From www.astrology-and-science.com Click here to return to home page
Phillipson interview of researchers
Part 2 continued
15. Credibility problems, education, critical thinking skills
OQQ15.1
What would you consider to be the most harmful things to astrology's
credibility?
Researchers: We see five things as severely reducing astrology's credibility: First is refusing to acknowledge the disconfirmation of claims. For example, without doubt the most disconfirmed claim in astrology is that of sun signs, yet the outpouring of fiction disguised as sun sign books seems unending.
Second is the dramatic disagreement on fundamentals such as which zodiac, which house system if any, what planets once past the first seven, what aspects, what orbs, what methods of direction, and so on. Surely after several millennia there should be better agreement than this. There is not even agreement on how the fundamentals are supposed to work: In public it is asserted that the stars only incline and only acausally, but this conflicts with the conversation at any astrology conference -- yes, I gesture a lot but that's because I'm a Gemini, or I have a strong Jupiter so I'm very religious, or we get on (or don't get on) because our Suns are in opposition, or Uranus always brings accidents, or Saturn is retrograde making financial markets unsettled. No acausal inclination here.
Third is the poor agreement between astrologers judging the same chart. For example various astrologers have worked backwards from the life events of Ronald Reagan to produce over 30 different birth times spanning 15 hours, each one supposedly definitive according to the astrologer concerned. Even for a simple chart reading the agreement between astrologers is generally so poor that it is scarcely better than tossing a coin -- a finding confirmed by more than two dozen studies (the mean correlation was 0.10) including those made by some of us. What price astrology if astrologers cannot even agree on what a chart means?
Fourth is the stagnation of astrology. When we look at psychology or sociology we find disciplines that have advanced because workers have been responsive to disconfirming evidence and alternative ideas. Their textbooks are packed with research studies and critical comparisons of competing theories, often with emphasis on areas needing investigation. Not so in astrology. Except in very rare cases, there is no critical evaluation of ideas and claims, no basing of theory on empirical results, and no mention of negative evidence except to explain it away. Instead astrology has stagnated into a continuing war between one untested idea and another. In 1973 the US astrologer Dr Zip Dobyns could complain that "astrology is almost as confused as the earthly chaos it is supposed to clarify." Today it is even worse. Which is hardly a sound basis for a profession or even a religion. Nevertheless astrology books still read as if they have the Rosetta stone for life on Earth.
Fifth, perhaps worst of all, is ignorance of existing research and of problems due to errors in human reasoning. This leads to making claims at variance with the evidence. Astrologers need to be more careful. Which is nothing not already required of any ethical discipline.
Our five points would of course be weakened to the extent that white crows could be found. They might disappear altogether if astrologers were to publicly define astrology as a religion, and then refrain (as priests do) from making claims that could be contradicted by scientific enquiry.
NQQ15.2
Don't some of your objections also apply to psychotherapy? When it comes
to dealing with people, the range of schools with differing views --
Freudian, Jungian, Adlerian, Psycho-dynamic, Humanistic, Existentialist
-- seems to be proliferating, with plenty of contradiction and
disagreement between them, including disagreement on what is important.
Researchers: The supposed contradictions arise only because the ideas are generally described without mentioning the empirical evidence for their validity. As shown by H J Eysenck and M W Eysenck in their pioneering book Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach (Plenum Press 1985), when the ideas are examined in their historical context together with all the empirical studies, there emerge striking commonalities. Far from exhibiting "plenty of contradiction and disagreement", they all boil down to essentially the same things. The contradictions are not supported by evidence, the agreements are.
NQQ15.3
Surely the point here is that any model of human psychology is of
limited relevance when it comes to actually dealing with people.
Researchers: This will be news to psychologists such as Freud and Rogers who based their models on their work with individual clients. Furthermore, the search for general models is conducted in order to understand the individual members, and the ultimate test of a model is whether or not it explains individual events. For example a model of learning might predict that Joe Bloggs will learn better under the conditions specified by the model. If he does not then we reject or revise the model. In fact a long-established part of psychology is the study of individual differences, i.e. the characteristics, qualities or traits by which one individual may be distinguished from another. Individual differences were central to the investigations of Sir Francis Galton in the late 1800s, and today they are the focus of major publications such as the journal Personality and Individual Differences.
Of course there can still be apparent disagreements about application, as when the Freudian school says that the therapist's role is to interpret and explain the client's world, while the Existential school says that the therapist's role is to avoid interpretation and to accept the client's way of seeing things. But such disagreements arise largely for the same reason as before -- because the schools have not approached the topic with due caution. When cautious scientists discover that interpretation is beneficial for type A clients but is best avoided for type B clients, the disagreements tend to disappear.
Similarly, whenever psychotherapy has been approached with due caution, the general outcome (with the notable exception of behavioural therapy) has been that all psychotherapies seem to be roughly equally effective and little better than no psychotherapy. So the supposedly fundamental disagreements are of little or no consequence. In fact what really matters has little to do with the kind of therapy, namely that the practitioner and client should like each other, and that both should have faith in the therapy. The actual therapy seems to be of little consequence provided there is faith in it. The relevance of this to astrology should be apparent.
NQQ15.4
To which discipline should astrology be compared -- psychology or
psychotherapy? Is the diversity of astrological practices a sign of
problems, a sign that at least some people are getting it wrong? That is
the way it looks if the comparison is with psychology. Or is the
subjective element sufficiently important that there can be different
ways of working which suit different circumstances? That is the way it
looks if the comparison is with psychotherapy, in which case the diverse
approaches within astrology would be inevitable.
Researchers: To ask if astrology is like psychology (the study of mental processes and behaviour) or psychotherapy (the treatment of mental disorders usually by personal consultation) is to take a very narrow view of astrology, one from which say mundane or horary are excluded, and one that does not fit our own wide view. Nevertheless your comparison comes back to our subjective-objective distinction, the distinction between the underlying objective ideas in astrology (as in psychology) and their subjective application (as in psychotherapy). We should expect to find agreement on what a cake is, as opposed to what a stew is, but not on how to serve it since this is a matter of personal choice. But even then both the ideas and their application would be amenable to scientific study, which is presently lacking in astrology.
OQQ15.5
What in the world of astrology do you see as helpful or beneficial to
people?
Researchers: Good persons. A warm and sympathetic astrologer provides non-threatening therapy that is sometimes hard to come by, especially as no admission of some physical, mental, or moral weakness is required, as with a doctor or psychiatrist or priest.
OQQ15.6
And what do you see as unhelpful or harmful?
Researchers: Bad persons. Donna Cunningham in her book An Astrological Guide to Self-Awareness (CRCS 1978) suggests we avoid the guru, the power-hungry, the astro-junkie, the totally negative, the totally positive, the prurient peeping tom, and the spotlight seeker.
OQQ15.7
Earlier (10.6 and 15.1) you felt that the failure of astrologers to "be
careful" was one of their main faults. How might this be addressed?
Researchers: The single most important factor in helping astrologers generally to be careful might be an improvement in their general education. This would be a necessary first step in correcting the five harmful influences on astrology's credibility that we talked about (15.1).
OQQ15.8
And what should this improved general education for astrologers include?
