Skyscript Astrology Forum

Waybread wrote:

This starts to nudge us into more qualitative research. Which is the current direction that a lot of social scientists are taking.

Waybread, could elaborate a little on this current direction of social scientists? A few examples, maybe? Thank you.

The minute the talk turns to statistics, suddenly the astrologer becomes invisible.

But waybread, only a few posts ago i gave an example of (excellent) peer reviewed research by Renay Oshop published in a fine scientific journal, based on big data and solid statistics.

What exactly is not good enough for you in the statistics of that particular research project?

dubbhism wrote:

The minute the talk turns to statistics, suddenly the astrologer becomes invisible.

But waybread, only a few posts ago i gave an example of (excellent) peer reviewed research by Renay Oshop published in a fine scientific journal, based on big data and solid statistics.

What exactly is not good enough for you in the statistics of that particular research project?

Mercury retrograde is an interesting problem. In both traditional and western astrology, it is associated with communication and transportation miscues.

However, from an astronomical perspective there is no such thing as retrogradation. Mercury (or any other planet) never actually goes backwards in the sky. Apparent retrograde motion is based on a Ptolemaic, geocentric perspective. Not Mercury's actual orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_ ... ade_motion

Then let's do the mythology. Mercury (Hermes, and before him, the Babylonian god Nabu) was the messenger or scribe. The connection of this planetary god with communication is really ancient. The planetary god Mercury "going backwards" in the sky seems highly symbolic of communication that is not direct, or is thwarted in some manner.

So if Mercury retrograde is not an accurate description of the planet's orbit but it does correlate with mythologically derived "inaccurate communication" in a big data study, what does this say about the cultural cosmos?

The paper by Renee Oshop looks like a set of slides, apparently set up for a "Kepler" lecture or conference presentation. It didn't have the usual format of a journal article, notably missing a bibliography.

My Mercury has progressed into Taurus, so maybe that explains why it gets sludgy these days. Hopefully you can help me out.

However, I didn't get this last bullet of Oshop's first slide, did you?

"Just the ones corresponding to Mercury retrograde were pulled out and analyzed (like a single person's voice.)"

Did this mean there was no control group? Mightn't misspellings occurring during some other astrological event (like Venus retrograde or Mercury combust sun) have a statistically indistinguishable signature from Mercury retrograde? Or was this handled in the "linear regression" slide?

I also didn't get the "transformed data" slide. Did you? The author seems to have transformed the data into a 30-day running average. I'm really unclear how this could relate to Mercury retrograde periods, which are relatively short.

What were the axes showing on the "beautiful Mercury retrograde patterns" graph showing? They weren't labeled.

The "Sum of Corresponding Waves" slide seemed to show a 13.2% increase of misspellings during Mercury retrograde periods, but since there seems to be no control group, it's hard to gauge the significance. Then presumably 86.8% of words were unaffected! In other words, is it highly likely that words will not be misspelled during Mercury retrograde periods?

I didn't get the "sound" graph that followed. Did you?

In the "linear regression" chart, did it look like the modern outer planets had a vastly bigger effect than Mercury? But note that they are retrograde a whole lot of the time, so are we looking at a data artifact here? Again, astronomically planets do not go retrograde.

Then what do you make of his disclaimers in the "some more details" slide? Or was the author just trying to show how his method could be used, not specifically making a case in support of astrology?

Anyway, sorry to be as dumb as a post about the significance of this presentation. If you can explain what I'm missing, I would seriously appreciate it.

As I've said before, if researchers can come up with useful statistical studies of astrology, using big data or more sophisticated statistical tests I would like to know about it.

Therese, if these don't help, I'll try to answer any questions.

http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/qualitative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research

https://measuringu.com/qual-methods/

But basically, quantitative research in astrology would have to proceed in some fashion like a social science, unless we could somehow do it as neuroscience or cognitive psychology. Astrology wouldn't qualify as a physical, natural, or medical science.

The term "social science" in fact stems from an era when researchers who studied human society wanted to put it on a scientific footing. Over the past century, a lot of research on people in groups, or the individual in society was quantitative. Who hasn't taken a questionnaire, for example? The results of those surveys were typically aggregated and plugged into statistical tests.

Sociology and economics are probably the most quantitative of the social sciences; and anthropology, the least. Psychology, which some modern astrologers feel is the closest discipline to their field, in fact moved far away from Jung and Freud in favor of carefully controlled clinical and laboratory studies.

But in the past few decades. the subjects of social science research, together with some of their researchers, began to realize that a scholar's "God's eye" view or top-down view of a group of people might utterly miss or misunderstand what life looked like to them.

