the scientific exploration of astrology-articles by reseachers

7/29/2019 The Scientific Exploration of Astrology-Articles by Reseachers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-scientific-exploration-of-astrology-articles-by-reseachers 1/156

Indian scientists on Vedic astrologyThirty comments from Current Science

Abstract -- In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided toprovide funds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. The

decision provoked outrage and controversy in the pages of the prestigious Indianscience journal Current Science. Of thirty comments, most of them fromscientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissedastrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests wereneeded, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something thatthe majority of Indian people believed in. In chronological order, the authors andtheir comments are briefly as follows, starting with editor P.Balaram:

2000, Volume 79, issue 9Balaram -- UGC should not promote astrology and palmistry courses.

2001, Volume 80, issues 6-11Ganeshaiah -- But tests not decisive, more are needed to assess claims.Balaram -- Evidence is overwhelmingly against, UGC lacks credibility.Pal -- No respectable university should accept UGC's offer.Sitaram and 29 others -- Our apathy means protest may be too late.Murthy -- Opposition to astrology is based on sensible science.Chandrashekaran -- No defence is needed when so many people believe.Rao -- Why haven't scientists protested? Astrology is not a science.Khare -- Vedic astrology has not been scientifically validated.Virk -- Guru Nanak rejected astrology in 15th century. So should we.Tiwari -- Big science is suppressing new ideas and should be challenged.

Sashidhar -- Astrology is a pseudo-science, scientists will ignore it.

2001, Volume 81, issues 1-3Narasimhan -- The ancients were good observers, give their ideas a chance.Karanth -- Astrology relates to gems, and mineralogy is part of science.Seshadri & Kathiravan -- Most Indians believe in astrology, so honour it.Chattopadhyay -- Some scientists secretly believe, so don't blame public.Subbarao -- Faith is often needed to overcome fear and uncertainty.Chopra -- Funding psychological props is OK if other needs not affected.Devakumar -- Vedas say nothing about astrology, so Vedic is a misnomer.Valluri -- Astrology fails to meet the methodology of a science.Gautham -- Most consult an astrologer if pressed, so struggle is futile.Balasundaram -- Tests of astrology are indecisive, it needs demystifying.Tiwari -- Vedic = beyond sensory experience. How can Vedic be science?Gupta -- Astrology may be a science-like knowledge but more difficult.Mandal -- We either accept astrology and reject evolution, or the reverse.Ganeshaiah -- Issue is nonsense vs good information, not arts vs sciences.Abhyankar -- Astrologers offer only therapy by talking. Why be fooled?Narlikar (review of Astrology: Believe it or not? ) -- Not! Recommended!



Sitaraman -- Science not threatened by Vedic astrology or any other.At which point the debate was closed by the editor. Three years later:

2004, Volume 87, issue 8Chattopadhyay -- Government reaffirms UGC proposal. But we stay silent.

In 2001 the University Grants Commision (UGC) in India decided to providefunds for courses in astrology and palmistry at Indian universities. Their circular said "There is urgent need to rejuvenate the science of Vedic Astrology inIndia ... and provide opportunities to get this important science exported to theworld." To those Hindus who allow astrology to influence the course of their business and family lives (which is most of them including major politicalleaders), the UGC's decision might seem only sensible if overdue.

But the decision provoked outrage and controversy among India's modernintellectuals, especially in the pages of the prestigious Indian science journal

Current Science, which in content and standard is similar to New Scientist . The journal was founded in Bangalore in 1932 in collaboration with the IndianAcademy of Sciences and is published every two weeks. Back copies can bedownloaded from http://www.ias.ac.in. Of thirty comments, most of them fromscientists in university departments or research institutes, about half dismissedastrology as a pseudo-science, about half of the rest felt decisive tests wereneeded, and the rest felt there was nothing wrong with funding something thatthe majority of Indian people believed in. Of those who referred to tests, noneseemed aware of the full extent of Western research findings. The commentsfrom Current Science, condensed on average to one sixth of their original length,with their original headings, are as follows, starting with editor P.Balarum:

2000, Vol 79(9), 1139Editorial -- Creationism, Astrology and ScienceLast summer, the Kansas State Board of Education decided to removereferences to evolution and cosmology from its curriculum. In India the UniversityGrants Commission (UGC) has decided to promote courses in astrology andpalmistry. Despite our inalienable right to profess any faith and subscribe to anybelief, superstition is best practised by individuals in private. The governmentmust not provide a licence for the formal teaching of a subject that only serves tomislead its believers. P.BALARAM

2001, Vol 80(6), 719An unscientific way to bury astrologyThe decision by the KSBE to remove evolution from the curriculum calls for anunambiguous condemnation by the scientific community. But the decision tointroduce astrology and palmistry into the university curriculum in India cannot beequated with this. How many hours have been spent in assessing the truth or otherwise of these areas? I am not aware of strong data sets that reject their claims. There are several scientists in western universities (eg I.W. Kelly)



working hard to evaluate the sense and nonsense of astrology. So why shouldIndian universities hesitate to study astrology? I think these ideas at leastdeserve a post mortem examination to assess how useless they are.K.N.GANESHAIAH, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.

2001, Vol 80(9), 1085Editorial -- The astrology falloutThe generally placid academic science community in India has been stirred intounprecedented ferment by the UGC's decision to set up a few departments of Vedic astrology in Indian universities, which "would provide exclusive teachingand training in the subject leading to certificate, diploma, undergraduate, post-graduate and PhD degrees". The new departments will have Professors,Readers, Lecturers, Library Attendants and Computer Operators, with a possible"non-recurring" budget of Rs 6 lakhs for an "observatory" and Rs 5 lakhs for a"computer lab and horoscope bank". [About $US14,000 and $US12,000.] TheUGC's assertion that Vedic astrology is a science has stirred a hornets' nest.

Astrology has been here for centuries. Despite overwhelming scientific evidencethat planets at the time of birth do not dictate the course of human affairs,astrology will be with us in the foreseeable future. The present battle is notbetween astrology and science but between the UGC (which is charged with theresponsibility of fostering higher education) and the scientific community. TheUGC's view that astrology needs to be promoted as a science in our universitiesis a pointless initiative that will further erode the credibility of our institutions.P.BALARAM

2001, Vol 80(9), 1087UGC decides to set up departments of Vedic astrology in universities

The UGC has actually accepted that the study of time is best done through Vedicastrology. So forget science. If you want to know the age of the earth or theuniverse all you need to do is to consult the appropriate Vedic texts. I hope noself-respecting university would ask to start such a department. Y.PAL, All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education, New Delhi.

2001, Vol 80(9), 1088Astrology and scienceIndian scientists have once again shown our customary apathy in not comingforth to preempt the UGC's attempt to start courses in vaastushastra andastrology. Our occasional strong protests may be too late now. The UGC hasactually passed a resolution giving legitimacy to such courses. We should readthe excellent book by S. Balachandra Rao Astrology: Believe It or Not? [seereview below], where he describes and then debunks this pseudo-science.A.SITARAM and 21 others all from the Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore, and8 others from variously the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, the RamanResearch Institute, Bangalore, the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for AdvancedScientific Research, Bangalore, the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore,and the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai.



2001, Vol 80(9), 1088Astrology and science -- in responseFunding agencies in India, in their unfortunate generous moments, havesupported pseudo-scientific projects such as effect of music on plants, andgeomagnetism on human health, with disastrous consequences. It is not lack of

open mindedness or intolerance that prompts us to criticize allocation of resources, both manpower and monetary, for astrology or palmistry. Theopposition is based on sane scientific sense. M.R.N.MURTHY, Molecular Biophysics Unit, Bangalore.

2001, Vol 80(9), 1088-1089Astrology and science -- in responseGaneshaiah pleads that astrology and palmistry should be allowed into universitycurricula. One would have thought, especially in Bangalore, that astrology wasbeing seriously studied and believed by a worrisomely lot of people. Everynewborn child in a family has its horoscope cast. The late founder editor of the

astrology journal often used to lecture in the Department of Mathematics at theMadurai Kamaraj University, when the topologist M. Venkataraman was there.So what is Ganeshaiah talking about? Have not astrology and palmistry survivedall these centuries and do they need to be defended in the pages of a merescience journal? M.K.CHANDRASHEKARAN, Evolutionary and OrganismalBiology Unit, Bangalore.

2001, Vol 80(9), 1089Astrology and science -- in responseI am disturbed that Indian scientists have not protested, in one voice, againstefforts to accord this kind of respectability to astrology. Astrology claims to be a

science. But its claims are belied because its premises are false, its approach isat variance with the tenets of the scientific method, and it does not grow likeother sciences by the self-corrective method adopted by science. No hypothesisor theory has been proposed to explain the effects of planetary positions onhuman beings. It was not without good reason that the eminent mathematicianDavid Hilbert said, "When you collect the ten wisest men of the world and askthem to find the most stupid thing in existence, they will not be able to findanything stupider than astrology". J.R.L.RAO, Mysore.

2001, Vol 80(10), 1250Vedic astrologyIn response to Ganeshaiah. The issue is whether or not Vedic astrology shouldbe recognised as a valid branch of science by bringing it into the mainstream of education in the country. I believe that the UGC has a responsibility to verify thecorrectness of the information that it proposes to impart to students. In theabsence of any proven scientific validity of Vedic astrology, belief in it is a matter of blind faith. So the day will not be far off when the present Indian AdministrativeServices will be replaced by Indian Astrological Services, the job of its officersbeing to advise the government in their decision making, based on planetary



positions rather than on the merits and demerits of the issue in question.P.KHARE, Department of Physics, Bhubaneswar.

2001, Vol 80(10), 1250-1251Vedic astrology

According to J.V. Narlikar (The Tribune, Chandigarh, 10 April 2001), "Astrologyhas been subject to scientific tests many times and each time it has failed. Butthis fact is not sufficiently publicized. Research journals have reported howcontrolled experiments were performed but failed to prove anything in favour of astrology or horoscopes". In a national seminar on History of Science in October 2000, some firebrand proponents of the Vedic science argued that even quantumideas are borrowed from the Vedas! During the 15th century Guru Nanak, theprophet of Sikh religion, rejected Vedic astrology by his argument (in Ad Guru Granth, SGPC, Amritsar, pp.12,136): "Units of Indian time, and change of seasons, are related to the motion of our Sun. By God's grace, all days andmonths are beneficial for human kind". We are proud of our rich heritage but that

does not mean we put the clock of Indian education in reverse gear. H.S.VIRK,Department of Physics, Amritsar.

2001, Vol 80(11), 1363Jyotir VigyanA news report says that Patna University plans to create a Vedic AstrologyDepartment, but not in the science faculty, so any campaign by scientists againstit is misplaced. Ganeshaiah has convincingly refuted Balaram's alarmist editorial.Today big science is suppressing new ideas. If the tyranny of the orthodoxscience establishment is not challenged, we are sure to enter the age of darkness. Narlikar and crusaders against Jyotir Vigyan would do well to address

the problematic philosophy, methods and limitations of science rather thanspreading misleading propaganda to divert public attention from its failures.S.C.TIWARI, Varanasi.

2001, Vol 80(11), 1366Astrology and scienceThe UGC decision is a giant leap backwards for Indian science. Astrology is nota religion, it is a pseudo-science purporting to make definitive predictions of human affairs based on planetary conjunctions. Khushwant Singh, in his column"Sweet and Sour", mentions numerous examples of astrological predictionsmade by "eminent" astrologers which fell flat. Ganeshaiah says we should notdiscard astrology just because it is a pseudo-science, but give it time to kill itself if it does not have the strength to stand alongside science. But suppose he wasgiving a talk on say "Long-term strategies for bio-conservation", and a graduatein Jyotir Vigyan said it was futile because the world would end soon as we are inKaliyuga, what would be his response? He would say, "My dear sir, keep your Jyotir Vigyan degree to yourself. We scientists will always plan for research in thelong term. That's how we are trained to think, with logic and reasoning".V.R.SASHIDHAR, Department of Crop Physiology, Bangalore.



2001, Vol 81(1), 7Science and AstrologyAstrology is as much a science as theories of genetics were in their early days,when critical observation was the key to progress. Our ancient rishis wereintellectual giants who had reached conclusions on the basis of their

observations. Today the conclusions may be regarded only as hypotheses; butbelievers would say there is enough material evidence in their favour, so solidproof can come later; just as proofs for several biological postulates are only nowcoming in. The three supreme postulates of Hindu philosophy (universal Atman,rebirth, and karma) have parallels in modern biological postulates (universalgenetic material, heredity, and genes), which shows the astoundingobservational ability of the rishis. So let us recognise their postulates in variousareas of human activity. Astrology is one of them. N.S.NARASIMHAN,Department of Chemistry, Pune.

2001, Vol 81(1), 8

Astrology, navratnas and gemmologyHindu astrology assigns nine gems to the nine major planets (navratnas).Despite the progress in science and technology, there is a great demand for "stones that bring luck" or "stones that pacify a planet positioned unfavourably inone's horoscope". Such are the facts of the Indian gem market. Astrology is apart of gemmology, and gemmology is a part of mineralogy (science).R.V.KARANTH, Department of Geology, Vadodara.

2001, Vol 81(1), 8-9Astrology -- Hype, hope and futureAlmost 60% of the Indian population prefer to go to an astrologer for many

events from birth to death. Astrology guides most of them in their distressedmoments. This shows the belief Indian people have in the subject irrespective of caste, creed, race and region. Nowadays most of the dailies and magazines,irrespective of geographical area, publish astrology columns. Almost all ISPs onthe internet offer astrology, tarot cards, numerology, etc. Most of the successfulindustrialists and politicians believe in astrology. Our epics tell us that most of thewars were won by astrology, and most of the temples are built according tovaasthu and astrological principles. It is our responsibility to praise the science of astrology for surviving over the centuries. The UGC proposal would result indeveloping quality astrologers to satisfy the masses and to get rid of quacks. If not successful, this would also die in due course. S.SESHADRI andK.KATHIRAVAN, Entomology Research Institute, Chennai.

2001, Vol 81(2), 138Faith and rationalityUnderlying the UGC proposal is belief that the achievements of modern sciencehave their root in traditional Indian knowledge. This should inspire people at thehelm of affairs to rejuvenate such knowledge. In the battle between faith andrationality, faith has the edge because science does not necessarily inculcate



rationality in researchers. Which is why some people, working in premier research institutes of India, use gem-stones to ward off various personalproblems; or they use special garlands to treat jaundice. It is unfair to blamecommon people for blind faith, since they draw inspiration from these researchpeople. M.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, Institut Jacques Monod, Paris.

2001, Vol 81(2), 139Admission test for astrologyUntil the 17th century, all belief was good, but faith was better. Then camescience, based on impersonal truths. Hence the overreaction of scientiststowards astrology, palmistry, tantrik practices, etc. But faith is often needed toovercome fear, uncertainty, and natural disaster. C.SUBBARAO, Department of Geophysics, Visakhapatnam.

2001, Vol 81(2), 139Astrological education

Astrology is not a science. Nevertheless it provides a psychological prop to manyhuman beings all over the world. Weddings in many Hindu families, includingthose of some scientists, take place only if the associated zodiac signs and rasismatch favourably. And of course, astrology is a life-line of hope for most of our politicians. If people are willing to pay, it makes a case for introducing astrologyas a social science course. But not if the funds are diverted from other pressingsocial needs. Experience shows that protests from individuals outside the power circle have no effect. An organized group effort is needed. K.L.CHOPRA, NewDelhi.

2001, Vol 81(2), 140

More on Vedic astrologyAs correctly brought out by Vasant Sathe in his recent letter to the Times of India(19 May 2001) there is nothing in the Vedas about astrology, so the prefix Vedicis not justified. Nevertheless it is time the scientific community recognised Indiantraditions and gave a scientific verdict after meticulous studies and avoidedmerely looking through the lens of the Western world. C.DEVAKUMAR, Delhi.

2001, Vol 81(2), 140-141Astrology and the methodology of scienceHow to decide whether astrology could be treated as a science? The scientificmethod requires that the hypothesis be relevant to the phenomenon to beexplained, be compatible with well-established observations, be testable andreproducible, be able to predict things yet unknown, and take Ockham's Razor into account (the simplest explanation is the most likely). Astrology does notconform to the first, where astrologers cannot explain why only a few amongzillions of heavenly bodies should be relevant, nor why predictions by astrologerscan contradict each other. So the other conditions become irrelevant.S.R.VALLURI, Indira Nagar, Bangalore.



2001, Vol 81(2), 141Futile struggle against Vedic astrologyMost of us would consult an astrologer before we fix a date for the wedding of our children. So the struggle against Vedic astrology is probably futile. Moreobjectionable is the emphasis on Vedic, and not (perhaps) Indian, astrology.

What about, for example, Mughal astrology? N.GAUTHAM, Department of Crystallography and Biophysics, Chennai.

2001, Vol 81(2), 142A time for demystification of astrologyThe available scientific results neither confirm nor deny astrology. WhereGauquelin seemed to confirm, other studies seemed to deny. In the USA asurvey showed that one-third of people believed in astrology while another one-third did not believe. Objections to astrology signed by 186 leading scientists wasfollowed by another letter supporting astrology signed by 187 academicians.Such contradictions have prevailed since time immemorial. Thus Plato and

Aristotle believed but Lucretius and Cicero did not. So why not subject astrologyto scientific analysis and put the matter to rest? Let us hail the UGC decision asan official opportunity to demystify this field once and for all.C.BALASUNDARAM, Department of Animal Science, Tiruchirapalli.

2001, Vol 81(2), 142A note on Jyotir VigyanJyoti represents the primeval light of Brahma. Vigyan is transcendentalknowledge that is beyond sensory experience. Thus the term Vedic astrology or Vedic science does not make sense. Instead Jyotir Vigyan is founded onrecognition of the supreme conscious Brahma, unity of the universe

encompassing sentient and non-living beings. The prevalent system of prescribing rituals to change a planet's effect appears to be a crude and vagueform of exercising free will. S.C.TIWARI, Institute of Natural Philosophy,Varanasi.

2001, Vol 81(2), 143Astrology -- a neo-science without utilityWhether Vedic astrology is a science, and whether it should form a universitystudy, are two different questions. The main reason why predictions fail isinsufficient knowledge of astrology, imprecise calculations and wronginterpretations. In all probability astrology may be a science or a neo-science, or at least a systematic knowledge similar to science, but much more difficult tounderstand and practise than physics or mathematics. It is a human weakness towant to know one's future. If astrology is made a part of the curriculum inuniversities, it lends respectability to the practice of knowing the future, but itsstudy would not leave us any wiser and would lead to more confusion.Y.K.GUPTA, Hardwar.



2001, Vol 81(2), 144-145Astrology or arrant trashIf we look around, we see that the mere chanting of mantras over the years couldneither help mobilise food for half a billion population nor help in making a super highway. The fundamental axiom of astrology implies that divination is at the core

of astrological knowledge. Planets moving with divine energy are analogous tothe motion of divine creations including human beings. But if we are a directcreation of God, what happens to our objective investigation of evolution sincethe formation of protoplasm? Either we accept astrology and discard evolution, or we accept the reverse. R.K.MANDAL, Department of Metallurgical Engineering,Varanasi.

2001, Vol 81(2), 145-146Whipping astrology -- a science crimeMost responses to my earlier letter on astrology have misunderstood it. Theothers suggested that astrology is not appropriate as science but fine as arts. But

for me there is only sensible information and nonsense, and it is immaterialwhether the sensible knowledge is arts or science. K.N.GANESHAIAH,Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Bangalore.

2001, Vol 81(2), 158-159Astronomy and astrologyBased on an article published in Society and Science, a journal of the NehruCentre, 1982, 5, 16-24, by K.D.ABHYANKAR

When I tell people that I am an astronomer, they ask me immediately whether Ican predict their future from their horoscopes. On receiving a negative reply, they

look down upon me as a man of no consequence and wonder what kind of astronomer I am. It is not their fault, because most persons, including the well-educated ones, do not know the difference between astronomy and astrology.

Astronomy studies the physics and chemistry of heavenly bodies. It is anobservational rather than an experimental science. Nevertheless astronomersfollow the same logical process known as the scientific method that is used in theexperimental sciences.

Astrology is not a science. The ancients believed that the planets andNakshatras could produce good or evil effects, which led to the notions of astrology. Today, from the laws of physics, it is clear that the planets cannot havethe effects claimed by astrologers. Even astrologers know this, but they go onfooling innocent people in order not to lose face. Further, there is no astrology inthe Vedas, so the term Vedic astrology is a misnomer.

Many people will agree with me but will still consult astrologers, even thoughmost forecasts are wrong. One can look up the forecasts published in variousnewspapers to verify this. People visit astrologers in the same way that they visit



many doctors and get partially cured just by talking with them or by taking their fake medicines. So astrologers are more like psychiatrists than anything else.Once we realize this, we would rather face our problems rationally andcourageously than consult an astrologer. So the UGC proposal to introduceastrology as a subject in science faculty is a step in the wrong direction. It

amounts to replacing truth by untruth and light by darkness.

2001, Vol 81(2), 215Book ReviewsIndian Mathematics and Astronomy: Some Landmarks. Jnana Deep Publications,Bangalore, 261 pp. Indian Astronomy, An Introduction. Universities Press, 3-5-819 Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029, 207 pp. Astrology: Believe it or not? Navakarnataka, 101 Crescent Road, Kumara Park, Bangalore 560 001, 153 pp.

All three books are by Balachandra Rao, Principal and Professor of Mathematicsat the well known National College, Bangalore. The first one tells us about the

development of astronomy and mathematics from Vedic to colonial times. Thesecond goes into technical details, re-deriving the mathematical results obtainedby the ancients. Here knowledge of geometry, trigonometry, and algebra will berequired.

The last book is aimed at general readership and describes the subject of astrology while pointing out why it is not a science. If you were restricted tobuying only one of these three books I would recommend the last. In the ongoingcontroversy of whether astrology is a science, the astrologers often criticize thescientists for dismissing their subject without understanding it. So here BRpresents the essentials of astrology in as systematic a way as possible.

BR emphasizes the shakiness of various predictions especially in the context of Indian politics of recent decades. He has reproduced predictions from wellestablished astrologers side by side with what actually happened. The lack of predictive power evident from such cases would alone disprove any case thatastrology might have for being called a science. There are also discussions of sociological and psychological aspects of belief in astrology.

The author could have given some more examples of western tests of astrological predictions which have proved to be negative. Since Indianastrologers are quite capable of saying that western astrology is all wrong, thereis need for controlled experiments to test the veracity of predictions of Indianastrologers. J.V.NARLIKAR, Inter-University Centre for Astronomy andAstrophysics, Pune.

2001, Vol 81(3), 231The Vedic astrology controversyDoes Vedic astrology hurt science? No. Does it hurt society? It could by misuse.Does it hurt students? No. Does it hurt teachers and teaching? No. Do



universities care? Very few do. True science can be rash and breathtaking. Itdoes not require government pronouncements or elite support, and and will notbe threatened by Vedic astrology or any other. V.SITARAMAM, Department of Biotechnology, Pune.

Editors' note: Correspondence on this subject is now closed.

2004, Vol 87(8), 1030Astrology and science awarenessThe present government has no desire to drop the proposal to introduceastrology into the university curriculum. Unfortunately scientists who were againstthe proposal last time have mostly chosen to keep silent.M.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.

From www.astrology-and-science.com

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

Theories of astrologyA comprehensive survey

An updated and abridged version of a discourse by Dean, Loptson, Kelly andseven others in Correlation 1996, 15(1), 17-52 with 84 references. Part 4(theories to explain astrology's perceived value) is new.

Abstract -- Astrologers and researchers need a good testable theory to explainhow astrology is perceived to work, to avoid conceptual problems, and to guide

their inquiries. None of the existing spiritual, physical, informational, psychic, andmagical theories are useful, being either untestable or incompatible with existingknowledge. The same defects apply to the theories of Jung, Elwell, Hand,Guinard, and Scofield. In contrast a new non-astrological theory of astrology isuseful and has survived repeated testing. Explains the role of theories and howto assess their usefulness. Along the way many of astrology's internal problemsare uncovered and discussed. Theories to explain astrology's perceived valuereduce to astrology having the right priorities. It can give the feeling of understanding our place within the whole. Memes (any information that is copiedfrom person to person) are a powerful new way to explain astrology's longevityand perceived value. 46 references.

Part 1. Why bother with theories?

The word theory has two different meanings. In everyday use it means anunsupported idea as in "its only a theory." But in science it means the exactopposite, namely a well-supported idea as in the theory of relativity. Both kinds of theory are explanations for how things work, and we bother with them for twovery good reasons. First, explanations are better than uncertainty, even untrue

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm





explanations as when misfortune was explained by witches. Second, knowinghow things work is better than ignorance. It helped us walk on the Moon.

If we want to improve astrology, we first need to know how it works. So we needan explanation to guide our explorations. If we think it works by physics, we

explore physical variables like gravity. If by chemistry, we explore chemicalvariables like hormones. If by spirit forces, we explore seances. And so on.Without some kind of explanation we have no idea where to start.

But astrologers have never had a clear idea how astrology works or why birthcharts should match their owners. To them astrology has always been anextraordinary phenomenon beyond ordinary explanation, and over the centuriesthey have put forward various speculations to fill the gap. But the gap may be anillusion. Astrology may have an ordinary explanation after all, so their speculations may be premature. In what follows we briefly survey the theories /explanations (ancient and modern) of astrology starting with a closer look at why

they are important. To avoid confusion we will use explanation instead of theory to mean an explanation (tested or untested) of how things work.

Why explanations are importantWe may not realise it, but making and testing explanations is part of everydayliving. We do it all the time. Repairing a faulty car requires an explanation of howcars work. Curing an illness requires an explanation of how people get sick.Interpreting a birth chart requires an explanation of how astrology works. Asshown next, we need only be more rigorous in our use of explanations and weend up doing science.

In science we recognise that our senses often fail us. Things are often not whatthey seem. So we need reliable well-tested explanations. The sequence tends tobe observations, explanation, tests -- and if the explanation fails, we change it for something better. Thus oxygen was better than phlogiston at explainingcombustion.

The advantages of a well-tested explanation are enormous. We no longer needto record the fall of every apple, and we become more and more free of paralysing uncertainty. It helps us to ask the right questions (why do leaves fallslower than apples?) and to be suspicious of answers that have not beenproperly tested.

But we cannot derive an explanation of X, or even know anything about X, unless(1) X exhibits some order, and (2) the order can be discovered by observation.Astrologers claim that astrology meets both requirements, so there is no reasonwhy an explanation of astrology cannot be derived. But what should anexplanation explain?



spiritual domain, which is unproblematic provided no claims are made for astrology other than spiritual ones. But no astrology conference or book stayswithin purely spiritual beliefs. Furthermore the application of astrology in caseswhere there is no living body (eg ships, companies, countries, questions) mightseem to deny that astrology could be fundamentally soul stuff, unless of course

we assume that everything (even atoms and ideas) has a soul, in which case wealso need to put forward a way of testing this assumption.

Spiritual explanations include those of Alice Bailey (1951, based on seven rays),Charles Carter (1968, based on the zodiac as the pathway of the soul), Alan Leo(1913, based on karma and reincarnation), Dane Rudhyar (1969, based onactualisation of potentialities), and Robert Schmidt (1990, based on the Greekprinciples of the One and the Many). Clearly spiritual explanations can differ justlike other explanations, but being spiritual they are by definition untestable. Wecan of course test the supposed physical implications of a spiritual explanationbut this does not solve the problem, in the same way that presents under the

Christmas tree do not allow us to choose between Santa Claus and an Act of God. So such explanations are not useful, which is not to say they cannot be acomfort in times of spiritual adversity.

Physical explanations of astrologyPhysical explanations reduce astrology to physics. For example Ptolemy noteshow the sun is linked to seasonal and daily variations in humans, animals, plants,and the weather, and how other heavenly bodies "aid it or oppose it in particular details." So in principle, if celestial positions are known, the weather can bepredicted, as can "the general quality of [human] temperament from the ambient[ie heavens] at the time of birth", and "occasional events" (Tetrabiblos I.2

Robbins translation).

In 1657 Placidus argued that "It is impossible for the efficient heavenly causes(as being so very far distant from things below) to influence sublunary bodies,unless by some medium or instrumental virtue." He concluded that "theinstrumental cause of the stars is light", so that "the stars, where they do not rise,are inactive." Consequently "we reject a secret influence as superfluous, nay,even impossible" (Primum Mobile, 1.1 and 1.4, Cooper translation).

Today there are two approaches to physical explanations of astrology. One is tostay with an extended conventional science, as in the explanations of McGillion(1980,2002) based on the pineal gland, Cotterell (1988) based on interstellar radiation, and Seymour (1990,1997,2004) based on resonance betweenplanetary tides and the magnetosphere.

The other approach is to move beyond conventional science. Recent examples(albeit applied to astrology by astrologers and not by their originators) arephysicist David Bohm's idea of implicate order, neuropsychologist Karl Pribram's



idea of holographic order, and plant physiologist Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance.

Two earlier explanations that were once popular among certain astrologers arethose of Charles Muses (1919-2000), a mathematician and philosopher, and

Arthur Young (1905-1995), founder of the Institute for the Study of Consciousness. Muses's explanation is described in his 1985 book Destiny and Control in Human Systems. It is based on what he saw as the structure of time,in which lines, circles and helixes in time express the relationship betweenmacrocosm and microcosm. Young's explanation is described in his 1975 bookThe Geometry of Meaning . It begins with the twelve measures needed todescribe a body's motion, force and power, which can be matched to signs. Thusacceleration = Aries, mass control = Taurus, and so on through moment of inertia= Pisces. This of course was before sign effects had been disconfirmed. Moredetails of each explanation can be found in Mishlove (1993).

Ironically all physical explanations involve two problems. First, precise details aremissing about how things like "Moon opposition Saturn indicates problems withyour mother" are explained. The links with say seasonal effects may be clearer,but this no more explains astrology than does getting up with the sun or havingbarbecues on moonlit nights. So they boil down to leaps of faith. Second, inprinciple all physical explanations must fail because there is often nothing for physical forces to act on. As when the subject is a company or a country or aquestion, or when actual planetary positions no longer exist as in progressedcharts and returns.

Until such problems have been overcome, physical explanations remain circular

-- astrology is explained by the kind of thing that, if it worked, would explainastrology. One possible but little-explored solution is to move the focus fromphysical forces to information content, where people respond to coded cosmicsignals.

Information theories of astrologyThe basic idea in information theory is that information can be treated much likea physical quantity such as energy. But unlike energy, which is the stuff of causation, information is weightless and energyless and therefore does not implycausation. Since astrologers routinely refer to astrology as "non-causal",information theory seems at first sight to be a promising explanation of howastrology might work.

The issues to be addressed are: how much information is in the heavens asshown in the birth chart, and how quickly can that information be transmitted fromthe heavens. Because the heavens are always on the move, the information tobe transmitted is more like a frame of movie film than a fax. Speed is crucial. For our present purpose the means of transmission (physical or nonphysical, causalor noncausal) is not a concern.



The information content of a message or picture or birth chart can be measuredby the number of yes/no instructions or bits (0s and 1s) needed to construct it. If we have N equally-probable symbols, the number of bits required to select anyone of them is log2(N). Thus to select a sun sign would take log2(12) = 3.5 bits.For more than this the calculation gets complicated. Planet and house positions

to the nearest degree would require about 1500 bits, whereas to select a chartmeaning from a pre-existing set of all possible meanings (total about 10 186) wouldrequire about 620 bits, a notable saving over 1500.

To receive this information there has to be some kind of carrier wave, for example without sound waves you could not hear what your astrology teacher istelling you. A wave whose frequency range is B cycles per second (this is calledthe bandwidth) can carry something like 6B bits per second. For example inhuman speech the transmission rate is about 10 bits per second.