Researchers: To be adequately educated astrologers need to be informed about all aspects of applied astrology. Not just astrology but also related disciplines, not just counselling skills but also religion, philosophy, psychology, statistics (because astrology is probabilistic) and research methods. They need to be aware of the errors in reasoning to which they seem so abundantly prone. If they advocate subjective astrology then they need to refrain from making statements open to scientific challenge. If they advocate objective astrology then they need to be familiar with research results (all of them, not just the ones selected to support a particular view) and with informed criticisms of astrology (not just the nonsense put out by hostile debunkers). And before anyone starts to study any kind of astrology they need to acquire the critical thinking skills that today are part of any university course in the social sciences. Until they do such things, astrologers cannot expect to know what they are talking about.
OQQ15.9
What do you mean by "critical thinking skills"?
Researchers: Critical thinking is about evaluating evidence, judging conclusions, and considering alternatives. It gives teeth to rigour. Consider psychology, perhaps the single discipline nearest to astrology. In 1998 a survey of the 37 current introductory psychology texts found that 25 treated critical thinking in some detail, typically 1000-2000 words. This is in addition to the entire books that already exist on critical thinking. By contrast none of the hundreds of introductory astrology texts examined by us over the years give any hint that critical thinking even exists, even though it could hardly be more relevant to their implied invitation to "test astrology for yourself."
Indeed, even for astrologers, "Anyone used to reading books on or around our subject must have a mind which positively aches with the effort of keeping it open: a reader put off by non sequiturs, evidence which isn't evidence at all, irrationality and eccentricity will not get halfway along the first shelf [at any astrology bookshop]" (Derek Parker, Astrological Journal 1991, pp.264-265). So nobody should blame psychologists for reading astrology books and then dismissing astrology out of hand.
16. Does modern science support astrology?
OQQ16.1
Are there developments in modern science which weaken the case against
astrology as being intrinsically impossible?
Researchers: Nothing that we know of. If by astrology we mean the ideas found in astrology books, such as Saturn rising signifies an inhibited personality or adverse Mars transits incline to accidents, then in our opinion there are no developments in modern science that would support such ideas.
But if by astrology we mean "the way most astrologers behave", i.e. with no basing of theory on empirical results, no consideration of negative evidence except to explain it away, and no serious verification of a continuing profusion of claims, there would seem to be no developments in modern science, even in principle, that could possibly restore the feasibility of such sloppiness. Only a more disciplined approach by astrologers could succeed here.
OQQ16.2
This seems dismissive. Astrologers have pointed to numerous developments
that supposedly make astrology more plausible, such as fractals,
interconnectedness, the theories of Bohm, Pribram, Sheldrake, and so on.
Are these of no relevance?
Researchers: Even if science did turn out to be based on say interconnectedness, astrologers have not explained how this would support the idea that the heavens reflect what happens on Earth, let alone ideas such as Leos are generous. It is like saying astrology involves books, cooking involves books, therefore cooking makes astrology more plausible. Crucial steps in the argument are missing.
The theories are physicist David Bohm's idea of implicate order, where connections between things can exist independent of space and time, neuropsychologist Karl Pribram's idea of holographic order, where time and space are collapsed into a single frequency so that normal causality (which requires time and space for its operation) no longer applies, and plant physiologist Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance, where the form of past systems has a cumulative effect on the form of subsequent similar systems. But astrologers do not erect charts by ignoring space and time or by collapsing them into a single frequency or by assuming they all have the same form. Indeed, the idea of morphic resonance suggests that, over the centuries, astrologies around the world should have become more similar, and astrological effects should have become more noticeable, but neither seems to be the case.
Claiming that such ideas make astrology more plausible, or that they explain why Leos are generous, is like claiming that rhubarb explains why airplanes fly. Until the steps in the argument are spelled out, it remains circular -- astrology is made feasible by the kind of thing that, if it existed, would make astrology feasible. To bring support to astrology we need to know exactly how astrology is supported, but astrologers never tell us. Their arguments never even get started.
OQQ16.3
There seems no doubt that various modern theories such as quantum
mechanics are attempts to explain real phenomena, and that these
phenomena do not fit within the Newtonian model which is often blamed
(or praised) for undermining belief in astrology. If a model that
undermines astrology is flawed, surely the undermining is also flawed,
which might conceivably restore feasibility to astrology?
Researchers: It does not follow. The discovery that quantum phenomena are real and undermine Newton's ideas does not necessarily restore the feasibility of astrology, just as the discovery that atoms are mostly empty space undermined Dalton's idea of oxygen but did not restore the feasibility of phlogiston. Nor does the undermining of one theory necessarily have any effect on the many other theories (in astronomy, in psychology, in medicine, in statistics) that are equally incompatible with astrology. As before, crucial steps in the argument are missing. In any case, how can any kind of theory restore feasibility to something for which there is no convincing evidence to start with? It is like asking for a theory to explain flying elephants.
NQQ16.4
What about claims that known extraterrestrial influences provide support
for astrological claims?
Researchers: Astrologers frequently argue that the existence of say lunar effects on oysters proves that astrology is credible, which is like arguing that money exists, therefore everyone is rich. But how can oysters explain why only Leos are generous? It is a huge leap of faith from such effects to the claims of astrologers. Crucial steps in the argument are again missing. If a connection existed then we might expect planets to have added to our understanding of living organisms in the same way that genes have, but such is not the case. In fact lunar effects on the spawning cycles of marine species such as the Palolo worm are well established, but lunar effects on oysters may be an illusion, see a long article in Journal of Theoretical Biology 1965, 8, 426-468.
OQQ16.5
We ought not to omit a mention of Jung's synchronicity. In the past it
was perhaps the idea that astrologers most often quoted in support of
astrology. Is there anything you can say about it?
Researchers: Astrologers see synchronicity as a meaningful coincidence, but Jung saw it as more than that. Among other things he held that it was unlikely to occur unless the observer is experiencing strong archetypal emotions (see his Letters 1976 volume 2 page 537). So it would require the chart reader to experience the most intense archetypal fear, anger, joy, sorrow, love, hatred, etc., in rapid succession. No reader or client could stand it. And even if they could, such intense emotions would impair their reasoning. (Try it and see!) So synchronicity is not the answer.
In 1931, before he invented synchronicity, Jung had his famous idea that "whatever is born or done in this moment of time has the quality of this moment of time", which of course seems perfectly matched to astrological claims. But there are problems. To start with, his idea implies that time quality is the same instantaneously throughout the universe, which is no help at all (light travels too slowly for us to ever know what that instantaneous condition is). So if time quality is to explain astrology, it has to be localised. In which case the relevance of the outer planets (even all the planets) might be denied, which presumably is not what astrologers have in mind. So time quality is probably not the answer either.
In any case, both synchronicity and time quality are examples of circular reasoning, as in "astrology is explained by X, which, if it exists, explains astrology." It is like claiming that levitation is explained by mysterious forces that, if they exist, explain levitation. Which is hardly a reason to be confident when jumping off a cliff.
17. Our inability to cope with complexity
OQQ17.1
An alternative view is that it is not possible to talk about astrology
as a single, coherent technique. Instead, each astrologer necessarily
forges their own approach (e.g. by using midpoints or not), in which
case there could be as many different astrologies as there are
astrologers.