Consider that, from the comfort of my middle class existence, I might devise a questionnaire about the issues facing homeless people in my nearest city. I might even go out on the streets and convince dozens of homeless people to take it. Then I could come home, aggregate the responses, crunch the numbers, and give an acclaimed academic paper on homelessness-- all the while knowing very little, from the ground up-- on the experience of homelessness.

Qualitative research generally started with the idea of engaging the research subjects in the design of the study; and creating some benefit out of the research for the participants. When I agree to respond to questionnaires, I am often disgruntled by how little they match my experience. But what if I could help design them?

Then oftentimes you couldn't collect data in the same way as one could in using, say, census data. (Or the Astro-DataBank.) Homeless people, to extend my example, are often users of illegal drugs. They might be very wary of talking to me if I looked too authoritative. I might need to befriend a few of them, ask if they would introduce me to their friends, and from these friends, ask for introductions to their friends, and thereby extend my network of subjects. This is a qualitative method called a "snowball sample," which is very different from quantitative researchers' random or stratified samples.

Maybe I would just ask my research subjects to tell me their stories, based upon just a few open-ended questions. From their narratives, I might apply some simple methods of textual analysis.

I note also that business schools do a lot with case studies, which draw on students' factual learning while engaging their ability to use it analytically in real-world problem-solving.

I think this type of research has broad implications for research in astrology. I mean, what if someone conducted open-ended interviews with some really good professional astrologers about their experiences of chart-reading? What happens in the moment when the chart suddenly begins to describe a human life? Assuming astrology does work to some degree, I think we'd have to start with astrologers themselves, not with presumed causal or synchronous effects of planets on people.

If we ask astrologers what happens in the moment when the chart begins to describe a human life, we start focusing on the individual nativity, the horary moment, the political election outcome. Astrology isn't about what's up in the sky so much as it is about the process of connecting with individual human lives.

hey waybread, i wasn't referring to the Mercury Retrograde slides, i was referring to this article:

Twitter Followers Biased to Astrological Charts of Celebrities (Published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpm5359n308wm ... hop.pdf?dl

The Mercury Retrograde theme is very interesting, but not published as a scientific article. It was a lecture for an astrological convention i think.

waybread wrote:
So if Mercury retrograde is not an accurate description of the planet's orbit but it does correlate with mythologically derived "inaccurate communication" in a big data study, what does this say about the cultural cosmos?

In general i would assume that meaning insofar as it's being mediated through the interpretation of astrological signs and symbols is essentially a multivalent phenomenon that can, but doesn't have to, mirror certain physical phenomena 'exactly'. Multiple perspectives would seem simultaneously valid, even when they're not pointing to the 'exact' same physical phenomenon and/or metaphysical meaning. To me personally there is nothing inherently contradictory about this; i don't think Laplace's daemon or any other mechanistic 'billiard balls' model of reality which might seem incompatible with this view is still relevant. Remember "It from bit", but also complexity theory, where we have similar patterns popping up all over the place simultaneously.

In general i personally think excluding certain (physical) phenomena, techniques or symbols beforehand can be counterproductive in astrology. I generally prefer inclusive thinking to exclusive thinking, even though it may seem impractical. For example, i think both the tropical and the sidereal zodiac have their use, both the geocentric and heliocentric approach have their use, both Western and Eastern (in fact all) bodies of mythology may be relevant. And even meaning based on more basic semantic/morphological commonalities, associations, parallels etc. may be relevant, even from a highly individual 'topocentric' perspective. But while the countless individual perspectives have their relevance, we also have to include various mundane perspectives, like the 'global' historical perspective that's offered by for example Richard Tarnas.

Waybread wrote:

Therese, if these don't help, I'll try to answer any questions.

http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/qualitative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research

https://measuringu.com/qual-methods/

Thank you, Waybread. I have to take time with your posts, and will get to these links as soon as possible.

dubbhism wrote:hey waybread, i wasn't referring to the Mercury Retrograde slides, i was referring to this article:

Twitter Followers Biased to Astrological Charts of Celebrities (Published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpm5359n308wm ... hop.pdf?dl

The Mercury Retrograde theme is very interesting, but not published as a scientific article. It was a lecture for an astrological convention i think.

This journal and society do have card-carrying academics in place, but also a "fringe" reputation. I thought it was interesting that, nevertheless, the authors didn't use the word "astrology" till p. 24. (Too fringy?) Also, that in testing jyotish (Vedic) astrology, there remains the question of whether the authors' methods and results could be duplicated in western tropical astrology. I believe a jyotish navamsa chart is a modern western 9th harmonic chart, but perhaps they're constructed differently.

However, I take it that a "kendra" house is what a westerner would call angular. I think both systems agree that this should be a position of planetary strength. Since houses are diurnal, not seasonal like signs, I thought the results of this study should transfer to western astrology.

One thing I thought the authors did very well was to identify potential sources of bias and to show how they attempted to mitigate them. (I've had one astrologer committed to rigorous testing of the Saturn cycle tell me this kind of discussion was a waste of time!)