The highest frequencies available in the heavens are planetary diurnal

frequencies of around one cycle per day or 0.00001 cycles per second. So thetransmission rate cannot exceed 0.00006 bits per second. To transmit 620 bitswould take 620/0.00006 seconds or around 120 days, far too long to match thetraditional moment of birth. Even selecting one sun sign out of 12 would take3.5/0.00006 seconds or around 16 hours.

To put it another way, if the birth moment is taken to last for one second, toreceive 620 bits during that second would require a minimum carrier frequency of 620 cycles per second, or slightly above octave C. The heavens would besinging a baritone song. Since no such frequency seems to be available,information theories of astrology seem as unpromising as physical explanations.

Psychic explanations of astrologyMany astrologers attribute a successful chart reading to what they call intuition or psychic ability, where the birth chart acts like a crystal ball. They see astrologyless as a set of rules and more as something akin to divination, where "itsreliability depends on the quality of the astrologers' intuition" (Phillipson2000:167). In other words astrology works not because of astrology but becauseof the psychic ability of the astrologer. There are two problems here.

First, like everyone else, astrologers certainly have intuition, the unconsciousprocessing of previous experience that pops answers into our minds, so we knowwithout knowing how (and also without knowing we could very well be wrong).But what matters here is not intuition but psychic ability, which unlike intuition hasno scientific explanation. Careful tests have shown that astrologers do not haveuseful psychic abilities (Dean & Kelly 2002), nor for that matter do leadingpsychics (Boerenkamp 1988, details are given under References).

Second, such explanations put astrology firmly in the field of psi and thereforeexpose it to the same problems. Problems such as the absence of criteria for



deciding whether psi is present or absent (Alcock 1981,2003), the severeincompatibility of psi with the findings of neuroscience (Beyerstein 1987, Kirkland2000), and its negative definition (psi is what remains after all known normalexplanations have been eliminated, so where does that leave normalexplanations not yet known?). In effect they replace one mystery by another and

are therefore not useful.

An alternative psychic model has been proposed by Guinard (1993-2003), whereour psyches resonate with the planets and pops the results into our minds asunspecific symbols and archetypes, so no special psychic ability is needed. ButGuinard insists that his model is untestable (what matters is that astrology ismeaningful), which is not useful.

Magical explanations of astrologyThe most popular explanation of astrology is based on magical correspondencesor argument by analogy, the assumption that things similar in some respects are

also similar in other respects. Thus Mars the red planet indicates blood, anger and war, and then by extension anything vaguely red, hot or aggressive.

Ancient Hermetic writings contain eloquent examples of magicalcorrespondences: "The macrocosm has animals, terrestrial and aquatic; in thesame way, man has fleas, lice, and tapeworms. The macrocosm has rivers,springs, and seas; man has intestines. The macrocosm contains breaths [winds]springing from its bosom; man has flatulence. The macrocosm has Sun andMoon; man has two eyes, the right related to the Sun, the left to the Moon. ... Themacrocosm has the twelve signs of the Zodiac; man contains them too, from hishead, namely from the Ram, to his feet, which correspond to the Fish" (from

MacNiece 1964:126).

There are three problems here. First, we have no immediate way of choosingbetween opposing magical correspondences. Black cats were lucky to ancientEgyptians but unlucky to medieval Europeans. The Moon was male to theBabylonians but female to the Greeks. The same piece of sky means one thing inthe West and another in the East. Indeed the astrologer Dale Huckeby (2003)argues that symbolism is too flexible to be useful. It allows an easy accounting of virtually any outcome at any time using any chart, so the match between chartand outcome is nonfalsifiable.

Second, it is impossible to specify any two things that do not show some kind of correspondence. Lewis Carroll's raven and writing desk are alike because bothbegin with an "r" sound and both cast shadows. What should surprise us is not acorrespondence but the lack of it. According to Huckeby (2003) the solution is areturn to observation, to look for patterns, to see what repeats over the years asthe transits repeat. He asserts (wrongly) that science cannot explain astrology,and speculates that astrology is no more than an evolved sensitivity to planetarycycles (precisely what signals are being detected is not stated).



Third, our chances of being correct are not good. No longer do we believe, asAristotle did, that death can occur only at low tide. No longer do midwives openthe door to ease a painful labour. No longer do alchemical ideas appear inchemistry courses. In fact magical correspondences have been so spectacularlyworthless that in Western education today they survive only as an example of

fallacious reasoning.

In short, no explanation based on magical correspondences has much hope of attaining the usefulness we need here. Even if a specific claimedcorrespondence ("Dragon's Tail on the Descendant indicates a dwarf") could betested, which is never easy because in astrology everything depends oneverything else, the outcome (success of failure) would tell us little about magicalexplanations in general.

Three examples of explanations based on magical correspondences(1) Hand's (1987) explanation of astrology assumes that, at any given moment,

everything is connected by a symbolism that is inherent in nature. Hisexplanation is thus "a restatement of the old doctrine of correspondences thatunderlies all the so-called occult arts" (p.36).

(2) Elwell's (1987) cosmic loom theory of astrology proposes two realities, oneseen by us and the other seen by astrology. Our reality groups together thingslike dew, ice, water, humidity and steam, all to do with H2O. Astrological reality groups together things like cold, old age, bones, lead, discontent andresponsibility, all magical correspondences to do with Saturn. Such apparentdiversity is woven together on the cosmic loom, hence the name.

(3) Scofield (1993) proposes a testable model where the planets represent thevarious stages of human development. For example the personal planets Moon,Mars, Mercury, Venus represent ageas 1-2, 3-4, 5-12, and 13-19. However, hismodel explains nothing -- it merely re-arranges symbols.

The above explanations reduce to "astrological effects are explained byastrological effects", which is not useful.

Clock and time quality explanations of astrologyAs Hand (1988) puts it, "The universe is essentially a clock in which allcomponents serve to tell what time it is. As above so below, because it is

essentially one thing. ... In various forms this is the most prevalent theory atpresent."

The role of clocks and timing emerged first in the ideas of Carl Jung (1931:154),who suggested that "time, far from being an abstraction, is a concrete continuumwhich contains qualities or basic conditions ... In other words, whatever is born or done in this moment of time has the quality of this moment of time." The last may



be the most popular quotation in all of astrology. Jung later replaced time qualitywith the idea of synchronicity, see next section.

Jung stressed that time quality "does not establish anything except the tautology:the flux of things and events is the cause of the flux of things, etc." (1976:176). It

also implies that the quality of a given moment is the same everywhere, thusallowing the so below to be inferred from the as above. But as argued by Roberts(1990:98), it is absurd to believe that the quality of time throughout billions of star systems, some possibly with planets sustaining life, is synchronous with what our solar system is doing. So the quality of time has to be localised, on which pointneither Jung nor astrologers offer guidance. If the quality on earth is highlylocalised then the relevance of the outer planets (perhaps all the planets) couldbe denied.

Furthermore, if each moment of time really does impress a quality upon whatever is born or done in that moment, then everyone should tend to laugh or cry in

unison. When it rains here it rains there. Throw a large number of dice at theidentical moment and all should show six. Similarly the silicon crystals growntoday should differ from those grown yesterday. But such things are notobserved. Time quality as conceived by Jung does not seem to exist.

Jung's synchronicity as an explanation of astrologyJung (1960:849) defines synchronicity as "a coincidence in time of two or morecausally unrelated events which have the same or a similar meaning" (1960:849),as when you happen to think of friends just before they telephone you, addingthat synchronicity "explains nothing, it simply formulates the occurrence of meaningful concidences" (1960:995).

Nevertheless, synchronicity differs from ordinary coincidence in being deeplymeaningful, acausal (one event cannot conceivably cause the other), highlyimprobable, and intensely emotional. It cannot be evoked on demand (1976:541)and occurs only in archetypal situations, which tend to be crises ("death,sickness, accident, and so on" 1976:537) that are so overwhelming that victims"find themselves compelled by fear to utter a fervent prayer: the archetype ... isconstellated by their submission and may eventually intervene." As might beexpected, synchronicity "is a relatively rare phenomenon" (1960:938n).

Jung presents no calculations to support his views about coincidences. In factthe number of events to which we are exposed is so huge that the probability of experiencing a dramatic coincidence is quite high. So there seems to be noreason why meaningful coincidences should involve synchronicity.

And how coincident is coincident? Jung starts by saying the outer event issimultaneous with the "momentary subjective state" (1960:850). Later hechanges his mind, saying that the inner state coincides with a "(more or lesssimultaneous) external event", or even a "future event that is distant in time"



(1960:984). So simultaneity is not essential. Koestler (1974:95) comments "Onewonders why Jung created these unnecessary complications by coining a termwhich implies simultaneity, and then explaining that it does not mean what itmeans."

Note the problems for astrology: (1) Simultaneity is not essential. (2)Synchronicity is facilitated if the chart reader is in the grip of intense crisis-typeemotions, but even then it may not appear. (3) Synchronicity arises from thereader, not the chart. In other words synchronicity as defined by Jung is notrelevant to astrology. If it was, every hit would require the reader to experienceintense archetypal fear, anger, joy, sorrow, love, hatred, etc, in rapid succession.No reader or client could stand it.

What we need is testabilityNone of the previous explanations seem useful. None of them suggest what abirth chart should contain and how it should be interpreted. All they suggest is

"astrology works because it works." Indeed, nobody given only theseexplanations could end up as an astrologer. What we need are testableexplanations. Two examples follow.

Addey's theory of harmonicsAddey's (1976) theory of harmonics is aimed at the unification of techniques, so itis not quite the type of theory we are looking for. But it is based on extensiveempirical observations and therefore on testability, which justifies its mentionhere. Addey's theory says that astrology is basically waves and harmonics of waves. For example when planetary diurnal positions are plotted for largesamples of people, they show ups and downs that seem related to the kind of

people.

Later, using a computer, it became possible to apply Addey's methods to artificialpopulations to see if his methods recovered what was known to be there (Dean1997). Unfortunately they did not. Addey's findings were most likely an artifact of small sample sizes, incorrect expectancies, and improper procedures, whichleaves his theory with no secure basis.

Reversed explanations: As below, so aboveInstead of trying to explain as above so below , or why heavenly affairs arereflected on earth, we could focus on trying to explain as below so above, or whyearthly affairs are reflected in the heavens. This approach seems promisingbecause testing requires neither birth data nor particular assumedcorrespondences. For example we might predict that the adjustment of marriagedates or of journey destinations should be accompanied by measurable changesin the heavens, but the actual nature of the changes need not be specified inadvance. However, by the same token, a failure to detect measurable changesmight merely mean we were looking in the wrong place, or at the wrong things, or with insufficient magnification. Testable, perhaps, but still not useful.



Part 3. An ordinary explanation of astrology

As we have seen, there are many speculative explanations of astrology. Bycontrast, there is only one ordinary explanation. It explains astrology by thefailure of astrologers to control non-astrological factors, which are then mistaken

for genuine astrological effects.

Non-astrological factors include perceptual and inferential biasses (we drawwrong conclusions from what we see), sampling errors (sampling variance iswrongly interpreted as variance due to astrology), and capitalisation on chance (if the number of possible chart variables exceeds the number of subjects, as itmust do for any astrologer who has less than a few million clients, then a perfectmatch between chart and client is guaranteed even if all data are randomnumbers). Non-astrological factors have been explored in thousands of studiesand dozens of books but they are consistently ignored by astrologers. None of the factors are mysterious and none of them require astrology to be true. For

further discussion see Artifacts in reasoning on this website under DoingScientific Research.

This ordinary explanation immediately lays to rest many puzzles. It explains whyneither astrologers nor clients seem able, under blind conditions, to tell wrongcharts from right charts, and why tens of thousands of Western astrologers candisagree with hundreds of thousands of Eastern astrologers over what the same12 pieces of sky mean.

It also leads immediately to testable predictions such as: There will be mutuallyincompatible techniques that are nevertheless seen as valid by their users.

Subjects will be generally unable to distinguish authentic readings from controls.Judgements by astrologers using authentic charts will be no better than thoseusing control charts. The more biasses and artifacts a technique contains themore effective it will seem. No predictive technique including horary willconsistently perform better than chance.

In short, such an explanation meets all our requirements. It explains theobservations, improves on existing explanations, suggests new areas for testing,and does not contravene existing knowledge. No other explanation comes close.It has also been put to the test, see next.

Attempts at disconfirmationTesting this ordinary explanation of astrology was essentially the challenge of the$US5000 superprize competition, which was announced in 1983 with twelvesponsors including the Astrological Association. "The superprize will be awardedfor convincing evidence that the accuracy of chart interpretations cannot beexplained by non-astrological factors. For the present purpose, 'convincingevidence' is that which is convincing to the judges" (Dean & Mather 1983-1987).



To make the situation quite clear: "The non-astrological factors which could applyare surprisingly numerous and in principle are sufficient to explain how astrologyseems to work. Examples are universal validity, gullibility, belief, and statisticalartifacts. There are many others. The aim of each entrant will be to demonstratethat non-astrological factors are in fact not sufficient, and that the only genuine

explanation of how astrology works is the reality of astrological effects"(1983:209).

Details were published in astrological journals in eight countries and probablyreached 250,000 readers in the USA and over 5000 elsewhere. More than 60intentions to enter were received from a total of 14 countries and were pleasinglydiverse: roughly one third involved personality, one third involved events, andone third involved other areas such as discrimination, synastry and horary.Subsequently 34 actual entries from 7 countries were received, of which 16 didnot address the required topic and 3 had produced only negative results. Of theremaining 15 entries only one was successful, but this was a fake entered to test

the allegation by Dennis Elwell that the prize was unwinnable becauseappropriate tests could not be designed and the panel of eight judges was notimpartial.

Disconfirmation could of course be achieved by any study in which non-astrological factors are controlled. There are now well over 100 such studies(including over 50 Vernon Clark studies) involving thousands of charts andhundreds of astrologers, but none have produced a convincing disconfirmation.Appeals to the Gauquelin findings hardly count when there is no Gauquelin effectfor half the planets, or for signs, or for aspects, or for the 99.996% of thepopulation who are not eminent, and there is likely contamination from social

artifacts anyway, see The Gauquelin work 2. Artifacts vs puzzles on this websiteunder Gauquelin.

In other words the ordinary explanation of astrology has resisted repeatedattempts at disconfirmation and can thus claim to be the first successfulexplanation of astrology. Of course it may or may not survive future attempts atdisconfirmation, but until then it seems premature to consider other explanations.

Part 4. Explanations of astrology's value

So far the aim has been to explain how astrology works. We now move fromexplanations of (perceived) truth to explanations of (perceived) value. Previouslythe issues included things like how does astrology work and what techniques arebest. Now the issues include things like: Why has astrology been popular for solong despite its internal disagreements? What is its perceived value? Whatmatters most -- the client, the problem, the technique, or the astrologer? Must theastrologer be a good person? How essential is belief in astrology? How can thevalue of (a demonstrably untrue) astrology be improved?



For clues we can consider sun sign astrology. Although every controlled test hasshown it to be untrue (people with sun sign X are no more X-ish than other sunsigns), it is the most popular kind of astrology in the Western world. Its easycommercialisation explains supply but not demand. If we can explain why sunsigns are so popular despite being untrue, it might help in explaining the

popularity of astrology proper.

Explanations for the popularity of sun signsWhatever we may think of sun signs, they provide millions of people with a richsource of cues for constructing their identities -- personality, lifestyle, romance,occupation, everything. In the old days our cues to finding a personal identitywere taken from stable family and social settings. Today this stability is greatlyreduced, and traditional cues may well be less important than those provided byTV, celebrities, and the occult. This applies even if the cues are false, simplybecause belief in their truth will make them true in their consequences just as asound bank can collapse if people believe it is unsound. The efficacy of false

cues has long been apparent for sun signs, where the observed effect size for sun sign self-attribution is typically 0.09, equivalent to 54.5% hits when 50% isexpected by chance. When false cues are prevented the effect disappears,leaving nothing for sun signs to explain.

To put this another way, sun signs have personal utility (they address our favourite subjects, namely us and our relationships, in a positive andnonjudgemental way), social utility (they help us talk about ourselves, creatingcloseness, and nobody is left out), simplicity (they require only a birth date andare easy to learn), perceived validity (they are perceived to be mostly true) andavailability (only the weather forecast is more pervasive).

All of the above reasons are plausible, and although their relative contributionshave yet to be established, an explanation would most likely embrace all of them.Such an explanation can be simply stated -- sun signs are popular because theyare simple, cheap, fill a need, and seem to work. No other system comes close.How well does this apply to astrology proper?

Explanations for the value of astrologyIt is arguable whether astrology proper is simple. But it is relatively cheap, fills aneed, and seems to work. Thus astrological ideas have undeniable beauty andappeal, they can feed the inner person in much the same way that music, poetryand art do, they meet our need to conform and yet feel unique, they providereassuring structure in a chaotic world, the birth chart is nonjudgemental, theinterpretation is non-falsifiable, astrologers tend to be nice people, and in adehumanised society astrology provides ego support at a very low price. Whereelse can you get this sort of thing these days?

In short, this explanation says that astrology has value because it seems to haveits priorities right. It can give the feeling of understanding our place within the



whole. The same applies to religion and pop psychology in all their forms, eventhough they often disagree and cannot all be right. Note how this explanationdoes not require astrology to be true, and how our explanations of value havenothing to do with the explanations of truth surveyed in Part 2.

Explanations of longevityBut this sidesteps an interesting question -- if astrology is actually untrue, whyhas it lasted for more than 2000 years? What is the secret of its longevity? Canwe really believe that "filling a need and seeming to work" was enough to carryastrology during its falls from grace? After all, beliefs such as phrenology thatfilled a need, seemed to work, and were even more popular than astrology, arenevertheless now defunct. It is here that meme theory may be relevant.

Memes and memeplexesMemes are any kind of information (ideas, skills, stories) that is copied fromperson to person. Like genes, memes are replicators, and both compete selfishly

to be copied whenever they can. It is this focus on replication that gives memetheory its explanatory power. Meme theory is still new and controversial but itsuccessfuly explains many human attributes that are otherwise difficult to explainsuch as our capacity for language (Blackmore 1999, 2002).

A memeplex is a group of memes that are passed on together. Memeplexes formwhenever a meme can replicate better as part of a group than it can on its own.As before, its only aim is to replicate. The most successful memeplexes arethose that supply untestable explanations for human predicaments (why are wehere?), and include reinforcing tricks such as coercion (wrongdoers arepunished), reduction of fear (believers will be saved), altruism (good people

believe), and dogma (this explanation is The Truth). There is clearly a goodmatch here with any religion, and with astrology and divination.

Memes in astrologyBlackmore (1999:182-184) points out that clients pick up lots of memes during achart reading. For example the reader has special powers that the client does nothave; the system holds ancient mysteries that cannot be tapped by unbelievers;it reveals the connections between you and the universe and unfolds your destiny; it reveals the real you and puts you in touch with your higher nature.Blackmore (who in her early days had a reputation of being an excellent Tarotreader) comments:

"These memes are successful because they seem to explain the client'sexperience and include all the right tricks. The fear they prey on is the fear of uncertainty and of making the wrong decisions in a horribly complex world.People typicaly go to psychics when they are their lowest ebb and wantguidance. This means they are all the more likely to fall for claims of higher powers or of special insight. The "illusion of control" also works in favour of thesememes. Stress is reduced when control over a situation is increased -- and if real



control is not possible, an illusion of control will do. Many experiments haveshown the power of this illusion." (1999:183-184)

In many cases we could of course argue that some memes spread becausepeople are gullible. But nobody designed astrology to suit gullible people.

Instead, countless astrology memes competed out there in the marketplace, andthe most successful ones (the ones with the best tricks, namely a Barnumreading plus a pseudo explanation based on astrology plus a suggestion to readyour horoscope every day, hanging together as a sun sign memeplex) keptgetting copied and ended up as the most prevalent astrology we have today.

Memes and longevityRecall that the focus here is not astrology, or people, but replication. Replicationis everything. We do not have to like or agree with the memeplex, all that mattersis that we talk about it and thus pass it on. From the memeplex's point of view,any publicity is good publicity, so believers and debunkers are equally welcome.

It is here that we can see a memetic explanation for astrology's longevity.

Imagine two memes. The first is a statement "Leos are generous." The second isa belief "I believe Leos are generous." The question is, which meme will farebetter in the competition to get into as many brains, books, and televisionprogrammes as possible? Answer: the second will. A statement will be passedon only if it is relevant, which may occur only rarely. But people (especially if influential like parents or church leaders) will press their beliefs on othersregardless of relevance. In this way some memeplexes, true or false, importantor trivial, will survive better than others.

We can now see why astrology has lasted so long, and has perceived value,despite disconfirmation of its claims. It survives because people talk about it. Itsurvives falls from grace because so much publicity is already out there. Itsurvives and is believed for the same reasons that a religion survives and isbelieved -- by rewarding belief and punishing disbelief. Compatible memes areaccepted, incompatible memes are rejected. Validity (as opposed to perceivedvalidity) and the explanations of truth covered in Part 2 have nothing to do with it.

But astrology and divination memeplexes do more than survive. "They exertphenomenal power in modern society and are responsible for the movements of vast amounts of money. They shape the way we think about ourselves and,perhaps more importantly, they cause many people to believe things that aredemonstrably false. Anything that can do all this deserves to be understood"(Blackmore 1999:184).

References

Addey JM (1976). Harmonics in Astrology: An Introductory Textbook to the New Understanding of an Old Science. Cambridge Circle, Green Bay WI.



Alcock JE (1981). Parapsychology: Science or Magic? A psychological perspective. Pergamon, Oxford.

Alcock JE (2003). Give the null hypothesis a chance: reasons to remain doubtfulabout the existence of psi. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10, 29-50.

Bailey A (1951). Esoteric Astrology. Lucis, New York. 742 pages.

Beyerstein B (1987). Neuroscience and Psi-ence. Behavioural and BrainScience, 10, 571-572.

Blackmore S (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford Universoty Press, Oxford.

Blackmore S (2002). Memes as Good Science. In M Shermer (ed) The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara CA, pages 652-663.A concise and most readable overview with 36 references.

Boerenkamp HG (1988). A Study of Paranormal Impressions of Psychics. CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke, The Haag. Based on his PhD thesis, University of Utrecht,1988. Also published in various issues of the European Journal of Parapsychology from 1983 through 1987. In a remarkable study lasting fiveyears, the author monitored a total of more than 130 readings by twelve of theNetherland's top psychics, and then rated their accuracy against matched groupsof non-psychics who were given the same task as the psychics. Typically eachreading involved 60-90 statements spread over personality (35%), generalcircumstances including occupation (25%), relationships (15%), and physicalmatters such as health (25%), much the same as for a typical astrology reading.

Nearly 10,000 statements were obtained, and there was no appreciabledifference in hit rate between psychics and non-psychics, which would seem todeny that psychic ability (or at least claimed psychic ability) could play a role inastrology.

Carter CEO (1968). The Zodiac and the Soul , 4th edition. TheosophicalPublishing House, London. First published in 1928.

Cotterell MM (1988). Astrogenetics: The New Theory. Brooks, Hill, Robinson andCo, Saltash [UK]. 112 pages.

Dean G (1997). John Addeys Dream: Planetary Harmonics and the Character Trait Hypothesis. Correlation 16(2), 10-39.

Dean G (2000). Attribution: a pervasive new artifact in the Gauquelin data. Astrology under Scrutiny 13(1-2), 1-72. Critique of Seymours theory is on pages44-45.



Dean G and Kelly IW (2001), Does Astrology Work? Astrology and Skepticism1975-2000, in P Kurtz (ed) Skeptical Odysseys, Prometheus Books, Amherst NY,pages 191-207. Reviews the progress of research into astrology since 1975.

Dean G and Kelly IW (2003). Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi?

Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6-7), 175-198. The first half quotes whatastrologers say, the second half looks at the empirical evidence. With 85references. For an abstract, two critiques, and Dean and Kelly's rejoinder, seeStar Wars under Dialogues.

Dean G, Kelly IW and Mather A (1999), Astrology and Human Judgement[Cognitive and Perceptual Biases], Correlation, 17 (2), 24-71. A comprehensivereview with 160 references.

Dean G and Mather A (1983). Did anyone win the worlds biggest astrology prizeno 2? The results and a new bigger superprize. Astrological Journal 25, 203-210.

Superprize results appear in 28, pp 23-30, 92-96, 274-275 (1986); and 29, pp 86-90, 143-147 (1987).

Dobyns ZP and Roof N (1973). The Astrologer`s Casebook . Los Angeles: TIAPublications page 4.

Elwell D (1987). Cosmic Loom: The New Science of Astrology. Unwin Hyman,London. Contains no science despite the title. Basically a retreat from scienceinto pseudoscience.

Guinard P (1993-2003). A Manifesto for Astrology based on his PhD thesis at the

Sorbonne and available from http://cura.free.fr/. Long, wordy, and impenetrable,nearly 250 notes and references, no abstract. The views cited are from Chapter 5. For a summary and critique see Guinards Manifesto under Philosophy.

Hand R (1987). Astrology as a revolutionary science. In Mann AT (ed), TheFuture of Astrology. Unwin, London, pages 23-39.

Hand R (1988). The emergence of an astrological discipline. Astrological Journal 30(3), 117-127. Reprinted from NCGR Journal Winter 1987-1988, 66-70 (novolume numbers).

Huckeby D (2003). After Symbolism. Available at http://cura.free.fr/

Jung CG (1931). Memorial address to Richard Wilhelm. In R Wilhelm, TheSecret of the Golden Flower: A Chinese Book of Life. Routledge & Kegan Paul,London. Republished by Arkana in 1984.



Jung CG (1960). The Collected Works of C.G.Jung. H Read, M Fordham, GAdler (eds). Vol 8. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. Routledge &Kegan Paul, London. Our citations are paragraph numbers not pages.

Jung CG (1976). Letters. G Adler and A Jaffe (eds). Vol 2: 1951-1961. Routledge

& Kegan Paul, London. Our citations are page numbers.

Kelly IW (1997), Modern Astrology: A Critique, Psychological Reports, 81, 1035-1066. With 131 references.

Kirkland K (2000), Paraneuroscience?, Skeptical Inquirer , 24 (3), 40-43.

Koestler A (1974). The Roots of Coincidence. Pan, London. First published 1972.

Lee D (1964). Impact of ESP on astrology. Astrological Review [USA] 36(2), 12-17 and 37(2) 9-16.

Leo A (1913). Esoteric Astrology. Fowler, London.

MacNeice L (1964). Astrology. Aldus Books, London.

McGillion F (1980). The Opening Eye. Coventure, London. 161 pages.

Mishlove J (1993). The Roots of Consciousness second edition.Council Oak Books, Tulsa OK. A look by a parapsychologist at how believers andcritics view psychic abilities. Has a chapter on astrology with 32 reference. Themost recent paper reference is dated 1986.

Muses CA (1985). Destiny and Control in Human Systems: Studies in theInteractive Connectedness of Time (Chronotypology). Sceptre, Berkeley CA.

Phillipson G (2000), Astrology in the Year Zero (London: Flare Publications).With 135 references including 32 critical works. Explores issues via interviewswith astrologers and scientific researchers.

Roberts P (1990). The Message of Astrology: The new vitalism and what it means for our future. Aquarian, Wellingborough.

Rudhyar D (1969). Astrology for New Minds: A non-dualistic harmonic approachto astrological charts and to the relation between man and the universe. CSA,Lakemont GA.

Schmidt R (1990). Intensive magnitude and the space-time continuum. Matrix Journal 1(1), 3-13



Scofield B (1993). A New Model of Astrology: Planets, Model-Building and theInner Core of the Self. The Mountain Astrologer Dec/Jan 1993, See also APlanetary Model of the Developing Self. NCGR Journal , Winter 1987-1988, page62.

Seymour P (1990). Astrology: The Evidence of Science. Revised edition, Arkana,London. 248 pages.

Shallis M (1981). The problem of astrological research. Correlation 1(2), 41-46.See also comments in 2(1), 42-43 and 4(1), 36-37.

Shannon CE and Weaver W (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL. The classic work thatstarted it all, heavily mathematical but less so than most. Summarised withminimum mathematics in Shannon CE, Recents developments in communicationtheory, Electronics April 1950, 190-193. For most readers the most convenient

readable source will be the entry under information theory in the EncyclopediaBritannica, written by Shannon for the 1968 edition and since updated by others.

Sheldrake R (1985). A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of FormativeCausation 2nd edition. Blond, London.

Tomaschek R (1962). Observations on the basic problem of astrology [ieexplaining how it works]. Astrological Journal 4(3), 10-14.

West JA (1991). The Case for Astrology. Penguin Viking, London.

Young AM (1975). The Geometry of Meaning . Delacourte, New York.


Are scientists undercover astrologers?Some astrologers think so

Ivan W Kelly and Geoffrey Dean

Abstract -- Some supporters of astrology claim that various areas of science arereally astrology in disguise. For example an astrological principle is that

"celestial-terrestrial correlations exist", therefore any area is astrological if itinvolves things like biological clocks, bird migration, bee navigation, weather andearthquakes, as well as notions such as the Gaia hypothesis and GrandUnification theories in physics. But such things are irrelevant to what astrologersactually do. To describe them as astrological is to claim that modern astrology isscientific when in fact it is quite the opposite. In effect the claim tries to obtainsupport for astrology on the cheap. To paraphrase what Winston Churchill said of Mussolini, "Astrologers want Napoleon's victories without fighting Napoleon's



Vaughan (1995) says these scientific labels are "plagiarized astrology, pure andsimple, and [astrologers] should feel free to quote [such research] whendiscussing correct astrological prediction." Furthermore, they "are not simply newnames for what astrology has known all along, they are also scientific proof thatastrology works"; therefore, despite academic talk of astrology being dead,

"many astrologers think we should be celebrating a revival", even though therevival is being absorbed by these revisionist "territorial grabbers" (Vaughan1996b).

Here the basic astrological principle "astro correlations exist" is like arguing that abasic principle in marine biology is "watery life exists", therefore anythinginvolving water is by definition marine biology, like gardening, or cooking, or lifesaving at pools. Obviously this is a poor argument. Instead we need to ask "isgardening, cooking, etc relevant to what marine biologists actually do?". In thiscase the answer is No. Similarly we need to ask "is bird migration, fractalgeometry, etc relevant to what astrologers actually do?" Below, we show that

again the answer is No.

How can scientific research be seen as astrology?Vaughan provides three arguments for seeing scientific research as astrology,namely history, as-above-so-below, and similarity, but none are persuasive. Her arguments are as follows:

(1) History. Originally astrology consisted of natural astrology (the forecasting of natural phenomena such as tides and eclipses), and judicial astrology (the

judgment and prediction of human affairs such as wars). That is, astrology had afoot in two different camps, namely physical science and divination. So Vaughan

(1996b) argues that from the earliest days "astrologers were also astronomers,meteorologists, and mathematicians", therefore astrology has original land titlesto these areas. But Vaughan fails to point out that natural astrology wasabsorbed by science in the 17th century, so that judicial astrology is "the onlymeaning of astrology since end of 17th C" (OED 1991 edition). To argueotherwise, as Vaughan does, is like arguing that chemistry is still alchemy, or psychology is still natural philosophy, or that much of science is still philosophyand theology. But it just ain't so.

(2) As-above-so-below. Vaughan says astrology involves "as above so below",so it involves anything terrestrial-celestial. But this fails because, as in (1), it triesto revive an obsolete natural astrology as modern astrology. Indeed, manyastrologers flatly disagree with Vaughan, arguing that astrology deals withsymbolic connections, not physical connections, so (2) fundamentallymisrepresents astrology's core beliefs. For example, Negre (1998) argues of physical links that "by no means should they be confused with astrology", whileGuinard (1997) argues that such links could never explain "the [astrological]transformations which occur at another level of reality" or support "theunderstanding of a birth-chart."



found nothing commensurate with astrological claims (Dean et al 1996, Dean etal 2000).