Researchers: To obtain a judgement from a given chart, astrologers have to juggle many factors at once, typically 40 for the traditional natal chart and 60 for an Ebertin midpoint chart. And that is just for starters -- a genuine whole chart is immeasurably more complex, see Figure 3. But our short-term memory cannot juggle more than about 7+/-2 chunks of information at a time, as is apparent whenever we try dialling an unfamiliar 10-digit telephone number. As a result the information content of the chart always exceeds our capacity to handle it.
This means that astrologers cannot do what they say they do, namely juggle unaided every chart factor simultaneously. Instead they are forced to focus on whatever tiny subset of factors their experience or their teacher's experience has shown to "work." But the subset that "works" is rarely the same from one astrologer to another, for example one astrologer may use factors such as midpoints or asteroids that the other rejects, which has led to the idea that every astrologer forges their own approach -- and of course to the idea that astrology is even more mysterious (or perhaps even more problematic and implausible) than we might think. Exactly what are we talking about if every astrologers' definition of astrology is different?
Figure 5. The superchart.
The above superchart contains only those factors proposed and testified to by astrologers of some standing. With 20 words of delineation per sign position, aspect, etc., the result would be larger than the London or New York telephone directory. All you need is one client and you have enough work for the rest of your life, forecasts extra. But even this is a drop in the ocean compared to what a genuine whole chart would contain. (Reproduced with permission from Recent Advances page 35.)
OQQ17.2
Surely the situation is not unique to astrology?
Researchers: It applies quite generally where variables are numerous and ill-defined. For example, when people judge the aesthetic quality of artworks, the number of possible criteria is so large that they are forced to consider only a subset. But the subsets differ between persons and between occasions, leading to spectacular disagreement. Thus a given work may be top-rated by one and bottom-rated by another. Contrary to expectation, training in art reduces disagreement only slightly and may even increase it, so perhaps we should not be surprised by the disagreement among astrologers despite their training in astrology.
However, as noted by the psychologist David Perkins in Nodine C & Fisher D (eds), Perception and pictorial representation (Praeger 1979, pages 301-314), training in art criticism does tend to reduce disagreement, which suggests that training in astrology criticism (i.e. critical thinking) should have similar beneficial effects. His subsequent comments are worth quoting because they seem equally applicable to astrology:
"For there to be any hope of finding, or, one might better say, constructing, a common aesthetic reality [i.e. reaching agreement on artworks], viewers would need to look more carefully and thoroughly at works, trust initial perceptions less, cross-check them more with other individuals, attempt alternative perceptions of the work, determine from others what significant features might have been missed, locate and recognise ambiguities of a work's appearance, set aside first conclusions that turn out to be attributable to personal idiosyncrasies, and so on.
[Note how this agrees with the strategies used by top experts as discussed by us earlier in 7.9.]
"Such strategies rely heavily on communication between individuals, and that points to another difficulty. Not only the individual encounter with the work, but also discourse about works, suffers from many problems that interfere with constructing an aesthetic reality [i.e. reaching agreement]. For instance, people often neglect to answer one another's points, do not clarify whether evaluative claims assert goodness or preference, fail to pursue claims back into reasons supporting them, deliberately censor their points or adopt defensive attitudes. All these, and other factors too, confuse talk about art." (pages 313-314).
In short, reaching better agreement on artworks will be difficult but seems feasible via scientific approaches and hard work. There will still exist legitimate differences due to differences in personality and so on, which affect the appreciation of artworks in the same way as they affect the appreciation of poetry, but in principle there is nothing that cannot be allowed for. As Perkins says, "we know what to do" if we want to reach better agreement on artworks. The same would seem to apply to astrologers and birth charts -- if they want to reach better agreement, we know what they should do.
NQQ17.3
I wonder whether the problem of remembering ten digits which you mention
actually reveals anything about the difficulty of reading a chart.
Surely there is a much greater level of complexity in (for instance)
playing chess to a high standard, which people seem to be perfectly
capable of doing.
Researchers: To chess masters, a chess board and chess games are not just a collection of positions, as they might be to most people. They acquire individuality. Thus when chess pieces are distributed at random, chess masters are no better than ordinary people at remembering them. But if the pieces are in actually meaningful positions, chess masters do hugely better. They see them as being the combination arrived at say after 25 moves in the Capablanca-Tartakover match of 1925, so all they have to remember is one item, not hundreds as must the ordinary person. In technical terms their expertise in memory span is obtained not by increasing short-term memory but by invoking long-term memory encoding processes and permanent knowledge during encoding. With enough practice (hundreds of practice sessions) this can increase memory span by a factor of ten or more. Which is crucial in helping chess masters win.
No doubt much the same applies to expert astrologers. Chart factors and entire charts acquire individuality and are remembered and used as such, in much the same way that chess masters remember entire boards. Even so, the number of possible chart positions is almost infinitely more than the number of possible chess positions. Chess has 64 squares and 12 kinds of pieces, astrology has say 360 squares and 10 kinds of pieces, so the maximum number of combinations is chess 1264 = 1069 vs astrology 10360. In chess only some of these combinations could occur in actual games, but in astrology nearly all could occur in actual charts, thus making the disparity even greater. So even an increased memory span is still not enough to cope with chart complexity. It might produce astrologers whose grasp of charts seems astonishing to ordinary people, but the information content of the whole chart still exceeds human capacity to handle it. It will always exceed human capacity.
There is a further point. Consider what our observations would entail if we knew nothing about astrology and wanted to set it up from scratch. For one planet enjoying just 12 signs, 12 houses, and 9 kinds of aspect (5 major, 4 minor) to 9 other planets, there are 12x12x9x9 = 11664 unique combinations without even taking the sign and house position of the other planet into account. For ten planets this gives a total of (1166410)/2 = 2x1040 unique combinations (we divide by 2 to avoid double counting). The total is somewhat less than our previous 10360 but is still so huge that merely writing down one keyword per combination would require a stack of paper heavier than a million Suns. If we are forbidden to consider factors in isolation, we are now obliged to match this huge number of combinations directly to the almost infinite variety of human behaviour. It would be like matching stars in the sky to grains of sand in the Sahara and claiming we had got it right. Even without reasoning errors our capacity could not possibly cope, let alone our supply of paper. Which brings us to our further point -- that astrological theory could not be based on observation. Armchair proclamation yes, observation no.
In case you wondered where the "million Suns" comes from, assume 50 keywords per A4 80-gsm page weighing 5 grams, i.e. one keyword plus list-of-factors-comprising-the-combination per line. Weight of paper required is then more than 5x(2x1040)/50 = more than 2x1039 grams. The Sun weighs about 2x1033 grams. So the weight of paper required is more than (2x1039)/(2x1033) = more than a million Suns, to which might be added the weight of folders/binders needed to contain and index them. Purists who insisted on allowing for the sign and house position of the other planet would need to increase their paper supply (or alternatively decrease the size of their handwriting) by a factor of about 1022.
OQQ17.4
I understand that only a minute fraction of the information which the
senses send to the brain actually appears in consciousness. But this
doesn't prevent us from getting along in everyday life, basing our
actions on simplified versions of "what is really going on". So why
should the complexity of the chart preclude the discovery and
application of patterns at a relatively simple level -- that of ten
planets and twelve signs, for instance?
Researchers: In 10.1 you pointed out that a competent astrologer will avoid using simple patterns, i.e. factors in isolation, because everything depends on the rest of the chart. Because all possible factors are not considered, and because the stars only incline, the outcome might not be true to type. So you have already answered the question -- complexity precludes the application of simple patterns because astrologers say so.
