Skyscript Astrology Forum

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-arti2.htm

what do you think about this?

Thank You,Woodwatter ,for giving us the Link., Refernce list was also impressive.
Arihant

I would like to see where he got this from:
"But the charts had come from the files of an astrologer, whose advice to the couples had nudged the sample into detectable conformity. "
It is my understanding that they came from several sources from across Europe. Perhaps I am wrong, but since he does not reference where he got this I have no way of checking it out. Anyone have any idea? Garry? What say you?
Besides the fact of possible incorrect information about the source of the charts I would also like to know how any astrologer could manage to "nudge" the sample. All Jung collected was the birth times from the sources and had some of his associates work out the charts. They were married couples and to my knowledge the sources did not know what the data was being collected for much less how would they "nudge" a birth time to support Jung's study. This implies that every couple and the astrologers or sources involved knew in advance what Jung would be looking for and then faked their birth times to illict that tiny .04 percent obove chance result. This seems not only highly unlikely but damn near impossible. If they had "nudged" the results would not one expect a much more promising statistical result that "detectable conformity"?
That also ignores the divinatory nature of the second part of the astrological experiment where he had three collegues pick out randon pairs of charts that then matched their psychological make up- this was a pure divination move and could not possibly have been "nudged".
If this author will supply his source for this information and he is right on both counts, I will gladly eat my astrolabe (the cardboard one).

Ok I see that he references Dean's 1996 article in Correlation so I will have to wait to see a copy. I have no way of knowing whether Dean made any such claims or gave any references. I did my masters thesis on this astrological experiment and synchronicity and so I spent about a year reading everything I could get my hands on about this and NO WHERE did I see what he claims.
Jung himself states,in The Intrepretation of Nature and Psyche, his major work on synchronicity where he first revealed the astrological experiment, " The material to be examined, namely a quanitity of marriage horoscopes, was obtained from friendly donors in Zurich, London, Rome, and Vienna. Originally the material had been put together for purely astrological purposes, some of it many years ago, so those who gathered its collection knew of no connection between its collection and the aim of the study, a fact that I stress because it might be objected that the material was specially selected with that aim in view." (Jung, C. G. a. W. P. (1955). The Interpretation of Nature and Psyche. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul., p 60)



It is pretty hard not to see the glaring disjunct here. Either Jung is lying and Shmidt is telling the truth or ....oh well you get the point. I do not think I will be in danger of having to eat my astrolabe any time soon.

I went back to the article and now see that it appears to have been written by Dean and not Schmidt, apologies to Schmidt. I still have just as much problem with this as before. Perhaps even more so because Dean claims that Jung's astrological experiment showed positive results for astrology. That is simply not the case especially from the pure analysis of the data using statistics in the way Dean would advocate is their only legitimate use. Jung's original use of the data can best be, charitably, described as "creative" but certainly not how a statistic expert would have arranged the data.
What the experiment did show was synchronicity in that in three separate batches, the three most common indicators for marriage came up BUT in each of the three a different factor was significant so this means that as far as astrology goes it did not bode well and Jung said so while admitting that symbolically it was quite stunning.
After the experiment was repeated with quite different results Jung came to the conclusion (this is the one point Dean appears to be correct about) that the original results had been the result of his heighten emotional expectations ( Jung was deeply involved in the alchemical symbolism of the Royal Marriage at the time in preparation for his great opus -his final book Mysterium Coniunctionis) and that they were a true synchronicity and not a validation of astrology.
Now Dean and company are not usually folks impressed by symbolism since they want scientific statistical and control group proofs- exactly the opposite of symbolism. So it is a surprise that they would make the claim that the initial results were in favor of astrology since they are devoted to showing just the opposite which is in the end what they conclude here as well.
My offer to eat my astrolabe still stands.

Hi James,

Just picking up on your query re. this passage:

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

I don't have any inside info here, but I imagine Dean's thinking might have been along these lines: the data came from astrologers; astrologers quite often rectify charts, sometimes with reference to a partner's chart; therefore there is something in the astrologer's approach to chart data which could be expected to produce stronger relationships between the charts of partners, than was to be found in the original, unrectified, data.

If this is the basis of Dean's statement (and I emphasise that I'm just speculating), then we'd probably expect to see a stronger effect in Moon-Asc connections than in Moon-Moon connections, which in turn should be stronger than Sun-Moon connections. I say this on the basis that most rectifications are within a range of a few hours, which can change the rising sign dramatically, but have less impact on the Moon and even less on the Sun.