To put it another way, if the scientific study of celestial-terrestrial correlations canbe considered "astrology', then one expects more than the banal nonspecific

claim that "celestial-terrestrial correlations exist." One expects astrologers toprovide testable explanations along with fruitful approaches to research. But inastrology such suggestions are entirely absent (read any astrology book).

Indeed, astrology lacks even the resources to provide such approaches. Thusappeals to analogy and mythology have gotten nowhere in solving problems for astrologers (Kelly 1997). A few astrologers recognise this, for exampleMcDonough (2000:1) points out that the confusion of chart factors now on offer is"Because there has been no way to toss anything out."

As a result, astrology has been reduced to a mixture of factions, each of which

supports its own claims with testimonials and self-serving non-threatening"studies" instead of stringent research. In any case, how would stringentresearch actually be used? Astrologers do not tell us how a factual discoverywould explain the disagreement between astrologers on mostly everything (eg onwhich zodiac, house system, planets, aspects, to use), or how it would beincorporated into astrological practice with clients. Indeed, astrologers rarelyincorporate astrological research findings into their work, let alone celestial-terrestrial research findings.

In short, in terms of procedure, "what astrologers do" is about as different from"what celestial-terrestrial scientists do" as one can get. Vaughan's argument to

the contrary may have been relevant to what some astrologers were doing in theMiddle Ages but not today (see Brackenridge 1980 for a brief history of scientificastrology).

Achievements: Science vs astrologyAstrology had once motivated astronomers such as Kepler, albeit not others suchas Galileo. But for the last three centuries its influence on academic disciplineshas been entirely absent. Birth charts did not help in discovering Uranus,Neptune, Pluto, asteroids, quasars, and black holes; or circadian rhythms, solar flares, geomagnetic disturbances, biological clocks, human geomagnetic effects,and bird navigation; or fractal geometry, the Gaia hypothesis, morphicresonance, and grand unification theories, despite the claim that all of these areastrology. Nor could they when astrology lacks the component essential to suchdiscoveries, namely the critical testing and improvement of ideas.

In short, astrology since the 17th century has been spectacularly unfruitful inguiding our inquiries into nature. Which is why scientists and philosophers ignoreastrology except for historical purposes, or for the insight it provides into theformation and maintenance of unwarranted beliefs. The reverse is also true. No



astrology book cites celestial-terrestrial discoveries to support specific claims likeMars is aggressive, or that opposite sun signs are compatible (or notcompatible). Nor do they consult Wolf numbers or geomagnetic indices as part of a chart reading. And for a good reason -- such areas are simply irrelevant to whatastrologers actually do. In effect, in labelling parts of science as astrology,

Vaughan is claiming that modern astrology is scientific, when in reality it couldhardly be less scientific.

Finally, there are pragmatic reasons for rejecting Vaughan's claim. First, if astrology is so marvelous, if scientists are indeed dabbling in "what astrology hasalways known" (Vaughan 1996b:13), why aren't astrologers publishing in Natureand Scientific American and scooping the field? Vaughan (1998) says the answer is lack of staff, labs, and research grants. But who needs these things whenhorary astrology will supposedly answer any question? And there are plenty of even yes/no questions to be answered -- is nature supersymmetric, is thecosmological constant really constant, does supergravity theory describe nature

(Johnson 2000). If, as many astrologers claim, astrology is The Map to reality,answering such questions should be child's play.

Second, if scientific research is so marvellous and so relevant to astrology, whydoes it play such a blatantly non-existent role in the daily practice of astrologers?

Usurping is normalThe usurping by modern science of previously unrelated areas is quite normaland is not unique to astrology. In the 1960s psychology was "constantly beingannexed by other sciences -- biochemistry, biology, genetics, biophysics,physiology, neurophysiology, and so on" (Scriven 1964:164). Four decades later

the annexing shows no signs of stopping. Thus much of neuropsychology hasbeen lost to medicine, much of social psychology is being re-examined byevolutionary psychology (which is closer to biology), and so on. Whilepsychologists may be unhappy with such annexes, we do not find themcomplaining that the annexes are still psychology.

Usurping is normal because new approaches from other fields can uncover newideas about old problems, so the problems and their labels shift to where theycan best be solved. In astrology this has already happened, where advances inrelevant areas (astronomy, psychology, statistics, research design) and adecisive technology (home computers) have answered all the importantquestions about how and why astrology works (Dean and Kelly 2001). Soastrology is not a mystery any more. In the unlikely event that importantquestions still emerge, the same thing would happen -- they would be examined,then annexed by the relevant discipline, and answered in ways not limited byappeals to analogy and mythology. Any complaints by astrologers would beregarded as ludicrous. The following additional comments can be readseparately. They enlarge on some of the topics mentioned above.



Additional Comments

Astrology is not a scholarly disciplineAstrology is completely unlike a scholarly discipline. In astrology, testimonialsfrom astrologers and clients are the Gold Standard against which everything is

evaluated; they over-rule the findings of studies, no matter how well conducted. If a study does not confirm what an astrology book says, then the study is in error,not the book. The dependence on testimomials is illustrated in Astrology in theYear Zero (Phillipson 2000), where astrologers say things along the followinglines (the excerpts have been paraphrased):

"Let me tell you about the amazing thing I did last week. The client had adaughter who suffered from headaches, so I looked at her birth chart andcorrectly identified the source of the headaches as a liver disease. And allwithout seeing either the mother or daughter" (p.71). "A man wanted to buy aship. The horary chart had a Moon-Pluto conjunction in Scorpio on the IC, with

the Moon applying, and I just knew that the bottom of that ship was rotten. Whichit was" (p.54). "A woman lost her shawl. Her chart showed it was in a Frenchrestaurant a couple of doors away from her home" (p.71). "I looked at her birthchart and noted that Saturn and another planet were thirteen degrees from thecusp of the 4th house. I asked if she was raped by her father when she was 13,and she was" (p.64). "The astrology showed that it would rain all day, which itdid" (p.71).

In the astrological literature such stories are taken at face value. They areassumed to be meaningful and to provide powerful evidence for astrology.Interestingly, such a credulous attitude conflicts with the everyday experience of

people in other areas. Thus we all know that stories and testimonials can beexaggerated, that they tend to improve with the telling, and that essential detailscan be left out. In science, stories and testimonials would merely be an incentiveto conduct careful follow-up studies, but in astrology they are considered to bethe end product, self-validating, error-free, and above criticism.

Negative studies are not simplisticThe astrologer McDonough (2000) argues that the problem with negative studiesis that they are simplistic, testing one factor at a time. He says that studiesshould "consider the combined effect of multiple factors to get good results." Butthis is an inaccurate and out-of-date assessment. It did tend to apply back in the1960s, when organized research was just getting underway and had to startsomewhere, for example one of the early projects of the newly formedAstrological Association in Great Britain was to look at the sun signs for 7000doctors. But even then people like Vernon Clark were looking at the whole chart,getting away from isolated factors, and the trend has continued ever since.Today, the researcher who focuses on single factors like sun signs would beconsidered almost an anachronism, the Gunther Sachs's of this worldnotwithstanding.



In any case, as Eysenck and Nias (1982:31) argued, if single factors have themeaning claimed in astrology books, they should be confirmable in large enoughsamples. Especially when astrologers claim that daily experience confirms thesemeanings. For example in Phillipson (2000) we endlessly read claims like thefollowing:

"the Midheaven in the chart for the time a trophy horse race begins will describethe winner" (p.57). "Venus and Neptune create an artist" (p.66). "when I hadMars at an angle, I knew I was going to have a very hectic day" (p.81). "sheworks frenetically (she has Moon square Mars)" (p.93).

If an astrologer can experience the meanings of isolated factors so easily, whywould they suddenly become beyond reach when researchers study them?Pluralism in astrology hinders more than it helps

There are a variety of very different astrologies around the world as well as

factions within each. Thus several astrologers in Phillipson (2000:186-7) arguethat "different systems of astrology (such as Western and Vedic) may claim to bedifferent fingers pointing at the same Moon", which means that "the complexitythat can appear to astrology's critics as evidence against it, is -- from thisperspective -- inevitable."

On this view, the different astrologies are different human responses to onecomplex transcendental reality. But this is more puzzling than helpful. What is thetranscendental reality that is the analogue of the "same Moon"? And how dosuch astrologers know when they have it?

Furthermore, given the fundamental differences that supposedly underly thedifferent worldwide astrologies, it would be deeply problematic (perhapsunintelligible) to claim that they are all talking about one reality (see Kelly1997:1057-8). If each worldwide astrology reduces to a different fragmentaryview of one complex reality, it would seem to contradict the cherished self-understanding of each. See Schellenberg 1997 and Hick 1997 for more on theproblem of religious pluralism.

Examples of "research" produced by astrologersMcDonough (2000) notes that astrological theory offers little help indistinguishing between techniques that work much of the time, some of the time,

or little of the time. So he suggests that astrologers need better qualitativeresearch to set up hypotheses that can be examined on a larger scale byquantitative (statistical) studies. It sounds good, but we suspect that astrologersin general will not be interested, see below under "Astrology could not bescientific and stay in business".



As an example of the non-threatening "research" produced by astrologers,consider two articles published in the August/September issue of The Mountain

Astrologer , which are typical of their type:

- In Paone's (2000) "Weather watches and warnings for August-September

2000", some of the predictions (which are mostly of storms) are testable whileothers could mean anything ("severe thunderstorms if moisture is available"p.39). But there is no concern with actually following-up the claims, or withreconsidering what should happen if the claims were untrue. One might well ask,if astrology can predict a chaotic system like weather so well, why does theauthor not give a tally of hits and misses for his previous predictions? Why notchallenge weather forecasters to beat astrology's accuracy? Evidently it is morecomfortable for astrologers to have their heads in the clouds than their feet onthe ground.

- In Markin's (2000) "The Astrology of Natural Disasters", the argument reduces

to selecting a disaster and then finding something in the chart that fits, when thereal question is whether the authentic chart fits better than some other chart.Without controls the exercise is pointless, so why bother?

Consider also the research of Cunningham (1999) who went through anastrology data bank, extracted public figures sharing Venus-Neptune contacts,and looked for relevant themes in their biographies. Not surprisingly, nothing isuncovered that could possibly require a rethinking of basic premises. This isbecause looking for confirmation is always successful when one is dealing withsymbolic associations; that is, we can always find some connection between anytwo symbols, as when astrologers accidentally fit a client to the wrong chart and

nobody notices. Such studies cannot fail. Again, the real question is whether charts with Venus-Neptune contacts show more Venus-Neptune themes thancharts without such contacts, but such questions are almost never considered byastrologers including Cunningham. In any case the answers, if unwelcome, arewithout effect because astrologers always have ways to explain them away, for example the outcome was atypical or it was contradicted elsewhere in the chart.

Scientists were not doing astrology under another nameVaughan (1996b) says some early scientists in the area of cycle researchacknowledged that they were doing astrology. She says that in the 1960s and1970s the journal Cycles, published by the Foundation for the Study of Cycles,"overtly recognized astrological cycles in weather, stock market, etc ... [but later]they stopped using the A-word almost completely. They were practicingAstrology but calling it something else, and this is what's at the crux of recentdevelopments"

But this is incorrect. The Foundation for the Study of Cycles (FSC) was set up byEdward Dewey in 1940. In 1931 he had been hired by the US Dept of Commerce(later he became their chief economic analyst) to try and find the cause of the



1929 Great Depression. Over the years he talked to many economists and wasnot impressed by them. He also talked to scientists and became aware of cyclesin business, wildlife, on the sun, and so on, many of which seemed to have thesame length and turning points. What caused such synchrony? The problem hadto be approached on a broad front. Hence the formation of the FSC.

Dewey (1971:168) in his book Cycles: The Mysterious Forces that Trigger Events, which summarizes the findings of the FSC up to then, puts it rather differently from Vaughan: "My investigation of a possible connection betweenplanetary cycles and earthly cycles, if I should ever have time to make it, wouldhave nothing to do with astrological beliefs. It would have nothing to do with birthdates and other mumbo jumbo. It would concern electromagnetic or similar forces in the universe that might affect weather and various life processes,including human beings 'in the mass'" The astrology connection claimed byVaughan did not exist.

Internal consistency in astrology means nothingInternal consistency is viewed by Vaughan (1999a) as providing plausibility toastrology. She says "Astrology has a highly complex internal order such that theindividual symbols and meanings all make sense with regard to each other. Wecan see this consistency in the planetary rulerships. Mars rules Aries -- anaggressive planet rules an assertive sign. Jupiter, the biggest planet, rules themost expansive sign, Sagittarius." Further "We can look to ancient mythology toconfirm these associations. For example Pluto was the Greco-Roman god of theUnderworld, so his hidden nature fits with a rulership of Scorpio."

More revealing than what Vaughan says is what she does not say. Planetary

rulerships are a contentious issue in astrology, as are most astrological ideas,because astrologers are unable to agree on the correct system, see previouscomment on pluralism. Instead there are various competing systems, alldefended by considerations of coherence. The obvious (and only) way to choosebetween them, namely by empirical tests, is seldom considered. Why havethreatening tests when you can have non-threatening arguments?

Furthermore, Vaughan's perceived consistency is superficial. The relationbetween "aggressive" and "assertive" is different from that between "biggestplanet" and "most expansive sign" -- behaviourally, being aggressive andassertive are similar, but being big is a physical attribute, and being expansive isa metaphor. But such loose analogies are common in astrology.

Astrology could not be scientific and stay in businessCould astrology be scientific? Most certainly, since many astrological ideas couldbe tested against competing astrological ideas, against other symbolicperspectives such as numerology, and against competing ideas in the socialsciences and biology. But this would require a change of epic proportions inastrological practice.



Cornelius G, Hyde M & Webster C (1995). Astrology for Beginners. Trumpington,Cambridge: Icon Books.

Cornelius G (1998). Is Astrology Divination and Does it Matter? Paper presentedat the United Astrology Congress, May 22, Atlanta, Georgia.

Cunningham N (1999). Venus-Neptune aspects: Dreams, Nightmares, andVisions of Love. The Mountain Astrologer 4, 12-18. Also available athttp://www.astrobank.com/ASVenusNeptune.htm

Dean G & Mather A (1977). Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976 . Subiaco, Western Australia: Analogic.

Dean G, Mather A, & Kelly IW (1996). Astrology. In Stein G (ed). Encyclopedia of the Paranormal . Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books, 47-99.

Dean G, Mather A, & Kelly IW (1999). Astrology and Human Judgement.Correlation 17, 24-71. A comprehensive survey with 159 references. For a brief survey see Artifacts in reasoning on this website under Doing ScientificResearch.

Dean G, Ertel S, Kelly IW, Mather A & Smit R (2000). Research Into Astrology. InPhillipson G (ed). Astrology in the Year Zero. London: Flare Publications, 124-166. An expanded version with index is on this website under Doing ScientificResearch.

Dean G & Kelly IW (2001). Does astrology work? Astrology and skepticism 1975-

2000. In Kurtz P (ed). Skepticism: A 25-year retrospective. Amherst NY:Prometheus Books.

Dewey E (1971). Cycles: The Mysterious Forces that Trigger Events. New York:Hawthorn Books. (And again in 1973 by Manor Books).

Erlewine M (undated). Science and the lunation cycle.http://vzone.virgin.net/jason.davies4/Articles/lcycle.htm

Ertel S (2000). Reflections on Professor Bagley's Commentary. Correlation 18,67-70.

Eysenck HJ & Nias DKB (1982). Astrology: Science or Superstition? New York:Penguin.

Guinard P (1997). Astral Matrix and Matricial Reason in Astrology. Lecture givenat the Kepler Day International Research Conference, London, 22 November.



Harrison M (2000). From medical astrology to medical astronomy: sol-lunar andplanetary theories of disease in British medicine, c1700-1850. British Journal for the History of Science 33, 25-48.

Hick J (1997). Religious Pluralism. In Quinn PL & Taliferro C (eds). A Companion

to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hughes H (1999). Sensory Exotica: A World beyond Human Experience.Cambridge: Bradford/MIT Press.

Johnson G (2000). 10 Physics Questions to Ponder for a Millennium or Two. TheNew York Times on the Web 15 August.http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/Science/081500sci-physics-questions.html

Kelly IW (1997). Modern Astrology: A Critique. Psychological Reports 81, 1035-

1066. An expanded version Concepts of Modern Astrology is on this websiteunder Applied Astrology.

Kelly IW (1999). Debunking the Debunkers: a Response to an Astrologer'sDebunking of Skeptics. Skeptical Inquirer 23, 37-43.

Kelly IW (2000a). Comments on Valerie Vaughan's "Re-bunking the debunkers."On this website under Objections.

Kelly IW (2000b). Vested interests 1, scientific integrity 0. Skeptical Briefs 10(1),1-12, 15.

Landscheidt T (1994). Astrologie: Hoffnung auf eine Wissenschaft? [Astrology:Hope or Science?] Innsbruck: Resch.

McDonough M (2000). Every astrologer a researcher. Keynote address,Astro2000, Denver CO, 21 April. Available athttp://www.astrodatabank.com/Astrology_Research.htm

Markin A (2000). The astrology of natural disasters. The Mountain Astrologer 92,41-44.

Negre A (1998). A transdisciplinary approach to science and astrology.cura.free.fr/quinq/02negre2.html.

Paone K (2000). Weather watches and warnings for August-September 2000.The Mountain Astrologer 92, 35-40, 122.

Pennock RT (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge: Bradford/MIT Press.





A 1910 symposium

The value of astrology to the world

Reprinted from Modern Astrology (New Series), 1911, 8, 140-151.

Abstract -- Around 1910, at a meeting of Alan Leo's Astrological Society inLondon, members read papers on the value of astrology that showed a"wonderful diversity" of viewpoint. In this article Leo presents eight selectedpapers under the labels of recluse, philosopher, student, scientist, palmist,wayfarer, practical man, and onlooker. By today's standards the papers arewordy (wordiness being the style of the day) and devoid of the scientific insightsthat came three-quarters of a century later. Nevertheless, compared to modern

views, they show breadth, humanity, and freshness, possibly because astrologyin those days was less embattled by scientific attacks. One might even ask if modern astrologers are worthy heirs of Alan Leo. On the other hand, these eightviews can also be seen as a testimony to the power of hidden persuaders (see

Artifacts in reasoning under Doing Scientific Research), which in those days wereunknown and unsuspected. For the Recluse astrology enables people to makethe best use of time, thus advancing their own development and that of society.For the Philosopher astrology shows the tides of fate just as astronomy showsthe tides of oceans. Just as for a ship, to miss a tide is to miss an opportunity.Astrology is our compass in life. For the Student astrology provides insightbeyond the ordinary senses, in the same way as the gauges on a steam engine

provides insight into its remote workings. Faults are thus easily discovered andcorrected. For the Scientist astrology provides a personal equation, a prism for separating the components of divine wisdom, a radiograph of our strengths andliabilities, a clue to knowing thyself. For the Palmist astrology seemed at first likefortune telling. Then its true nature became clear. It helps us understandourselves and deal with difficulties in life perhaps more clearly than doespalmistry. For the Wayfarer astrology is about spiritual well-being. It points to ahigher life and liberates us from crass materialism. Its value will be determined bythe kind of people who use it. Its study fosters tolerance and compassion, whichare things the world needs and might secure if kings and rulers used astrology asa national guide. For the Practical Man it is too early to judge the value of astrology. It needs time to prove itself just as radium did, so it must be morewidely practised to make its value more evident. Organisations such as theAstrological Society are ideal for this. For the Onlooker the value of astrology tothe world is more than the collective gain of individuals. It provides a universalstandard, a Metric System for anthropology and philosophy. Just as we take our Time from the stars, we can also take our Tune. Alan Leo concludes "Surely, itmay be argued, a study which arouses the zealous espousal of those whoseoutlook on life is so various, must merit the attention of all thoughtful people?".






[The symposium begins with the following introduction and conclusion by theeditor Alan Leo]

Some time since, at a meeting of the Astrological Society, the above subject wastaken for discussion and papers were read or speeches made expressing the

opinions of various members present. To the listener, the most striking feature of this evening's discussion was the wonderful diversity in point of view exhibited bythe speakers, and the difference of the methods by which they sought to showthe utility of Astrology.

This is illustrated in the following more or less haphazard selection from thepapers which were read. The heading given to each paper is merely intended tobe indicative of what seems the point of view of its author, who must not besupposed to have laid claim to the title -- or even challenged attention to it -- withwhich he is here furnished and for which the present writer is solely accountable.

Surely, it may be argued, a study which arouses the zealous espousal of thosewhose outlook on life is so various, must merit the attention of all thoughtfulpeople?

The RecluseI intend in the few words I have to say regarding the value of Astrology to theworld to consider this value only from the time point of view. Obvious is it to allthat no idea is so inseparably bound up with Astrology as that of time. Thescience itself is one of "times and seasons," and for that reason I suppose it andits votaries have in the past been always associated with Saturn. Now from theSaturnian standpoint waste is a sin, and waste of time perhaps one of the deadly

sins. Herein lies the reason of Astrology's appealing only to those who havesome share of mental development, who have attained some degree of maturitythrough having profited by the lessons time has to teach.

Now the idea of making the best use of one's life would undoubtedly make astrong appeal to any member of the class I have just mentioned. This, of course,can be accomplished not only by the non-waste of, but by the most economicaluse of one's time. But this ambition, although a marked characteristic of Saturnian natives, is certainly not confined to them. Speaking broadly, this desireis universal and is to be found in a greater or lesser degree in all men.

Allowing this, I maintain there is yet to be found a study that will so effectually aidman in achieving this end as Astrology. For Astrology can define for every manhis limitations, can give him sure and certain knowledge of the ways in which heis already developed, as well as point out the times that will best repay anexpenditure of effort in any given direction.

Presuming veneration for Astrology to be universal, the science would confer inthe first place an enormous benefit upon all those natural guardians of our



children -- their parents. With the knowledge of his child's tendencies anddistastes, every parent would have it in his power to train him in such a way thatnot only during the period of childhood but in manhood also his life could be of the highest utility.

No comment need be made upon the value of this knowledge to the individualhimself. It would be a boon inestimable.

Having seen, then, how the native himself and those most intimately connectedwith him can receive the greatest possible benefit from Astrology, it follows as amatter of course that all with whom the native has any dealings must also behelped in the best way possible by him; and this not only by what I will call hisnegative influence -- that resulting from merely coming into his environment -- butvery positively. For inasmuch as a man is making a good use of his life, using histime economically, so will he positively endeavour to make it possible for all menwith whom he comes in contact to emulate him.

Here some may object, -- because they have considered my phrase "best use of one's life" to mean that which brings immediate and personal benefit, apart fromthe consideration of that which is due to others, -- and say that the mosteconomical use of one's time would be (if Astrology be all that we claim it is) touse our knowledge of the science in gaining the best possible results for ourselves at the expense of others not similarly equipped. This however from themost utilitarian point of view would be anything but making an economical use of one's time. For each man who has made a profound study of the science hasdiscovered that that which makes the Solar System a Universe, a cosmos andnot a chaos, is not only the existence therein of law and order, of a series of

developments which have been planned, -- the real knowledge of which plan it isthe aim of Astrology to teach, -- but mainly that there is but One Life which bindsand harmonises all those varying expressions or manifestations with whichAstrology deals. Thus he has learned that as each man is only part of this OneGreat Life or Self, the best possible use of a given period of time will be to benefitnot only one but many of these parts.

So we see that Astrology is valuable from the time point of view because it notonly enables the individual to use his time economically but gives him the chanceof aiding his brothers to do likewise, thus not only forwarding his owndevelopment but aiding in the evolution of the race.

The Philosopher The value of Astrology to the world is as the value of Astronomy. In the sameway that Astronomy serves the world by accurately computing years in advancethe varying states of the ocean tides on which the material welfare of a people sointimately depends, in the same way that it measures the "flow of time," thelength of the year and the duration of the Seasons; so can, and indeed so does,Astrology enter into the Service of Man. For the fate and fortune of a man and of



may be presented through them whereby their less favoured fellow beings maybe deceived?

Even as a ray of sunlight may be refracted into many colours the comparativebeauty of which is a matter of taste, so the ray of Wisdom coming to us through

astrology manifests under different aspects, the relative utility of each beingsimilarly a matter of opinion.

Many arguments might be brought forward in favour of the utility of natal, pre-natal, horary, and medical astrology, and the claims of that branch which isengaged in the investigation of the Physical Foundations of our science will notbe without its supporters; but in the limited time at my disposal I feel I mustendeavour to emphasise the utility, and I would almost say theindispensableness, of the teachings which have been so ably expounded in theWestern World by our esteemed President and his gifted helpmate under the titleof Esoteric Astrology.

To man in his present stage of evolution, chained like Ixion to the wheel, EsotericAstrology gives a clue which may assist him to guess the riddle of the Sphinx,and it will surely aid him in following that portentous precept "Know thyself."

Those who have made some little progress along the path will appreciate thedifficulty of expressing in terms of the physical glimpses of what lies beyond theveil, but I venture to suggest a simile: -- an amoeba is an example of primitivelife, a mere living plasm, a tiny and apparently quite unorganised mass of protoplasm, which moves about and seizes particles of nutriment by protrudingself-made tentacles called pseudopodia. I am not aware whether it has been

observed that these tentacles can be protruded by the animalcule at every pointon its surface, or only at definite places, but it is probable that only certain spotsare designed for this purpose, while if this protoplasm is endowed with any senseof awareness, however rudimentary, of the external world, other parts of itssurface will be adapted for receiving stimuli in the nature of sensations however vague. Now in the present stage of evolution, man is endowed with vehiclesother than his physical body, but at present those intended to enable him tomanifest on the higher planes of being are more or less rudimentary and awaitdevelopment, while any stimuli affecting them from these planes produce littlemore than merely faint adumbrations of reality; in fact any of the vehicles of theaverage man for manifestation on a higher plane will appear to the intelligentbeings dwelling therein to be as rudimentary as that of the amoeba appears tous.

Now is it not possible that the horoscope gives us a picture -- a radiograph as itwere, -- of our vehicles with all their pseudopods and sensitive points, which willshow us in what directions we are best able to develop, and from whencedangers are most likely to assail us? If so, there is a great lesson to be learnedfrom astrology, and "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."



should not kings and rulers who preside over the destinies of nations have thecounsel of astrologers as of old? The study of the true Astrology fosterstolerance, sympathy and forbearance with the faults and weaknesses of otherswith whom we may be connected, and no doubt this tolerant feeling might besecured between nations and countries if kings and rulers were to utilise

Astrology as a national guide.

The Practical ManIt is, I believe, impossible at the present moment to estimate the value of Astrology to the world, for the reason that that value is at present undeveloped.By "value to the world" I understand the value to that great corporation of common, yet often apparently conflicting, interests known as "mankind"; and by"value" I mean the sum and extent of its possible utility.

The value of a new invention or discovery, like that of a newly born child or afreshly-struck deposit of gold, is a problematical quantity which can only be

estimated after time and experience have shown its true worth. As long as theinvention remains a mere laboratory or lecture-table experiment, as in the case of the electric telegraph, its value may appear to be nil ; but once brought out intothe field of action, it soon proves its worth. At first it may even excite ridicule, asdid Galvani's experiments with the frog's legs: he was dubbed "the frogs'dancing-master" for his pains; but the man who is confident in the truth of thescience he upholds cares little for the ridicule of the unthinking. Few things havebeen more derided than Astrology, unless it be Spiritualism, yet the despisedtable-rappings have led to the formation of two powerful societies, the S.P.R. andthe T.S., both of which now substantially confirm the truth of the main contentionsof Spiritualism, and have secured for their pronouncements a respectful hearing

before the whole world.

If we would prove to mankind the value of a new idea, we must in the first placedevelop its capacities. This can only be done by giving it a chance to show itsvalue -- by putting it to the test of use and leaving it free to develop and reveal itspowers. Radium might have remained a laboratory curiosity, but that it wasobserved that it had an effect on the skin and tissues; each succeedingapplication of its qualities revealed its value more plainly, until scientific mencould form an estimate of its worth. So with Astrology: the first thing to be done toestimate its value is to bring it into practical and general application, and then itstrue position as an instrument of human progress will be made more and moremanifest.

It is true that I have been comparing Astrology with new discoveries; whereas inreality it is of unknown antiquity. So is the idea of constructing a flying machine;but in practical matters we often have to admit that the real discoverer of a newaid to human progress is the man who harnesses it, puts it to work, and developsits practical value. Has the practical value of Astrology in human affairs ever yetbeen brought out, tested, and demonstrated? For individuals, this has often been



Originsof Recent Advances in Natal Astrology

Interviews in 1978, 1985, 1989 about this 1977 milestone

Abstract -- The publication in 1977 of Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: ACritical Review 1900-1976 is widely regarded as a milestone in the history of scientific astrology. It led to a boom in research, and to the founding of Londonresearch conferences and the research journal Correlation. But most astrologersregarded it with horror before retreating en masse from critical thinking. Thosetimes have been recorded in three published interviews:{ (1) Dean and Mather interviewed by Malcolm Dean in 1978. Covers origins of Recent Advances (it wasneeded), how it was compiled (get help from around the world), the enthusiasticsupport of the Astrological Association (especially Charles Harvey), and the nextstep (complete literature retrieval and coverage of missed topics). (2) CharlesHarvey interviewed by Michael Erlewine in 1985. Covers the support given by the

Astrological Association and some later reactions (Recent Advances gives thefacts and figures but neglects what astrologers love and which draws people toastrology). (3) Geoffrey Dean interviewed by Rudolf Smit in 1989. Coversreactions (mixed), new research (also mixed), status of the next step (much hasbeen published), and the pains and pleasures (new discoveries and support frominformed others make it rewarding). An update on the next step (RA2 ) coverswork already published, and compares topics in the 1970s (chart factors) withthose of today (artifacts and faulty reasoning). Includes a possible birth chart of Recent Advances. If nothing else, Recent Advances has shown how lightingcandles is more productive than cursing the darkness.

Recent Advances had its contents listed on the back cover. Chapter headingsare: Introduction, Perspectives (eg Validation), Zodiacs, Signs, Houses,Rulerships, Planets, Non-Planets (eg Nodes), Aspects, Lack of Aspects,



Recent Advances was once essential reading for every well-dressed astrologer

Dean and Mather interviewed by Malcolm Dean in 1978Abridged from Phenomena 2.3-2.4, May-August 1978. Malcolm Dean (norelation) was the editor. The interview was conducted by mail and includesmaterial from an unpublished 1976 interview with Mark Feldman, then bookreviewer for Horoscope magazine.

PH: Do you think astrology could, or should, be more scientific? How would thisalter astrology?

GD: If astrology does not become more objective it will continue to be overloadedwith fantasy.

AM: And this fantasy can only be to the detriment of all concerned ... exceptperhaps the less scrupulous professionals. Without a science of astrology therecan be no art of astrology.

PH: What are the origins of the Recent Advances project?

GD: Recent Advances did not begin as a specific project. It just grew from amodest literature survey I made in Western Australia in 1973. I went to the UK,and found myself living near the Astrological Association Research Library, thenone of the best collections of astrological books and journals available anywhere.

I was able to greatly improve the survey. At that time I had nothing more in mindthan an article. Then the Astrological Association expressed an interest inpublishing it in book form. The article was not yet adequate for this, so I did moreliterature surveys and circulated the results to various astrologers for comment.From that point on it grew to its present status.

PH: Why did you consider doing the project?