Alternatively, it is a property of correlation that, as the number of factors increases, the correlation between any one of them and behaviour must decrease to leave room for the others, in the same way that having dinner cannot be entirely determined by time if it is also determined by hunger. When the number of factors is large, as in astrology, the maximum possible correlation between any single factor and behaviour ends up well below our ability to detect it. Hardly anybody can detect unaided a correlation of 0.4, and 0.7 is still missed by one person in four. The number of charts required (at least ten times the number of factors) may also end up well beyond our resources.
This is why complexity precludes the discovery of simple patterns. It means that a correlation could be detected unaided by three out of four astrologers only if the complexity involved no more than two factors, say one planet x two signs, which is not even sun sign astrology. For something more complex it could not be done. Ironically, we can cope with what tradition forbids (simplicity), but we cannot cope with what tradition requires (complexity).
NQQ17.5
You say it could not be done. Which is to say that research into
astrology is impossible. So what have we been talking about?
Researchers: We have been talking about determining factor meanings from scratch. This has nothing to do with testing the meanings claimed by astrologers. It does not follow that research into astrology is impossible. It is true that researchers might collect say 1000 Cancerians to see if they reflect the alleged characteristics of Cancer, the assumption being that in a large enough sample the other chart factors (including their ability to only incline) will cancel out. But it does not work in reverse. We can collect 1000 orange fruit cakes to see if they really do contain orange, but we cannot tell which of the countless attributes of cakes (such as flour, eggs, butter, sugar, fruit, nuts, candied peel, milk, salt, baking powder, spices, wine, spirits, juices, essences, shape, size, baking time, temperature, type of container, type of oven) is the one that is unique to our particular cakes, especially as we have no way of telling whether the cook actually followed the recipe. Similarly, we cannot tell which of the countless attributes of people is the one that is unique to Cancer, especially when charts only incline. It could not be done.
This allows astrologers a convenient double standard -- positive results can be shouted from the rooftops, negative results can be brushed aside as the consequence of chart complexity or fickle inclination. The problem of course is that the resulting nonfalsifiable astrology could not be based on observation. For if no observation could prove astrology false, astrologers could never be wrong even when using the wrong chart. So we think it is far more plausible to say that our own inability to confirm astrological claims is not because charts are too complex, but rather because charts seem not to work at any level whether simple or complex. If they did then we would not be getting the dismal Vernon Clark results shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, see 9.6.
OQQ17.6
Astrologers have different opinions about what constitutes the "whole
chart", and how much is needed for an acceptable reading -- it being, as
you illustrated with Figure 3, possible to delve into the minutiae of a
chart ad infinitum. These differences seem to explain much of the
mystery, and the confusion, which surrounds the practise of astrology.
Researchers: But the mystery and confusion might be an illusion. As far as we know the perceived chart correspondences arise only through reasoning errors. So the different approaches confidently adopted by different astrologers are precisely equivalent to the different poses confidently adopted by Skinner's pigeons. (Their pose was whatever it was when food was first delivered into their individual feeding tray, which led them to believe their pose brought food, so they stayed with that pose, which then necessarily confirmed their belief even though the subsequent deliveries were actually at random, hence their confident but completely different poses.) That is, the diversity of approaches confidently adopted by astrologers is more plausibly explained by reasoning errors than by invoking mysteries.
Again, because reasoning errors can lead astrologers to believe in correspondences that do not actually exist, we can hardly view the conflict between approaches as something special. Indeed, conflict would be predicted, just as the pigeons' differing poses would be predicted. Of course this explanation rather brutally de-mystifies the chart reading process, but the chips fall where they may.
18. Mind, reality, divination: are such issues relevant?
NQQ18.1
William Lilly wrote, "The more holy thou art, and more neer to God, the
purer judgement thou shalt give." Do you have any comment on this idea
that -- all considerations of technical knowledge aside -- the mind of
the astrologer is a relevant factor in the quality of an astrological
judgement, in the way that Lilly states?
Researchers: The quote is from Lilly's message "To the Student in Astrology" in his famous textbook Christian Astrology (1647). Astrology's then main problem was its early grounding in astral determinism, a problem that persisted despite unending disclaimers such as Lilly's motto non cogunt, or the stars do not compel. An astrologer's main battle was therefore to prove that astrology was compatible with Christianity, which explains Lilly's choice of title. In other words the quote may be more to help the battle than to provide actual hints for purer judgement. This view is supported by the rest of Lilly's message, which is basically a list of Christian virtues to be adhered to, ending with "be not dismayed if ill spoken of ... God suffers no sin unpunished, no lie unrevenged." But back to your question:
If being "neer to God" makes the astrologer more warm, more sympathetic, more wise, and more sensitive to body language, then in a counselling situation it has to be an advantage. But outside of counselling and other face-to-face situations, studies have so far revealed no advantage in being "neer to God." As far as we can tell, holier or more intuitive astrologers make judgements that are no different in accuracy from those made by other astrologers. In fact nothing seems to make much difference, not even personality, technique, or experience, which is not to say that clients won't have preferences. Historically some astrologers such as William Lilly and Leo Knegt have had an impressive reputation for accuracy, but until their modern equivalents (which earlier we called white crows) come forward for testing, we have nothing to go on.
OQQ18.2
Staying with the issue of mind and its relevance in astrology, I imagine
that what many astrologers will find surprising, and perhaps
disappointing, about your approach is that there is no real debate about
the nature of mind, the nature of reality, and the way in which we
perceive reality.
Researchers: We find this hard to understand. First, our concern for reasoning errors is in effect precisely about such topics. Second, astrology books do not hedge their bets with such debates, so how are they suddenly relevant? Third, "real debate" seems premature until astrology has been shown to work under conditions where reasoning errors are controlled. In short, what has mind-reality-perception to do with testing whether astrologers can pick correct charts from controls? How can it be relevant when astrologers give readings without worrying whether client and chart are real, or a figment of the mind, or a misperception?
OQQ18.3
Astrologers might claim that it is impossible to test or evaluate
astrology without first addressing questions about the nature of subject
and object, the nature of perception, and the nature of truth and its
relativity.
Researchers: We don't see how. If you check the psychological and philosophical literature you will find these questions are discussed at great length without any mention of astrology. And with good reason. Why should a process heavily prone to reasoning errors raise questions about the nature of truth? It is like claiming the nature of piano playing is questioned by wearing boxing gloves.
NQQ18.4
To illustrate the point, let's go back to your earlier example (6.1) of
equal lines being perceived as unequal. You used this to show that we
may misperceive "real reality" (to coin a term); but it could also be
used to suggest that human perception is inherently interpretative, and
that the reality of "reality" is only relative. After all, if we saw
reality directly then we could never be deluded.
Researchers: You are right. The idea that perception is modelling arose from the cognitive revolution of the 1950s and the birth of artificial intelligence. Before then the talk was on stimulus and response. Now it is on things like the selective filtering of experience and strategies for handling information. Perception is seen as a set of ideas and models on which we act until they are proved wrong, in which case we change them. That is, we do not merely receive experience, we use it to selectively test models. These models are basically labour-saving devices that collapse the information into manageable chunks. They determine to some extent what we see and how much. For example, in a given landscape the geologist will see rocks, the developer will see building sites, and the artist will see metaphors and meaning.
