as expected, the study is probably still no good in explaining why the remaining 20% got out of bounds, even where the 80% correlation is highly significant.

This might not be such a problem for simple personality delineation. But it would get huge with crunch-time death-clock predictions or financial adivising in astrology.

To quote the author:?Determining the best treatment for a particular patient is fundamentally different from determining which treatment is best on average,? physicians David Kent and Rodney Hayward wrote in American Scientist in 2007. ?Reporting a single number gives the misleading impression that the treatment-effect is a property of the drug rather than of the interaction between the drug and the complex risk-benefit profile of a particular group of patients.?

This is another good argument for astrology's focus on the individual horoscope. To put it differently I might suggest that a woman with Venus in Scorpio exhibits jealousy--except when she doesn't. And when and why she doesn't should be indicated by additional horoscope factors that (hopefully) I am smart enough to detect. Maybe the computer can do a better job of this than I could, but so far, so bad.

Insofar as I understand the "Bayesian" approach to statistics, this wouldn't fare much better, as it opens the door to a lot of pre-trial biases.

This is why one needs a lot of studies to affirm or reject a "scientific fact." A single study can be prone to all kinds of design problems.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:55 pm**

Olivia wrote:Probably. How many times do we use one set of personally-tailored statistics to predict what one individual will do?

I find it hard to believe that everyone gets their own statistical data - most of it is of the aggregate variety and tends to predict that if you're 18-34 and male, you will buy....

Just tell me that drug companies, car companies, and whatever, aren't electing times for testing to prove that their product is efficacious/safe. That could probably be manipulated quite easily. But I don't hope to live to see it.

It's here, Olivia. it is called commercial geodemographics, or geodemographic segmentation. I don't know that the consultants use astrology, but that could be next!

Eddy, thanks for your clarity! I would like to propose a 4th option for the "failure" (if it is that) for statistical studies to date , to support astrology. Maybe the studies could have been much better designed. For example, in the NY suicide study (which I've not read), I believe the researchers looked only at birth charts, not at transits or progressions. Also, I have looked up some French birth records on Astrodienst, as including individuals surveyed in the Gauquelin research. Holy moly. Prior to the early/mid 20th century, most of the times were rounded to the nearest hour.

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:36 pm**

waybread wrote:I would like to propose a 4th option for the "failure" (if it is that) for statistical studies to date , to support astrology. Maybe the studies could have been much better designed.

You're right, my list wasn't meant to be limitative by the way. Yesterday I had a look again in the article because I hadn't read the 'Boxes' 1 - 3. 'Box 3: Randomness and Clinical Trials', could imply what you propose.

the article wrote:Understanding the individual differences affecting response to treatment is a major goal of scientists pursuing ?personalized medicine,? in which therapies are tailored to each person?s particular biology. But the limits of statistical methods in drawing conclusions about subgroups of patients pose a challenge to achieving that goal.

Perhaps this could be incorporated in the 'choose the right chart for the description of this and that person tests'. Then not only the chart data should be given but also social/cultural/economic background. I have the impression that in astrology books this isn't done a lot in a systematical way, but in daily practice it is done whether unconsciously or not. Ptolemy already wrote about these background issues.

Tetr. IV-10

Tetrabiblos wrote:So then, as, among all genethialogical inquiries what. so ever, a more general destiny takes precedence of all particular considerations, namely, that of country of birth, to which the major details of a geniture are naturally subordinate, such as the topics of the form of the body, the character of the soul and the variations of manners and customs, it is also necessary that he who makes his inquiry naturally should always hold first to the primary and more authoritative cause, lest, misled by the similarity of genitures, he should unwittingly call, let us say, the Ethiopian white or straight-haired, and the German or Gaul black?skinned and woolly-haired, or the latter gentle in character, fond of discussion, or fond of contemplation, and the Greeks savage of soul and untutored of mind;

A fellow Dutchman thus should think twice before calling me well-mannered

.