GD: Because it was needed and I was in a position to do it. I want to stress that itwas possible only because the right things were in the right place at the righttime. Such a project has a number of essential requirements: (1) Access toastrological literature. Astrology libraries do not grow on trees. Yet one of thebest in the world was around the corner. (2) Access to the best astrologers. Who

has the opportunity to chase around the world to find these people? Yet my jobas a science writer for NATO took me to Europe and the USA, where I was ableto give lectures and involve people personally in a way that mere letter-writingnever could. (3) Access to wordprocessing and xeroxing facilities, which in the1970s were still rare. Yet they were available as part of my NATO work. (4)Expertise in literature searching, science writing, layout, graphic design andorganization. This is my professional specialization. (5) Adequate finance. Thiswas the biggest problem. Other than the loans raised to cover printing costs, it allhad to come out of my pocket. We almost didn't make it.

Finally, there has to be co-operation. Not from a cast of thousands, but from just

a handful of people who are qualified, competent, dedicated, and who deliver thegoods on time. And I had that. In particular I know of nobody else with the idealblend of experience, expertise, and access to facilities that Arthur has, and it isespecially fortunate that he also had the time. The opportunity to bring all theseelements together doesn't occur every day.

AM: As far as the Astrological Association is concerned, it has always greatlyvalued the scientific approach to the problems of astrology, and indeed it wasfounded 20 years ago with this in mind. It has long been the intention to compileinto one publication the best of scientific astrology and astrologically-relevantscience. Unfortunately the effort required to do this properly has so far been

beyond our means. Hence when Geoffrey appeared with a project which, whenextended, coincided precisely with our own, the Association's most activeresearchers were quick to participate. After a massive expenditure of effort, mostof it Geoffrey's, the result is a review that has exceed our best expectations.

GD: I should point out that while the book may be a start, it is certainly notexhaustive -- there must be countless books, journals and astrologer's files thatremain untapped. In principle an exhaustive review presents no problems; itwould merely require perhaps 20 man-years of work throughout a dozencountries. As a private venture this is clearly not feasible. But given the financialresources of, say, the AFA, it could already have been done several times over.It seems to us that any major expansion in the book's coverage (as opposed toupdating) will necessarily depend on the availability of such resources.

PH: The book seems quite comprehensive already. Is major expansion likely?

AM: We estimate that about 75% of the relevant astrological literature in Englishhas been covered, but less than 20% in other Western languages. So potentiallythe coverage could expand by 100%.



GD: This of course assumes that the quality of the items missed is as good asthose already included. However, the feedback from readers to date suggeststhat this could be so. In other words, going for exhaustive coverage could reallybe worthwhile.

PH: What were your initial goals in Recent Advances?

GD: To review the literature. The average astrologer is totally unaware of thevast amount of useful information that is hidden away in journals.

AM: Here, "review" sounds very simple. But in fact it includes summarising,checking, co-ordinating conclusions, describing relevant techniques, suggestingareas needing research, and so on. So there are many spin-offs.

PH: Why did you do Recent Advances alone?

AM: You could say that the road to stagnation is paved with committees.

GD: We didn't want any concessions to sales appeal, popular taste, or whatever.For once astrology had to come first. Which is not what publishers want to hear.

PH: What qualifies you, astrologically or otherwise, to undertake such a project,particularly as a "final arbiter" of the data?

GD: The book covers such a huge field that no one person could possibly do it justice. Hence there were 52 collaborators -- hopefully between us we got it right.

AM: In any survey of knowledge it is far more important to know the rightquestions and the right people, than it is to attempt to get all the right answers.

GD: The book was a group effort which depended as much on others as on me.In particular, Arthur worked with me through all stages of the recyclings. As eachchapter was finished it went to him and corrections were recirculated among thecollaborators until everyone was happy. This process is never quick (theintroduction went through about 20 different versions) but hopefully the end result

justifies it.

AM: With specialized topics, such as the work of Nelson or Gauquelin, an initial

draft was sent to them for comment. After it came back, their comments wereincorporated, and returned with any queries that arose. The process was thenrepeated until everyone was happy: Usually there were several recycles. Therecord is about about 10 recycles and $US30 in postage for a total of about 2-3pages.

GD: As regards being the final arbiter, there was very little to arbitrate becausethere were no limitations on space, and hence the problem of choice rarely



AM: It seems to us that a critical examination of the evidence is not likely to leadto a wider belief in astrology as currently practised. On the other hand, it opensup many exciting new areas for investigation. It points the way to a newastrology.

PH: Do you think recent studies of astrology are of a higher calibre than older material?

GD: Yes, generally, simply because more technically competent people arebecoming interested in astrology and this competence is beginning to make itself felt. For example, astrological research by psychologists may sometimes bedeficient in its understanding of astrology, but it is setting standards of investigation and exposition that are unparalleled in astrological literature.

AM: It demonstrates that, despite what some astrologers say, the complexities of astrology are not incompatible with clear and objective inquiry.

PH: In what sense is the book critical?

AM: Yes, critical requires some explanation. Critical reviews are very common inscience, and indeed reviews which are not critical are poorly regarded becausewithout evaluation there is chaos. It is quite wrong to regard a critical review asan attack on something. A critical review is merely one in which a high level of evidence is required and in which all the pros and cons are carefully assessed.

PH: What of the future?

GD: We plan to collect previously missed material, and incorporate this with thecomments and information generated by the first edition. In other words our aimis a complete literature retrieval, not just of books and journals but also of individual unpublished work. To do this privately is not feasible, hence everythingdepends on funding.

AM: Once all the past work is covered it can be continuously updated by say anAnnual Review of Astrology.

GD: The days of talking are over.

Charles Harvey interviewed by Michael Erlewine in 1985Abridged from Talking with Charles Harvey, Astro*Talk 1985, 2(2), 1 and 15-18.Erlewine was the editor, and Harvey was the president of the UK's AstrologicalAssociation. The interview was conducted in person.

ME: Can we ask you to talk a bit about Geoffrey Dean, about how you met him,how he showed up at your door.



CH: I think where it deserves absolute 100% marks is that people have beentalking about this [need for a scientific survey] for years and years and years andwe still talk about it, but Recent Advances has gotten down and done it. In thewhole of our community here, we never managed to do that.

Geoffrey Dean interviewed by Rudolf Smit in 1989Abridged from Exclusief vraaggesprek met Dr Geoffrey Dean, Astrologie inOnderzoek 1989, 4(2), 2-7. The interview was conducted in person and wastranslated into Dutch. What follows is from the original English.

RS: Recent Advances resulted from a tremendous joint effort by manycollaborators. Are Arthur Mather, and all those other people, still helping you withRA2 , the extension and update of RA?

GD: Oh yes. They are either helping or waiting in the wings to be called upon.And they are absolutely essential -- the field is too big to be adequately assessed

by any one person. Far too big!

RS: When RA was finished, were you, at the time, still a believer in astrology?

GD: When RA was finished we had sorted through an enormous amount of information and evidence, some of which seemed very promising and somewhich seemed not promising. So we were simply open-minded, perhaps moreopen minded than when we had began. When we began we certainly werebelievers. At the end we were more critical, but we were still hoping that newinvestigations would produce marvels. So in general we were still believers.

RS: When the book came out, what kind of response did you get?

GD: It certainly aroused a lot of controversy. Some astrologers jumped up anddown in outrage, but others jumped up and down in sheer pleasure. Thoseastrologers who are generally useful to advancing astrology are still more thaneager to talk to us. But those who seem to have very little to contribute are theones who are not wanting to talk, so in fact we are not missing very much. Alsoas time goes on, you discover more and more people waiting in the wings whohave a great deal of interest and expertise, and they are very willing to come toyour help. So, yes, some people won't cooperate, but there are many more whodo, and in the end you are better off.

RS: You said, a lot of people were waiting in the wings. Did they all come forwardby themselves?

GD: Yes, that was one very pleasing aspect of the book. People we had never heard from before, wrote to us and said: "Look, this is really interesting stuff. CanI send you results of my own research?" Or they had comments on some of thework in RA, or they had suggestions to make, and they did this quite voluntarily.



So we had lots of useful interesting material coming our way, purelyspontaneously from these people, and that was very encouraging.

RS: But now of course the crucial question. Did people generally come withsomething of real value -- perhaps a beginning of a breakthrough?

GD: Yes and no, because it was mixed. Some people came forward withunfinished work, so they did not know what the outcome would be. Others hadproduced what seemed like positive results, while others had produced whatseemed like negative results. In each case we were able to examine the datamore rigorously to see if they had missed something. So overall the studies wereneither for nor against. They were mixed. But we can certainly say that many of them were exceedingly interesting. Incidentally, in many cases the person hadnot considered their study worth publishing. So we are able in the update topresent work which is unpublished, but well worth knowing about.

RS: I have the strong impression that the update has been deferred anddeferred, simply because so much is coming forward now. Am I right?

GD: Again, yes and no. Unlike RA, the update looks at many new things, for example new areas which weren't covered in RA, and material which was missedin RA. These things require a completely different approach. In RA you simplylooked at what already existed, summarised it, and that was it. But for RA2 youmust first find what you have missed and that takes time. It takes time also tosurvey areas which haven't been surveyed before. For example, no survey existsof human judgement biasses in astrology, so you must create your own byspending several months in a university library. And there is a third reason,

perhaps most important of all, why the update should be so long in coming.Having surveyed the field in RA, one can see certain areas which hold a greatdeal of promise, but which still contain gaps. For example, John Nelson's work onradio disturbance, Donald Bradley's work on Jupiter and rain, the Vernon Clarkexperiments, and so on. So these gaps have to be filled, either by ourselves or by other people, and this takes a great deal of time. Which is why the update istaking so long. But when it arrives I can guarantee it will be worth waiting for.

RS: Well, I assume that because of all this you are the person with the widestoverview of what is going on in astrological research today.

GD: I would hope not! For the simple reason that all the important research isnow published in magazines like Correlation and APP . So anyone who readsthese will have as good a view as anybody of what is going on. Perhaps the onlything I have which may be special is a huge file of stuff gathered from dustydrawers around the world. But these are usually gathered from times beforecomputers and rigorous tests so they are not quite as useful and convincing asthe later work.



from wasting your time, they guarantee that you will end up starving in obscurity.To say that people like us delight in that sort of thing is rather curious.

RS: I agree. Final question: You have been working with astrological researchnow for some fifteen years. Aren't you getting fed up with it?

GD: Hopefully one can never fed up with astrology. It brings you into contact withan area of interests which extends, on the left, from astronomy to, on the right,psychology. It is in fact limitless. And in those fields there are some veryinteresting and most able people. So although the response of astrologers issometimes disappointing, the response from others more than makes up for this.Indeed, many scientists who are usually much maligned by astrologers, turn outto be more open minded and more even in their response than the astrologersthemselves. It is this and the chance to find out what is really happening, whichmakes research in astrology such a continuing interest.

Status of RA2 in 2007Work on RA2 , the long-planned update of Recent Advances, has been inprogress since 1978. Unfortunately the hoped-for funding and astrologer supportdid not eventuate, which together with the need to fill gaps has made progressslower than hoped. On the other hand, most of the work has already beenpublished on this website. In particular a broad overview (but without actualreference to RA2 ) can be found in The Phillipson interview of researchers,especially sections 8 and 9, under Doing Scientific Research.

In print, the article that comes closest to what RA2 will contain is the entry onastrology in Encyclopedia of the Paranormal , edited by G Stein, Prometheus

Books, Buffalo NY 1996, pp 47-99. Its 28,000 words by Dean, Mather and Kellycover history, popularity, arguments for and against, conceptual problems,controlled tests, effect size comparisons, problems of birth chart interpretation,how belief in astrology arises, role of human judgement biasses, and the future of astrology. For comparison the main topics covered by Recent Advances werezodiacs, signs, houses, rulerships, planets, non-planets, aspects, angularity, andcycles. Note how the focus has changed from chart factors to human judgementbiasses and statistical artifacts -- the former have become largely meaningless inthe light of the latter.

Again, compare overviews. In 1977 Recent Advances put it this way:

Despite much progress there remain few concepts in astrology that are notdisputed among astrologers. To date the most significant research results havesometimes supported tradition but have more usually contradicted it. The pictureemerging suggests that astrology works, but seldom in the way or to the extentthat it is said to work. Obviously genuine research must start with as fewassumptions as possible. (page 7)



Twenty years later the above encyclopedia article put it this way:

Astrology has a very early history. Today it covers every facet of material andspiritual existence from sun sign trivia to profound religious insight. As a resultastrology means different things to different people. Astrologers claim that the

heavens indicate earthly circumstances so pervasively that no area of humanaffairs is exempt. They also claim that experience shows it works. But there arenumerous often conflicting doctrines. Progress has not been made byobservation or other acceptable means. Scientific tests have failed to revealeffects commensurate with astrological claims. Orthodox approaches have muchlarger effect sizes. Unaided human judgement is subject to biasses that can fullyexplain why astrology seems to work. In short, astrology shows all the symptomsof pathological science. Nevertheless astrology may be here to stay. (page 97)

Note how the former uncertainties and mysteries of astrology have been largelydispelled. The full RA2 will be published in due course, hopefully before 2010. If

nothing else, Recent Advances has shown how lighting candles is moreproductive than cursing the darkness.

Birth Time of Recent Advances?Recent Advances evolved over numerous stages, none of which can be clearlyidentified as the starting point, so there can be no birth time in the traditionalsense. Nevertheless, because they were open-minded about astrology, Deanand Mather made a special effort to accurately time the moment when thematerial book took on an independent existence, namely the official handing over of the camera-ready copy to the printers, details of which are revealed here for the first time. To ensure that the printing would be in good hands, Dean and

Mather had just completed a tour of the printing works taking nearly an hour, on adate set by the printers (it was a Monday), so the timing was not in any way pre-determined. The handover occurred at 9:56.4 am BST (8:56.4 am GMT) ± 0.1minutes on 3 October 1977 at Camelot Press, Shirley Road, Southampton,50n55 1w25. At that moment Uranus was barely two degrees below theAscendant, Saturn was four degrees before the MC, and Jupiter was moderatelyelevated in 8th whether by Placidus or Equal House. The strongest planet byaspect was Neptune, being sextile Sun and Pluto and in a T-square oppositeMoon and square Venus.

From www.astrology-and-science.


Astrology as religion The spiritual dimension of astrology

David Hamblin

http://www.astrology-and-science/



http://www.astrology-and-science/




From his letter in Astrological Journal 32(6), 406-407, 1990, with later postscripts.

Abstract -- The author, a former Chairman of the UK Astrological Association,spent much time testing astrological claims but found no evidence in their favour.Eventually he gave up reading birth charts but retained his interest in astrology.

He argues that the spiritual dimension is a necessary part of human existence,and that for many astrologers, astrology is a religion rather than a science. Itenriches their lives (and the lives of their clients) in the same way that other people's lives are enriched by Christianity. So why not allow astrologers topractise their religion in peace rather than constantly press them to turn it into ascience? Even if astrology isn't really "true", it is still a wonderful thing, afantastically complex and beautiful construct that draws our attention to theheavens and makes us aware that we are a tiny yet still significant part of theuniverse. Most astrologers are affected by this, and have a quality of beauty inthemselves.

It seems to me that the reason why many astrologers are reluctant to take part inresearch is that they expect, and fear, that the research would come up withnegative results. When I first came into astrology from an academic background Iwas very keen on research, and I spent a great deal of time doing little researchprojects on my own, trying to prove (to my own satisfaction) a correlationbetween particular astrological factors and particular personality traits or occupational characteristics. The pattern was always the same: for the first fifty(or maybe a hundred) charts I would seem to be coming up with very excitingresults, but as I increased the size of the sample the effect would fade away, untilby the time I had looked at (say) two hundred charts there would be nocorrelation whatsoever.

After many experiences of this kind, I began to find astrological research a prettydepressing activity, and my enthusiasm for it became blunted. And, in the end,my enthusiasm for astrology became blunted also. For a long time I had tried toconvince myself that astrology was valid in spite of the lack of research evidence,and that the need was for better tests. If astrology was true in the way thatastrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated pieceof research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance)Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not beendemonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that mostastrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way.

Hence, for the time being, I have given up astrology.

And yet I want to add a rider to this. There are of course many people (includingmany scientists!) who are Christians, in spite of the lack of historical evidencethat Christ rose from the dead and the lack of research evidence for the efficacyof prayer; and the same applies for the adherents of other religions and spiritualmovements. Maybe Geoffrey Dean would urge Christians, as he urges



astrologers, to be constantly looking for better tests. But I believe myself that thereligious or spiritual dimension is very necessary for the enrichment of humanexistence, and that the development of this dimension necessitates theacceptante of (or belief in) certain truths which have not been (and cannot be)scientifically demonstrated. For many astrologers, astrology is a religion rather

than a science: it enriches their lives (and the lives of their clients) in the sameway that other people's lives are enriched by Christianity.

This is, for me, completely acceptable, and I can admire and respect theseastrologers who adhere to astrology in spite of the lack of scientific evidence. Infact, from this point of view, my own rejection of astrology begins to look like avery naive thing, comparable to the way in which, thirty years ago, I turned awayfrom Christianity because God had not answered my prayers and because Icould not see any "evidence" that God was good. Maybe I have turned awayfrom astrology simply because it does not seem to be the best religion for me atthe present time.

Of course, if we see astrology as a religion, we need to be on guard againstastrological "fundamentalism", in the same way as we may want to opposeChristian or Muslin fundamentalism (for instance, the literal belief that God madethe earth in seven days, or the belief that Salman Rushdie must die inaccordante with God's word in the Koran). I see astrological fundamentalism inthe belief held by certain astrologers that the stars govern our every action andthat we are at their mercy. Such excesses must always be opposed, on ethical,not on scientific, grounds. But, if these excesses can be avoided -- and in theabsence of any evidence that astrology does anyone any harm -- why shouldastrologers not be allowed to practise their religion in peace, rather than being

constantly pressed to turn it into a science?

PostscriptsTen years later, in Garry Phillipson's Astrology in the Year Zero (2000 p.122),David Hamblin made this further comment:

Even if it isn't really "true", astrology is still a wonderful thing, a fantasticallycomplex and beautiful construct, which draws your eyes up to the heavens andmakes you aware that you are a tiny and yet still significant part of the workingsof the universe. Most astrologers, I believe, are affected by this, and have aquality of beauty in themselves. The annual astrological conferences that Iattended were wonderful experiences because of the quality of the energy andthe sheer excitement generated by the exchange of astrological ideas.

And then in 2005, especially for this website, this further comment:

After all, what would happen to astrology if it was proved beyond doubt that thereis a connection between planetary positions at a particular time and events onEarth occurring at the same time? It would be taken over, not only by science,



but by politics and big business. It would become part of the "system" from whichso many of us long to escape. It would do great harm, because of the way inwhich it would be used by unscrupulous people in search of profit and power. Itwould lose its magic and its capacity to inspire. How much better that it shouldremain one of those things (like life after death) that are never proved but remain

tantalizingly possible, elusive, just out of reach, offering glimpses of a universethat lies beyond our ordinary experience.


Astrologer attacks researchersA tedious but typical interchange

Abstract -- In 2001 the British astrologer and teacher Dennis Elwell wrote four long articles attacking this website's researchers, their views, their results, andespecially what they say in the Phillipson interview available on this website.

Elwell wants to restore the importance of astrology. He claims that theresearchers are hostile to astrology, and that his attack was so decisive that noresponse was possible. Article by article, the researchers summarise Elwell'sattacks and their response. They argue that Elwell's approach to astrologycannot be taken seriously because he fails to apply safeguards to rule outartifacts, alternate explanations, and self-deception. Elwell denies this. He arguesthat his own personal judgement is sufficient, and if thousands of scholarlystudies suggest he might be fooling himself then they are simply wrong. Heclaims the researchers have no idea how to properly test astrology. But whenthey ask him how it should be done, he generally evades the issue, so thedebate is spectacularly unproductive. Nevertheless it does provide a typical

example of what researchers have to endure, for Elwell is not the first astrologer unable to specify improvements to research when challenged. Includes an optionto visit the original interchanges on another website (total 90,000 words, readingtime 5 hours).

The British astrologer Dennis Elwell disagrees strongly with the views of researchers given in the interview in Garry Phillipson's Astrology in the Year Zeropages 124-166, and in the expanded interview on this website. Formerly anewspaper journalist, Elwell has been involved with astrology for more than fiftyyears. Since 1983 he has been a full-time astrologer and teacher, and hisconcern has been to restore the importance of astrology. Elwell produced four long articles critiquing the researchers, their views, and their results, as follows:

1. The Researchers Researched: A Reply to the Cynics (April 2001)2. Scholars versus Scribblers (May 2001)3. Concerning ubiquity, evidence, and hard hats (June-August 2001)4. Memo to the Careful Ones (September 2001)



The researchers (Dean, Kelly, Mather, Smit) responded by inserting commentspoint by point into his articles. Each interchange averages 10,000 words of articleand 13,000 words of inserted comments. The result is a long, tedious, but typicalexample of how astrologers respond to informed criticism -- by unsupportedassertions, smokescreens, evasion, and name calling, but rarely by being helpful.

Click here to see Elwell's articles with the researchers' inserted comments.

This will take you to Garry Phillipson's website where the articles are stored. Toread the articles and comments will take about five hours. The followingsummary, prepared by the researchers, takes 15 minutes and you stay on theastrology-and-science website.

IntroductionIn the interview we noted how half a century of systematic research had notsupported the grandiose claims of astrology, how astrology was experience-

based rather than evidence-based, and how reasoning errors and other artifactsexplain why an experience-based astrology could be totally false yet still seem towork.

Our statements were not made lightly. Every social and natural science stressesthe need for safeguards to rule out the reasoning errors and other artifacts thatarise when relying on experience. Human reasoning processes alone are thesubject of thousands of studies and dozens of scholarly books. But whensafeguards are applied to tests of astrology the results show no hint of effectsthat are useful and replicable. It seems that astrology runs on artifacts, the sameartifacts that have led people to believe in countless experience-based but false

or problematic ideas such as phrenology, psychoanalysis, bloodletting,numerology, and biorythyms.

Nevertheless Elwell says our picture of an artifact-based astrology is wrong. Sowe now expect him to cite well-conducted studies where artifacts can be ruledout. If a meta-analysis of the studies shows that astrology delivers useful effects,ie to the extent claimed in astrology books, our picture would have to beabandoned. Although our own meta-analyses of such studies have beennegative, maybe Elwell can do better.

But Elwell merely refers again and again to his experience, and to after-the-event

analyses, as if the problems associated with experience-based astrology andafter-the-event astrology did not exist. He also attempts to refute isolated studies,usually naively, as if his own poorly-designed studies were somehowunproblematic and the collective weight of evidence was of no consequence.

How not to conduct a debateA further obstacle is Elwell's style, which is marked by unsupported assertions,ignorance of science, and abuse in lieu of scholarship. For example whenever he

http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/elres.htm

http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/elres.htm



says X is crucial, he typically fails to explain it, or resorts to jibes, so readershave no clear idea of what X is about and no clear way of deciding whether X is areasonable point. His strategy is to find fault but never suggest improvements, tobrush aside or ignore what doesn't suit him, and to bury everything else intorrents of words. In other words to be as unhelpful as possible. There is no

attempt (like ours below) to list issues concisely to facilitate discussion, or tosummarise the arguments to facilitate progress. Our most common reaction tohis unhelpfulness is "Elwell does not tell us", meaning "why should anyonebelieve this?".

In what follows we look briefly at Elwell's articles, at why the absence of safeguards makes his case implausible, and at his response to the issues wehave raised. We repeatedly challenge him to specify tests that would disconfirmhis ideas, but he repeatedly fails to do so. He behaves like a fundamentalistwhose dogmatic views make debate impossible. For convenience his four articles are referred to as Elwell-1, -2, -3, -4.

Summary of Elwell-1

The Researchers Researched: A Reply to the CynicsElwell-1 disagrees with our view that astrology runs on artifacts. His own view,based on "over half a century of absorption in this subject", is that astrology canbe seen everywhere. He then attacks our integrity and our position. He deals withartifacts by denying their relevance. He also denies that tests of astrology needsafeguards such as controls, which he dimisses as mere deviousness. He makesno attempt to see if other astrologers would use the same chart factors or makethe same interpretations as himself. In short, Elwell claims his own personal

judgement is amply sufficient. If thousands of scholarly studies suggest he mightbe fooling himself, just as phrenologists and their clients were foolingthemselves, then those studies are simply wrong.

Note how the source of the disagreement between ourselves and Elwell couldhardly be clearer. Unlike ourselves, he rejects the need for safeguards, so he hasno grounds for ruling out artifacts, alternate explanations, and self-deception. Atwhich point Elwell's case for astrology becomes implausible and cannot be takenseriously.

The rest of Elwell's article is equally disappointing. He presents no newarguments for astrology, only unsupported assertions. He tells us we are doing itwrong but not how to do it right. He tells us astrology should be tested on its ownterms but not what those terms are. Negative studies are dismissed as sloppybut much sloppier studies (if positive) are automatically accepted. Depending onthe situation, astrology is either astonishingly obvious or very difficult to prove.He does nothing to show that his way of measuring astrology's success are valid,and never considers alternate explanations for that apparent success.



Summary of Elwell-2

Scholars versus ScribblersElwell-2 continues to attack our integrity and our position with the same mix of unsupported assertions and ignorance of science. He does make some

interesting speculations on astrology, for example that it is a sort of World WideWeb where the cosmos "is constantly downloading information", or amacroscience where "every phenomenon and every item of data is referred tosomething larger and more inclusive." But how could such speculations betested? What do they predict? How are they useful to working astrologers? Howwould we detect errors in the downloading? Elwell does not tell us. He continuesto reject the need for safeguards, so his case remains implausible.

Summary of Elwell-3

Concerning ubiquity, evidence, and hard hats

This is the longest of Elwell's articles and the least abusive. He continues toreject the need for safeguards as a matter of course. He rejects the use of controls because they are not always possible (which does not explain his failureto use them when they are possible), and because replication is better. Heargues that astrological knowledge "had been in place for thousands of years,and controls had not been necessary for its formulation. It was reached bycareful observation, confirmed by replication. ...replication can hardly bedispensed with". Which misses the point (artifacts can replicate), so his caseremains implausible.

As an exercise, Elwell notes how well President Kennedy's Sun in 8th house fits

his life and assassination. But he fails to note how the fit is negated by Kennedy'sVenus and Jupiter in the same house.

In another exercise, Elwell looks at the charts of helmet collectors Kelly andTagliavini, finds repeated significators for German iron helmets, and argues thatsuch hits are irrefutable evidence for astrology. But his repeated significators arenot actual repeated factors but different factors whose symbolism can be madeto fit. Also, although Elwell is a non-collector of helmets, we find that his chartcontains even larger numbers of helmet-collecting significators. This suggeststhat his significators (and by extension his astrology) are urgently in need of re-evaluation.

Note Elwell's approach -- look at charts after the event, find factors that fitsymbolically, and conclude that astrology is proven. But there is a wide choice of events, each event has a wide choice of charts, and each chart has a widechoice of factors. So the number of possible comparisons is effectively withoutlimit. Given such an enormous choice, we should expect to find amazing after-the-event fits purely by chance, and their absence would be more surprising thantheir presence.



Note the problem -- a hit means little unless Elwell applies safeguards to showthat it cannot be explained by after-the-event selection. Worse, if a hit does notoccur, Elwell argues that the test is inappropriate, or that the cosmos does notnecessarily use our concepts, which points are conveniently forgotten should ahit actually occur. Either way, his strategy is to praise positive studies no matter

how flawed and reject negative studies no matter how well conducted. Nowonder Elwell sees astrology everywhere. He fatally ignores the relevantliterature such as Diaconis & Mosteller, Methods for studying coincidence,Journal of the American Statistical Association 1989, 84, 853-861.

So Elwell-3 changes nothing. Neither does Elwell-4, see next section.

In an earlier now-deleted version of Elwell-3 entitled "Validation: The EssentialIssues", Elwell made a couple of extra points that deserve comment. (1) Thecosmos is "constantly downloading information" which astrology tries to decipher "not always with conspicuous success". Because the cosmos is never twice the

same, the result is a series of one-offs, which makes testing difficult. But how canhe know this if testing is so difficult? Elwell does not tell us. (2) "Astrology sitsuncomfortably in the current scientific paradigm", so we should be asking what itwould mean for science if astrology were actually true. But as far as we know,astrology involves nothing not explainable by non-astrological factors, see later,so contrary to what Elwell says it actually sits very comfortably in the "currentscientific paradigm". So Elwell's question is premature. It would be like askingwhat it would mean for science if the earth were flat.

Summary of Elwell-4

Memo to the Careful OnesThis is the last of Elwell's four articles. It returns to the same mix of abuse,attacks on our integrity, errors, evasion, fundamentalism, unsupportedassertions, and ignorance of science that made his earlier articles so tedious andunproductive. Nobody who is genuinely interested in debate would behave in thisway.

Elwell-4 proceeds by criticising existing research, not by suggesting better waysof research, which here is the only thing that matters. Any competent researcher could do this in a few hundred words. But Elwell's total of 41,000 words have leftus none the wiser. Eloquence, maybe, substance, no, lies, yes. For example it issimply not true that we urge "abstracting single factors from the totality", and wehave pointed this out every time he argues this way, which is all the time. ClearlyElwell is neither listening nor does he want to listen.

Elwell-4 adopts much the same approach to validation as Elwell-3 -- look atcharts after the event, find factors that fit, and conclude that astrology is proven.No matter that we have repeatedly stressed how after-the-event astrology is tooself-selective and too problematic to mean anything, and how it needs



safeguards if these problems are to be avoided. Elwell's response to problematicexamples is to ignore the problems and to carry on providing problematicexamples. The parallel with dogmatic fundamentalism could not be clearer.

Elwell-4 does introduce the useful idea of using Venn circles to show how chart

significators may or may not overlap. One circle contains all the factors that couldindicate X, a second circle contains the factors in a given chart, any overlapshows the factors indicating X. But Elwell fails to note how the number of factorsin the first circle, compared to all possible chart factors, has to be comparablewith the incidence of X in the population. For his example (X = helmet collecting)his chosen significators are around 10,000 times more numerous than they oughtto be, so they are hugely implausible.

In the same vein, Elwell says he expects to find a significator of X in the chart of an X person, but the same significator in another chart does not necessarilymean the person is X, because "in other people the same planetary combination

can signify a range of other things". This is not the traditional view, which sees Xas always meaning the same thing but being affected by the rest of the chart.Note the problem -- if X does not necessarily mean what it is supposed to mean,we can never find out what it is supposed to mean (which would of no useanyway), nor could we ever test it. All we have are tokens of meaning that wecan use any way we like to make convenient "interpretations" after the event tosuit our purpose. At which point the whole idea of astrology becomes problematicfrom beginning to end.

It gets even worse: Suppose we have that circle containing all the factors thatcould indicate X. Overlapping it we have several charts. Which ones are actually

X? Elwell says we cannot tell just from the overlap. So how CAN we tell?Answer: by asking. If any of the circles are X, astrology is proven. If they are not,astrology is still proven. To Elwell this is astrology. To us it is out-of-controlsilliness.

This leaves Elwell's response to the issues we have raised. He says most of theissues "have at least been touched on", which implies (wrongly) that thetouching-on was helpful, and "I may be able to fill in any gaps in what followshere", which gaps he then proceeds to ignore.

Elwell's response to important issues

(1) How can astrology be both obvious and difficult to prove?Elwell-1 says that producing good evidence for astrology is "virtually impossible",yet if you are receptive enough (whatever that means), "astrology will continuallyastonish you." So we are supposed to believe that astrology is both obvious andvery difficult to prove. How can this inconsistency be resolved? Elwell's articlesdo not tell us.



(average orb only 2.5 minutes), nevertheless it was close to that expected bychance, see Recent Advances pages 174-176. The moral is clear: Unless wemake calculations we are in no position to draw conclusions about probabilities.

Elwell-3 adds nothing useful, see (6) below.