So what is more important in determining perception, the model or the information input? The answer is the model. For example, suppose we see a slippery wet road ahead. Because the image on our retina is neither slippery nor three-dimensional, the perception must be generated by choosing the model that best fits the cues. So perception is not simply seeing. It is a matter of guessing followed by adjustments if we choose the wrong model, as for example when the shadowy figure in our bedroom turns out to be a coat hanging behind the door. This explains the reasoning error known as hindsight bias (where afterwards we knew it all along) -- once the choice of models has been biassed by the experience, it reintroduces itself into the original perception.
The problem is that guessing from inadequate data can go off the rails, because wrong guesses are not easily dispelled by knowing the truth. Although we may know when our perception is wrong, this does not correct the perception, as in our example of equal lines. In other words intellect and perception are almost separate processes. No wonder we need the scientific approach to keep us on the rails.
NQQ18.5
That analogy is a telling one, I think. Isn't the question really
whether there are any rails to keep on? There are two extreme
philosophical positions: realism, where we simply observe a "master
reality"; and idealism, where we create our own reality. The article on
"Realism and anti-realism" in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says
"no sane position is reached at either extreme." It is a commonplace of
philosophy that we create our own reality to some degree.
Researchers: Does it matter? Like clients, we are concerned only with whether astrologers can do what they claim to do. How is reality relevant?
NQQ18.6
How could reality not be relevant? Different astrologers claim to do
different things, which rest on different interpretations of reality. We
already touched on this at 7.13-7.14. Some hold a "realist" position; in
their view, the laws of astrology are similar to the law of gravity --
objective, quantifiable laws which work regardless of any mental
involvement by astrologers or anyone else. This position is easy to
understand. Its chief problem is that the laws which are supposed to be
there have yet to be isolated and defined -- a point which you have
mentioned already in this interview.
The other positions held by astrologers -- the majority, in my experience -- depart from the "realist" position to varying degrees. Under these views, astrology involves an element of art as well as of science; several astrologers used the analogy of playing music -- the point being that it is necessary to know the basics, but that a mental quality ("inspiration", for want of a better word) is required in order for an astrologer to do their best work. The mental attitude of the client is also sometimes brought in as a factor which has to be "right".
Researchers: A problem with both the above views is that the claimed success is most readily explained by reasoning errors. There is no need for alternative realities or mental attitudes or other mysteries. It is like invoking the end of the world to explain a power cut.
NQQ18.7
I disagree, and would suggest that it is worth looking at the
consequences which follow from the approach I am talking about. Under
this system -- sometimes labelled "divinatory astrology" -- two things
in particular require comment:
(1) Apparently contradictory systems of astrological interpretation (such as tropical and sidereal zodiacs) might work for different individuals (as, say, be-bop and hip-hop might suit different musicians). If that were so, it would make no sense to try and evaluate whether an astrological technique worked as a general principle, only whether it worked for a particular person.
(2) Another plausible inference would be that nearly all research into astrology has been unsuited to its subject -- the knowledge "this is a test" being sufficient to destroy the attitude of genuine enquiry needed for synergy between astrologer, chart, and client. This interpretation, of course, would make astrology almost impossible to test.
Researchers: Almost all astrology books and journals claim that astrological effects hold for everybody, whether or not they believe in astrology, and are consistent. So (1) cannot be right. Similarly a responsible astrologer will always test the chart to the client's satisfaction before proceeding to matters of importance. So (2) cannot be right.
In any case, (1) and (2) do not provide grounds for disagreeing with our point that "reasoning errors can explain the claimed success." Both involve situations where there is no control over reasoning errors, so reasoning errors can still explain the claimed success.
NQQ18.8
I can't disagree with your point about reasoning errors, but would add
that reasoning errors can explain anything we care to think of; for
example our belief that the world exists may be one huge reasoning
error.
Researchers: Which would leave nothing to do the believing. Could we make that kind of mistake? We might mistake a pen for a pencil or by mistake forget to order lunch, but could we be mistaken that other people exist or that the world exists?
Your comment implies that our reasoning is always so faulty that we can reach any conclusion we like, in which case car repairs would be effectively denied. Obviously this is not so. With care we can avoid reasoning errors, repair cars, and reach sound conclusions. More to the point, if astrology really did work, it would work even when we avoided reasoning errors. So they could not be an explanation.
NQQ18.9
The interesting thing, surely, is whether reasoning errors provide the
most consistent and comprehensive explanation of a given phenomenon. But
before this can be assessed, we have to be clear about what the
alternative explanation to reasoning errors is, and how it is supposed
to operate.
Researchers: The alternative being that an astrology with disagreement all along the line is true? Such special pleading would not be accepted in other areas, so why should we allow it for astrology? If we avoid reasoning errors and find after much research that there is little or nothing left to explain (which situation is now as true of astrology as it was for phrenology), it seems pointless to seek explanations for likely non-existent effects, a point also covered in 16.3 and later in 18.12. It would be like seeking explanations for flying elephants. But tell us anyway.
NQQ18.10
Here is a brief overview of the alternative way of seeing astrology --
the divinatory approach. In this, astrology is seen as similar to the I
Ching or tarot. There are two consequences of this which may be worth
dwelling on. The first is that the significance of chart factors in
themselves is taken away. Mars near the ascendant does not make things
happen, any more than the fall of yarrow stalks causes things to happen.
("we would do better to look at the nature of the act of imaginative
assignation by which we make time itself significant" -- Geoffrey
Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology 1994, p.255).
Researchers: Divination uses a chance process (shuffling cards, casting dice, throwing yarrow stalks) to eliminate human interference so the will of the deity can be discerned. The outcome has to be vague to avoid falsification, and to allow the seeing (like seeing faces in clouds) of whatever seems appropriate, so divination actually encourages human interference rather than eliminate it. It also denies the relevance of accurate birth charts -- why bother when we can pick one at random, just like throwing stalks?
Such a picture is quite contrary to the one given in astrology textbooks. Thus in his review of Cornelius's book, Charles Harvey (Astrological Journal Nov-Dec 1994) accepts that divination can play a role in astrology. But he rejects the idea that all of astrology is divinatory because it would deny a secure basis to chart interpretation, thus wiping out astrology textbooks overnight. It would also deny the improvements actually achieved by astrologers such as Addey, Ebertin, and Lewis, and by some computer programs, and it would deny the cyclicity on which many successful mundane forecasts are based. In short, astrology as practised by most astrologers could not be divinatory. But let us continue the discussion anyway.
NQQ18.11
The involvement of an act of imagination on the part of the astrologer
effectively means that a chart reading is not repeatable (because it is
impossible to repeat all the conditions which lead Astrologer X to apply
their imagination in a particular way at a particular time).
Non-repeatability would make many types of test inapplicable to astrology,
albeit not the Vernon-Clark approach. The second consequence, which
emerges particularly from the analogy between astrology and the I Ching,
is that the intention to make a test, on the part of astrologer or
client, would prevent an accurate reading from being produced.
Researchers: So an astrologer could never get the same reading twice, nor could any other astrologer, nor could they discover whether one approach worked better than another, or even whether anything worked in the first place. Indeed, to repeat the reading must necessarily prove one of the readings wrong. Compare this with faith healing -- if you have faith you will be healed, but if you are not healed then you have insufficient faith. Why bother with tests when the whole process so readily self-destructs?
