From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page

Four key topics in astrological research
Testability, concepts, theories, reasoning artifacts

A summary of collaborative discourses in Correlation 1994-1999 on four key topics in astrological research, with mention of a fifth key topic (future directions for research) that folded due to lack of interest from astrologers.

Abstract -- This article is a summary of four collaborative discourses totalling 120,000 words and 200 references that attempted to reach consensus on topics in astrology that, despite their importance, had seldom been debated or even recognised. The discourses were prepared in 1994-99 by recycling each draft among astrologers and scientists until consensus was reached. Altogether they involved more than 40 collaborators. Each key topic prepares the ground for the next. (1) Is science relevant to astrology? Yes, but only to those parts testable by observation. (2) Some philosophical problems of astrology. Modern philosophers generally accept astrology as a source of sympathy and support because such astrology does not need to be true (what matters is that we believe it to be true). They reject it as a source of knowledge because such astrology needs to be true (but hundreds of tests have shown it not to be true to the extent claimed by astrologers). (3) Theories of astrology. Theories of how astrology can be genuinely true are either untestable or incompatible with existing knowledge. Theories of how astrology can seem to be true (even if it is actually false) are testable and compatible with existing knowledge. (4) Astrology and human judgement. Like everyone else, astrologers are subject to unsuspected (because largely invisible) artifacts and biasses in their judgements that can make astrology seem to be true even if it is actually false. Because artifacts in reasoning go undetected, astrologers are unlikely to learn from experience. The claim that astrologers proudly and repeatedly make, that astrology is unassailable because it is experience-based, is simply mistaken -- what they see as its strength is actually its weakness. A fifth key topic (5) Future directions for research folded due to lack of interest from astrologers. The idea was that research would be more productive if it focussed on improving the benefits obtainable from an actually false astrology, in the same way that we can improve the benefits obtainable from fake psychics. The point is, astrology offers emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate self-examination. There is more to astrology than being true or false.

During 1994-1999 a series of collaborative discourses appeared in the journal Correlation addressed to four key topics in astrological research. The four topics are now covered in various articles on this website, albeit in less detail. Nevertheless readers may be interested to learn more about the original discourses.

Each began as a draft discourse prepared by researchers. The draft was recycled among interested astrologers and scientists for improvement, and recycling was continued until everyone was happy, which collaborative process is rare in astrology. The discourse was then published in the journal Correlation for further comment by others. The topics were as follows:

1. Is science relevant to astrology?
2. Some philosophical problems of astrology.
3. Theories of astrology.
4. Astrology and human judgement.

The discourses total more than 120,000 words and 200 references. An introduction and summaries follow below. A fifth key topic (future directions for research) was planned but folded due to lack of interest from astrologers.

Introduction to Key Topics

By Rudolf Smit (written December 1993)

Up to now the results of research into astrology have been far from spectacularly confirming the claims of astrology and its practitioners, understandably to their deep disappointment (and, often, also resentment). So the debate about whether science can prove astrology or not, or whether science should delve into astrology at all, has been raging on ever since research into astrology began. But as the number of negative and inconclusive results grew, the points of view of proponents and adversaries became more and more irreconcilable, and consequently the debate became louder and more pointless.

The following articles reverse this unproductive situation. They bring together interested astrologers and scientists in an attempt to reach consensus on key topics in astrological research. Even though they are key topics they have seldom been debated or even recognised. Each key topic prepares the ground for the next.

Key Topic 1

Is the Scientific Approach Relevant to Astrology?
By Geoffrey Dean, Arthur Mather, and 33 others consisting of 25 astrologers (out of more than 100 invited) and 8 scientists (out of 10 invited). June 1994.

Summary
(1) Is the scientific approach relevant to astrology? Yes, but only to those parts testable by observation. No distinction between Material and Formal causes is necessary. Thus to test whether a person fits his chart better than a control requires no causal assumptions whatever.

(2) Why are scientists and astrologers in conflict over whether astrology works? Mainly because they tend to look at different things. Scientists are mostly concerned with accuracy (controlled tests) whereas astrologers are mostly concerned with satisfaction (client acceptance). But accuracy is unrelated to satisfaction. So their views can conflict yet both can be right. In particular cases a more important reason on either side may be dishonesty, ignorance and arrogance.

Key Topic 2

Some Philosophical Problems of Astrology
By Geoffrey Dean, Peter Loptson, and 13 others consisting of 4 astrologers and 9 scientists, drawn mainly from the participants in Key Topic 1. February 1996. For a related article see Concepts of modern astrology on this website under Applied Astrology.

Summary
Modern philosophers generally accept astrology as a source of sympathy and support, but they reject it as a source of knowledge. This matches the idea, introduced in Key Topic 1, that astrology can be viewed in two ways, one in terms of the purely subjective satisfaction enjoyed by users, and the other in terms of its objective accuracy. The discourse looks at some philosophical (ie conceptual) problems revealed by each viewpoint. Of course the two viewpoints may not be independent but for the present purpose this is of no consequence.

Astrology from the satisfaction viewpoint is generally unproblematic: (1) Satisfaction typically rests on value judgements and subjective feelings, both of which can legitimately differ. So arguments about the extent and type of satisfaction provided by astrology may be pointless. (2) The astrology so viewed need not be true and is therefore uncontroversial. (3) Nevertheless problems can arise if astrologers needlessly embrace assailable arguments. Why undermine uncontroversial claims with assailable arguments? (4) Problems can also arise if satisfaction depends on perceptions that are in fact false. Action based on false perceptions could be harmful.