Elwell-4 proceeds as if none of the above points had been made. For example hesays "the number and complexity of the factors involved makes probabilitycalculations absurd", which completely ignores the last point above. We wantdetails of the tests we should be applying, not vague speculations, but this is allthat Elwell provides. He suggests testing mundane claims (how? he does notsay), and ideas that astrologers have found to work (like what? he does not say).Similarly Elwell agrees that matching tests "could be instructive", provided theapproach gave a positive result (an approach like what? he does not say). Noticehow negative results are not instructive!

(3) Sun signsElwell-1 would have us believe simultaneously that sun signs are too complex totest yet are so simple that every day they can be observed to work. How can thisinconsistency be resolved? Elwell's articles do not tell us. The nearest we get isin Elwell-2, which stresses that a sun sign's true nature is not a trait but adynamic, an inherent urge to do things in a particular way. For example "Ariesrepresents a self-starting, urgent, forward-directed push, which disturbs thesettled equilibrium." But how does Elwell know this? How could we test whether Aries has this push more than other signs? He does not tell us.

Elwell-2 says the Aries dynamic differs from Aries traits such as assertive, which

could arise in other ways such as Moon in Aries or a prominent Mars. Similarlyyou can meet Sun in Aries people "who would not be described as assertive ...yet all the time they are ineluctably carving out a path for themselves." That is,they cannot escape their path-carving urges. In short, Sun in Aries is path-carving. Forget traits, think of dynamics, and all will be well.

But we must all path-carve in some fashion in order to survive, so the only way totell a genuine Aries from pretenders is if they have Sun in Aries. Which is likesaying Aries people have arms and legs, therefore astrology works. Elwell makesthis muddle even worse by accepting that tropical Taurus (inertia) is the same assidereal Aries (push), so their instinctive urge is simultaneously stop and go.Elwell does not explain how this is possible, nor how he can know all of theabove if signs are too complex to test, which is where we came in.

There are two further problems with Elwell-2: (1) Gauquelin pointed out that aprofession "expresses the pressing need to fulfil oneself in a particular way of lifeor activity", which seems very close to Elwell's idea of a dynamic. If sun signsrepresent dynamics, then Gauquelin's tests of eminent professionals shouldshow sun sign effects. But they do not. (2) If the twelve sign-dynamics were real



attributes of people, they would shine through in factor analyses of humanbehaviour. Large numbers of such analyses have been reported, but there is nohint of any twelve-fold pattern.

Elwell-3 alternates between condemning sun sign studies and advocating them,

leaving us none the wiser. Elwell-4 adds "the qualities denoted by the Sun will beevident only to the degree that we attain some position in which we can shine",which seems to say they will be evident only to the degree that they are evident.It is hard to disagree.

(4) Issues ignored by ElwellBelow are issues from our reply to Elwell-1 but which he has so far ignored:

(a) Elwell-1 questions the authenticity of our yardsticks. So what are theauthentic yardsticks that Elwell uses? How does he know they are authentic?Elwell does not tell us.

(b) He accepts that only the whole chart will do, but he also accepts thatsomething less than the whole chart will do. So at what point will decreasingwholeness not do? Elwell does not tell us. The nearest we get is "In fact you cando astrology without a zodiac."

(c) Elwell refers to connectedness. But how do notions of connectedness lead toclaims that Scorpios are secretive, that Saturn signifies bones, that the birthmoment is the significant one, and so on? After all, quantum theorists talk of connectedness but not of secretive Scorpios. So why those claims and not someother claims? Elwell does not tell us.

(d) Elwell notes that our reality is not all it seems. But if our reality is not all itseems, how is this evidence for astrology? Elwell does not tell us. Perhaps what-he-believes-is-evidence-for-astrology is not what it seems. Next is one of Elwell'sown issues:

(5) Why the impasse?Elwell-1 says the impasse is due to different viewpoints. Astrologers look for connections, whereas the scientist "demands an isolated part, which bereft of itsconnections may be meaningless." But the scientist does not demand an isolatedpart. Much of modern science is interested in connections and arguably always

has been, Newton's theory is a good example.

Elwell-2 adds "In the end people will believe what they want to believe, and thereason may lie less in the facts than in their own personality." So much for hisclaim that astrology is based on observation. In any case this does not apply inscience, where challenges to tradition and dogma are the norm.



Elwell-3 says we "opt for a route that imposes criteria which are arguably atvariance with the subject matter." But our tests included routes suggested byastrologers, so the supposed variance is minimal.

Elwell-4 repeats Elwell-1, saying our "thought process ... is to exclude" while his

"includes more and more". But we do not exclude. We have strongly promotedstudies that ask astrologers to look at the whole chart, and we continue towelcome fresh ideas and approaches from anyone interested in impartialenquiry.

Elwell's argument boils down to science vs astrology, where the supposedreductionism of science is made to seem incompatible with the supposed holismof astrology, thus elevating astrology beyond criticism. No matter that theargument is irrelevant to such basic issues as whether authentic charts workbetter than controls, or whether astrologers actually agree on what a chartmeans. In short, the argument is pure smokescreen. Elwell is only one of many

astrologers seemingly unable to see past their own smoke. As Year Zero says onpage 181, "criticisms of science (no matter how valid they may be) do nothing toprove astrology."

The real explanation for the impasse is Elwell's unwillingness to use safeguards,his evasion of crucial issues, his automatic acceptance of positive studies nomatter how flawed, his automatic rejection of negative studies no matter how wellconducted, his ignorance of science, his unsupported assertions, and hisunrelenting unhelpfulness. He thinks that seeing a match between chart andperson or event proves astrology, as if artifacts did not exist, and if you object heresponds with name calling and abuse.

Does this reflect a genuine interest by Elwell in bridging a gap? We think not. Wecame to these exchanges in good faith but were not met in kind. Indeed, hisarticles are an insult to serious research and to the idea of constructive debate.No wonder there is an impasse.

(6) Towards overcoming Elwell's impasseElwell says we are making the wrong tests, which is why we see astrologynowhere and he sees it everywhere. In (2) above we had asked what would bethe right tests, but Elwell did not tell us. So we asked him to provide the followinginformation in Elwell-3:

(a) Details of one or more tests capable of confirming astrology.(b) Details of the results he would accept as confirming astrology.(c) Details of one or more tests capable of disconfirming astrology.(d) Details of the results he would accept as disconfirming astrology.(e) Names of people we can ask for opinions on Elwell's abcd replies.



What could be simpler? So we had high hopes, but in fact Elwell-3 provides verylittle. On (a) the nearest we get is a suggestion that we look at Sun signs, whichis precisely the sort of isolated-factor test that he previously condemned us for making; and a vague suggestion that we test astrology by looking at charts after the event to see how well they fit, as usual without controls, as if the fatal

problems with this approach did not exist. On (b-e) Elwell is effectively silent.

Elwell-4 cites our asking for details of tests that would confirm or disconfirmastrology, which leads us to expect an answer, but he then sidetracks toanywhere but an actual answer. As already noted, Elwell repeatedly promotesthe "test of experience", where the finding of a match between situation and chartproves astrology. He is claiming that the match cannot be explained by non-astrological factors. As he is the claimant, he (not us) has to show that his claimis valid by controlling non-astrological factors. But he does not do this.

As we have repeatedly stressed, and Elwell has repeatedly ignored, what

matters is whether an authentic chart fits the situation better than a control chart.But as we say on page 142 of Year Zero, "Half a century of research intoastrology, using techniques incomparably more powerful than those available tothe Babylonians and Greeks, has failed to reveal effects (or at least effectscommensurate with astrological claims) beyond those due to ordinary causessuch as errors in reasoning." That is, astrology fails to work once safeguards areapplied to rule out non-astrological factors (we give examples of this in our detailed response to Elwell-4). Elwell disagrees, but since his astrology is besetby non-astrological factors every inch of the way, and since he rejects the use of safeguards, his arguments cannot be taken seriously. This was the case at theend of Elwell-1 and it is still the case. His four articles and 41,000 words have

counted for nothing.

An independent test of Elwell's ideas is summarised later in the website articleArtifacts with a capital A. It makes the same mistakes as Elwell does, but moreclearly, so they are more easily seen.

ConclusionElwell has been fairly challenged to specify tests that meet his requirements, andto amend his own approach to include safeguards, but he does not respond.Depending on how it suits him, astrology is either astonishingly obvious or verydifficult to prove, period. He presents no new arguments for astrology, takes noprecautions against faulty reasoning, evades crucial questions, is unaware of themany ways where he can go wrong, does nothing to rule out artifacts, and turnsa blind eye towards unwelcome evidence. He then proceeds as if none of thismatters. When we object, he responds with name calling, ridicule and abuse. Weourselves could easily answer our own questions directly and concisely. So itseems that Elwell either has no idea how to test his ideas, or the risk of havinghis beliefs exposed as delusion is too great.





Astrology between religion and science

An abridgement of Astrologie als Religion und "Erfahrungswissenschaft" (Astrology between religion and "experience-science") by Gustav-Adolf Schoener, REMID, Marburg 2002. Dr Schoener is at the Department of ReligiousStudies at Hannover University and is noted for his interest in astrology. It isbased on the English translation by Shane Denson atwww.esoterica.msu.edu/VolumeIV/astrology.htm, which has 19,200 wordsincluding a bibliography of 66 items (43 in German) and 80 footnotes.

Abstract -- Astrology assumes that all of nature including the planets has aspiritual essence linked by analogies and sympathies. It claims to provide a

spiritual interpretation of the world based on scientific knowledge about planetarypositions. That is, it wants to be religion and science at the same time. Theabsence of convincing scientific support for astrological claims makes it difficultto see astrology except in religious terms. Religious scholarship does notconsider whether an idea is true or not. It considers only whether people holdsuch ideas, and the effect of those ideas on their experiences. Thus themysterious ideas of astrology can be viewed in the same way as the ideas of lifeafter death, purgatory, karma and reincarnation. The article also briefly describesthe influence of Theosophist and Jungian ideas, and the importance of astrologyin the history of religions. With 12 in-text references most of them in German.

Insofar as it views everything as involving powers from beyond, astrology is areligion. All events in the cosmos and on earth are linked by an invisible bond.But astrology is also very sober and science-like. It divides the heavens intoexact geometries. So its religious understanding of the cosmos is based on exactscientific calculations -- a double nature well known to scholars of religion.

The classical philologist Franz Boll said it concisely: "Astrology wants to bereligion and science at the same time; that marks its essence" (Sternglaube und Sterndeutung: Die Geschichte und das Wesen der Astrologie, Leipzig 1931,page 72).

Early astrologyAstrological ideas formed in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ancient Greece, and thenspread westward. During this early period astrology coagulated into a fixed worldview that recognised gods in the planets and signs, whose existence was provenby comparing life on earth with the movements of the sky. Astrology saw man,nature and cosmos as one single accord that worked by the principle of analogyand sympathy.






In this way, an entire system of analogous relationships between the heavenlybodies and the things on earth was established, and makes up the world view of astrology today. It assumes that all of nature has a spiritual essence throughwhich the analogies work. Those who today cannot believe in this essence areunable to take astrology seriously. Conversely, those who do believe in this

essence have good prospects of accepting at least the world view of astrology.

Such thinking continued through the Middle Ages and beyond. Thus in the 17thcentury the ancient planet gods remained in the beliefs of most people and wereseen as responsible for good and bad harvests, for war and peace, for sicknessand recovery, and so on. When accepted by one-God religions such as Judaism,Christianity, and Islam, these planet gods were understood as instruments of theone God.

Modern esoteric astrologyFirst of all it must be said that, in the 18th and 19th centuries, astrology

disappeared from recognised science and recognised Christian theology.Nevertheless in the late 19th century, in esoteric circles, principally theTheosophical Society founded in 1875, astrology experienced a revival. The TSwas concerned to make known the esoteric doctrines contained in all religionsand to speak against modern natural science, which was seen as incompletebecause it disregarded the spiritual powers at work in nature. All of nature,stones, plants, animals, were once again, as in ancient times, filled withmysterious divine powers. The planets are not just dead, physical bodies, for inthem lie living essences which work through them. Or so the TS held.

These views were promoted notably by Alice Bailey (1880-1949), whose book

Esoteric Astrology explained a certain heavenly hierarchy and revived theastrological world view, and by Alan Leo (1860-1917), whose many works madepossible the transition from esoteric astrology to practical horoscopeinterpretation. Astrology once again claimed to provide a spiritual interpretation of the world while at the same time using scientific knowledge for this purpose. Itsancient concern to be religion and science at the same time was once moreachieved.

But the path was also paved for modern horoscope interpretation in the massmedia, in which the TS background played hardly any role at all. Today everyonecan look up their horoscope for the day or week in a newspaper and check howaccurate it is. Except that the descriptions are always too general to allow such acheck. Nor do they have any proper link with the calculations of seriousastrology.

Modern psychological astrologyIn addition to theosophy, the ideas of the psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961)also paved the way for modern astrology. While trying to decode the symbolicworld of our nightly dreams he came across images that also appear in the myths



and Wouter Hanegraaff, (New Age religion and Western culture: esotericism inthe mirror of secular thought , Leiden 1996), modern astrology is a part of westernesoterica.

Currently, the most widespread form of astrology is the popular one which

presents itself both in daily newspapers and in special esoteric periodicals. Itoften contradicts concrete experience so clearly that every serious foundationmust be denied. It is obvious that this popular astrology is hardly interested in aserious explanation or investigation be it religious or empirical.

As for seriously practiced astrology, we can say that it strives collectively towarda synthesis between "science," "personal experience," and "religion," whichmakes it difficult to see it collectively as any one of these. But for individualastrologies the distinction is clearer. Moreover at some universities in SouthAmerica, Asia, and Africa (for example, in Cairo) and also at the University of Riga in Latvia, astrology is being taught, if only because its importance in the

history of religions is being rediscovered.

As Franz Boll says, "The most important thing about the history of astrology isthat it shows the connection between peoples with better clarity and irrefutabilitythan is achieved anywhere else. Perhaps in astrology alone have East and West,Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists understood one another without difficulty"(ibid page 58).



How astrology can help everyday lifeDigest of a 1984 monograph

Dietrich von Heymann

Abstract -- The original wordy monograph (six times the length of this digest) isa booklet dated February 1984 written by Dr Dietrich von Heymann, a professor of religious studies at the University of Freiburg. He was a member of a workinggroup on Uranian Astrology (an event-oriented astrology that involves eighthypothetical plants), wrote articles for the German astrological magazine

Meridian, and arranged lectures on astrology (at German universities a professor can offer special lectures on any subject), only to suddenly disappear from theastrological scene. The monograph was written (in English) before the findings of research became known in Germany and is thus misleading. Nevertheless itsconclusion (astrology, even if false, brings helpful new opinions on life's troubles)is an example of the thinking then emerging and now well established. Dr Dietrich argues that the astrological mode of thinking is logical, testable, andopen to checking by anybody. The birth chart contains more than enough






combinations to describe situations in life, all based on "as above so below". For example it shows a picture of the person, his mental and physical abilities, hisprofession, marriage, partnerships, children, enterprises, difficulties, preferences,and so on. The picture is special because it is personal and cannot bemanipulated. On the other hand, astrologers disagree on the rules of

interpretation, charts can fit many others as well, and man loses hisresponsibilities to the stars. But even if astrology were based on error or deception, it can still be helpful. What matters is not whether it is true or not, butwhether it brings new viewpoints that are true for us. It forces us to recognisehow life means receiving and accepting, and how this can lead to new activitiesand a satisfying life. In effect astrology is a school of life plans. Its research isimportant for society, economy, and for the single person, and should be pursuednot only privately but also in brainy universities. Despite the monograph's datedviews, its underlying positive attitude towards a no-need-to-be-true astrology stillholds.

The astrological mode of thinkingMany people read their horoscope every day. Bookshops contain astrologybooks. Do readers think there is something in it? To hope it will reveal the futureis against common sense, for man has to form his future himself. Instead,astrology is a scientific mode of thinking, which is just one mode among many.

For example, for economists there is a "marketing mode", for sociologists thereare "social modes", and for psychologists there are "behaviour modes". Butscientists cannot accept the "mode of thinking" of astrology because it does notfit their own "modes of thinking" that are characterized by technique andrationalization. Nevertheless it meets the conditions of scientific thinking, that is,

it is logical, testable, and open to checking by anybody.

Astrological thinking involves recognised rulesCalculation of the birth chart involves a great deal of astronomy, and itsinterpretation involves recognised rules. For example Mars symbolizes activityand Saturn symbolizes slowness. Altogether the birth chart contains more thanenough combinations to describe situations in life. For example it shows a pictureof the person, his mental and physical abilities, and also his profession, marriage,partnerships, children, enterprises, difficulties, preferences, and so on.

It is now clear what a responsibility the astrologer has. If the wish for "wanting toget married" combines with "not being able to marry", how should it be handled?This involves ethical, even educational, points of views, which we cannot explorehere because we have to consider the hypotheses that underly astrology.

The hypotheses of modern astrologyThe hypotheses of astrology can be summarised as follows:



Often professional qualifications, proved by examinations, are not enough for achieving a leading post. Human qualities are also needed. Astrology can helphere to make objective decisions, objective because the person cannotmanipulate the message of his birth chart, nor does it depend on the astrologer with his likes and dislikes; the chart can be proved mathematically, and also

shows the prospects of success.

These examples show how astrology concerns important fundamentals of everyday life. Its research is important for society, economy, and for the singleperson, and should be pursued not only privately but also in brainy universities.


From www.astrology-and-science.com Click here for home page or fast-find index

Cosmos and PsycheThe well-travelled road to disaster

Geoffrey Dean

The original review, of which this is a much-expanded version, appeared as"Saving a disenchanted world with astrology" in Skeptical Inquirer 30(4),July/August 2006.

Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World ViewBy Richard Tarnas. Penguin Viking, 2006.

ISBN 0-670-03292-1. 569 pp. Hardcover, $29.95.

Abstract -- Richard Tarnas is a professor of philosophy and depth psychology inSan Francisco. He is convinced that astrology works, and that it promises anescape from the disenchanting scientific world view. His claim is based on thirtyyears of research with birth charts and historical events, examples of which fillthe major part of this thick book. The examples are drawn from philosophical,religious, literary and scientific sources and involve two kinds of comparisons,namely historical events versus aspects between the outer planets Jupiter through Pluto, and prominent people versus their birth charts. In each case heexplains what the particular archetype means, and then shows how it can be

discerned in the events or births that are coincident with it. But his approach hasfatal defects. Mostly he looks at isolated factors, often with very wide orbs, andnot the whole chart. Birth data and birth charts are rarely given. No controls areused despite being essential. Similar work by other astrologers is generallyignored and scientific studies are dismissed -- even Gauquelin rates only apassing mention. Despite his erudition, Tarnas seems incapable of writingconcisely or vigorously, or of organising his material coherently. Once the noiseis removed the flaws become obvious and the case falls apart. Unless you see


http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage2.htm







the combination of paralysing unreadability, inferential incompetence, andunfounded conclusions as a virtue, give this book a miss.

Thanks largely to science, argues Tarnas, we live in a meaningless disenchantedworld. But we can be saved by astrology, which offers "a royal road across the

threshold of the disenchanted universe into a living cosmos of profound unfoldingmeaning and purpose." He says his claim is based on thirty years of research,examples of which fill the major part of this thick book.

Passion of the Western MindAnyone familiar with astrological writings will have heard such claims before. Thistime the difference is that Swiss-born (of American parents) Tarnas is a professor of philosophy and depth psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studiesin San Francisco. His 1991 best-seller The Passion of the Western Mind:Understanding the Ideas that have Shaped our World View has been adopted asa text by many American universities. His views would therefore seem to deserve

attention.

According to the Institute's website http://www.ciis.edu, the Institute is anaccredited university "that connects the spiritual and practical dimensions of intellectual life." It has about 60 faculty, and about 1000 students typically agedaround 30, of whom 75% are female. Tarnas teaches courses in archetypalstudies, astrology and esoteric studies, history of Western thought and culture,philosophy, and depth psychology (approaches based on the unconscious andon Freudian psychoanalysis).

In an interview in The Mountain Astrologer (Dec 2005/Jan 2006, 45-51), with a

preamble from which the above royal-road quote is taken (p.43), Tarnas saysPassion started out as a history of astrological ideas and ended up as a history of Western world views. Passion divides world views broadly into (1) Greek, from500 BC, where everything reflects fundamentals such as the Good and theBeautiful, and opposites such as light/dark, many personified as gods. (2)Christian, peaking in the Middle Ages around 500-1500, where the church andholy scriptures have absolute authority, and to love Christ is better than allknowledge. (3) Scientific, roughly 1700 onwards, where all effects have causesthat can be discovered by proper investigation, and man, not God, is in charge.Passion then hints at a coming world view based on "the emergence of adialectically integrated, participatory consciousness reconnected to the universal"(p.440), but gives no further explanation.

However, in an article in Astrological Journal 33(4), 226-232, July/August 1991,the year Passion was published, Tarnas gives an explanation. We are peripheral(Copernicus) to a universe that is impersonal (Descartes), and unknowable(Kant), so we feel alienated. But astrologically we are one with the universe andare thus not alienated at all. So astrology provides "a cosmic avenue to a newworld view." Indeed, "Only astrology so totally threatens the Bastille of the old



regime. It is testable. And every one of us can test it in our own lives -- and, if theevidence proves persuasive, every one of us can glimpse a new universe"(p.232). Remember that statement, for we shall return to it.

Cosmos and Psyche

In his new book Tarnas slowly confirms that Passion was hinting at astrology. Hesees the modern world as disenchanted, "voided of any spiritual, symbolic, or expressive dimension" (p.20). He believes "that the disenchantment of themodern universe is the direct result of a simplistic epistemology and moralposture spectacularly inadequate to the depths, complexity, and grandeur of thecosmos" (p.40).

Such a world view serves Tarnas's purpose in promoting astrology as an escapefrom disenchantment. But it is not the world described by people such as CarlSagan and Richard Dawkins, where science provides the very enchantment thatTarnas wishes to deny. To quote Sagan:

"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And inaddition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has theadditional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true." (From TheBurden of Skepticism, in Basil R (ed), Not Necessarily the New Age: Critical Essays, Prometheus 1988, pp.361-371)

Nor is it the world described by many secular philosophers who argue that all themeaning we need in life can be found in the way we lead our lives. Evenreligiously oriented philosophers such as John Cottingham have providedalternatives that avoid Tarnas's assumptions about disenchantment. Indeed,

modern journals such as Science & Spirit address these very issues, as doesMichael Shermer in his recent booklet The Soul of Science (seewww.skeptic.com). Shermer is a former born-again Christian and now anagnostic (one who sees God-related issues as insoluble). He is also co-founder in 1992 of the Skeptics Society and publisher of their Skeptic magazine. In hisbooklet he asks "Can we find spiritual meaning and purpose in a scientificworldview?" He defines spirituality in the same way as Tarnas does, as a way of being in the world, a sense of one's place in the cosmos, a link with somethingthat extends beyond ourselves. His answer is Yes. He points out that there aremany sources of spirituality. Religion may be the most common but it is not theonly one. Anything that generates a sense of awe may be a source of spirituality.Science does this very well.

Shermer further illustrates how science can be a source of spirituality in his bookHow we believe: The search for God in an age of science (Freeman, New York2000), which among other things is based on a survey of 1650 members of theSkeptics Society and a random sample of 960 ordinary Americans. Hisconcluding words are:



"But for me, and not just for me, a world without monsters, ghosts, demons, andgods unfetters the mind to soar to new heights, to think unthinkable thoughts, toimagine the unimaginable, to contemplate infinity and eternity knowing that noone is looking back. ... To share in the sublimity of knowledge generated by other human minds, and perhaps even to make a tiny contribution toward that body of

knowledge that will be passed down through the ages -- part of the cumulativewisdom of a single species on a tiny planet orbiting an ordinary star on theremote edge of a not-so-unusual galaxy, itself a member of a cluster of galaxiesbillions of light years from nowhere, is sublime beyond words. ... Skeptics andscientists cannot experience the numinous? Nonsense. You do not need aspiritual power to experience the spiritual. You do not need to be mystical toappreciate the mystery. Standing beneath a canopy of galaxies, atop a pillar of reworked stone, or inside a transept of holy light, my unencumbered soul wasfree to love without constraint, free to use my senses to enjoy all the pleasuresand endure all the pains that come with such freedom. I was enfranchised for life,emancipated from the bonds of restricting tradition, and unyoked from the rules

written for another time in another place for another people. I was now free to tryto live up to that exalted moniker -- Homo sapiens -- wise man." (pp.237-238)

Unfortunately contrary views such as these are not discussed by Tarnas, soreaders are immediately led astray. Instead, both here and in Passion, Tarnasargues that science has failed us due to the rise of pollution, social alienation,and so on. Greek slaves and heretics being burned at the stake might not agree.

Jung and synchronicityTarnas then proceeds by way of depth psychology, Jung, and synchronicity toastrology, a word not mentioned until page 61. Nor does it appear on the jacket.

The mention of Jung and synchronicity seems to be obligatory in any astrologybook wishing to appear respectable, but Tarnas (like every other such author)fails to identify the problems that emerge on a careful inspection of Jung'sCollected Works (the relevant volume is volume 8, 1960) and Letters (volume 2,1976).

For example, Jung defines synchronicity as a meaningful coincidenceinexplicable by chance, but he gives no probability calculations to support thisview. In fact the probability of experiencing a meaningful coincidence is quitehigh. Suppose two people compare their cars, jobs, etc. If each theme, eg makeof car or type of job, has N categories, eg 10 makes of car and 10 types of job,only 0.35N themes are needed for a 50% chance of at least one coincidence,and 1.5N themes for a 95% chance. Because categories can be multipliedalmost indefinitely (car colour, make, age, number of seats, place of purchase,and so on), as can themes, striking coincidences of one kind or another arealmost inevitable.

See Diaconis P and Mosteller R (1989). Methods for studying coincidence,Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, 853-861.



(p.63), apparently without also noticing that many other new ideas such as thoseuncovered by research into astrology (see later) were not compatible with it.

But the clincher came when he started looking at the birth charts of himself andothers, and at historical events. Like everyone else who does this without

controls, he was "deeply impressed by the range and complex precision of theempirical correspondences" (p.65), even though much was "vague, overspecific,or quaintly irrelevant" (p.66). He adds:

"Certainly much astrological theory and practice entirely lacked critical rigor. Itseemed to me that considerable waste, misdirection, and even harm occurred asa result of many astrological teachings and consultations. Nevertheless, a certaincore of the astrological tradition -- above all, the planetary correspondences withspecific archetypal principles, and the importance of major geometricalalignments between the planets -- appeared to have a substantial empiricalbasis. ... The coincidence between planetary positions and appropriate

biographical and psychological phenomena was in general so precise andconsistent as to make it altogether impossible for me to regard the intricatepatterning as merely the product of chance." (p.66)

Like Jung, Tarnas gives no probability calculations to support his views. Nor doeshe consider other ways by which apparent coincidences can arise such asbiassed inference, neglect of hidden persuaders, nonfalsifiability, and retro-fittingafter the event. More later on the consequences of this.

The nature of astrologyTarnas describes his observed correspondences as follows:

"A key to this emerging perspective, I came to realize, was the concept of archetype as developed by Jung ... Only as I more fully appreciated themultidimensional and multivalent nature of archetypes -- their formal coherenceand consistency that could give rise to a plurality of meaning and possiblemanifestation -- did I begin to discern the precise nature of astrologicalcorrelations. ... Compared with, for example, the aims and modus operandi of various forms of intuitive divination and clairvoyance, with which astrology inearlier eras was often systematically conjoined, the essential structure of thisemerging astrological paradigm appeared to be focused not on the prediction of specific concrete outcomes but rather on the precise discernment of archetypaldynamics and their complex unfolding in time." (p.67)

Finally, after thirty years of looking at charts:

"I have become convinced, after the most painstaking investigation and criticalassessment of which I am capable, that there does in fact exist a highlysignificant -- indeed a pervasive -- correspondence between planetary



movements and human affairs, and that the modern assumption to the contraryhas been erroneous." (pp.68-69)

As above so below = a new world viewTarnas dismisses the idea that planets could have physical causes such as those

due to radiation or gravitation. Instead he favours the idea of as above so below where the universe is: "a fundamentally and irreducibly interconnected whole,informed by creative intelligence and pervaded by patterns of meaning and order that extend through every level, and that are expressed through a constantcorrespondence between astronomical events and human events." (p.77)

In such a view the planets do not cause anything, they merely indicate, just as aclock indicates time but does not cause it: "It seems that a fundamental new kindof causality must be posited to account for the observed phenomena. ... anarchetypal causality that in crucial respects possesses Platonic and Aristoteliancharacteristics, yet is far more complex, fluid, multivalent, and co-creatively

participatory than previous conceptual models -- whether from physics,philosophy, or astrology -- have been able to accommodate." (p.78)

The result was his firm belief that astrology promises "the emergence of a new,genuinely integral world view," one that "can reunite the human and the cosmic,and restore transcendent meaning to both" (p.490).

ArchetypesThe archetypes that Tarnas claims to have validated are essentially theprinciples behind each planetary god as given with minor variations in astrologytextbooks, for example Jupiter expansion, Saturn limitation, Uranus change,

Neptune intangibles, Pluto intensity . Unfortunately Tarnas fails to point out someof the problems inherent in the idea of archetypes:

One problem with an archetype is that it cannot be examined directly, only itsimage, which varies between cultures and between people in the same culture,even though the underlying archetype remains the same. This looseness makesit possible to fit any archetype to almost any image, which is seen by proponentsas a strength. For example Marie-Louise von Franz, one of Jung's co-workers,says "If one knows enough mythology one can make a completely consistentweb from every great archetype to every other great archetype" (On Divinationand Synchonicity , Inner City Books, Toronto 1980, p.63). But this is precisely theproblem, for if every archetype somehow merges with every other archetype(even opposites such as Jupiter and Saturn merge by virtue of beingmeaningless without each other, just as day is meaningless unless there is alsonight), then almost anything can be proven, making the doctrine impossible tofalsify.

Another problem is Jung's justification for archetypes in the first place. He writesof patients who, with no obvious knowledge of other cultures, nevertheless had



dreams showing striking parallels with myths from other cultures. He concludesthat the dreams arose from sources outside of their personal experience, hencethe need for archetypes and a collective unconscious. But people may disowntheir inner happenings (eg "I don't have the brains for that idea") because thehappenings can arrive subconsciously and therefore seem (incorrectly) to have

an independent existence. So archetypes are not needed to explain the dreamsof Jung's patients. Nor are they needed to explain similarities between myths. Allcultures face the same basic problems of finding food and shelter, avoidingenemies, raising children, and so on, which means that similarities in their mythsare inescapable. Especially when loose imagery is part of the deal.

The practical outcome of these problems will be familiar to any reader of astrology books, and of Cosmos and Psyche: Being an archetype requires thatits meaning be blurred to cover all possible outcomes until it reads like a entry inRoget's thesaurus. Take Jupiter expansion for example. Here is Tarnas's "brief summary" of the Jupiter archetype:

"Jupiter: the principle of expansion, magnitude, growth, elevation, superiority; thecapacity and impulse to enlarge and grow, to ascend and progress, to improveand magnify, to incorporate that which is external, to make greater wholes, toinflate; to experience success, honor, advancement, plenitude, abundance,prodigality, excess, surfeit; the capacity or inclination for magnanimity, optimism,enthusiasm, exuberance, joy, joviality, liberality, breadth of experience,philosophical and cultural aspiration, comprehensiveness and largeness of vision, pride, arrogance, aggrandizement, extravagance; fecundity, fortune, andprovidence; Zeus, the king of the Olympian gods." (pp.90-91)

Ironically his brief summary for Saturn limitation is more than twice as long.Indeed, when pairs or triplets of planets are involved, the resulting collectivearchetype requires many pages to even briefly describe the possible outcomes.More later on the consequences of this.