NQQ18.12
The attitude of the I Ching to being tested is given in hexagram 4: "It
is not I who seek the young fool; the young fool seeks me. At the first
oracle I inform him. If he asks two or three times, it is importunity.
If he importunes, I give him no information." It adds: "If mistrustful
or unintelligent questioning is kept up, it serves only to annoy the
teacher. He does well to ignore it in silence." (I Ching -- Richard
Wilhelm translation, pp.20-21). The point is that questions based in
doubt about that which one consults are invalid; the doubt becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Under this view, Vernon-Clark type tests would
also be unsuitable. So there may be no such thing as suitable research,
making divinatory astrology almost impossible to test.
Researchers: The outcome is thus true by definition, which puts all the blame for a faulty reading on the client. How very convenient.
To consult the I Ching we choose our moment and toss a set of yarrow stalks. But according to hexagram 4, if we simultaneously toss two sets of yarrow stalks, or two pennies as in the Australian and New Zealand gambling game of two-up, their agreement should be affected by the degree of mistrust we assume. But as anyone can discover for themselves, no connection actually exists, so we have no reason to believe that mistrust has any effect.
More to the point, if astrology is almost impossible to test then it is almost impossible to discover in the first place, or to claim that some techniques work better than others, which (as noted by Charles Harvey in 18.11) would wipe out astrology textbooks and deny the improvements actually achieved. Furthermore, as we showed in 12.5, the idea that astrology is almost impossible to test cannot be true when astrologers are so readily convinced that it works (or not, thus Charles Carter says "my own experience with figures cast for me by horarists has been unfortunate. In fact they have usually been downright wrong and never strikingly right" Astrological Journal December 1962).
Interestingly, we seem here to be in precisely the sort of situation where failure to observe our subjective-objective distinction (see 4.1) can send us off the rails. Before we can judge whether the claims of divinatory astrologers are impossible to test, we need to know precisely what claims they are making. If they cannot be specific then it is like asking us to debate the merits of flying elephants without regard for whether they actually exist.
NQQ18.13
To answer the first part of your question: So far as I am aware, the
prevailing view amongst divinatory astrologers is that astrology -- and
other modes of "symbolic perception" -- are innate. Turtles are born
knowing how to dig their way out of the sand, walk down the beach, get
into the sea and swim away; similarly (these astrologers might argue),
humans are born knowing how to derive information about the world from
the way their minds respond to symbols.
Researchers: Astrologers have to do more than just argue. After all, there is no evidence that what they say is true. Otherwise astrologers would not disagree on nearly everything, the skeptics' million dollar prize in 13.3 would have been snapped up long ago, and science would be redundant. Our world would resemble astrology world (see 12.1). And how does it explain the existence of skeptics?
NQQ18.14
On the second part of your question: I don't think divinatory
astrologers would have too much difficulty in being specific about what
they claim to do: they might say something like, "we provide the
information which it is right to provide at the time". Since the model
here is one of participating in an order which transcends the
individual, the individual wishes of client or astrologer will not
necessarily be met. Sometimes, therefore, it may not be appropriate for
a question to be answered; perhaps the client will get the answer to a
question other than the one they came for. But, usually, information is
provided which will have meaning for the client. This includes specific
information about objective things in the world, such as "Is this boat,
which I am thinking of buying, damaged below the water line?".
Researchers: This seems testable to us. But whether the astrology is divinatory or ordinary, the issue boils down to the same thing: Does it deliver results beyond those explainable by non-astrological factors? There is nothing here to say that divination should be any less immune to reasoning errors than non-divination. In fact, given that it encourages human intervention (see 18.11), one might expect the reverse to apply.
NQQ18.15
The physicist Niels Bohr once remarked to a colleague, "Your theory is
crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true." Perhaps the only frame of
reference which could begin to explain astrological phenomena would be
entirely crazy from a commonsense point of view. Suggestions such as
this may, as you have suggested, be smoke-screens which only serve to
obscure scientific truth. I only want to make the point that, whatever
conclusions people draw, those conclusions will be based on assumptions
about the world.
Researchers: If we developed even crazier theories than astrology, would this increase their chance of being true? Presumably not. Bohr still thought the truth of a crazy theory could be determined, which is said to not apply to divinatory astrology. As for assumptions, they provide a framework (just as talk of a reality does) for testing claims. Your comment implies that just picking the right assumptions will validate astrology, but it does not follow, any more than picking the right assumptions validated phrenology. Indeed, astrologers do not even agree about their own assumptions, as in divinatory vs ordinary astrology, so the problem also applies to them. But does it apply to researchers? After all, assumptions never stopped scientists making tests. If astrologers claim to see X in charts under conditions Y and Z, then this is the claim we test. To argue that the outcome depends on our assumptions is like saying a change in our assumptions can turn a losing lottery ticket into a winner.
NQQ18.16
Other assumptions which come into play in evaluating astrology's truth
are these: Do we understand nearly all of the world, or hardly anything?
What is the scope, and what are the limits, of the scientific method? Do
we play an active role in the creation of the world in which we live?
Since such questions are the domain of philosophy rather than science, I
stand by the point made earlier (in 18.6) -- that our view of reality is
relevant to the interpretation and understanding of astrology.
Researchers: We don't see how. Astrology books and journals, and client consultations, generally deal in straightforward things like health, wealth and relationships without ever worrying about the nature of reality or the limits of science. So how can they be suddenly relevant? They seem to arise only when research results are negative, never when they are positive. In any case, we are merely testing the claims of astrologers to see X in charts. Why should a process heavily prone to reasoning errors raise questions about the nature of reality or the validity of research? It is like arguing that the Cottingley fairies have invalidated science.
To be sure, if astrology really did deliver results beyond those explainable by artifacts, reasoning errors, and other non-astrological factors, it would show that our science-based understanding of the world is incomplete. In which case your points would be relevant, and we would be the first to debate them. But half a century of systematic enquiry has consistently found no useful effects beyond non-astrological ones. Until the situation changes, debate seems premature. As Mrs Beeton might say, first catch your rabbit before printing the menu.
But over to you. Given the idea that astrology delivers results beyond those explained by non-astrological factors, what approach would you recommend for testing this idea? Interestingly, when we put this question to astrologers, we generally receive no response, which suggests they have no interest in finding out if they might be fooling themselves. Note that our own views and assumptions are deliberately excluded here, so their merits or flaws have no bearing on the issue.
NQQ18.17
Before addressing your question I should say that, in order to answer
it, I have to step outside the role which I have tried to take in this
interview of an astrological everyman, and answer in terms of my own
approach and understanding of astrology. There are many people in the
astrological community who would answer differently, many of whom are
better-qualified than I am to reply. I hope that some of them will in
fact feel moved to respond. Now, to my reply:
You ask for an approach capable of testing astrology. Despite your best efforts to exclude all views or assumptions, this does not get beyond the assumption that astrology should function irrespective of the attitude and motivation of those who try to use it. That this does not fit with the divinatory model of astrology has already been discussed at 18.11-18.12. From that perspective, your question could be rendered as, "Show us a test which is not a test". Unsurprisingly, I do not have an answer which meets your criteria. What I can offer is three suggestions which -- though hardly conclusive in your terms -- seem at least to be relevant, and promising areas for research:
(1) Research into the influence of researchers on findings -- is there any difference in the results obtained from two sets of identical tests which are run (a) by sceptics, (b) by believers in astrology? If (as suggested), the mental attitude of those involved is important, it might be expected that experiments run by believers would be more favourable to astrology than those run by non-believers
(2) Time twins. As noted earlier, research in this area seems as if it should avoid most of the objections to which research into astrology is generally subject. In order to allow astrology to perform under its own terms, studies should focus not only on parallels which are obvious to all (such as time-twins getting married on the same day), but also parallels which exist only in terms of astrological symbolism (for example lead poisoning and promotion could both be expressions of Saturn).