Astrology from the accuracy viewpoint faces numerous problems: (1) Astrology is defined as precisely not the result of any means we know of. (2) Astrological effects are essentially statistical, are nonidentifiable except after the event, and therefore cannot be an independent source of knowledge. (3) Astrologers have been reluctant to describe what their model predicts, the criteria by which it could be tested, and the evidence they would accept as showing it had failed. (4) No claims to accuracy can be justified unless astrologers make proper experiments and distinguish between alternative explanations and have independent reasons for thinking that astrological effects exist.

Key Topic 3

Theories of Astrology
By Geoffrey Dean, Peter Loptson, Ivan Kelly, and 7 others consisting of 3 astrologers and 4 scientists. September 1996. For an updated abridgement see Theories of astrology on this website under Applied Astrology.

Summary
(1) Astrologers and researchers need a good testable theory of astrology to guide their inquiries, to gain the attention of scientists, and to obviate most of the conceptual problems uncovered in the Key Topic 2.

(2) Existing theories of astrology are theories of accuracy and are dealt with here. Theories of satisfaction are postponed to Key Topic 5. In broad terms a theory of astrology has to explain how astrology can be accurate, or how it is perceived to be accurate.

(3) Spiritual, physical, information and magical theories are unpromising. Psychic theories are ambiguous but deserve testing.

(4) Contrary to popular belief, Jung's theory of synchronicity is in conflict with astrological ideas. That aside, its defects include untestability and incompatibility with existing knowledge. In practical terms it is not a useful theory.

(5) The same defects apply to Jung's theory of time quality, Elwell's cosmic loom theory of formal causation, and Hand's theory of time quality and magical correspondences.

(6) Can a theory of astrology be produced that is testable, compatible with existing knowledge, and useful? John Addey's theory of harmonics is testable but not compatible with existing knowledge. The article gives two examples to show how it might be done, including a non-astrological theory of astrology, and invites readers to improve them.

Key Topic 4

Astrology and Human Judgement
By Geoffrey Dean, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, and 5 others consisting of 4 astrologers (out of 18 invited) and 1 scientist (out of 4 invited). The first key topic looked at the scientific approach and its relevance to astrology. The second looked at some philosophical problems of astrology. The third looked at theories of astrology. In each case the role of human judgement emerged as a crucial but hitherto neglected factor. So this key topic looks at astrology and human judgement. April 1999. For a related article see Artifacts in reasoning on this website under Doing Scientific Research.

Summary
Unless we understand the judgement processes that underly chart interpretation and its assessment, we cannot hope to understand astrology. In the psychological literature these processes have been studied for more than a quarter of a century, but in the astrological literature they have been almost completely neglected. So this key topic looks in detail at the judgement processes used by astrologers and their clients. The outcome is a mixture of bad news and good news. The bad news is that, from start to finish, astrology involves the kind of judgements that we are not very good at. The good news is that, by a few simple strategies, our ability can be greatly improved.

(1) How does belief in astrology arise? Astrologers and clients believe in astrology because it seems to work. They perceive that people really do fit their birth charts. But such perceptions are suspect due to a large number of errors and biasses in human judgement.

(2) What judgement processes underlying chart interpretation? In general, human cognitive skills are quite adequate for everyday living, but they cannot cope unaided with complex situations such as interpreting birth charts. Nor are they sensitive enough to detect the correlations said to exist between chart factors and human behaviour. The way we make clinical judgements tends to ensure that artifacts and errors go undetected, so we are unlikely to learn from experience. It is not clear how astrological correlations could have been derived in the first place except by speculation.

(3) What judgement processes underlying the assessment of chart interpretations? Unaided human judgement is open to pervasive biasses, inferential errors and statistical artifacts, all of which can generate convincing correlations between chart and person where none actually exist (which is not to deny that genuine correlations may exist). Some biasses encourage belief in the first place. Others make astrology look good, or make clients feel good, or make the chart fit, or make the client fit, or prevent disconfirmation. As a result, the system of astrological correspondences that generations of astrologers have seen as completely valid could be completely false, in the same way that the system of phrenological correspondences now known to be completely false was seen by generations of phrenologists as completely valid.

(4) In short, there are many non-astrological reasons why astrology should be seen as valid, none of which require that astrology be true (this of course is not a problem peculiar to astrology). There are also ways of avoiding the known ways of fooling ourselves, and ways of dealing with crooked arguments, all described here at some length. However, such matters are almost universally ignored by astrologers and their teaching institutions. Until the situation improves, the education of astrologers will remain fatally deficient. The need for a better education is briefly discussed.

Key Topic 5

Future Directions for Research
Ironically this key topic folded due to lack of interest from astrologers. But the general argument was that research would be more productive if it abandoned accuracy as its target and focussed instead on satisfaction. That is, on how to improve the benefit obtainable from astrology even though astrology is not a source of scientific knowledge. This topic is explored on this website in the Phillipson interview of researchers (see questions indexed under "subjective astrology") under Doing Scientific Research, and in Basic statements about astrology and Optimum place for astrology, both under Applied Astrology.

References

From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page