The way in which these archetypes work is illustrated by a massively eruditearray of examples that with notes occupy more than 400 pages. The examplesare drawn from philosophical, religious, literary and scientific sources and involvetwo kinds of comparisons, namely historical events versus aspects between theouter planets Jupiter through Pluto, and prominent people versus their birthcharts. In each case Tarnas explains what the particular archetype means, andthen shows how it can be discerned in the events or births that are coincidentwith it.

Tarnas does not mention that his approach was established in his monographPrometheus the Awakener , written in 1979, where he notes that the acceptedprinciple behind Uranus is more like the mythical Prometheus (who promoteschange) than the mythical Ouranos (who resists change). When he looked atcharts and events where Uranus was involved, in the same way as he now does



in Cosmos and Psyche (which includes this early work), he found strongconfirmation of the Prometheus archetype. A later version of this monographwork appears in Astrological Journal 1989, 31(4) 187-196 and 31(5), 243-250,

Archetypes in historical events

As an example: In Uranus-Pluto cycles the archetype is Pluto intensity intensifying Uranus change, or alternatively Uranus change liberating Plutointensity , indicating radical social change and rebellion against authority. Like anyother planetary pair it manifests when the planets are in major aspect to eachother, especially the conjunction, square, and opposition. Conjunctions occurredin 1845-1856 (upheavals throughout Europe, women's suffrage, radicalsocialism, travel breakthroughs eg railroads), and 1960-1972 (women's lib, blackcivil rights, Mao's Little Red Book, space exploration). Oppositions occurred in1787-1798 (French Revolution, abolition of slavery, start of feminist movement,continuation of Industrial Revolution), and 1896-1907 (upheavals in America,Boxer rebellion in China, suffragettes in England). It was the close fit and precise

timing of these astrological events that seemed to require "a fresh assessment of the ancient astrological vision of the universe, far beyond what conventionalmodern explanations could provide" (p.204).

Similarly for Saturn-Pluto, where the archetype is Pluto intensity intensifyingSaturn limitation, or alternatively Saturn limitation restricting Pluto intensity ,indicating widespread conservatism and repression. A conjunction occurred in1913-1916 (World War 1), a square in 1939-1941 (World War 2) and 1954-1957(Suez crisis), and an opposition in 2000-2004 (New York 9/11). It can manifest as"genocide, ethnocide, and mass killings" (p.217), and as "resolve to reestablishtraditional values" (p.227), so you can have it both ways.

Next come Jupiter-Uranus (radical change and creativity), Uranus-Neptune(spiritual change as in 1913 when Steiner founded anthroposophy), and Saturn-Neptune (materialistic Saturn conflicts with spiritual Neptune) indicating either theenlightening of materialism or the dimming of spirituality, so again you can have itboth ways. A Saturn-Neptune conjunction occurred in 2005 (Asian tsunami, NewOrleans flooding), or given the traditional connection of Neptune with the sea,"death caused by water" (p.471).

Archetypes in birth chartsEveryone has transitting Uranus opposition their natal Uranus around ages 40-44, indicating sudden changes or bursts of creativity, for example Descartespublished his Discourse on Method , Newton published his Principia, and Freudbegan writing his The Interpretation of Dreams (p.112). Similarly everyone hastransitting Saturn conjunct their natal Saturn around ages 28-30, indicating amore practical turn of events such as a major career appointment (Kepler appointed Imperial Mathematician), a first major achievement (Marie Curiediscovers radium), entering one's mature calling (Mark Twain publishes his first



work), meeting a mentor (Jung begins correspondence with Freud), or simplymoving house (Leonardo moves to Milan) (pp.120-121).

Tarnas considers the possibility that such events might be expected anyway atsuch ages. But the exactness of the timing, and the correspondence with the

planet transitted (thus Uranus transitting natal Venus differs from Uranustransitting natal Mars), leads him to discount that possibility (p.114). He adds "Ihave seldom researched a biography for which I had sufficiently detailed recordsof the major inner and outer events in a person's life where I did not find theabove patterning readily visible" (p.125). Which seems unremarkable given thediversity of archetypes and of admissable events.

Archetypes are also shown by aspects between planets in the birth chart. Peoplewith Sun conjunct Uranus (eg the freedom-loving poet Shelley) tended to showarchetypal Uranus traits and those with Sun conjunct Saturn (eg the pessimisticphilosopher Schopenhauer) tended to show archetypal Saturn traits. However,

Tarnas stresses that "any given archetypal complex ... could be embodied in anextraordinary diversity of ways ... Not every person with a Sun-Uranusconjunction precisely resembles Shelley, nor are all those born with Sun-Saturnconjunctions just like Schopenhauer" (p.128).

Nevertheless, despite this diversity, Tarnas could always recognise theunderlying archetype. For example a Sun-Uranus aspect might describe a"leading feminist pioneer or a free-wandering irresponsible missing parent, amajor scientific innovator or a harmless eccentric, a celebrated cultural liberator or a lifelong juvenile delinquent" (p.128), while a Sun-Saturn aspect mightdescribe a "person noted for maturity of judgment, discipline, self-reliance, and

comfort with solitude, or in a person prone to depression, loneliness, and rigidity"(p.128). Astrology showed the archetypes but not the specific way they wouldmanifest. Therefore "the expression of a specific archetypal complex in a virtuallylimitless variety of forms is, I believe, not only characteristic of all astrologicalcorrespondence but essential to it" (p.128). In other words it is like being sure of seeing faces in clouds, but never which face nor which cloud. (In case youwondered, the closest aspect in Tarnas's own chart is Sun trine Uranus.)

Salvation by astrologyTarnas is confident that his findings are valid, and that astrology provides "acomprehensive conceptual structure that makes intelligible the complexities of human experience in a manner unmatched by any other approach I haveencountered" (p.133). Astrology "can play a crucial role in the positive unfoldingof our collective future" (p.489). It saves us from disenchantment and promises"the emergence of a new, genuinely integral world view", one that "can reunitethe human and the cosmic, and restore transcendent meaning to both" (p.490).

Tarnas dismisses skeptical views. For example he notes that astrology's badpress is due to numerous factors including newspaper horoscopes, fatalistic



implications, and skeptics "who do not deeply examine what they zealouslyreject" (p.138). Astrology's acceptance requires "a flexible combination of criticalquestioning, freedom from a predisposition of closed skepticism, and patience"(p.459), especially as "The fundamental skepticism of the modern andpostmodern mind ... has become a permanently confining end in itself, an

armored state of intellectual constraint and spiritual unfulfillment" (p.486). He isdismayed that skeptics "assume the entire universe is ultimately a soulless void"(p.40) when astrology so clearly indicates the opposite.

Two comments here. First, by definition no true skeptic assumes anything inadvance. If they do view the universe as a soulless void, it is the consequence of empirical tests subject to disconfirmation by further tests or by criticalphilosophical review. Second, the implication that an open mind and proper investigation will automatically support Tarnas's views is demonstrably wrong.

Proper investigation

In 1974 it was precisely with this attitude that Arthur Mather and I, with the help of over fifty relevant experts, began a critical review of the astrological and relatedliterature. Like Tarnas we had observed striking correspondences with birthcharts and were convinced that it deserved scientific investigation. Eventually wemanaged to summarise material from 310 astrology books (out of over 1000consulted), 410 astrology journal articles, and 300 scientific works. The resultwas Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976 , a book of 608 pages and 1020 references published in 1978 and now long out of print (and

just as well because it dated very quickly, see Origins under the Historical sectionon this website).

We concluded: "The picture emerging suggests that astrology works, but seldomin the way or to the extent that it is said to work" (p.7). We uncovered manyreasons such as the Barnum effect for thinking we might be fooling ourselves intoseeing validity where none existed. Even events (which are about asstraighforward as you can get because they either happen or don't happen)proved problematic. For example Chester Kemp, an astrologer renowned for precise working, compared the chart of a fictitious person (CS Forester's HoratioHornblower) with more than 30 fictitious major events, all of which fitted withprecision and striking symbolism. Nevertheless we noted that "charts are often soexactly right in such unlikely ways that coincidence or gullibility would seem to beruled out" (p.25). There were also a number of seemingly positive findings suchas those of Vernon Clark (matching tests), John Nelson (radio quality), JohnAddey (harmonics), and Michel Gauquelin (planetary effects) that warrantedfurther investigation. Much was uncertain but the door on astrology was far frombeing closed.

Thus far our views were essentially the same as Tarnas's. But they changedonce we (and others) looked more closely at the ways we might be foolingourselves. We also checked the seemingly positive findings using computers and



meta-analytic techniques, none of which were available in the 1970s. Thissubsequent work occupied us for nearly 30 years. In effect we applied theprocedures and precautions that have long been accepted in experimentalpsychology and which Tarnas has so far failed to apply.

Today the uncertainties about astrology have mostly disappeared and the door ismuch closer to being closed. The new procedures and precautions uncoveredonly artifacts (non-astrological effects) that we and others had mistakenly seenas astrological effects. Hundreds of rigorous tests found not a single effect sizecommensurate with astrological claims. As a result we had to change our previous positive view. As Rudolf Smit shows in his autobiographical Astrology my passion on this website under Applied Astrology, a change of view can betraumatic for believers in astrology. But the chips fall where they may. It is noweasy to see huge flaws in Tarnas's book.

Huge flaws

Tarnas's thirty-year labour and familiarity with diverse sources is impressive, andhis aims are clearly noble. But others in the field with equally noble aims havelaboured just as long and have produced just as impressive a volume of findings(Witte, Ebertin, Barbault, Carter, Addey, Harvey, Lewis, Church of Light, to name

just a few), using the same looking-at-charts approach but with conclusions thatoften conflict with Tarnas's. For example Charles Carter, the leading Britishastrologer of his time, did not agree that astrology can give only archetypalresults, just as his successor John Addey did not agree that astrology isuntestable by science. My point is not whether these views are right or wrong butthat Tarnas's book fails to note that he is on a well-travelled path, so it gives thewrong impression that he is some sort of pioneer.

For example, Tarnas tells us that he carefully read through many astrology booksincluding Mundane Astrology by Michael Baigent, Nick Campion and CharlesHarvey (Aquarian 1984, updated 1992), but he does not tell us that this workcomprehensively sets out the links he claims to have discovered, and more. Theabove authors also identify the real pioneer in this field, whose name and workare not mentioned by Tarnas: "the resurrection and systematic reconstruction of mundane astrology on a methodical basis is due almost entirely to the industriesof one man, Andre Barbault ... [who since the 1940s] saw the absolute necessityof continuously monitoring methods and approaches by putting them to the testof published prophecy" (1984 pp.167-168). They add that an analysis of Barbault's predictions for 1965, which included the Algerian war, by JacquesReverchon in his self-published Valeur des Jugements et Pronostics

Astrologiques (1971) found them to be characterised by vague generalities, hazylanguage, and a level of accuracy no better than that achieved by informedguessing: "what most surely appears from this analysis is the perfect inanity of the astrological undertaking ... what was announced did not happen, whathappened was not announced" (1971 p.13). As shown below, similar wrongpredictions by other astrologers are not hard to find:



both under blind conditions, show when meta-analysed no evidence to supportTarnas's claims.

See Hyman R (1977). Cold reading: How to convince strangers that you know allabout them. The Zetetic (now Skeptical Inquirer ), 1(2), 18-37. For an example of

reversed readings in astrology, see Dean G (1987). Does astrology need to betrue? Part 2. Skeptical Inquirer 11(3), 257-273. For examples on this website of perfect fits from wrong charts see Effect sizes under Doing Scientific Research.

In fact tests have found that astrologers do not usefully agree on what a birthchart means in the first place. Thus the mean agreement between astrologers in28 studies involving a total of 559 astrologers reading a total of 762 birth chartswas a negligible r = 0.10, whereas the minimum agreement generally acceptedby psychologists for procedures applied to individuals (as astrology is) is around r = 0.80, where perfect agreement is r = 1.00. Such results are especiallysignificant here because tests of agreement require no assumptions about

validity (so the usual quibbles about birth data accuracy do not apply), andbecause they are ideally suited to the "archetypal frame of reference" that Tarnasclaims is not possible to test. Surveys of the scientific evidence for and againstastrology, and of the issues they raise, can be found elsewhere on this website.

In short, there are recognised ways of analysing Tarnas's kind of data for thecorrelations he claims to have found, but he ignores them in favour of waysknown to give misleading results. So there is good reason to dismiss Tarnas'sconclusions until such time as he adopts the proper procedures and precautions.

In his interview Tarnas says his courses and seminars in archetypal astrology

"have been extraordinarily popular with the students and have influenced the restof their studies in psychology, philosophy, or cosmology," which shows how"astrology represents an intellectually rich and rigorous mode of inquiry" (p.51).But if his courses are as unrigorous as his book, their popularity is unsurprising.You need only watch American TV to see how easily enchantment beats criticalthinking.

Other reviewsFrom December 2005 through May 2006 a total of two editorial reviews and 23customer reviews of Cosmos and Psyche had appeared on www.amazon.com.The editorial reviews were generally guarded: "a tough sell with the morescientifically hardheaded" (

Publishers Weekly ), "heavy going ... a book for those

who are as intrigued by and as convinced of astrology's validity as Tarnas"(Booklist ).

Of the 23 customer reviews, three were negative: "pure idiocy, boring, bailout [ienonfalsifiable] conceptions." The rest were positive: "compellingly rational,stunning patterns of significance, very well researched, magnificent, exciting andbrilliantly woven, one of the greatest books of all time, breaks new ground, many



his spare-time position as editor of the British astrological research journalCorrelation. Even if astrology is not your pet subject, Smit's sacking provides asalutary look at paranormal politics and what happens when science is unable todeliver the support required by vested interests.

The story begins in 1958, when research-minded British astrologers founded theAstrological Association (AA), specifically to encourage research. Its aimsincluded "to enlarge the knowledge of Astrology in a scientific spirit", and wereaccompanied by a brief statement urging the use of the scientific approach for "distinguishing factual truth from error, for checking theories". The AA was notthe first astrological research body but it was to become the most active, themost expert, and easily the most important.

Twenty years later its findings were included in Recent Advances in Natal Astrology , a massive critical review (608 pages, 1020 references) preparedunder the aegis of the AA by Geoffrey Dean with Arthur Mather and 52 others

from 10 countries. Nothing like it had appeared before and it quickly became thebible for astrology researchers world-wide. Its conclusion, "The picture emergingsuggests that astrology works, but seldom in the way or to the extent that it issaid to work", has been repeatedly confirmed by subsequent research andrepeatedly ignored by most astrologers.

In 1979 the interest raised by Recent Advances led the AA to found an ongoingseries of London research conferences, and in 1981 the research journalCorrelation was established. Previously research findings had been published(albeit infrequently) in the AA's Astrological Journal , now generally regarded asthe leading English-language journal devoted to serious astrology, with nearly 30

shelf-inches of issues to date.

Correlation was the world's first refereed scientific journal devoted to astrologicalresearch. It accepted "articles reporting empirical research into astrology, reviewarticles, and those discussing methodological, conceptual and philosophicalissues relating to astrology" with the proviso that "all submissions are refereed for content and clarity of expression." Definitely not your average astrology journal.Its circulation eventually reached about 600, which compares favorably with themedian circulation for scientific journals in parapsychology (about 1000) or inastronomy or psychology (about 2000). But it remained generally unavailable inacademic libraries, so its contents (about 6 shelf-inches of issues to date, whichinclude about 70 empirical studies) are little known. Correlation inspired other research journals, notably in France, the USA and Holland, where one non-refereed precursor had been founded in 1977 by Rudolf Smit. But it remained theonly one with high standards.

Under the editorship of Simon Best (1981-1992) and Rudolf Smit (1993-1998), itstwice-yearly issues achieved commendable levels of scientific rigor andimpartiality, which ultimately led to the political problems described later. One



frequent scientist contributor reported "never did I feel that articles with negativeresults were returned for revision or rejected ... AA organivers never made mefeel like an outsider ... whereas other [skeptic] journals provided many instancesof prejudiced, dogmatic and restrictive behavior to people of the wrong faith". Nomean achievement.

Indeed Correlation under Rudolf Smit had, in my opinion, become one of themost impressive and open-minded journals in existence, the model example of a

journal in any area (and I do not say this lightly). Thus few if any of the journalsput out by a particular school of thought such as the psychoanalytic journals havethe rigor or the integrity to publish the kind of searching articles that Smit did. Toappreciate his achievement one need only look at supposedly serious astrology

journals such as The Mountain Astrologer , where informed debate isconspicuously absent (and, according to insider sources, actively discouraged).

Unfortunately Smit's open-minded stance conflicted with the underlying attitude

of most astrologers, which is that research should support (not challenge)existing beliefs and practices, so only positive results are welcome. But theresearch results submitted to Correlation tended to be negative, and even if positive they were never commensurate with the claims of astrologers. Whenever promising areas were investigated, such as Nelson's radio propagation claims,Bradley's link between rainfall and Jupiter, Mayo's zodiac zig-zag, Clark's chartmatching experiments, Addey's harmonics, Gauquelin's link with character traits,the classic time twins George III and Samuel Hemmings, and more recently thesun-sgn claims of Gunter Sach and a Manchester University marketing study,serious flaws were uncovered and the promise disappeared. When combinedwith studies published elsewhere the result was a compelling case against the

theory and practice of astrology.

But it got worse. To astrologers even more upsetting were the key astrologicaldiscourses begun under Rudolf Smit in 1994, in which astrologers and scientistssystematically surveyed key topics in astrological research. The first topic was "Isthe scientific approach relevant to astrology?" Over 100 potential debaters werecontacted, of which eventually twenty-five astrologers and eight scientistscollaborated on a core discourse and then provided commentaries. The generalconclusion was unremarkable, namely that the scientific approach is relevantonly where claims are testable, but the debate itself was ground-breaking. Never before had astrologers and scientists tried so hard to resolve their differences.Readers in favour of research were delighted ("excellent ... a huge job that waswell done"), but not the AA, whose secretary claimed it was "of little interest ... if further issues ... continue in the same vein, the subscription to Correlation will behalved."

Subsequent astrological overviews involved the same collaborative approachand more AA displeasure. The topics were conceptual problems (devastating),theories of astrology (none credible), and biases of human judgment (neglected



by astrologers but readily explaining their beliefs). No doubt the AA wasdispleased because the surveys seemed to deny even the promise of futurepromises. Furthermore the AA had revised its aims, the links with research nowbeing "to encourage ... members to undertake astrological research ... for thegood of astrology" (no scientific qualifier here), and "to enhance ... the good

name of astrology among ... the scientific community" (which seems to leave noroom for negative results). The once pro-science views of the AA had becomeanti-science or at best lukewarm, so rigorous scientific surveys were nowunwelcome.

The final straw occurred in 1997 when in issue 16(2) pages 40-56, GeoffreyDean made a rigorous critique of the twenty-nine entries to a "Truth of Astrology"essay competition sponsored by various bodies including the AA. He concludedthat even the prize-winning essay "abandons scholarship and clear thinking infavour of muddle and misrepresentation", so until astrologers become better informed about research there was little hope of their ever gaining recognition in

scientific circles. Astrologers were outraged. They responded not with letters inwhich each criticism was systematically refuted (only one letter was received andeven that was hopelessly muddled) but with tearful complaints to the AA. Eventhough the focus on "truth" invited the scientific approach, they failed to adopt it.[You can read Dean's critique on this website under Doing Scientific Research]

The AA immediately called editor Rudolf Smit to account. They argued that thescientific approach to astrology was simplistic and misleading because astrologyoperates on principles outside those of known science, so non-scientificapproaches such as spiritual or postmodernist should be favored. Their argumentignored the contrary findings of the collaborative surveys, and was a clear sign

that from now on only vested interests would matter. The AA also argued thatGeoffrey Dean's input was too extensive and too critical, which among other things supposedly discouraged potential contributors, so he should be bannedfrom at least two subsequent issues. But, worst of all, the AA demanded that for the final refereeing of Dean's articles they would have the last word.

Hence, if they did not like them, Dean's articles could not be published, period,whatever their quality. So much for editorial independence. (This is the sameGeoffrey Dean whose two-part critique of astrology in Skeptical Inquirer 1986-87was reprinted in the Hundredth Monkey Phenomena anthology, where it wasdescribed as "classic and thorough ... hailed as perhaps the best ever done" anda main contributor to the entry on astrology in Prometheus Books' Encyclopediaof the Paranormal .)

Smit accepted the first argument even though postmodern and spiritualapproaches seemed irrelevant to the testable claims made in astrology books.But he rejected the second as censorship and an attack on scientific integrity.The AA disagreed. In due course they sacked him and appointed Pat Harris, an



astrologer and PhD student at Southampton University studying the applicationof astrology to health psychology.

The AA gave an assurance that Correlation under Harris would continue with thesame intellectual rigor as before. This seemed at odds with their previous

arguments so I asked for a clarification. In condensed form my questions and theAA's answers were as follows:

Q: If little will change in content, why change editor?A: We have a new editor and little will change in content.

Q: If the problem is too many critical articles, how will the new editor solve it? Bycensorship?A: Some people are irritated by criticism.

When it was pointed out that their answers evaded the issue, they responded

with further evasion, and when challenged still further evasion. Evidently the AApublicly welcome science for its prestige but secretly reject it for its rigor. In myview the AA should now abandon any pretense that Correlation (or any other AApublication) is genuinely scientific. In fact there seems no need even for pretense-- the first issue of Correlation under its new editor reveals such a disastrous lossof rigor that, if it continues, can only provide ammunition for critics. Quite thereverse of the AA's aim of enhancing "the good name of astrology among ... thescientific community".

My conclusion is this: Half a century of research has made it clear that noastrological body could embrace science and stay in business. It would be like

introducing devil worship into theology. That no national astrological bodyincluding the AA has officially rejected the (at best) extremely problematic notionof sun signs is evidence enough that politics and membership fees come beforescientific integrity. I should add that this conclusion affords no pleasure whatever.The efforts of the early AA in promoting scientific research into astrology deservethe highest praise. It seemed that astrologers were at last putting their house inorder, which view must now be abandoned, perhaps forever. That this shouldhappen in British astrology, often regarded as the last outpost of astrologicalsobriety, should give skeptics cause for concern.

Follow-up July 2006

Geoffrey Dean

When a journal is found to be lacking in the very integrity and rigour that it laysclaim to, one expects a responsible publisher to take corrective action. But in thesix years since Professor Kelly raised his concerns the AA has taken nocorrective action. The disastrous loss of rigour and censorship of unwelcomematerial still continue. Correlation has disqualified itself as a journal worthy of serious consideration.



Farcical refereeingIronically one of the reasons why Rudolf Smit was sacked was an alleged (butactually untrue) lack of refereeing of articles under his control. Subsequently theAA stressed the need for refereeing and the need for authors to abide by refereecomments. "The only criteria for publication will be rigour, not whether the paper

supports or opposes astrology." Read what follows and make your own judgement.

In mid 1998 Correlation 17(1) ran an article by Suitbert Ertel in which elevenexperienced astrologers failed to tell 20 painters from 20 politicians using birthcharts. A critique was subsequently received from Christopher Bagley but thereferee concluded (in 1500 words listing 12 major deficiencies) that it wasuninformed and not acceptable for publication. For example it attacked thestudy's motives even though Ertel was merely testing the astrologers' ownclaims, it took no heed of previous studies, key arguments were misleading or invalid, and much of it was irrelevant. So it should be returned for improvement.

But the new editor Pat Harris ignored the referee's report and published thecritique unchanged together with her glowing endorsement. At the time Bagleywas her supervisor at Southampton University.

Without checking with the consulting editors, the editor also changedCorrelation's sub-title from "Journal of Research INTO Astrology" to "Journal of Research IN Astrology". However, when Correlation first started in 1981, INTOwas adopted only after much discussion, and the choice was not made lightly.The editor was asked if her next editorial could explain the change, but shebrushed away the request by saying the reason for the change was "obvious".Concerns about the brush-off were dismissed by "it's just me".

Concerns about refereeing arose again when 19(1) published Mike Harding'sarticle on "Prejudice in Astrological Research". Of one referee's 65recommendations (6000 words with 40 references!), only 1 in 6 were adequatelyresponded to. The rest were ignored. The referee raised the matter with theeditor, who replied that her policy on referee recommendations is that "the author is not bound to follow them".

This farcical policy led three consulting editors (Dean, Smit, and Spencer, allprofessional editors with more than fifty years of professional editing experiencebetween them) to submit a letter to Correlation about the lack of rigour, usingHarding's article as an example of unacceptable standards. You can read thisletter in the Appendix. It was January 2001.

The editor's response was evasive and delaying (the letter was not publisheduntil 12 months later), which led the three authors to circularise their concerns tothe other consulting editors. To which the editor responded by sacking Dean andSmit as consulting editors. Spencer had already resigned in protest. As for



Harding's article, the editor's justification for rejecting the referee'srecommendations was that she "considered it was ready for publication".

The same cavalier attitude towards referees still applies today. For example noneof the referee's comments on Kollerstrom's article in 23(1) was acted on, not

even the correction of typos. Now for censorship.

Censorship at Correlation is alive and wellIn successive editorials Pat Harris stressed the need for comments. For examplein 18(1) it was hoped that future issues would contain "a very wide rangingdiscussion". In 19(1) it was hoped that articles would "generate much interest,debate and many letters". In 20(1) readers were "welcome to enter into thedebate at any point". In fact this did not apply if your name was G Dean. Here aresome examples that show how, six years later, Ivan Kelly's concerns aboutcensorship and loss of scientific integrity are alive and well. The first example is along one but salutary in its absurdities.

Example 1In October 1999 Dean and Mather submitted to Correlation the results of their inviting astrologers and scientists to devise tests of sun sign columns. Their article had taken four years to prepare and had involved exhaustive recyclingwith contributors from nine countries to maximise information content. Twomonths later the editor Pat Harris rejected their article on various grounds, of which the following are typical:

Round 1 The editor felt that "a major flaw in your study design" was due to"asking for a range of opinions on a very mixed bag of data". In fact the invitation

was to submit tests not opinions. The editor felt that philosopher Dr WilliamGrey's position on sun signs was "foolish and uninformed". In fact Dr Greyspecialised in the philosophy of science, had conducted surveys of astrology,and was one of the few philosophers who had gone to the trouble of meetingastrologers and of having his chart read. The editor felt that the AA's refusal toreveal their position on sun signs could be because the AA considered theauthors' invitation "to be a waste of time because of the flaws I have pointed outin the study design". But how is asking the AA for its position on sun signs awaste of time?

Round 2 The authors raised these and other points with the editor, who replied"Why were not sunsign columnists consulted on the way in which their columnswere written?". But they were. "There is no citation of research into differencesbetween perceived accuracy in various sunsign writers' columns". How is thisrelevant to devising tests? "Your final conclusions are on very shaky ground.Where is your own reader survey of sunsign columns in order to compare thiswith astrologers' comments?" But why should devising a test require the authorsto survey readers of sunsign columns? Where is the connection? "Your methodology is not sufficiently carefully thought out to support your overall



conclusions." But if the authors get five replies to ten invitations, and concludethat five people replied, how is their conclusion not supported?

Round 3 The authors stressed that they were merely reporting the response toan invitation to devise tests of sun signs. They were not performing tests, yet the

editor was implying the opposite. The editor replied "The essential problem withyour research is that it is not properly designed towards a practical end." But howwas the end (devising tests of sun sign columns) not practical? "I repeat that thisis not scientific writing and analysis and is not, therefore, suitable for Correlationin the form in which it is presented."

Round 4 The authors then wondered if their results might be more suitable for Correlation's Forum, which is described as a section "open for variouscommunications such as letters and comments" which will be "considered aspreliminary publication open for encouraging and also critical comment". So theyasked the editor under what conditions might their material be considered for

Forum, for example with limits on length or focus. The editor replied "There areno conditions under which I would accept your sunsign material for Forum. Your article is unscientific in its presentation and analysis." It was now January 2000.

Outcome Dean and Mather had then been collaborating on scientific articlesabout astrology for more than twenty years since finishing Recent Advances, andhad a solid reputation among scientists for quality work. Their rejected sun signarticle was immediately snapped up by another journal, and appears on thiswebsite under Sun Signs. See if you agree with the Correlation editor that it isflawed, careless, poorly designed and unscientific, and let this website know.

Example 2In January 2000 Dean submitted a letter to Correlation in response to the editor'splea for comments on the previous issue. Thus Peter Roberts's factor analysis of responses to a questionnaire of 110 items was hardly meaningful when thesample size was only 78, Graham Douglas had ignored the crucial literature oncognitive biasses, Christopher Bagley's criticism of Ertel had many errors (allwere explained), Claire Smith's argument for biological tides (the Moon causestides, we are 60% water, therefore the Moon causes tides in us) was famouslyfallacious, and Frank McGillion's argument for seasonal effects had ignored ageincidence (an artifact that may explain apparent seasonality). The letter wascensored.

Example 3In July 2000 Dean submitted two items for Correlation's Forum. One pointed outthat Cedric Smith's Fourier analysis of Gauquelin data had already been done byothers many years earlier, and that any conclusion was premature until the datahad been cleaned of known artifacts. The other added to Suitbert Ertel'sresponse to Christopher Bagley, and urged Bagley to reply to Ertel's questions(he never did). Both items were censored.



Example 4In August 2002 Dean sent a letter to Correlation pointing out that BernadetteBrady's 34-page exploratory analysis in 20(2) of links between parents andchildren relied exclusively on chi-squared tests. But the tests were invalid (theyused empirical expectancies instead of theoretical ones), all were incorrectly

calculated, and all violated the test's assumption of independence. (Such errorswould have been spotted by any referee with an understanding of elementarystatistics.) There were many other mistakes. Yet these meaningless results weredescribed on the front cover as "the stuff of which astrologers' dreams aremade". Dean's letter was censored. Three years later about two-thirds of it waspublished in Correlation 23(1), 68-69 (2005), but the rest was still censored.

Example 5In December 2001 Correlation 19(2) printed the first of a series of five longcritiques by Suitbert Ertel on Dean's finding social artifacts in the Gauquelin data.Dean submitted a brief reply that was not printed until three issues later in 21(1).

Meanwhile Ertel's critiques continued, each making mistakes that a refereeshould have picked up, culminating in a sixth long article in 23(1). Ertel's totalwas now 82 pages vs Dean's 1 page. Dean subsequently replied via a 10-pageletter, of which 7 were comments on Ertel's article and 3 were comments onother relevant articles in the same issue. Dean's 7 pages were subsequentlycensored by the editor down to 4.5 pages, removing 60% of the words includingparagraphs of crucial information, without any mention of this to readers, whileErtel was allowed another 4 pages to reply to the remnants. Dean's other 3pages were completely censored. You can read the uncensored version of Dean's letter on this website under Gauquelin. It includes the parts censoredfrom Example 4 above.

In summaryThese concerns about censorship and loss of scientific integrity arose only whenPat Harris became editor. Previous editors Simon Best (1981-1992) and Rudolf Smit (1993-1998) never censored any letter, nor would they dream of doing so,for censorship is contrary to the spirit of science. That censorship is not contraryto the spirit of AA-style astrology confirms Ivan Kelly's view that the AA hasabandoned its aim of enhancing "the good name of astrology among ... thescientific community". The days when Correlation could be regarded (asAstroDatabank puts it) "the hands-down best journal of astrological research" areclearly over.

Appendix. Letter to CorrelationFrom Correlation 20(1), 67-69, 2001

From the following Consulting Editors in alphabetical order:Geoffrey Dean (Australia), Rudolf Smit (Netherlands), and Wayne Spencer (England).



Refereeing policy reduces Correlation's credibilityDear Editor , We are three editors with more than fifty years of professionalediting experience between us. In our opinion the feature article "Prejudice inAstrological Research" by Mike Harding, hereafter referred to as PIAR, inCorrelation 19(1) raises concerns about refereeing and intellectual credibility.