(3) In addition, I believe there is room for anthropological fieldwork: talking to scientists and astrologers to elucidate and clarify the ways in which astrology can be seen; and talking to astrologers (ideally their clients as well, though confidentiality issues make this problematic) to get specific information/advice arrived at from chart readings. This approach has, I think, a part to play in establishing whether astrologers are getting significant-looking results in their daily practice, whether there are identifiable conditions applying in those cases, and what kind of phenomenon astrology might actually be. This, of course, is the approach taken in Astrology in the Year Zero, including this interview.
Researchers: Your suggested "promising areas for research" have already been looked at by researchers, but with unpromising results. Tests by believers have not been more positive than those by skeptics, for example in 1987 German astrologer Peter Niehenke obtained only negative results after comparing over 3000 charts with their owner's responses to a 16-page questionnaire, while the results most generally hailed by astrologers are those of arch-skeptic Gauquelin. Time twins (see 10.7) have so far shown no similarities commensurate with astrological claims. Analysis of consultations has found only reasoning errors and nonfalsifiability (see 4.4). Whether or not all this is bad news will depend on our subjective-objective distinction as shown in 4.1.
Might others have better ideas? This was essentially the focus of the $US5000 prize mentioned in 13.2, which in 1983 challenged astrologers to provide "evidence that the accuracy of chart interpretations cannot be explained by non-astrological factors." The 34 entries totalling 1500 pages from around the world were agreeably diverse, being spread roughly equally over personality, events, and other (e.g. synastry, horary), but 16 did not address the issue and 3 produced only negative results. Of the remaining 15 entries only one was successful, but this was a bogus study entered to counter allegations that the prize was unwinnable because appropriate tests could not be designed and the panel of eight judges was not impartial. For details see Astrological Journal 1986 and 1987, most issues.
NQQ18.18
Staying with the topic of reality, what is your view of the idea that,
in principle, different views of reality can result in the world being
experienced differently?
Researchers: Just proclaiming that different realities exist is no argument in favour of their existence. We need to know exactly what they entail, how we can tell one from another, and whether there are many realities or a single complex one. Nevertheless the idea of alternative realities (or truths or world views or paradigms) is popular among some astrologers on the basis that we need only find the right reality and astrology is proven beyond all possible doubt. Which is like claiming we could fly if only we could find the right reality.
However, although ideas about alternative perceptions are straightforward (some people see Joe as a nice guy, others see him as a bully), ideas about alternative realities are problematic. Instead of solving problems for astrology they create new ones. For example, how many alternative realities are there? How can we tell if they actually exist? Are they really alternatives or are they just another complexity of everyday reality? Astrologers never tell us.
More to the point, how could these alternatives upset scientific research but not the everyday experience of astrologers? (Recall that if astrologers can study it then so can researchers.) How could failure to choose the right reality upset our testing an astrologer's claim to see X in charts? A particular reality might be more congruent with astrology (e.g. by involving holism) but it does not mean that astrology is automatically supported, any more than a congruent reality (normal science) supported phrenology. In short, we have no reason to view astrology differently just because an alternative reality might happen to be conguent with it. The idea confuses more than it clarifies.
NQQ18.19
In the Autumn 1997 issue of Noetic Sciences Review there is what its
editor calls a "spirited debate" on astrology between the US physicist
Dr Will Keepin (for) and the US psychologist Professor Roger Walsh
(against). One passage that interests me is by Keepin:
If the [Gauquelin findings] can be substantiated, the implications are dumbfounding. Borrowing on Wilber's concepts [Wilber is a US philosopher], astrology can be viewed as a transrational discipline -- epistemologically rooted in "vision-logic" and intuition -- that points toward a vast "holarchy" which not only unifies the physiosphere, biosphere, and noosphere, as Wilber calls for, but does so in a larger celestial context that "transcends but includes" the Gaian system. ... Astrology does not preclude free will. ... Astrological correlations are perhaps the consequence of a unitive cosmic process that unfolds holographically at multiple levels of reality simultaneously. (p.34)
Walsh's response is that "since astrologers don't usually undertake transpersonal transformative disciplines", Keepin's argument begs the question, so "the unreliability and invalidity of traditional astrological readings would still remain." I realise that Keepin's jargon is rather daunting but I think his gist is clear enough. Any comments on what Keepin is saying?
Researchers: Keepin makes a leap of faith from "Gauquelin findings" to "astrology." Fortunately we do not have to deal with Keepin's jargon because Wilber himself, in his One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber (Shambala 1999), has commented on this passage. Wilber is generally critical of astrology. He confirms that Keepin has used his [Wilbur's] concepts correctly and then comes straight to the point: "The question is, are we working with upward or downward causation?" (p.179). Wilber notes that Keepin has opted for downwards astrology, where higher-order influences at the level of the universe or World Soul filter down to lower-order people. This process inevitably gets degraded by free will, birth time errors, interpretive errors, and so on, so the weak correlations that Gauquelin observed give a misleading picture of the true influence of astrology.
NQQ18.20
It's an interesting perspective. Keepin is saying that an underlying
Greater Truth exists but it gets more or less lost in the translation
because astrology, the means of translation, is prone to so many
complicating factors and errors.
Researchers: But did you notice how an underlying Greater Truth is compatible with all possible situations? Even if astrologers were always wrong, the Greater Truth could still be true. The problem is, we have no idea how to confirm or disconfirm such speculations, and neither do astrologers. The same with Keepin's unifying holarchies and Wilber's World Soul, which is why we prefer to let these two fight it out rather than deal with their speculations:
Wilber notes that astrology could be working upwards rather than downwards. Physical planets could be affecting the physical body directly, with subsequent upward influence on the emotions, mind, and higher levels. So Wilbur asks the question: Is astrology upwards or downwards? He then argues in favour of upwards, because anything downwards is usually very strong. Thus when we will our arm to move, all of it moves, not just 5% of it. Similarly a World Soul that could not downwards override a Caesarian birth or a non-eminent birth is not much of a World Soul. By contrast, anything upwards is usually very weak because the lower has to struggle very hard to decisively affect the higher. This means that upwards astrological influences would not survive unless they were initially really strong. But as far as we know they are so weak as to be effectively non-existent. Or so Wilber argues.
He concludes: "For the average person, who is presumably not getting a huge dose of what was already very weak astral forces, these tepid influences would wash out entirely." In short he is arguing that, contrary to Keepin's view, Gauquelin's weak effects correspond to upwards astrology, not downwards astrology. Keepin 0, Wilber 1.