Not only the permanent issues like gender or descent play a role but also situations of the moment. Already some years ago I always had the impression that transits barely worked during several of my cycling or hiking holidays and lately I've been experimenting by ignoring transits and not thinking of astrology to see whether the transits still would work. I can't tell for sure yet what the outcome is.

Relating this to statistical research would be quite difficult though.

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:06 pm**

Thanks, Eddy. Would that more astrology novices today of the "guess my ascendant" persuasion would read that passage from Ptolemy! You seem to have the statistical background that I lack, so maybe I can put some ideas to you (as well as to others here) in a very beginner, general way.

I do modern astrology, so I request some forgiveness from the traditionalists here.

I think it's fair enough to take each birth chart as unique. (OK, there's the identical twin problem, but see http://aliceportman.com/?p=120 .) This is true of many data points used in statistical studies, as well; such as university students responding to a psychology questionnaire. As the OP article points out, applying the "general" to the "particular" is a problem in medicine from the get-go, and I suspect it is in astrology, as well.

Then as Ptolemy points out, one has to account for the native's culture, ethnicity. I would add to this list: gender, socio-economic status at birth, and other things that cannot transparently be read off a birth chart.

Then, I don't how how many researchers in astrological statistical studies viewed the horoscope as containing heirarchies of planets and sensitive points, as well as of aspects (plus all the different delineations made by traditionalists: a "dignity" counts more than a "joy", for example.) When I read a chart, I would first look at the points and aspects I consider most important, beginning with the sun, moon, and ascendant, and any hard aspects to them. After that, I would look at the other personal planets and angles. Then something like Neptune sextile Pluto would seem a lot less important. You or someone else might organize a chart-reading differently, but I would bet you've got some kind of rank-ordered mental sorting system. I don't know how many of the astro-statisticians worked with heirarchies of data points, but I think they would need to, in order to replicate in some fashion how an astrologer would actually operate. Are there statistical tests that would do this on big data sets?

There is a belief in modern astrology regarding difficult transits (for example, like Saturn conjunct sun), that the more one has addressed or mastered the energy and demands of the involved planets, the easier the transit will go. So if Native A has a healthy sense of identity and is comfortable with the old-fashioned virtues of patience, perseverance, hard work, and delayed gratification; this transit will go easier for him that it would for Native B, who has weakly developed these characteristics. So we could also postulate levels of character-development in the natives. Hopefully wisdom comes with age, which could also be factored in, as a variable different from the actual horoscope points. Put differently, does the native respond to adversity on the level of the celestial, the terrestrial, or the bestial?

So perhaps a skilled astrologer could distinguish the differences in character development between natives A and B from their horoscopes, but I doubt that such thinking went into the New York suicide study; let alone the kinds of calculations that a traditional astrologer would make.

I can only imagine with suicides in the New York, that they might have experienced difficult transits or progressions, but without the personal skills (or perhaps physical/mental health) to cope.

If you've been tracing your transits and found they haven't made much difference, it is just possible you've to some degree mastered the demands of the different planetary and aspect energies. I've experienced some real flare-ups with Mercury-Mars, in constrast, and realize this is a good time for me to work extra hard at controlling my temper. Pluto square sun was really difficult; but in hindsight, an important maturation process. I've found that most of the "easy" transits (say Jupiter trine sun) are more like a "have a nice day" energy: pleasant but not necessarily productive.

If there is a 4th possibility, that better statistical tests might yet confirm some of astrologers' truth-claims, I would be curious as to how you might go about such a study.

The social sciences are increasingly moving to qualitative research designs, incidentally, based more on in-depth interviews and letting the participants guide the research to some extent. Maybe qualitative approaches hold more promise for astrologers seeking to legitimate their truth-claims.

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:35 pm**

Ibn Ezra broke down the hierarchies of judgement better than Ptolemy did, but Ezra was the better writer, by far.

Might not go amiss for a modern astrologer either, though you might want to take more things into consideration. But just look at how wide-ranging the scope of this is:

Ibn Ezra wrote: ?The statements of a wise man who overlooks the heavens will
prove false because he did not take care to note those things
which it behoved him to note. Likewise it ought to be mentioned
that universal judgements disturb particular judgements.
Concerning this I will point out eight rules.