I think their use of Twitter accounts, in this day and age, is valid; although it probably indicates a certain demographic, not a general sample.

I found table 7 to be kind of interesting. If I'm reading it correctly, there is peak activity in houses 1 and 10, with a cadent house effect for #3 and #6. At least in western astrology, house #9 is nonetheless decently strong (in a trine relationship with #1) but #12 is supposed to be the worst of the worst. Yet #12 seemingly out-performed angular houses #4 and #7.

I honestly had to read around and past most of the statistical discussion as beyond my pay grade.

But if I'm reading the parts that I think I understood correctly, then we do find some interesting strengths in the first and 10th houses that support our expectations, but also some surprises. The Bad Daemon is afoot in his house, perhaps, skewing the data???

One thing that bothered me about the Gauequelin data, when I got into it for a small informal study of French-born painters, was learning that French birth times in the 19th and early 20th centuries were actually rounded to the nearest hour! If the rounding errors all went in the same direction, this might explain why the Gauequelin "power zones" turned out to be cadent houses, not the angular houses we would expect.

I think this study at least had more accurate birth times, which is just crucial where houses are concerned.

Dubbhism, thanks for drawing this study to my attention.

dubbhism, thanks for an interesting discussion.

I'd have to reach Richard Tarnas again, but basically I take your points in your 9th post.

I'd go even further, however.

1. Most of what astrologers look at does not exist in any "real" sense. What we look at are long-standing cultural conventions: signs, houses, degrees, essential dignities, constellations, lots, aspects, planetary rulerships.

2. Nevertheless, jyotish, traditional western, and modern astrologers, if they are experts, can all produce really good horoscope readings that uncannily describe a person they've never met, or forecast future events. Trouble is, their methods may be wildly different.

3. Although astrologers look at and discuss planetary conditions and locations, really what they do is explain some part of people's lives for them. A chart reading would it be meaningless if it gave only the data on planetary positions. What we do is talk about people's love lives, their family dynamics, their money, and careers. If I walk outside on a clear night, I won't see these in the sky.

This is why I think the overlooked variables that will explain, or at least validate astrology, aren't "out there," either, but exist in the mind of the astrologer.

waybread wrote:dubbhism, thanks for an interesting discussion.
1. Most of what astrologers look at does not exist in any "real" sense. What we look at are long-standing cultural conventions: signs, houses, degrees, essential dignities, constellations, lots, aspects, planetary rulerships.

I'd prefer to label most of these as metaphysical, not "unreal". If you say that aspects are not "real", that would suggest to me that a lot of mathematics isn't too "real" either (which is ok). By the way, i have to admit that i'm a panpsychist of sorts. You sound to me like a kind of idealist.

waybread wrote:2. Nevertheless, jyotish, traditional western, and modern astrologers, if they are experts, can all produce really good horoscope readings that uncannily describe a person they've never met, or forecast future events. Trouble is, their methods may be wildly different.

Personally i really don't see what the trouble is if multiple methods produce results or 'work', unless you explicitly want to assume/defend restricted kinds of causality and meaning that don't allow for this kind of multiplicity. Such concepts of causality and meaning may in fact be based on nothing but cultural convention or conditioning. Why is it a problem??? And what does so-called "a-causal" synchronicity in a general Jungian sense (not restricted to purely astrological synchronicities) have to say about this? Answer: we don't know.

waybread wrote:3. Although astrologers look at and discuss planetary conditions and locations, really what they do is explain some part of people's lives for them. A chart reading would it be meaningless if it gave only the data on planetary positions. What we do is talk about people's love lives, their family dynamics, their money, and careers. If I walk outside on a clear night, I won't see these in the sky.

I wouldn't restrict the scope of the astrological project to the reading of people's charts. Obviously, astrological patterns (or signs, symbols, language etc.) have to be studied before meaning can be derived from them. But let's not forget about the 'visual astrology' methods of the Sumerians and Babylonians.

waybread wrote:This is why I think the overlooked variables that will explain, or at least validate astrology, aren't "out there," either, but exist in the mind of the astrologer.

It seems to me that a major problem (or source of confusion) in the discussion about scientific validation of astrology is the scope.

Some scientific astrologers have hypothesized and suggested fancy theories about complete causal chains in the physical world. To me that wouldn't seem like a very promising route (but still interesting tho) since that scope seems far too wide and too ambitious. Probably the least efficient route would be to search for a formal astrological "Theory of Everything". I'd say that's a complete waste of time.

What we can do in my opinion is look for those few areas where the scientific method and the astrological method happen to overlap, in the sense that some, but not all astrological phenomena and their - in some sense conventional - meanings may be scrutinized following all the rules of the scientific method. This primarily suggests quantitative research to me (astrological research will by definition also have qualitative aspects, it can not be purely quantitative).