What do you think of all that, then?
Cheers,
Garry

I don't have any inside info here, but I imagine Dean's thinking might have been along these lines: the data came from astrologers; astrologers quite often rectify charts, sometimes with reference to a partner's chart; therefore there is something in the astrologer's approach to chart data which could be expected to produce stronger relationships between the charts of partners, than was to be found in the original, unrectified, data.

That is not what he said. He said the charts came from an astrologer implying one astrologer. He implied that they cheated in order to influence the test. He implied that the test was positive for astrology as a result of this manipulation.
And, Yes, Garry to answer your question if the data were fudged one would expect the results that you state or perhaps an even a better set of results that actually ?proved? astrology which this experiment flatly did not. It is understandable, perhaps, that Dean who used this experiment in his attack since this is the point where astrology got married to the concept of synchronicity but I would encourage Dean to actually study the whole experiment so as to be better informed.

Now my additional response:
What is surprising about this is that it appears that either Dean has not adequately studied the astrological experiment that Jung conducted and therefore misunderstands the results which leads him to argue that it had a positive result and further that this result was due to an astrologer coaching the participants so as to ?nudge? the results. Either this is a really bad case of misunderstanding or he is ?nudging? the evidence of the whole experiment just to make his point. I believe that this is the same tired argument used to refute the Gaugelin material.

The strangeness of me arguing against Dean arguing for a positive result from an astrological experiment is almost too much to bear. My head is about to explode.

Let me repeat my objections.
1) Unless Jung is lying the horoscopes were collected from at least four different sources in four different countries. Not ?an astrologer?. With all due respect to Dean, since it was Jung who did the original experiment- I?ll bet my money on Carl.
2) At least some of the horoscopes were collected long before for another purpose so there is no possibility of an astrologer nudging the results unless he could time travel which would, of course, be much more amazing than an astrological result no matter how accurate..
3) This experiment did not show a positive statistical result for astrology- it demonstrated synchronicity (a concept Dean and his colleagues? at Skeptic magazine have as much difficulty accepting as astrology.)
4) If this happened the way Dean claims, namely, that an astrologer collected the horoscopes, knew in advance the way the experiment was to be conducted, knew the results Jung was looking for, then coached each and every participant to alter their birth time so as to make the desired result (or rectified the charts so as to accomplish this), would make this astrologer much more magical than any astrology ever conceived. Particularly since Jung did not follow conventional scientific methods plus the second part of the experiment is pure divination based on three different people randomly picking horoscopes and those horoscopes accurately reflecting their individual psychic states! If the ?astrologer? knew all of this in advance then he/she must be a miracle magician of the first order. With that kind of power, who would bother with astrology?

So until I hear from Dean and he provides the references that back up his claim, my astrolabe is safe.

I can?t help but throw this little example of synchronicity since it involves the book in which Jung published this astrological experiment. I am not claiming this as a Level II synchronicity but it is meaningful to me.
When I began my dissertation research, I ordered (from an internet based used book dealer called Bookmans in Orange California) Jung?s major work on synchronicity The Interpretation of Nature and Psyche, in hard cover first edition. This Book was published and presumably sold in the same year 1955 and I ordered it 50 years later. Keeping in mind that this book was to figure profoundly in my master?s dissertation on synchronicity for a master?s degree in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology, imagine my surprise when I opened the book and stamped inside the front cover was the following words. ?This book sold through the American Federation of Astrologers?. Now I do not know how to calculate the odds that a book published 50 years previously and sold, at some point in time, by one of the few astrological organizations in the United States becomes the one I happen to buy sight unseen through a book dealer hundreds of miles away from me when pursuing a master degree in astrology! Just a coincidence, I guess.

(Apologies to all as this is starting to look like a conversation with myself)
Lest anyone think from reading my post regarding Geoffrey Dean, that I have any ill feeling towards him I want to publicly state that I do not. I am, perhaps, one of the few astrologers who is grateful to Dean and group because I think their work is valuable. I respect him and what he does. The fact that he and I are completely opposite on issues does not deter me from admiring him and trying to learn from the challenges he presents. Dean has forced us to get more rigorous as well as better informed about science and scientific methods. In some ways, I credit these critics with spurring us to become better educated in general not just about astrology (which is part of it) but all other disciplines as well (witness the number of astrologers pursuing advanced degrees). Partly due to these folks, I have learned to refrain from making statements that I cannot back with references. The downside for Dean and Company may be that I am now in a much better position to call others on the carpet for failing to do just that, as I have done in this case.
I suspect that somewhere inside, Dean has a warm spot for astrology and astrologers. Otherwise, why would he stay so attached to this group even if through criticism? One would have thought he long ago would have moved on to more interesting scientific problems. I suspect that Dean, perhaps secretly, likes this wild group of astrologers. So perhaps we represent his shadow, I suspect that we do.
He is clearly my shadow. I do not mean that he personally is a dark shadowy figure, just that he and I are complete opposites in how we think (he thinks rationally, logically, and in alignment with the scientific method, whereas, I am a symbolic thinker, one interested in seeing patterns behind the visible world, psychology, myth, and religious interest, etc.), what we value, what is meaningful to us, and how we see the art of astrology. He values the ?objective? over the ?subjective? like all good card carrying scientist. I am the complete reverse. Becoming aware of shadow is a great learning experience-difficult but effective. That does not mean I am above questioning him as I am doing with this piece.