?The first is that it is necessary to know whose law the native is
under (that is of what nation) because if he were a Jew and in his
nativity the astrologer were to see that he would be a king, it
would not be right so to judge. The great conjunction namely of
Saturn and Mars denoted that the native's people would be in
captivity so that the particular power (of the natal chart) would be
insufficient to disturb the universal. But it is right that the
astrologer indicate that the native will abide with kings and will
be intermingled with them and that he would introduce himself
into their being, however he himself will not be king. And
similarly if you find Saturn in the nativity of a Jew in the ninth
house it denotes infirm faith in his law. But equally it would
indicate the same in the nativity of a Saracen.

?The second rule is from the part of the climate. Because if the
native were born in the land of the Moors and if Venus were in
the ascendant with the Moon. You may not judge that the native
is beautiful and white.

?With respect to men of other climates: he will be of such a kind
as is in keeping with the men of his own climate. And similarly if
the ruling planet in the nativity were Mercury you ought not to
judge on this account that he will be wise in every kind of
knowledge. It does not occur that a wise, learned man is born in
the land of Ethiopia. Because of the power of the heat of the Sun,
in this land his nature is not able to be balanced. Judge therefore
that he is learned in respect to men of his own country.

?The third is a universal cause (or what happens universally)
happening because of a great conjunction. This must be
considered first, because it may come to pass that a man will be
murdered (lit. killed by the sword) somehow as a result of the
influences of the conjunction even though the nativities of those
born in that land do not indicate that they will die by the sword
nevertheless it occurs.

?The fourth rule is that which happens on account of the
revolution of the world. If indeed because of the revolution illness
comes to someone note first that, even though according to his
nativity he ought not to become ill in that year, nevertheless, he
will become ill because the particular does not disturb the
universal.

?The fifth is that which comes about by the role of the parents. If
two children were born in the same hour and in the same country,
and one is the son of the seneschal, but the other is the son of a
servant of a servant. By the strength of their nativities it is shown
that the degree of sublimity and the height of power to which
they will rise is proportionate to their beginnings. Indeed, the
son of the seneschal is made king. But the son of the servant
becomes a wealthy merchant.

?The sixth rule is communal, by which the cause of the king
intervenes. Indeed the law of the king is as a power [of] the
whole. Because if there were in the nativity of the king an
indication that he would go to war, he would lead many men
with him into the war none of whom would have changed their
place (of dwelling) according to their nativity.

?The seventh is from the part of nature because if anyone went to
sea in a ship in the winter and it were stormy, although Jupiter or
Venus which are fortunes is placed in the degree of his ascendant
still in no way would he be preserved from harm because the
season of nature is universal and having chosen a particular time
will profit very little. And in this way thousands of men are
submerged in the sea. Nor has it been discovered in the nativity
of any of them that one of the rulers of life has come to a
dangerous place. Were he not at sea, which is a dangerous
place, little of harm would have happened to him, and he would
have been free.

?The eighth rule is universal that which happens by reason of the
strength of the soul, that is by wisdom. If indeed, the native is
wise in astrology and he should see in his revolution of the year
that he would incur sickness from heat, with the time having been
foreseen when Mars will come the degree of the ascendant then
indeed, he will preserve himself from all hot food before the
advent of the disease and he will drink cool drinks and when
Mars comes to the degree of the ascendant then he will moderate
his body with contrary. And similarly with him who with all his
heart has faith in God. God indeed, will change the circle, and
before Him the operations of causes have been prepared,
(created) so that the native is saved from harm that would come
because of his nativity."

My own belief is that astrology simply cannot be fit into the statistical box. The number of variables is mind-boggling. Even something as simple as Jupiter on the MC (and we're dealing with just one planet in one position). How would you account for it being in rulership, exaltation, peregrine, detriment, fall? If it's opposed by Saturn, and what condition is Saturn in? If it's in malefic sextile (irreceptio) to three planets. Malefic trine. Benefic trine. Received square - to what? Non-received square - to what? Which sign rises?