To start with, PIAR boils down to arguing that astrology is incompatible withscience, therefore science is largely irrelevant. Clearly this will not do. Theproblem is not that astrology is incompatible with science but that it isunconvincingly so -- the arguments typically offered in favour of astrology fall wellbelow the standards of critical thinking expected of any intellectual discipline, seeKelly's article in Psychological Reports 1997, 81, 1035-1066, and the totality of research outcomes is so negative that the case for astrology as a source of knowledge could be fairly said to have collapsed, see issues of Correlation since1990. Indeed, the emerging picture would seem to deny any incompatibilitybetween astrology and science, see Chapters 9 and 10 of Phillipson's Astrology

in the Year Zero.

Overall, PIAR ignores informed criticism in favour of uninformed criticism, andcondemns existing methodology without saying what should be done instead,thus contributing nothing to the debate. But the criteria that scientists and othersuse to judge the merits of an idea such as astrology (for example its empiricaltrack record, its ability to meet critical scrutiny, and its consistency with theevidence) are not arbitrary. For them, astrology's conspicuous failure to meetthese criteria is the deciding factor. Until the proponents of astrology recognisethis, PIAR's complaints of prejudice are beside the point. As Phillipson says(p.181) "criticisms of science (no matter how valid they may be) do nothing to

prove astrology."

However, what arouses our main concern is PIAR's response to refereeing. Of one referee's 65 recommendations (6000 words, 40 references, or about 15Correlation pages), only 1 in 6 were adequately responded to. The rest wereignored, leading to severe assailability both of PIAR and of Correlation'scredibility, all of it avoidable, as shown by the following examples:

PIAR ignores KTs [Key Topics previously published in Correlation], where mostof its arguments are contested, and its treatment of Ertel ignores Ertel's letter in18(2), as if scholarship did not matter. PIAR often argues by innuendo -- becausesome scientists are hostile to astrology, they all are; because Carlson's articlewas flawed in some areas, it was flawed in all areas. But neither is true. PIARsays that Adorno's anti-astrology views reveal only psychobabble, as if currentcriticism of such psychobabble did not also apply to astrology and PIAR's ownastrobabble (as in fear = Saturn). PIAR says that astrological practice is basedon experience, as if experience was unproblematic (it is hugely problematic, seeKT4). PIAR says that phrenology's whole approach came from science, which isincorrect, and ignores how phrenology highlights the problems of experience



despite this point being stressed by the referee. PIAR says science's worldview"is often fatally flawed by its own assumptions about the nature of humanbeings", but without giving examples, as if any doubt was inconceivable to theauthor. Worse, the possibility that astrology might also be "fatally flawed by itsown assumptions" seems equally inconceivable, as if only science (but never

astrology or anything else that is nonscientific) could ever be wrong.

Is PIAR as unprejudiced as it demands others to be? It seems not. It gives nohint that many of its topics, such as research into astrology, have a scholarlyliterature. It does not discuss relevant findings. It ignores informed criticism. Itattacks the Skeptical Inquirer , which it repeatedly mispells as Enquirer , butinexplicably ignores SI 's articles on astrology. These examples (many more couldbe cited) show how PIAR has failed to maintain the standards of argument, of scholarship, of clarity, of impartiality, and of concern for the reader, that attentionto referee recommendations would have ensured. These deficiences are not amatter of opinion but a matter of standards; they apply whether or not we agree

with PIAR's views.

But PIAR is not an isolated case. The referee recommendations (12 major items,1500 words) for Bagley's article in Correlation 18(1) were similarly ignored, aswas a follow-up letter pointing out the resulting lack of standards, despite thestatement in 18(1) that "letters and comments on these papers will be verywelcome." However the AA's policy on referee recommendations is that "theauthor is not bound to follow them", which is precisely the process attacked byprofessional editor Kenneth Irving in 16(2), since although it might improve anauthor's writing "it cannot and should not replace the kind of independent reviewused by any journal adhering to the standards of academic publishing." The

same view emerged from a poll of Correlation consulting editors in 1995, whounanimously opposed a lowering of standards. But PIAR shows thatconspicuously lower standards are now a reality, which confirms our experiencethat consulting editors have not been consulted on policy since the previouseditor stepped down at the end of 1998.

Correlation makes the claim that all submissions are "refereed for content andclarity of expression", which may reasonably be understood to imply acompliance with imposed standards. But due to AA policy the claim ismeaningless, as is the claim that consulting editors are responsible for thosestandards. Every professional refereed journal that we know of puts the refereesin charge of standards, not the authors. No referee is perfect, therefore authorsalways have the right to question decisions, but they have no right to decidestandards.

We therefore call upon our fellow consulting editors to seek changes to AApolicy, and to insist that consulting editors be actually consulted on this and other policy matters. If no changes are made, we fear that readers will see Correlationas having become, as Kelly (Skeptical Briefs March 2000) puts it, a case of



"Vested interests 1, Scientific integrity 0." No academic journal can afford such areputation.

Editor's responseThe editor responded evasively in the same issue as follows (p.69):

As editor I welcome Geoff Dean's, Rudolf Smit's and Wayne Spencer'scomments. In early December I took an editorial decision to move entirely toanonymous peer review to bring Correlation into line with other academicpractice. As of now all papers will be sent anonymously to a minimum of tworeviewers. While in a small community anonymity will sometimes be impossible,since some researchers will be aware of, and recognise, each others' work, thegoal is to focus on content rather than personality, which latter has often beenthe case in the past. I hope that Correlation will also thus set an example to other research periodicals and web sites dealing with astrology.

As far as the use of reviewers' criticisms are concerned, these obviously fall intodifferent classes. Factual errors must obviously be corrected, but differences of opinion are a matter of the editor's judgement. I propose that in future, whenreviewers have extensive criticisms of a paper, I will send them a second draft for comment.

The purpose of the editorial board is to advise the editor, as well as take onspecific reviewing tasks, and I welcome all input from members of the board.Mike Harding's article "Prejudice in Astrological Research" 19(1) wasresubmitted, after peer review, and I considered that it was ready for publication.It is a necessarily provocative article and I am happy to see that it has succeeded

in provoking a response from Correlation readers. It was also warmly received bya number of subscribers to the journal, both in the UK and abroad, and alsomembers of the editorial board. I am happy to be able to advise readers thatthere will be further papers from Mike in future issues of the journal. These will besubject, like all future material, to anonymous peer review.

[There was no response from Mike Harding nor have further papers from himappeared in Correlation]



The Truth of AstrologyCompetition entries illustrate faulty reasoning

Geoffrey Dean






An abridged and updated version of an article that first appeared in Correlation1997, 16(2), 40-56.

Abstract -- Artifacts and faulty reasoning by astrologers lie at the heart of everydispute about whether astrology works. But instead of avoiding artifacts and

applying correct reasoning, astrologers retreat into irrelevant but high-soundingarguments about truth and reality. In this article you meet a diversity of sucharguments, all devised by astrologers in response to a competition to show thatastrology is true. In each case you are shown how artifacts and faulty reasoninghave led the arguments astray. Read this article if you want to see howastrologers view astrology, and why critics find those views unsound. It started inJuly 1997 when the UK Astrological Association Newsletter Transit invitedastrologers to submit articles demonstrating "the Truth of Astrology -- whatever that may mean to the author". The best articles would receive prizes of £200, 100and 50. A total of 29 entries were received, including 8 from outside the UK, onlyslightly less than the 34 entries received for the $US5000 superprize of 1983.

Only the prize-winning entries have been published, so all entries aresummarised here. Roughly half the entries conclude that astrology providesmeaning and emotional support but not factual truth, which is unattainable due tothe fallibility of astrologers despite the underlying Greater Truth. The other half conclude that astrology does provide factual truth, as confirmed by implication,experience, or statistical tests. Apart from this disagreement, nearly all entriesshow a disturbing level of artifacts (especially the consider-only-confirming-casesartifact) and faulty reasoning even among the big names. The critical thinkingskills that are essential for any respectable discipline are generally absent. If nothing else, the competition confirms an urgent need for astrologers to acquiresuch skills. Interestingly, this unwelcome conclusion produced a storm of protest

from astrologers and led to the sacking of the editor. So it seems most unlikelythat astrologers will ever worry about artifacts or take up critical thinking. Thesimilarity to a fundamentalist religion is disturbingly clear.

About the competitionIn 1997 the AA Newsletter Transit invited astrologers to submit "articles of up to3000 words which put forward a case for, and demonstrate, the Truth of Astrology -- whatever that may mean to the author" (July issue page 27). Prizesof £200, 100 and 50 were sponsored by the AA, the Lodge, The Traditional

Astrologer , and the late Dr Norman Hurst, then Britain's oldest active astrologer who died March 1997 aged 97. A total of 29 entries were received, including 8from outside the UK, only slightly less than the 34 entries received for the$US5000 superprize of 1983.

The response was especially encouraging because astrology prize competitionshave seldom done well in the past. An annual £25 Astrological Association prize"for the most valuable contribution to the study of astrology" was launched in1970, fizzled out in 1973, reappeared in 1979 and (with prize money doubled) in1980, and was then cancelled. The number of entries was typically only 2 or 3,



ranging from 0 in 1972 to 9 in 1970. The 1980 $US1000 and 1981 $US2000prizes offered by Recent Advances for the validation of signs attracted 6 and 4entries but no winners. The 1982 Grand Prix Astrologique of BF100,000 (about£1200) for evidence of causal links understandably attracted a very poor response and no winners.

The encouraging response suggests that astrologers are at last on their homeground. Demonstrations of truth could involve interesting new tests, so theentries (details of which have not hitherto been published) could provide soberingand salutary lessons for us grubby empiricists. I start by giving a summary of each entry and finish by looking at some implications for researchers.

Classification of entriesAs expected, the entries reflect the diversity of astrologers' feelings about themeaning of truth. But rather than being unmanageably diverse they fallconveniently into two roughly equal approaches, namely arguments vs

demonstrations. The arguments are basically philosophical arguments (truth is X,astrology is X, therefore astrology is true) or appeals to experience (we knowastrology works), with some of the latter also including philosophical arguments.The demonstrations are either statistical tests or chart interpretations.

For convenience I have grouped the entries according to approach, inalphabetical order of entrant's name, here reduced to initials. Where necessary Ihave added a note in [ ] to highlight features that might otherwise escapeattention. In no way do these notes imply criticism of any author's dedication andenthusiasm, which are exemplary throughout.

Entries based on philosophical arguments (N=8)

KB, USA. Mankind questions everything. Skeptics challenge astrology because ithas no obvious explanation. But there is no explanation of man's evolution, or of gravity, or of genes. They just are. The same with astrology. It is true because itexists. [But skeptics challenge astrology for many other reasons such as thefailure of controlled tests to demonstrate useful effect sizes, and in suchchallenges the absence of an obvious explanation is irrelevant.]

AD, Denmark. The question is not whether astrology is objectively true butwhether astrology will become a generally accepted model of reality. The more

that people agree on a "reality" the more that reality is validated, which does notof course make it objectively true. Instead of asking if astrology is true we shouldask if it enriches life and if it does good. Astrology is just one way, but a veryeffective one, of extracting meaning from the world. So is astrology true? In arelative sense, yes, in an absolute sense, no. [Meaning astrology need not betrue provided astrologers agree it is true. Note the problem: if agreeing that theearth is flat does not make it so, then the reality implied by agreement is merelyan illusion. The entry gives no hint that illusions can be bad for you.]



MH, England. This entry won first prize, see Astrological Journal Nov-Dec 1997,14-18. Truth and facts are not the same thing. Fact = it is raining, truth = whatreally lies behind that fact (rising clouds, angry Gods, whatever). Astrologicaltruth is not like logical truth, such as if A=B and B=C then A=C [no matter thatthis entry (as you will see) and later entries argue exactly like this, namely that if

what we perceive is true, and if we perceive that astrology works, then astrologyis true]. Nor is astrological truth like revealed truth as might come duringmeditation [as if being revealed makes it true even if it is false]. But like anylanguage, astrology can describe truths [with language we can also lie, mislead,deceive, distort, conceal, confuse, mystify, and obscure, which difficulties theentry ignores]. It may well have the power to reveal truths about ourselves or theworld [then again it may not]. Gauquelin's work has proved that there is aconsistent connection between above and below. [So the stars must compel,which manifestly they do not. But Gauquelin's work cannot possibly prove aconsistent connection when there is no effect for half the planets, or for signs, or for aspects, or for character traits, or for the 99.995% of the population who are

not eminent, all of which are contrary to what astrology claims.] However, itwould appear that this truth is not good enough for us. We do not seek factualtruth. [A point contradicted by the conversation at any astrology conference or chart interpretation, which generally involves highly factual things like health,wealth, and relationships.] Neither logical truth nor revealed truth describesastrology. Instead, astrology is a language. [Here the entry assumes what it setsout to prove, namely that astrologers are interested in astrology as a languageand not as a source of factual truth. As Bertrand Russell said, assuming your case has many advantages, like the advantage of theft over honest toil.] To askfor the truth of astrology is like asking for the truth of English. But with it we canmake meaningful connections (eg Mars and sports champions) that are notpossible with other languages. [But what makes a language useful is that peopleagree on what the words mean, which astrologers spectacularly do not. Nomeaningful conversation is possible when the same piece of sky cansimultaneously mean intense (tropical Scorpio) to Western speakers and relaxed(sidereal Libra) to Eastern speakers.] Astrology's truth lies in our perception of what is being said. [Here the entry ends by shooting itself in the foot. In effect itsays that astrology does not need to be true as long as astrologers like it. Whatmatters is our perception of what is being said, that is, our fanciful imaginings.Why then all this debate about the nature of truth? If the author is correct thenthe entire Truth of Astrology competition was pointless.]

EH, Netherlands. Certain universal truths do exist, eg birth and death. Religionis potent because its truths are simple, eg Christianity says love our neighboursas we love ourselves. Just as simple is astrology's truth: as above so below . At atime when high technology alienates us, astrology provides a panacea, aframework of understanding, a valuable guide to living. The truth of astrology isits simplicity. [But many equally simple frameworks exist, see any New Agebookstore, and many of them eg biorhythms contradict astrology. How should wedecide between them? The entry does not say.]



JP, England. Nobody has come up with a sure proof of astrology, otherwise wewould know about it via the Astrological Journal if not the BBC. Its truth lies in itssymbols and meaning. But we cannot know in advance which of countlesspossible meanings will apply, so the truth of astrology lies at a deeper level: Marsin Cancer is always Mars in Cancer. [Meaning we cannot know astrology is true

even though we know astrology is true. But this is truth by fiat, like black cloudsmean it is raining even if it isn't. Deeper also means vaguer, making it easier toget any meaning we like.]

JR, England. This entry won second prize, see The Traditional Astrologer October 1997, 15-17. The truth of astrology lies in the glory of the heavens, in thearchitecture of the cosmos, in being able to see the wood for the trees, and inadapting to changed circumstances. But it is not wholly comprehended byhoroscopy and the tyranny of the chart. Tropical astrologers who ignoreconstellations have no right to talk about the Age of Aquarius. Many things pointto the truth of astrology, such as the ratio 1:1.5 in the cycles of Pluto and

Neptune (so Neptune does the work of dissolution at each Pluto return), and thecountless correspondences between as above and so below , for example theAndromeda galaxy reached 0 degrees Aries around the birth of Jesus. [Withmillions of galaxies to choose from, such after-the-event correspondences meannothing. It would be more remarkable if no correspondences existed. The author rightly calls his entry "a rambling mish-mash", a style well suited to those of anuncritical disposition and an attention span not exceeding one minute. Sometopics seem irrelevant, such as the author can see the Moon while writing, andsome are too rambling to allow any hope of a meaningful summary. Interestingly,the author judges his chances of winning from his birth chart, and concludes hewon't win. Nevertheless the entry won second prize for its "sheer virtuosity,

entertainment value, and deeper message."]

RS, England. The key concept is as above so below , which the mythical Hermescalled an unassailable Truth. It can manifest in four areas, namely prediction (eghorary astrology), education (eg vocational), self-understanding (eg humanistic),and spirituality (eg esoteric). Thus as above so below is not only acorrespondence, it is an activity (people act on it), a participation in as above vsso below . This is the truth of astrology. But it works only in symbols embracingdifferent levels of existence, eg Jupiter can represent an object in a horary chartor a liver problem in a decumbiture chart, even within the same chart, eg Moonsquare Saturn may initially indicate a physical eating disorder and later a fear of authority. This diversity of interpretation means that any test of a particular correspondences is doomed from the start, because astrology simply doesn'twork when confined to a rational framework. [Note the problem: all is well oncewe know the level, but we have no way of knowing the level. Which is like bettingon a race only after we know the winner. Such a nonfalsifiable astrology isindeed untestable. It cannot possibly be wrong even when using the wrongchart.]



DT, England. Astrology helps us see our role in the universe. This deeper truthis obscured by arguments such as sun sign vs rising sign [which argument theauthor then gets bogged down by]. Astrology's greater truth is that it is incapableof lying, so it is only the fallibility of astrologers that leads us astray. [But this istruth by fiat again. Religious fundamentalists use the same strategy, keeping

their beliefs intact by never saying anything that could be contradicted byobservation. The astute person will ask disconfirming questions such as "Whatevidence would you accept as showing that astrology is not true?", but none of the entries provide an answer.]

Entries appealing to experience (N=7)Those that include philosophical arguments are marked *

CB, Scotland. Much nonsense masquerades as astrology, and truth cannotconceivably embrace them all. To establish the truth of astrology we must start atthe bottom. Many scientific observations -- the Piccardi effect, solar and lunar

periodicities in plants, lunar effects in oysters and rats and Miami murders,Gauquelin's Mars effect, Jonas's prediction of sex from the birth chart -- suggestthat astrology's truths will be found if only we care to look. [This entry gets manyfacts wrong, eg lunar effects, Jonas's predictions, and "it is not so long ago thatthe accepted laws of aerodynamics established that bumble bees were incapableof flight." Yes, the aerodynamics of fixed wings fail for bumble bees, but not theaerodynamics of flapping wings.]

CC, USA. In astrology there are many grandiose claims, endless argumentsbetween astrologers, but little testing. Which is understandable, becauseastrologers can make more money telling fortunes than doing research, and they

make no enemies by being uncritical. Indeed, anyone who makes money fromastrology has a vested interest in keeping the waters as muddy as possible, sohigh-paying clients can never know how bad it is. "There is a great unconsciousfear that somehow astrology is just not going to hold up under scrutiny."Compared to natal work, which is often too vague for testing, predicting sportsoutcomes is concrete. American football gives the author the best demonstrationyet of the truth of astrology. She believes testing will reveal an astrology moreaccurate than is currently dreamt of. [This entry's admirable call for testing isnevertheless insecurely based. It is not true that little testing has occurred (muchhas occurred), nor is there just fear that astrology might fail when scrutinised (it isalready happening). In fact testing has so far revealed only an astrology moreerroneous than is currently dreamt of.]

JH, England.* We know the truth of astrology because chart readings areaccurate -- even sun sign columns, albeit only slightly. Each chart is unique, so itcannot be tested statistically [modern researchers might disagree]. We assumeastrology is valid, we proceed on that basis, and behold, it is so. Knowing you arepart of a pattern does not make it go away but it does give you some kind of



possibility of selection artifacts. A better test would be to plot counts vs shiftedbirthday.]

CS, England. The popularity of astrology is not enough to prove its truth. Testsare needed. Hypothesis: congenial relationships will involve more compatible sun

signs than expected. Questionnaires were completed by 25 volunteers (7 male)aged 17-77 mean 36 years, who indicated birthdate and sign for themselves,their partner, their best friends, and their favourite relatives. Fire signs had morecontacts with the same element (in this case Fire) than with each of the other elements, as did Water signs, but Earth and Air signs had fewer contacts. [So theresults are inconclusive. Also the sample sizes are too small for comfort. Also theauthor's questionnaire is labelled Astrology (Sun Sign) Survey and gives the aimof the study, thus encouraging self-attribution and data-selection artifacts.]

Entries based on chart interpetations (N=10)

BB, England. This entry won third prize, see Astrology 1997, 67(4), 38-46. Theauthor presents astrocartographic maps for two UK earthquakes and takesnearly five pages to say (1) Mark the event place, its opposite position on theother side of the world, and their mirror images across the equator. (2) Do thesame for the place where the Sun is overhead at noon. (3) Ditto for the Moon.Somehow, by a logic that is nowhere explained, such marks are said to showboth the truth of astrology and how modern ideas of gravity are wrong. There areother obscure maps, some of which are said to contain various circles centred onthe place that make the truth of astrology quite clear, but none of the maps showsuch circles. The author concludes that his approach provides "the chance toshow Scientists that Astrology is very connected to Astronomy, and which IS the

Truth of Astrology." So persuasive was his argument that his entry won thirdprize.

PC, England. One problem of astrology is that its truths are expressed in alanguage that few people can bother to learn. But not any more. The use of own-name asteroids make the truth of astrology instantly accessible to anyone. Nostruggling with arcane symbols, just look at the names. The contacts are easier too, the most dependable being conjunctions, oppositions, and sometimesmidpoints, in four different zodiacs. If the asteroids don't work then invariablytheir dwads will (dwads are the 12 signs within each natal sign, so in effect eachasteroid appears a total of 12 times around each zodiac. The author gives eightof her favourite charts showing how perfectly the system works. [Throw inenough factors, as here, and the system cannot fail to work. So the claim ismeaningless without blind controls to show that applicable asteroids work better than inapplicable asteroids.]

CD, England. Astrology must prove itself. So the author cast a chart for themoment she chose to explore the issue (8 May 1997 at 1600 GMT 50n50 0w17).The chart says that astrology must develop into a living philosophy (angles in



Cardinal signs), that it must be interpeted intuitively (MC in Cancer), that it cannotafford to be ambivalent (Ascendant in Libra), that astrology cannot be subject tothe same [unspecified] criteria as a science (Mars in Virgo in 11th), and so on.Controlled studies cannot show the truth of astrology because they only look atisolated factors, thus reducing astrology to a pseudoscience. Our own

experiences will validate our beliefs in Astrology. [Controlled studies are notlimited to isolated factors. They can look at whatever an astrologer looks at, butthis time avoiding artifacts that can fool people into seeing links where noneactually exist.]

CD, Romania. The author lists selected natal chart positions, also transits,progressions, and one-degree directions, for Romania's chart (5 February 1859)for 47 individual years during the 130 years 1859-1988. The agreement betweenthe interpretation and the events of that year confirm the truth of astrology. For example, in 1930 Jupiter in 3rd house coincided with the return of Carol II asregent, while in 1957 Jupiter in 4th house coincided with the retreat of the Red

Army. [This is a good example of the consider-only-confirming-cases artifact atwork. The results show only that, given enough events and chart factors tochoose from, astrology can fit anything in restrospect, in the same way that a bigenough bag of licorice allsorts will always contain our favourites. The issue iswhether unselected events fit Romania's chart better than they fit other charts,but the entry does not tell us.]

IF, England. Astrology is proved every time we read charts for clients. If it werefalse we would not have clients. [Not true, witness phrenology.] Researchers lookat isolated factors so no wonder their results are negative. The chart of John Deeshows how accurate astrology can be. For example Sun in Cancer indicates that

Dee loved the past, and Moon in Aquarius indicates that Dee was ahead of histime [no matter that the author is doing precisely what he condemns researchersfor]. However, the multiple meanings of astrological symbols means that thesethings cannot be predicted in advance. Once the life has been lived we see howthe chart fits like a glove [but thanks to multiple meaninmgs even the wrong chartfits like a glove]. Science has not yet come to terms with multiple meanings. If you want proof of astrology, use the same proof that applies to religion or painting or music, not to science, ie life should be enhanced by it. [Like drugsenhance the life of a drug dealer? It is not true that science cannot cope withmultiple meanings, see any matching test. Unlike the next entrant, the author gives no hint of the problems caused by nonfalsifiability.]

AM, England. Most charts have such a wide range of possibilities that they will fitanything in retrospect. So the truth of astrology is best tested by predictingevents, in this case predicting the outcome of the UK General Election [which atthe time of writing was one week away]. Uranus culminating at the opening of thepolls indicates a change of government. The charts of Major, Blair and Ashdownindicate a Labour win. If this indication is correct then it will demonstrate the truthof astrology. [The indication was indeed correct. But by the same argument,



wrong predictions (which are not hard to find) demonstrate the opposite. So whatshould we now conclude? Especially as the author's readings can be plausiblyreversed depending on whether you see Uranus as innovative or disruptive. Also,one week before the election the outcome (a Labour landslide) was more or lessobvious to everyone.]

JR, England. The author gives the chart factors relevant to her various painfulneuroses and traumas, and finds comfort and guidance in them. For exampleshe shows how particular transits related to a nervous breakdown, and how onanother occasion "this T-square ... must have been the root cause of many of theproblems of my life", which kept her going. Hopefully this has led to the truth of astrology, for this will mean harmony between the heavens and my earthly

journey. [Note that word cause. Does embracing causality make astrology morehelpful?]

BU, England. Cardinal Newman became converted to Christianity at age 15. As

did C S Lewis in 1929. In 1977 George Foreman, bashed insensible in hisheavyweight title fight, had a religious vision, and when he regained the title atage 45 he claimed it was due to God. In each case either a Saturn transit or aSaturn opposition return was involved, suggesting that God/religion = Saturn, apoint supported by various mythologies. Thus Saturn is the Rosetta stone thatreveals the truth of astrology. [How does this sit with Saturn being the Greater Malefic?]

BW, Norway. Dogs cannot role-play their chart and are therefore ideal subjectsfor study. The author's dog has Sun conjunct Uranus in 3rd (needs constantstimulation to calm him down) and Jupiter in Leo in 10th (a showman, up to many

tricks and antics). These and many other correspondences confirm the truth of astrology. In working with clients we can never be sure if they are free from self-attribution, ie more or less living their lives in accordance with their astrologicalknowledge. Dogs cannot do this. [The entry came with delightful pictures of aGolden Labrador showing the various correspondences. But as already noted,such correspondences confirm only how easy it is to match ambiguities. Theissue is whether the chart matches the author's dog better than it matches other dogs, but the entry does not tell us.]

AW, Scotland. Astrology is true if planetary meanings agree with observations of people and world affairs. The Jupiter-Uranus conjunction coincided withbreakthroughs in 1903 (first powered flight) and 1969 (Moon landing). It occurredagain in 6 Aquarius on 15-16 February 1997. To find out what happened, theauthor gave a questionnaire to 17 people with key planets in 4-7 Aquarius,asking if January was unusually difficult, and if anything significant happened inFebruary. The answers averaged 15 yes, 2 no. On a global scale China's leader died, Hubble telescope sent stunning images, USA appointed first womanSecretary of State, Scottish scientists cloned a sheep. This demonstrates thetruth of astrology. [But there are no controls and no blind conditions. The issue is



whether these two months were more Jupiter-Uranus than any other two months,but the entry does not tell us.]

Overview of entries

Recall that the 29 entries had to put forward a case for, and demonstrate, theTruth of Astrology. They fall conveniently into two roughly equal approaches,namely arguments vs demonstrations, or philosophical (12 entries) vs non-philosophical (17 entries).

Philosophical entriesThe philosophical entries argue variously that astrology is truth because: it exists,astrologers say so, it is simple, it gives us control, it is consistent with modern-day physics, it provides meaning, correspondences exist, as above so below isunassailable, it is incapable of lying, and it is truth itself. Some of these dependon particular interpretations of truth (eg existence, meaning), some on the

distinction between astrology and astrologers (only astrologers are fallible), andthe rest on circular argument (astrology is true because it is true). Most of themconclude in effect that the truth delivered by astrology is actually satisfaction (itprovides meaning, it enriches life, it does good) rather than accuracy (freedomfrom error), which due to the fallibility of astrologers is held to be undeliverabledespite the underlying Greater Truth.

That the last is held to exist despite the declared impossibility of actually knowingit exists, as opposed to merely believing it exists, shows how close their kind of astrology is to a religion. Interestingly, most of the philosophical entries avoidedmentioning religion.

Non-philosophical entriesBy contrast the non-philosophical entries focussed on accuracy, either byimplication, observation (ie experience), statistical tests, or chart interpretations.They presented various arguments. Things like lunar effects in oysters and theprenatal epoch indicate a sound scientific basis to astrology, as do tests withp=<0.05. Centuries of rich experience confirm the truth of ancient wisdombeyond all possible doubt. Every day astrologers see evidence that astrologyworks. The relevant chart did fit Romanian events, earthquakes, world affairs,human character, nervous breakdowns, and dogs. These results confirm thatastrology delivers accuracy and therefore truth. Or so the entries argued (moreon this in the next sections).

This division of truth into satisfaction vs accuracy is a crucial one. Failure torecognise it has caused much unnecessary dispute between astrologers andcritics. In this case a similar failure by entrants has created much unnecessarydiscourse, wasting effort that could have been used more productively. Indeed itcreates unnecessary dispute even between leading astrologers. For example arecent 4400-word internet debate on the Vertex between Michael Erlewine (for)



and Chris Turner (against) can be summarised as follows. Erlewine: Techniquesthat work for one astrologer do not work for another because astrology is anoracle with elaborate rituals. That the rituals differ is of no consequence, it is thereading we are after. What matters is what we experience and what we learnabout ourselves. Turner: A chart is like a piece of sheet music. People may play

the music differently but the melody and harmonies do not change. The sameapplies to astrology otherwise it becomes useless. Why bother learning to play if we cannot get the melody right? In short: The above debate boils down toErlewine's satisfaction (astrology need not be true as long as it feels good) vsTurner's accuracy (astrology needs to be true otherwise why bother?).

Some implications for researchersEntries can be viewed in various ways depending on the interests of readers.Thus a Fire person might be looking for stimulating ideas, a Water person for emotional satisfaction, and an Air person for feet off the ground. Nobody can saythat a particular view is better or worse than another, and in this case all three

views are amply rewarded. The entries collectively provide fascinating reading.Indeed, the judges were clearly delighted with the "wide variety of styles withimpressive or moving themes, which made our roles as judges very difficult."

But for an Earth person looking for disciplined arguments, clear thinking, andabsence of errors, the entries are less rewarding. They tended to be uninformed,wordy, and hard to follow. Many statements, for example those linking suicidewith the full moon, were simply wrong. Gauquelin's results were invariablymisrepresented. Only ten entries cited works by others, as if nobody else hadever discussed truth before. Indeed, there was generally no hint of the difficultythat philosophers have in deciding whether something is true or not. On the other

hand, if you jump off a cliff then debating the nature of truth will not save you.Some entries correctly noted that science cannot discover absolute truth -- butthen nothing can. None noted that science is an excellent way of discoveringerror , something that astrology could never do, at least not an astrology aspromoted by most of the entrants.

Worst of all, artifacts and faulty reasoning were everywhere, especially theconsider-only-confirming-cases artifact. Thus almost all entries failed torecognise that no conclusions can be made from hits unless we consider themisses and have a control group for comparison. Until we do, the supposed fitbetween charts and Romanian events, earthquakes, world affairs, humancharacter, nervous breakdowns and dogs is meaningless in the same way thatfinding food on a restaurant menu is meaningless (we should be surprised only if food was off the menu).

To be fair, most of the above defects are never absent from astrology books andmagazines, so the entries are not alone. Nevertheless the defects pose a seriousthreat to astrology, so let me sidetrack for a moment to explain what I mean



Faulty reasoning and the consider-only-confirming-cases artifactIn every entry that involved a chart interpretation, as indeed in any chartinterpretation, the author's claim (that charts match the person or event) is likemy claiming that clouds match the presence of winter. Obviously my claim makesno sense in places with clear winters or cloudy summers. So before you can

accept my claim, you need data on clear and cloudy days in each season.Counting confirming cases (cloudy days in winter) is not enough.