Our own comment is that neither Keepin nor Wilber have taken into consideration the role of reasoning errors. In our view, what astrologers think they observe corresponds most likely to reasoning errors, not to upwards or downwards astrology. Is that shadowy figure haunting the church at midnight really a ghost, or is it a hallucination, or is it just a coat hanging behind the vestry door? Keepin and Wilber have assumed the former without considering the others. Their views seem to be a good example of how not being careful can lead you astray.
OQQ18.21
Much of this discussion has been about "objective astrology", as you
have characterised it. But supposing that every astrologer in the world
held up their hands tomorrow and said, "We admit it -- astrology is an
entirely subjective art." What then?
Researchers: If their astrology is subjective (no need to be true) and not objective (needs to be true), the research implications are then rather different. Subjective astrology is more like a religion, and researching it would be like researching a religion, where we examine its effects on people rather than its content. Research would focus not on the actual beliefs but on how people use them and are affected by them. For example to study how astrological counselling works we could apply the same procedures used to study ordinary psychological counselling. The problem is that if you believe it is all foolish nonsense then by its own rules you are right. The implication is that subjective astrology should compete with other forms of counselling on an effectiveness scale determined by scientific investigation.
At the same time we should not make the mistake of treating astrology as if astrologers did not matter. For example it is a common experience that clients (unless suffering from a genuine organic condition) prefer astrologers to psychiatrists because they find the former more caring, or more approachable, or more sympathetic to their religious views, and so on, all of which are attributes of the astrologer rather than of astrology. On this basis, whatever our views of astrology, if it encourages people to explore and express humane and spiritual values or to examine the problems of mankind's existence, if it does so in ways that are gentle and respectful or inspiring and uplifting, if in a chaotic world it provides individual retreat or support, if it helps provide a bridge between a person of wisdom and a person in need, then these qualities deserve study as much as any objective claim. Our respect for these qualities should not be diminished by our rejecting, at the same time, astrology as a source of scientific knowledge. There is more to astrology than being true or false.
19. Sources of research information
NQQ19.1
Most popular works on astrology do not defend it but simply teach how to
use it. Anyone who has read only such works might be unaware of the
research that has been conducted into astrology. Where can they find the
other side of the story?
Researchers: There is a surprisingly large number of books that give the other side of the story. The problem is that they tend to be out of print, or out of date, or unavailable in public libraries. For every such book there are dozens of articles that are generally even harder to find. The main thing is whether the material is up to date, simply because the pace of recent work has been rapid and many previous gaps have now been filled. So rather than nominate specific titles (which is no use if you cannot get them) we have annotated the more important or more recent titles in our list.
[An updated version of this list is included in Finding Info under Adroit Utilities on this website. The interview contains no cross-references to this website because it was completed before the website began. Nevertheless most of the website's articles address issues raised in the interview, for example sun signs, reasoning errors, Gauquelin planetary effects, tests, and test results. To date the researchers' arguments and conclusions remain unaffected. -- Webmaster]
To give you an idea of what to expect from critical psychologists, other than a scrutiny of the evidence, here are some quotes from Leahey & Leahey's Psychology's Occult Doubles: Psychology and the Problem of Pseudoscience (Nelson-Hall 1983), which devotes a dozen pages to astrology: They note that astrology conjures up a "universe where nothing is meaningless. ... This beats the hell (quite literally) out of a meaningless, absurd universe composed solely of atoms and the void" (p.32). "Moreover, even if it [astrology] had no practical use in pursuing wealth and fame, it would still have some of the same improving virtues as philosophy" (p.37). "It is less a pursuit of truth than a pursuit of happiness. ... Believers in astrology want to look into their souls -- but as safely and sanely as the Fourth of July without fireworks. Not for them the dark night of the soul, the assumption of responsibility for all aspects of one's being" (p.41). "For those with only slight religious needs, the astrology column in your newspaper may well be as satisfying as lighting a candle to a saint or saying grace before eating" (p.42).
20. Summing up
OQQ20.1
Why are you still interested in astrology? Why haven't you just given up
hope and turned your backs on it?
Researchers: No matter what attitude we might have towards astrology, the experiences of astrologers and their clients are themselves fascinating, whether or not they prove to be astrological. Similarly, something that so many people believe in has to be worthy of study, whether or not the reasons prove to be astrological. Of course, study may not be easy or quick or financially rewarding, but with skill, care and knowledge we can do it. That is, if we want to -- and surely we should. As for your second question, none of us have vested interests in astrology, so there are no particular results we could "hope" for. If we do turn our backs on astrology it will be because we have finished our researches, not because we have given up hope.
OQQ20.2
So would you recommend anyone to take up astrological research?
Researchers: If the aim is to prove that astrological claims are true, the chance of a positive result strong enough to overturn the present predominantly negative evidence seems remote. There is no case for the investment of research dollars because the competition from other more profitable areas is simply too great. But as mentioned in our previous answer, the picture improves if the aim is no longer to prove astrology. The area remains worthy of study. Even so, students who hope it will open the door to research grants may be disappointed.
OQQ20.3
One last question. For the benefit of readers who may feel overwhelmed,
could you provide a summary of your position?
Researchers: Four things. First, astrology is no longer the mystery it used to be. Most of the important questions that can be asked now have answers that are generally consistent.
Second, the claim that astrology works implies that all non-astrological influences leading to the same result have been ruled out. Don't accept the first unless you can be sure of the second. The second is never true of your typical astrology reading.
Third, ask yourself if your kind of astrology needs to be true. If no, you are safe. If yes, you are on shaky ground, and you should ask yourself which alternative is the more likely: (1) That pervasive astrological influences exist which contradict known science even though astrologers spectacularly disagree on the nature of those influences, or (2) that the many known errors in human reasoning of which most astrologers are spectacularly unaware explain astrological beliefs.
Fourth, whatever our views of astrology, they cannot deny its historical importance, nor should they deny our open-mindedness to possible future discoveries in astrology and in extraterrestrial influences.
OQQ20.4
This ends the collective interview. I asked each researcher if they
would like to add a personal view. They replied as follows:
Dean: Readers' comments are most welcome. [Send them by email via the form given in Site philosophy under Adroit Utilites.] We want to hear from you.
Ertel: Despite our refuting astrology as a source of knowledge we should acknowledge the stimulating effect of the Gauquelins' prolific research. Although some of their purported discoveries have been disconfirmed there remains a core that has withstood my own and other researchers' independent tests. If this core cannot be explained by parental tampering of birth data, we would need some more demanding explanation which, in my view, might eventually help to improve our understanding of mankind's place in the universe. Such understanding would differ considerably from astrology's historical intuitions. Rather, it would have to be consistent with existing astronomical knowledge and with models of cosmological evolution.
Mather: Astrology has been of major historical significance. The resistance so far to its disproof continues to pose a challenge.
Smit: Despite my changed views of astrology, I still cherish very fond memories of my dealings with my then fellow astrologers.
Kelly: On behalf of the group I would like to thank you for focussing on problematic areas that astrologers themselves tend to ignore. We hope your readers will explore these areas further. We also thank Geoffrey Dean for synthesising our diverse views into a mutually agreeable framework. The end result has been one of satisfaction to all of us.
Postscript December 2003. Garry Phillipson reports that responses to our interview in Year Zero have ranged from claiming we were paid $US400,000 by an evil organisation to hide the truth about astrology, to seeing the validity of our arguments as putting astrologers to shame.
21. Index
Click here for Index (over 700 entries)
From www.astrology-and-science.com Click here to return to home page