Let us not forget the revolutions of the world, country, city, governor, or the individual native that year, either.

And I could go on. Plus taking one planet out of the entire context of the chart - how would you judge it?

Astrology is based in observation, but primarily in observation stemming from first principles. Without that, you'd have been dismissed as a vulgar empiricist. And statistics is the height of vulgar empricism in many ways.

Further - why? What would anyone want to prove by this experiment? Either you've seen enough astrology to know it works, or you haven't.

And how would anyone account for that painful, painful sticking point known as horary? Can that be measured statistically? Not in any way I can think of, but work with it long enough, and you understand that it does, indeed, predict. Accurately.

But even if you don't believe that, you're not going to get anywhere trying to measure it statistically.

Or to put it another way: Astrologers are the weakest link in the predictive chain. We're the ones who make the errors. If one were to do this at all, one would need a good number of astrologers competent in predictive fields who are also statisticians, and I can think of about half-a-dozen offhand, some of them no longer alive.

I simply don't see how a study like this could bear fruit for anyone. It could be rigged to show astrology is stuff and nonsense (read Dennis Rawlins' article on CSICOP and the whole Starbaby debacle), and Rawlins doesn't even believe astrology works. But he noted a LOT of the problems, bias being a huge one.

The subject deserves a paper all of its own, a well-researched one, and I'm too ill to take it on, nor do I think it would be terribly useful.

Astrology belongs to one worldview. Statistics belongs to another. How to fit those two worldviews together without doing violence to both, the kind of violence that would make them meaningless, is beyond me.

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:03 pm**

Well I?m no statistics specialist either. The few things I know were those I mainly got from the articles from the astrology-and-science website. I can advise the three part article on the Gauquelin researches and the Phillipson-interview.

Perhaps a test of transits would be a good idea. Since according to most modern astrologers, Pluto transits are said to be experienced as very stressful, perhaps testing this would be a possible. In the same link I just gave researches for transits are said to have given no results but this could also be due to the limitation of research of ?physical? events like death and child abduction. Researching psychological events like stressful periods would also be difficult because they are hardly measurable like physical events. Yet they might lead to concrete events. For instance in some cases such stress leads to nervous breakdowns and some people have to go for a treatment in a psychiatric institution. The problem with transits (and in fact almost any prediction technique) is that they occur more often than one might think. If you take into consideration the transits of Saturn to Pluto then for the conjunction alone over one point (for example the Sun) averagely once in 18 years there?s a transit. Add the two squares and the opposition transit you get once in 4,5 years. Add other personal planets and the angles; provided they are not in mutual 0?, 90? and 180? aspects, there will be at least one transit per year. Since these four planets are often related to negative feelings, you could conclude that life is one continuous hell. There?s another reason why I sometimes take a step backwards from astrology for a while.

The research of nervous breakdowns perhaps could be done with using only Pluto transits to the Sun and using only 0?, 90? and 180? aspects. Some might think that limiting to this would make positive results less probable but at least you won?t be shooting fish in a barrel. And if you take large samples, several thousands of people you increase the chance of getting credible results. Then if you note the period/date people got the breakdown, this should be compared with the Pluto position. There might be a bias from people who believe in astrology and followed their Pluto transits till they got the breakdown, so these people should also be filtered out. Maybe a reference group would also be useful, but not necessary in this test. Perhaps this would lead to results. If I only had the time and means....

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:18 pm**

Possibly a stupid question, but what about all the people who have nervous breakdowns with no Pluto transits to the Sun involved?

Would that bork the statistics completely? Because I'm willing to bet that most nervous breakdowns take place without the aid of Pluto, just like lots of road accidents happen without a Mars transit to Saturn (or vice-versa), and so forth....

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:10 pm**

Olivia wrote:Possibly a stupid question, but what about all the people who have nervous breakdowns with no Pluto transits to the Sun involved?

Would that bork the statistics completely? Because I'm willing to bet that most nervous breakdowns take place without the aid of Pluto, just like lots of road accidents happen without a Mars transit to Saturn (or vice-versa), and so forth....