I pointed to Big Data as an example that to me at least seems to have a lot of potential. I also like Phi-angles a lot. But whatever method we use, we can never use it to "prove" the whole of astrology. We can only focus on specific topics, problems or examples and produce data that might challenge a fundamentalist materialist position or lazy skepticism. To me that would be the only, or at least the most important use that scientific "proofs" of astrology have: making the scientific and philosophical point that we live in a meaningful, not a meaningless universe. As in: not allowing lazy skeptics to 'get away with' simplistic mantras like "it's only a coincidence". I see this thing primarily as an intellectual battlefield and i fully understand those astrologers who want nothing to do with it, and choose to avoid this discussion altogether. I think that is also a totally valid point of view for astrologers and i fully respect it.

Here's how Tarnas makes the point of living a meaningful, conscious universe https://youtu.be/FcxA-RTTd3c

Thanks for your interesting reply, Dubbhism.

I guess we could debate the nature of reality as it is probably relevant to the OP, but this may just lead down the Rabbit Hole Of No Return.

Basically astrology is a form of cultural astronomy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_astronomy

An astronomer would argue for objectively real heavenly bodies and relationships between them. But what does this mean? What are the narratives we communicate about heavenly bodies?? Questions of meaning and communication get us into the culture zone. Metaphysics is a product of culture.

When we compare cultural astronomy systems, we recognize that they can be extremely different. And that unless one espouses scientism or some form of cultural orthodoxy, there is no independent, objective "view from nowhere" from which we could assert that one system is correct and the others mythological or simply wrong. So one point for cultural relativism.

I think we have to understand astrology in this light. Objectively real: to whom? This is why I made the point about the different branches of horoscopic astrology, as we encounter practitioners of one school or another who insist on the correctness of their interpretations and techniques, and the wrong-headedness of the others.

I don't have a problem with panpsychism, in that my background in academic philosophy is quite limited, and when I read the Jane Roberts Seth books in the 1990s, they made a lot of sense to me. Basically Roberts/Seth saw the cosmos as co-equal with divine consciousness called All-That-Is. All-That-Is entails the principle of expanding creativity and knowledge. Since humans, microbes, black holes, and my left shoe lace are all part of All-That-Is, distinctions between them are in some sense illusory, but in some sense, they are part of the creative process that includes making distinctions.

To Seth/Roberts consciousness precedes material expression.

As a philosophical belief system, I think idealism has merit, but it only goes so far. Like until one accidentally walks into a brick wall. Ditto for a brand of dialectical materialism (minus the Marxist part, and through studying human ecology.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic ... _elsewhere Given the wiring of the human creature, we live in an interplay between physicality, culture, and ideas. The more we learn about neuroscience and cognitive psychology, the less the old mind-body dualism begins to make sense as an explanatory model.

I restricted the OP to horoscopic astrology to provide at least a minimum focus to this thread. I have a lot of interest in the origins of horoscopic astrology, however. Maybe Bernadette Brady will get us back to gazing at the heavens (or more likely, to gazing at electronically-transmitted graphic images of the heavens) but right now I think horoscopic astrology is an adequate focus.

I have no problem with the application of statistical methods to big astrological data sets. The problem with a lot of the studies that I've seen, however, is that they're not scientific enough. The authors seldom seemed to grasp the potential biases in their study, and to address their biases head-on. Hence the "garbage in, garbage out" problem.

As I explained in a previous post, also, the "God's eye view" of a research population can be oh-so rigorous, yet completely miss the underlying issues. As you know, stats give us correlations. They don't give us explanations. Even with a suite of independent and dependent variables, the researcher determines `a priori what those independent variables are or should be.

Then I don't know if it's worthwhile getting into questions of scale, but it makes a big difference. A big set of aggregated data can miss a lot that occurs within a dis-aggregated population sample. But yeh-- you have to start somewhere.

So far, the "God's eye view" of comparing some sort of people-variables to planetary positions really seems to ignore the function of the astrologer. Maybe s/he will become irrelevant in the future, but right now the astrologer is the site where chart synthesis takes place.

I have no problem with the idea of the meaningful universe. Or the meaningless universe. Again, these are cultural constructs. But just to turn skepticism on its head somewhat, if the universe has no meaning other than what we ascribe to it, then we get to make it up. We get to create it. I find this idea a lot more empowering than the idea of astral fatalism.

To be honest, the restrictions you choose to put around your topic feel quite unnatural to me. So it's probably best for me to shut up. I probably got confused by the title of this thread, which sounds more philosophically.

I'm left with one question which deserves its own thread: why would it be a problem if various astrological methods can all produce a good result, for example in the case of reading a certain horoscope. What would be the contradiction there?