I publicly acknowledge Dean and Company for all they have done for me. So, Mr. Dean, if you read this by chance; please accept my acknowledgment as sincere. Your work has influenced me positively, though not in the way you would have imagined. It has forced me to really think about astrology and to refine my views. It has forced me to investigate what I had formally taken for granted and accepted without question. So thank you.
But I still want to see your references to the above material.

I'll second that acknowledgement.

(Apologies to all as this is starting to look like a conversation with myself)

I think you are speaking for many of us though James, so I am glad you are speaking to yourself outloud I've been following your posts with interest and it inspired me to actually take a look at the article, even though I'd sort of given up on these things years ago. I don't have a problem with Dean either, except the sort that you have highlighted. The recent death of Franciose Gauquelin brings her views into focus and I find them more interesting - that she could accept some astrological effects, whilst maintaining that astrology as a whole does not stand up to scrutiny. This is a position I am very comfortable with, because it acknowledges the personal influence of the astrologer within the process of judicial analysis. If they ever did prove astrology scientfically (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.

Thanks Deb. I appreciate your kind words.

Yes, I for one would be extremely disappointed if astrology were to be ever proved by science. That would be a minor disaster in my not so humble opinion. It would mean that science would co-opt astrology. I value astrology as a symbol system, namely because the symbol points to what is essentially "not-completely-known", and thus is experienced as a mystery. A symbol has the ability to access different levels of consciousness. Science cannot, in principle, stand for mystery, or paradox, of one thing representing another, and thus science has little capacity to fill us with a deep sense of meaning. Meaning comes from the numinous, the mystery, the unexpected, the sacred (which is not controllable), the capacity for awe and wonder and serves as a countermeasure to the rational, logical, and soul denying mechanistic models of science.
I am not anti-science. I just argue for balance. Both the irrational and the rational have their place. I am against one or the other trying to lay claim to the "only" legitimate way to view the world. One cannot deny the successes of science but one can also see that they have come at a heavy price.

Yes, I for one would be extremely disappointed if astrology were to be ever proved by science. That would be a minor disaster in my not so humble opinion. It would mean that science would co-opt astrology.

This seems to be a common view - I've seen the same idea in books by Stephen Arroyo and Patrick Curry. I think you're underestimating what a shock it will be for them; it's not something that they will be able to accommodate in their current world view. In the short term they might try to use such a proof as a stick to beat astrologers with, but I think the astrological perspective is fundamentally broader - ultimately I expect that it will be astrology that absorbs the objective sciences.

If they ever did prove astrology scientfically (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!

On this subject, perhaps you can offer me a view on some transits. I read 'The Moment of Astrology' recently (at a time when I was thinking about how orthodox science would react to proof of astrology). In it Geoffrey Cornelius mentions what he calls the Anti-Astrology chart, which was given as an example horoscope in a tract called 'Objections to Astrology' issued by a group of scientists in 1975.

I had a look at transits to that chart: in February the Saturn/Uranus opposition will be 2 arcminutes from Saturn in that chart (Uranus conjoins it a few hours later) and in July the second Jupiter/Neptune conjunction will be conjunct Mars to the minute (the first conjunction will be half a degree away). (As James gave an example of synchronicity, I'll mention that I received the book in the post on the day Uranus made its first pass to that Saturn.)

The chart is 23 Nov 1907, New York (73W58 40N43), 4:00 am EST Asc 25Lib27

Cornelius says that when he first wrote about his analysis of this chart, other astrologers objected that the chart didn't represent a beginning of any kind. My instinct was to look at it as the birth of a Zeitgeist, the spirit of secular scientism (but I found his arguments quite reasonable as well).

I haven't looked yet how often really tight simultaneous transits happen, but I think to get two so close together must be very rare - but I possibly put more weight on very tight orbs than other people.

So, would anybody like to offer an interpretation?