No, it's a good question Olivia. I think it would be too difficult to check all the factors in the same test. If you look for transits of all planets, several progressions and several directions there always will be something to be found. Perhaps it's something like this under the Multiplicity of mistakes paragraph:

Tom Siegfried's article wrote:Even when ?significance? is properly defined and P values are carefully calculated, statistical inference is plagued by many other problems. Chief among them is the ?multiplicity? issue ? the testing of many hypotheses simultaneously. When several drugs are tested at once, or a single drug is tested on several groups, chances of getting a statistically significant but false result rise rapidly. Experiments on altered gene activity in diseases may test 20,000 genes at once, for instance.

However your question makes me realize that a reference group is necessary to find how many pluto transits there are among people who didn't have Pluto transits or at least calculate how often a Pluto transit occurs. If the number of Pluto transits in the research would exceed the average, then one might believe there's a Pluto effect. I'm not sure how this should be calculated, I'm no statistician either.

On the other side, if other more complicated prediction techniques fail to repeat themselves, what's the use of them?

added

Olivia wrote:And how would anyone account for that painful, painful sticking point known as horary? Can that be measured statistically? Not in any way I can think of, but work with it long enough, and you understand that it does, indeed, predict. Accurately.

But even if you don't believe that, you're not going to get anywhere trying to measure it statistically.

Some astrologers might disagree (like Maurice McCann). We had a statistics thread almost a year ago. Here's a part of Deb's reaction to a remark of mine.

Deb wrote:
His [Maurice McCann?s] view seems to make it ideal for testing.
I'm not so sure about that Eddy. Maurice McCann has been a good friend and a generous colleague to me, even though we have very different perspectives on some aspects of our shared interest in horary astrology. I have never been to understand his objective perspective, expecting horary to perform like a science regardless of the querent?s need to know the question asked. The last time I spoke to Maurice, about a year ago, he wanted it to be publicly known that he had more or less dropped out of astrology. After years of studying horary statistically, and asking questions in order to study the results of his charts, he found it was unreliable. This comes as no surprise to me; nor does it shake my conviction that horary is a very powerful and reliable powerful divinational tool, which knows how to stay ahead of our efforts to profit from it in anything other than a sincere, heartfelt, query.

I wonder what McCann would have to say in this thread. Probably it will be difficult for us to totally agree on the subject.

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:25 pm**

Great quote from Ibn Ezra, Olivia. Definitely good advice for today, despite our differing takes on the anthropological and geographical beliefs of his day. (BTW, if the translation is copyrighted, probably best to cite the source and give it as a link.)

So far as I am aware, statistical studies in astrology fail to back up simple correlations, such as transiting Pluto square sun leading to nervous breakdowns, or Mars square Pluto being prominent in the charts of boxers.

But isn't this what an astrologer would expect? We frequently remind one another of the importance of looking at the whole chart.

We also have to look at the real-life variables of the individual. Native A may have a powerful natal trine involving sun, Jupiter, and Pluto; so for him, a Pluto square sun transit is not so difficult because he's had good experiences with sun/Pluto issues. In contrast, I nearly did have a nervous breakdown with transiting Pluto squaring my sun. For one thing, with natal Pluto widely opposite my sun, I definitely did not see Plutonian events and people as friendly.

And then misery sometimes comes in bundles. Suppose Native A has merely a transiting Saturn square sun to address. Can do. But native B's sun is also getting hit by Saturn as well as Pluto, which hangs out in a relatively narrow group of degrees for a long time. We would expect B to experience more stress than A. This would especially be the case if B's natal chart looks like a train wreck, and A's chart looks much stronger.

But a powerful computer is perfectly capable of inputting both the above sorts of information, as well as all of traditional astrology's terms, faces, joys, and whatnots. A computer should be capable of picking up most of what a human astrologer would do to judge a horoscope, but this process would have to be modeled correctly. So far as I know, the statistical tests didn't rank-order very much, nor add in a lot of non-horoscopic variables of the kind Ibn Ezra addressed.

Moreover, an outcome like "stress" should be amenable to measuring in some fashion, via a quantitative survey or via a more qualitative interview procedure. I did not have a breakdown during transiting Pluto square sun, but I can recall in some detail what happened and how I felt.

In research there is also the distinction between a "necessary" and "sufficient" condition. You need both to see change; and then the more the influential variables compound, the more likely you are to see a shift in the condition of your object of study.

Now, I am not saying that if researchers actually modeled how a seasoned astrologer judges a nativity, that a new, beefy set of statistical tests would produce meaningful results. But I would like to see one try. Afterall, Liz Greene has been doing off-the-shelf computer-generated horoscope readings for years, and she does have happy customers. (Could be the Barnum Effect, which would add another level of complexity.)

Nor am I trying to take bread out of the mouths of practicing astrologers. I do think there is a synergy to reading a horoscope, as with a human life. And that would be harder for a machine to detect. I think.

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:37 pm**

"Vulgar empiricist", Olivia? Gosh! That's a new one. I am a big fan of empiricism. For one thing, it is what an astrologer uses to say she's seen enough astrology to believe that it works.

I hope your health improves.

Horary presents a special case. To the extent that it works (and it does not, consistently) I would see it as a form of divination (as per The Moment of Astrology.) I think some people are psychic and some psychics practice astrology. I am also looking at the possibility that what happens in an accurate chart reading of any type, is that working with astrology's symbols opens up latent channels in the human mind, such that even people who are not ordinarily psychic can train themselves to be more open to non-empirical ways of knowing.

Rather than expecting statisticians to be astrologers and vice versa, I would propose that research be done as it is in the sciences--through teams. That way, each member of the team communicates through his own area of expertise.

Posted: **Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:13 am**

Eddy wrote:
I wonder what McCann would have to say in this thread. Probably it will be difficult for us to totally agree on the subject.

See - this is the problem. I'm familiar with McCann's work. It's filled with historical inaccuracies - Bonatti did not invent the considerations before judgement, he was a faithful copyist of those who went before him.

For as long as horary has been around (that I'm aware of), one of the conditions is that it's not to be used to answer trivial questions. In other words - it's not testable. Barring an emergency, the querent uses horary as the last stop after they've tried to solve the problem in other ways, and then spent a good deal of time meditating on it before they bring it to an astrologer.

McCann's argument was that horary should work all the time for anything. It doesn't.

I grant statisticians may dismiss the whole 'taking the matter first to God' as a hedge, but that's honestly not what astrologers have meant to do these past fifteeen hundred years or so - longer if you count the early Greek katarchic enquiries.

Remember the process one had to go through before questioning the Oracle at Delphi? That included meditation beforehand, and a several hours walk though a maze to attune the mind before asking the Oracle. And if she thought you frivolous in your concern she might curse you.

How do you statistically test - aligning your will with the will of the divine to get a proper horary answer?

Granted, horary astrologers who don't believe in divine will don't do that, exactly, but I think pretty much all of them have the same rules for meditation, and the question not being trivial.

I have NO idea how a) you'd get a statistician to factor that in, or b) how you can honestly test horary given that it is such a big part of the process.

Posted: **Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:26 am**

waybread wrote:"Vulgar empiricist", Olivia? Gosh! That's a new one. I am a big fan of empiricism. For one thing, it is what an astrologer uses to say she's seen enough astrology to believe that it works.

Once again, I didn't have the time to express myself absolutely clearly, and I seem to perpetually offend you - for which I apologise.

But yes - vulgar empiricist - that's exactly what one was called for ignoring first principles and going by empiricism alone. It was simply not done, at least not if you were a serious scientist. Empiricism was acceptable, and even used quite a lot - but - not without the principles.

I do realise things are different today. Well, to a degree. In our time, a scientist is more likely to be lauded as an empiricist and considered a crank for dealing in first principles.

I know, I know, there are some slow exceptions being made in some of the theoretical sciences, but....

Again, we're dealing with an entirely different worldview here.