The same applies to chart interpretations. Without data showing that applicablecharts work better than inapplicable charts, the claim that a particular conclusion(astrology works) follows from a particular observation (confirming cases) issimply meaningless. It is a case of artifacts and faulty reasoning.

Recall that the entries are required to demonstrate the truth of astrology.Suppose some researchers do their homework and show that, contrary to myexperience, clouds and winter are in fact totally unrelated. And suppose I pay no

attention, arguing that astrology works on a higher plane and therefore cannot betested by statistics. After all, I spent all winter looking at clouds, so I just know itworks. Note the problem -- not everyone will believe me. Why should they?

Note the solution -- avoiding artifacts and false reasoning does not require me toembrace mechanism, or materialistic science, or hostile paradigms, or any other supposedly anti-astrology horror, it merely requires me to think clearly and countthe right things. Nothing special at all. Many people do it all the time, especiallywhen shopping. Now back to where I left off, namely the low level of scholarshipevident in the entries and in astrology generally.

But does it matter?Of course none of this matters if we see astrology as an elaborate sun signcolumn, good only for entertainment or for consoling frustrated romantics. But if we see astrology as a source of knowledge, we are making a claim that, like allclaims to knowledge, will be contested by philosophers, scientists, and educatedpeople generally. After all, such claims are ten a penny, and no sensible personwill take the claimant's word for it. If our claim is even to be considered, we haveto write clearly and have a good standard of scholarship, otherwise no educatedperson will bother. But none of the entries come close, especially the prizewinners. We should therefore not be surprised to learn that many people havetrouble taking astrology seriously.

Nevertheless the entrants achieved a higher standard than generally existsamong astrologers, as shown by Joanna Ashmun's description of astrologyemailing lists, see Correlation 1996, 15(2), 41-43. The lists involve astrologersfrom beginning student to established professional, but on average theparticipants have about one year of astrological study. According to Ashmun:"They write badly and they read badly, ... there is almost no critical response;errors are ignored, corrections are not acknowledged. People answer off the top



of their heads ... and then get sidetracked into arguing about who's a liar insteadof sorting out the facts of the original question. ... Many astrologers haveuniversity educations, quite a few have graduate degrees, and they must,therefore, have had to do some reading, writing, and scholarship sometime, butthese presumed skills rarely escape to the mailing lists."

It need not be like thisAs shown on this website in Case for and against astrology under Adroit Utilities,and Phillipson interview of researchers (section 4) under Doing ScientificResearch, it is feasible to make a case for astrology that is scholarly, impartial,and consistent with the evidence. So why cannot astrologers do just that? Whyinstead do they make their case so assailable?

The remedy might seem obvious. Astrologers must become familiar withresearch results, and they must acquire the critical thinking skills that today arepart of any university course in the social sciences, meaning no more artifacts

and no more faulty reasoning. On the other hand, it seems clear that this wouldmean the demise of astrology as currently practiced. So what should astrologersactually do? Here, in lieu, is what they actually did:

AftermathInterestingly, this article and its unwelcome conclusion produced a storm of protest from astrologers. It even led to the sacking of the Correlation editor whopublished it and, in subsequent issues under a new editor (a practisingastrologer), a dramatic drop in scientific rigour. The publishers, despite their supposed interest in truth, had evidently decided that, when faced with theEmperor's New Clothes, it was best to keep their heads in the sand. So in

retrospect it seems quite unlikely that astrologers will ever avoid artifacts or takeup critical thinking. Criticism in astrology is simply not welcome. Whereas sciencereserves its highest praise for those who prove their predecessors wrong,astrology drums critics out of the corps. The similarity to a fundamentalist religionwill be disturbingly clear.

AcknowledgementsMy thanks to Deborah Houlding for so kindly and so efficiently making the entriesavailable, and to her and Nick Campion for providing copies of published entriesno longer in the original collection. For helpful comments on earlier versions mythanks to Joanna Ashmun, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, Frank McGillion, andRudolf Smit. And of course my thanks to the entrants for their hard work andstimulating diversity of themes.








Astrology, Science and CulturePostmodern futility

Astrology, Science and Culture: Pulling Down the Moon By Roy Willis and PatrickCurry. Berg, Oxford 2004. ISBN 1-85973-687-4. 170 pages including

bibliography and index. £15.99 paperback.

Abstract -- This is a highly unreadable book. Both authors are postmodernists,and they seem to want to outdo each other in being impenetrable. They claimthat the only real astrology is horary astrology, or divination, which fills the worldwith magic and meaning. In real astrology the world is filled with gods (ieplanets), spirits, and magic that our minds can become attuned to. It is a form of religion that brings back mystery into our lives and makes the world seemwonderfully meaningful. Like any other religion, real astrology values mystery(enchantment) before concrete knowledge (disenchantment), and does not needto be true. Although the same conclusion had already been reached by empirical

research, the authors dismiss empirical findings and contrary views (evenastrological ones) out of hand, so readers never get an impartial overview. Theauthors never examine an actual study or finding or the various empiricalapproaches. They never examine how a chart is prepared and interpreted. Theynever give you a feel for what divinatory success means, or how frequent it is.The result is like conducting a war game out of sight of practicalities. Thearguments when stripped of their protective fog of philosophyspeak are oftenludicrous, as when the inability of science to determine absolute truth is quotedas a reason for dismissing the idea that we can tell when an astrology reading iswrong. Ultimately the book is futile because the authors dismiss science as "justone of a plurality of mythological narratives", just as their own view is. So their

own view can equally be dismissed as a mythological narrative worth no moreattention than any other. An update presents Curry's brief reply including hisclaim that a longer reply would waste his time; the authors' response to each of Curry's brief points including how he contradicts his own claim of engaging inwide discussion; and a survey of other reviews. Three by astrologers aregenerally positive. Two by academics are generally negative.

The subtitle "Pulling Down the Moon" refers to the women diviners of ancientThessaly who, Plutarch said, can pull down the moon. Roy Willis is a socialanthropologist at the University of Edinburgh. Dr Patrick Curry is a socialhistorian and Associate Lecturer at the Sophia Centre for the Study of CulturalAstronomy and Astrology, Bath Spa University College.

In order of increasing controversy, astrology has been seen as a topic of greathistorical importance, a useful fiction to promote therapy by conversation, a cloudin which meaningful faces can be seen, an expression of underlying world order,and an independent source of knowledge. Underlying these various views is asingle issue, namely the merit of astrology as a source of (1) facts and (2)meaning.



Neglect of the distinction between facts and meaning has led to muchunproductive debate between astrologers and critics. To improve the debate,astrology urgently needs (and www.astrology-and-science.com attempts toprovide) competent reviews of relevant areas. The title Astrology, Science and Culture seems to promise such a review, but ironically (and, these days,

inexcusably) the book fails to deliver, all with an aggressive unreadability that isequally inexcusable.

Most of the book is written by the authors separately. A joint introduction claimsthat the historical roots of astrology require it to be seen as divination. Chapters2-3 by Willis look at the history of astrology and sacred myths. Chapters 4-9 byCurry look at the history and variety of astrology, how science has led todisenchantment, and how only astrology as divination can lead us back. Finallychapters 10-11 by Willis argue that divination, and thus astrology, is part of theevolution of consciousness.

Once past their joint introduction the authors almost always use "we" and "our"rather than the "I" and "my" demanded by their separate authorship. Someexamples for Willis are: "we take our cue", "we begin", "our topic", "our intention"(pages 127, 129, 130, 148). And for Curry: "we agree", "we are saying", "our case", "Our own view" (pages 92, 95, 100, 113). Many more examples could becited, all of them implying that the book's arguments are shared by both authors.Therefore the present review generally refers to "the authors" regardless of whether Willis or Curry wrote the passage in question.

Overall the book claims that the only real astrology is horary astrology, or divination, which fills the world with magic and meaning. Unfortunately empirical

findings and contrary views (even astrological ones) are dismissed withoutproper examination. These and other points are discussed below.

Postmodern impenetrabilityAccording to astrologer Garry Phillipson's review in the Astrological Journal (2004, 46(4), pp.36-37), Willis and Curry's book is "epochal." In thirty years' timeit "will be seen as a key text from the period when astrology was taking its first,tentative, steps back into academia." (This refers to the recognition in 2000 of Kepler College in Seattle, and in 2002 of the Sophia Centre in Bath, as academicinstitutions where astrology can be studied for a degree.)

However, Phillipson does warn us that the book is "frequently abstruse." And thatis precisely the problem. Other than the introduction, each chapter is writteneither by anthropologist Willis (who focusses on ancient roots) or byastrologer/social historian Curry (who attacks science). Both authors arepostmodernists, and they seem to want to outdo each other in being obscure andlong-winded. Indeed, there seems to be nothing so simple that the authorscannot make impenetrable. This is a highly unreadable book. After being told thatastrology involves "the human dialogical engagement with divinity", by which they



mean that astrology boils down to a conversation with an intelligent universe, thereader has constantly to struggle with sentences such as:

"Here let us note certain fundamental consequences of our dialogical reading of human nature. In its essential, necessary openness -- the inherent duality of

dialogue which is also, and most fundamentally, a many-voiced plurality -- thisreading permanently guarantees us against any possibility of collapse intomonolithic solipsism." (p.2)

And this is only 10% into the Introduction! Nobody who writes like this can beaccused of clear thinking. Willis and Curry's ideas can in fact be expressedsimply and clearly, but they never are. The problem is that, once theimpenetrable overburden is removed, the flaws become obvious and the casefalls apart. What should have been a useful and informed discourse ends up as aparade of pretentious inutility. Of which more later.

Key pointThe authors' key point is a simple but profound one. They claim that what mostastrologers call "astrology" is in fact bogus. Real astrology is horary astrology, or divination, and can never be other than divination. Thus bogus astrology ispopular today because it taps our ancestral urge for divination. In real astrologythe world is filled with gods (ie planets), spirits, and magic, that our minds canbecome attuned to. It brings back mystery and enchantment into our lives andmakes the world seem wonderfully meaningful. To achieve this all we need do isbelieve.

In other words astrology is to do with meaning, not facts, and the present belief in

astrology is explained by an earlier belief in divination. The blurb says "this booknot only persuasively demonstrates that astrology is far more than a superstitiousrelic of years gone by, but that it enables a fundamental critique of the scientismof its opponents." Ironically it does this by assuming what it sets out to prove,namely that real astrology is real religion, a point that many astrologers wouldvigorously dispute. But this is to get ahead of ourselves. To establish their casethe authors seem to be following four broad rules of engagement as follows:

Rule 1: Reject quantitative methodsTo promote their ideas the authors deliberately reject quantitative methods,"daring to privilege sensory quality over a row of digits" (p.1). There are twoproblems here. First, if we reject the quantitative testing of ideas, we are rejectinga useful adjunct to purely qualitative testing such as checking an idea for consistency or how it compares with alternatives. For example withoutquantitative methods we might be hard pressed to decide whether the earth is or is not at the centre of the universe, which might affect how we interpret itsenchantment. In effect the authors seem to be rejecting the same pluralism(diversity of values and opinion) that they are advocating as the "touchstone of divination" (p.75), the "inherently pluralistic" basis of astrology (p.80), and the



"irrevocably pluralistic" basis of postmodernism (p.133). In short the authorsseem committed to dietary diversity while forcing readers to live by bread alone.

Second, the authors support their rejection of quantitative methods bymisrepresenting them. For example they dismiss tests of astrology by

psychologists as "crude attempts to demonstrate that astrological effects areattributable to something else (usually forms of cognitive error) that psychologistsare more comfortable with" (p.4). In fact psychologists test astrology simply tosee if its claims are true. Should it fail to deliver useful effect sizes (which for factual claims has invariably been the case) they then ask how astrologers couldbelieve in something that is effectively not true. The answer (because human

judgement is good at creating wrong impressions like seeing meaning in Barnumstatements, a view confirmed by thousands of published studies and dozens of books, none of them cited by the authors) is here highly inconvenient, not to sayfatal.

As when Willis, unacquainted with astrology other than having to inventnewspaper horoscopes while a trainee journalist (an "exercise in deception" p.5),had his birth chart read and found it "corresponded remarkably well with my inner perceptions" (p.11). This of course is the usual outcome even when the charthappens to be the wrong chart, which is awkward. Just as awkward is Willis'sdevoting seven pages (pp.5-11) to an account of his becoming convinced byprecisely the kind of astrology that is dismissed here as bogus. Indeed, Willisdoes not seem to have visited any horary astrologers, ie the kind he presumes towrite about, if only to check Martin Luther's experience that "the divinations of astrology ... are wrong so often that there can be nothing less trustworthy" (Garin,

Astrology in the Renaissance, Routledge & Kegan Paul 1983:4). To say nothing

of Charles Carter's experience four centuries later that the horary charts cast for him "have usually been downright wrong and never strikingly right" ( Astrological Journal December 1962). For some reason Carter's experience is not mentioneddespite its exemplary relevance (Carter was the leading British astrologer of hisday).

Rule 2: Embrace biasIndeed, anything inconvenient is swept aside or distorted. For example theauthors seem to see all scientists as bad scientists, obsessed with "crudereductionism", always implacably opposed to astrology and always bent ondisenchanting the world, which allows any inconvenient scientific finding (andthere are many) to be dismissed out of hand. They cite an article in the

Astrological Journal (1994, 36, pp.60-68) as providing "a good discussion of scientific double standards ... in astrological research", but fail to mention that alater critique (in 36, pp.258-259) noted how the "good discussion" was itself ruined by double standards, a point evident to any informed reader.

Similarly the authors fail to mention that, even in their own anti-materialist camp,it is not hard to find positive views towards science. Indeed the anti-materialist



Charles Tart in his book Transpersonal Psychologies (Harper & Row 1975)addresses precisely the same general area as Willis and Curry do, but arguesprecisely the opposite case with a clarity and open-mindedness that leaves themfor dead:

"The realm of the spiritual, and the connected realm of altered states of consciousness, is one of the most powerful forces that shape man's life anddestiny. I think attempting to keep these realms and the realm of scienceseparate is dangerous, and I hope we will go on to develop state-specificsciences and similar endeavours that will start building bridges between them. Tothose who think it can't be done, I can only reply that we have to find that out bytrying, not by limiting ourselves in advance by preconceptions" (p.58).

Thus Tart notes that "a data base for future sciences is of exceptionalimportance" (p.27), as is "the need to achieve testability of our theories aboutspiritual phenomena and ASC [altered states of consciousness] phenomena"

(p.35). Which is clearly not what Willis and Curry want to hear.

Similarly the anti-materialist Rupert Sheldrake in his book The Rebirth of Nature:The Greening of Science and God (Century 1990) argues that newdevelopments in science are leading to "a new understanding of nature in whichtraditional wisdom, personal experience and scientific insight can be mutuallyenriching." Indeed, in his later book The Sense of Being Stared At and other aspects of the Extended Mind (Hutchinson 2003), which is a consciousness-related topic as controversial as horary and of greater antiquity, Sheldrake showshow the scientific approach leads to insights unattainable in any other way. All inplain English, after which Willis and Curry's paralysing prose might easily be

mistaken for another Sokal hoax.

(Physicist Alan Sokal's now-famous and deliberately nonsensical 1996 article"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", heavily adulterated with physical clangers and full of incomprehensible quotes from postmodernists, was published by the postmodern

journal Social Text because, in Sokal's opinion, it sounded good and flatterededitorial preconceptions.)

Despite the privilege supposedly accorded to "sensory quality", Willis and Curryalso ignore qualitative studies of astrology if the outcome is inconvenient. For example sociologists who observe client sessions have noted how astrologerscan explain any error via their own fallibility or via a contrary indication previouslyoverlooked. The participants remain unaware of this win-win self-deception, sothe end result can hardly fail to reinforce belief in astrology (as in fact happenedto Willis). The nearest the authors get to recognising this is "the experience of enchantment does not make it true in an objectivist sense, nor does it need tobe" (p.112), which as usual is sufficiently rarefied to obscure what is really



happening. More on this later under Rules 3 and 4. For the moment here arefurther examples of bias.

Recipe for smokescreensEven inconvenient philosophical criticisms (for example I.W.Kelly's "Modern

Astrology: A Critique" in Psychological Reports 1997, 81, 1035-1066 andexpanded on this website under Applied Astrology) are dismissed withoutexamination as "purely ideological" (p.100). Similarly the assertion "science hasbanished [disembodied spirits], of course, en route to attempting to get rid of human subjectivity too" (p.120) is made with no hint of its conflict with much of the philosophy-of-mind literature. For example philosophers such as Chalmers,Searle, and Nozick would have problems with disembodied spirits but do notdeny subjective experience. It seems that readers must be protected from honestdiscussion of anything that might upset the authors' ideas.

Ironically, although the authors constantly criticise "reductionist" scientific studies,

such studies are made welcome when they seem to support the authors'position. For example genetic studies are cited to support the idea that we are"all psychically connected, not only to one another, but also to the universe"(p.131); and the idea that we are born with an "innate impulsion to dialogue witha multiverse of intelligent beings, starting with fellow humans and including everyanimal and plant, every rock and river and ocean; also the clouds in the sky,winds and storms and rain, and all the luminous inhabitants of the starry vault"(p.132). But do we really need genetics to tell us that we interact with our surroundings?

Similarly the authors tend to quote only those philosophers whose views agree

with theirs and ignore the rest. In this way all sorts of philosophers includingWittgenstein, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty, none of whom were interested inastrology, are recruited into laying the groundwork for the authors' speculations.Furthermore, the selected philosophers are quoted without argument or criticalexamination of their position, and without noting where we could agree with their position and still not believe in astrology. The reader never gets an impartialbalancing of views from both sides, which is surely what they are entitled toexpect from authors who hold academic positions. In other words the authors arerather like promoters of phlogiston as the only way to think about combustion. (Inpostmodernist terms phlogiston is equally as good as oxygen for explaining whyfires burn.) Reject quantitative methods, embrace bias, avoid specifics, garnishwith impenetrable rhetoric, and the smokescreen is complete.

Varieties of astrologyOn pages 65-76 the authors provide a foggy survey of how they see the varietiesof astrology, namely sun signs (popular but shallow), horary (divination), neo-Platonic (spiritual), Ptolemaic (astral determinism), scientific (eg Gauquelin), andpsychological (currently predominant among working astrologers). The lastclaims that character/destiny is in our inclining-but-not-compelling stars, so the



stars "only ever advise courses of action in relation to a constantly shifting future"(p.75). The authors say the problem with all of these varieties except horary isthat they do not engage with gods and therefore by definition lead todisenchantment. That is, they contain a corrupting element of fatalism. Even so,all of them "could best be understood as divinatory [ie engaging with gods], each

in its own way" (p.67). So now you see it, now you don't.

Later (p.122) the authors briefly note that astrologers can have a view of horaryprecisely opposite to their own. As examples they cite two eminent astrologers of the 1900s, namely Alan Leo (who described horary as "the vilest rubbishimaginable") and Alfred J Pearce ("absurd and unwarrantable"). They could havecited many other astrologers such as Jeff Mayo in 1964 ("sheer nonsense") andIngrid Lind in 1962 ("savours of the bead curtain and fortune-telling booth").These are not your average everyday astrologers -- Mayo was principal of theMayo school, Lind was patron of the Faculty of Astrological Studies, two bodiesthat were reputable and world-famous (they still are).

The authors could also have cited Charles Harvey, president of the AstrologicalAssociation 1973-1994 and then its patron, who in the Astrological Journal (1994,36, pp.396-398) condemns the view that almost all astrology is grounded indivination. As usual, Harvey writes with a vigour and clarity (and long experience)entirely missing from Willis and Curry's book, so he is worth quoting at somelength:

"Whilst it [the pro-divination view] appears to explain why quantitative researchhas found so little evidence to support astrologers' beliefs and experience, it atthe same time seems to remove from astrological practice any secure basis for

interpretation. ... More importantly, we are still left with the question as to howthis astrological divination works? How can it be enhanced if the principles uponwhich its interpretations are based are not true in any testable sense or are of secondary significance? If this were actually the case, then it would beimpossible to programme a computer to produce reports which, althoughimperfect, can often identify many of the key issues in an individual's life andpsychology. Experience shows that some computerised reports can proveremarkably to the point. But perhaps the most potentially problematic andpernicious outcome of allocating an almost exclusively divinatory foundation toastrology is that it encourages the view that there is no systematic way in whichastrological interpretation can be improved and enhanced. By such a move themagnificent contributions to astrology this century of, for example, Witte, Ebertin,Addey, Barbault, Liz Greene and Jim Lewis are all too easily marginalised andseveral whole dimensions of astrology's universe negated."

Recall also the views of Charles Carter cited previously. One wonders whyeminent astrologers should be so hostile if horary was as marvellous as theauthors claim.



Divination and consciousnessOn the questions that can be asked in divination, we are told that divination is notabout foretelling the future but asking for advice, "so the asker (whether diviner or client) is left perfectly free, in principle, to proceed or not." Allowable questionsare not "What will happen? but What should I do? " (p.57, their emphasis). In

other words other kinds of question cannot be answered, and "It is our contentionthat this kind of question is still the appropriate one for astrology" (p.58). Ironicallytheir contention is flatly contradicted by William Lilly's Christian Astrology (1659),which is regarded by many modern horary astrologers as the horary bible, andwhich has been adopted as a textbook by the APAI-accredited Qualifying HoraryDiploma Course.

APAI is The Association of Professional Astrologers International, a body set upin the UK in 1990 by a group of experienced professional astrologers concernedabout maintaining standards. Its aims include protecting the image of professional astrology, protecting the public from professional astrological

malpractice, and offering the public a safe, fair and reliable service. Membershipis restricted to astrologers with Diplomas (not Certificates) from schoolsaccredited by APAI.

Lilly devotes over 350 of Christian Astrology 's 850 pages to answering questionssuch as: Do I have brothers or sisters? Is my brother alive or dead? Shall I havechildren? Will my illness be long or short? Is she cheating on me? Are my goodslost or stolen? Will the thief be caught? When will I die? Will my journey besuccessful? Will I get the job? But according to Willis and Curry, such what-will-happen questions are not allowable and cannot be answered. They cite WilliamLilly as being perhaps the last of the old-style astrologers using divinatory magic

(p.67), but they make no mention of how his work contradicts their thesis.

On horary astrology itself, the authors assert that divinatory chart readingsinvolve "expansive changes in consciousness of both client and astrologer"where they become attuned to the symbolism and "are able to becomeparticipants with divine agencies ("daemones") in a joint negotiation of the client'sdestiny" (p.148). Or as Charles Harvey puts it, divinatory chart readings are "notbased on anything that is in any normal sense objective, measurable, or factual.[They] do not contain qualities in and of themselves but [are] assigned by theconsciousness of the astrologer" (p.397).

Willis and Curry make no attempt to validate their claim except by references toshamanism, ancient beliefs, and any philosopher (no matter how uninterested inastrology) whose views seem even remotely compatible. The result is likesupporting the idea of levitation by references to angels and Jules Verne.Incompatible philosophical views (in philosophy there are always incompatibleviews) are ignored. Human judgement biasses like the Barnum effect are brieflymentioned but are dimissed as irrelevant because astrology is simply the"experience of its truth", and ascribing it to "something else is not to understand



astrology, but to replace it with something else, in keeping with a very differentagenda" (p.101). As if ascribing combustion to oxygen is not to understandcombustion.

The above "very different agenda" is the supposedly universal aim of all

scientists everywhere to discredit astrology by all possible means, as if bona fidescientific study could not possibly occur. On top of this, the authors seem to thinkwe have to accept astrology or not, as if it was impossible to accept part of it andreject the rest. Similarly they refer often to scientists' rhetoric but never toastrologers' rhetoric, as if astrologers were incapable of it (any astrology writingwill quickly dispel that one). Nor do they tell us about astrologism, the astrologicalequivalent of scientism, where for example astrology is the way, the truth and thelight, and (given the right technique) is able to explain everything. Ironically, in anarticle in the Astrological Journal (1994, 36, pp.69-75), Curry uses the samebelief in "one way, truth and life" to dismiss both Christianity and the "so-calledscientific method." This is not a book for readers who are expecting credible

scholarship.

It boils down to religionIf, as the authors claim, real (ie their) astrology makes the world seemwonderfully meaningful, exactly what does this mean in practical terms? What dopaying clients stand to gain? What criteria should we use to compare astrologywith its many competitors? Unfortunately the authors do not tell us in a coherentway, as in a shopping list, nor do they tell us how clients might recognise asuitable astrologer (do good outcomes depend on good rapport?). The result islike discussing restaurants without ever visiting one or mentioning food.

However, the authors do say that real astrology is "a specific form of religiouslife" (p.111) that has no need of "experience of truth in an objectivist sense"(p.112), so it seems that the benefits are generally those of any religion. Realastrology does not need to be true. Like any religion, real astrology valuesmystery (enchantment) before concrete knowledge (disenchantment), andpresumably after priestly status (judging from the authors' lofty sermonising).Ironically the authors fail to mention that empirical research has already reachedthe same conclusion about astrology not needing to be true, but no doubt theywished to avoid any hint that such research can actually get it right.

Similarly the authors seem unable to appreciate that both science and religionare responses to our thirst for understanding, so to accept the latter and rejectthe former (as they do) is hardly reasonable. Which is not to say that others onboth sides have not done the same.

Regrettably the authors scarcely mention how the role of divination was hugelydisputed in the Renaissance. Thus in 1495 Pico della Mirandola dismisseddivinatory astrology as a confusion of real physical planets with stellar divinities.He asked "Shall we accept as divine the things which we have disproved as



irrational, imitating the astrologers who refer all the things men do to the starswithout reason?", and so on for twelve volumes (Garin, op cit p.88). In the 12thvolume he sees the history of astrology as the progressive influx of ancientreligious beliefs into the realm of natural philosophy, a direction that was of course to be reversed two centuries later. In effect Willis and Curry seem to be

back in the Renaissance, arguing against Pico in the style of the day. They are of course entitled to see Pico as making a wrong turn, but by the same tokenreaders are entitled to hear Pico's arguments and their response. No entry on"Renaissance" appears in their index.

Rule 3: Attack via distortion, hypocrisy, and straw menThe chapter on "Science and Astrology" attacks what researchers say in their interview in Phillipson's Astrology in the Year Zero (Flare, London 2000), alsoavailable in expanded form on this website under Doing Scientific Research. Theattack proceeds via the usual selective quoting and distortion. For example theresearchers are quoted as asking "Was astrology true?", which is taken as their

"stated starting point" and then dismissed as being impossibly sweeping and akinto asking "is science true?" (p.96). However, their actual starting point, or howthey got involved in astrology back in the 1970s, is as follows:

"We were intrigued by astrological claims, and by the depth and complexity of thesubject. Was astrology true? Could the stars really correlate with human affairs?How could it work? Scientists love challenges like that. The problem was the lackof evidence -- a situation no longer true. So we set out to explore the claims indepth." (Phillipson p.124)

In other words a less selective quote tells a different story. Examples of claims to

be explored are then philosophised away. For example when the researchersask "Is it true that positive signs are extraverted?", testing is dismissed because itignores context, even though the claim is made not by the researchers but byevery astrology textbook. (No matter that the same argument would dismiss theclaims of horary astrology such as "first house signifies the querent.") Similarly,when the researchers note how astrologers show "dramatic disagreement onfundamentals", this is dismissed because fundamentals also depend on context(p.97). Which is like arguing that traffic accidents can be dismissed because theydepend on a particular road and driver.

Ultimately the attack reduces to asserting that real astrology (because religious)is not amenable to the researchers' scientific approach, which makes theresearchers guilty of "naivete, bordering on sheer ignorance, or else hypocrisy"(p.98). But here the hypocrisy lies with the authors, who fail to mention that theresearchers insist on exactly the same caveat. Thus when Phillipson asks them"Are there some astrological claims to which scientific research might beirrelevant?", they reply as follows:



"Some astrologers claim that scientific research is impersonal or unspiritual or insensitive to deeper truths. ... Or they claim that astrology involves subtle factorsnot yet known to science. In each case they conclude that science is unsuited toastrology, period. But apart from its emphasis on critical evaluation, sciencerequires only that events be observable in some way. ... if astrologers can

observe the claimed correlations, so can scientific researchers ... Does this meanthat science must apply to all areas of astrology? Not at all. If no possibleobservation could rule out a particular claim, then the claim is untestable, andscientific research is irrelevant. It is as simple as that. ... Even so, we can stillcompare astrology to other systems that claim to give direction and purpose toour lives (astrology has no monopoly here), in the same way that we cancompare the origin and maintenance of religious beliefs." (Phillipson p.128)

In other words the scientific approach is relevant only where astrology is testableby observation, or where concrete statements are involved, or where empiricalcomparisons are being made. Apart from attacking a straw man, Willis and Curry

are in effect claiming that real astrology is beyond observation. They are placingastrology on the same level as fantasy, which makes their long-windedobscurities largely redundant. Indeed, having noted that you cannot predict whenastrology will successfully predict, presumably a reflection of stars inclining butnot compelling, they add "And being unavoidable, this is no failing!" (p.102),which is placing astrology on the same level as guessing. What took all of 170paralysing pages could have been said just as plausibly in a few lines. In terms of advancing the debate on astrology, the book adds generously to the noise butlittle to the signal. Which leads to Rule 4.

Rule 4. Keep well away from the coalface

The authors seem committed to keeping their arguments shrouded inphilosophyspeak, like shadow boxing in the blue beyond. Indeed, there seems tobe nothing so concrete that they cannot make vague and abstract, presumably inthe hope that this will be mistaken for profundity. For example on page 12 Currysays he "came to astrology early"; it seemed "to offer a Key" and "perfectly suitedmy character." But he tired of astrology's "marginality" and its "lack of certainty."After several years in academia he realised that science had "as much ultimateuncertainty as astrology" and therefore offered no hope of demystifying it. Hethen discovered horary, which "contextualized astrology as a kind of divination, adialogue with the unknown, which opens it up and enlivens it", whatever thatmeans. In all of this there is no mention of what he actually did to reach thatconclusion, or what tests he made or did not make, so readers come away withonly impressions and no real understanding. And as with page 12, so with thebook. The reader is always kept well away from the coalface by torrents of vagueness and obscurities.

For example (in English translation) the authors argue that science ismechanistic, so it cannot be used to test a non-mechanistic astrology.Conclusion: all existing tests are meaningless. But the argument is implausible.



The aim has been to test what an astrologer claims ("people fit their charts") byasking straightforward questions ("do people fit other people's charts just aswell?"). Or by comparing one view ("what matters is when you think of thequestion") with another ("what matters is when I receive your question"). If astrologers can observe support here for their claims then so can anyone

including scientists. Issues of mechanism do not come into it. Indeed, a look atany recent well-designed test would be a big help, but the authors seemincapable of being this simple, preferring instead to retreat into obfuscation.

Similarly they never examine an actual study or finding or the various empiricalapproaches. They never examine how a chart is prepared and interpreted. Theynever step you through an actual act of divination. You never get a feel for whatdivinatory success means, or how frequent it is, yet (as Sheldrake shows for actsof staring) such things should not be difficult. The result is like conducting a war game out of sight of practicalities. The arguments when stripped of their protective fog of philosophyspeak are often ludicrous, as when the authors

dismiss the idea of controls because you cannot test astrology if it is absent(p.102). And when they quote the inability of science to determine absolute truth(p.103) as a reason for dismissing the idea that we can tell when an astrologyreading is wrong. But the futility does not end there.

Postmodern futilityIn the end the authors shoot themselves in the foot. As committedpostmodernists they dismiss science as "just one of a plurality of mythologicalnarratives" (p.127). But so is their own view. Didn't they notice? So their ownview can equally be dismissed as a mythological narrative worth no moreattention than any other.

For further insight into the futility of postmodernism, listen to what Curry said in2004 in his Carter Memorial Lecture to the Astrological Association (see

Astrological Journal Nov-Dec 2004 pp.7-17): "The researchers will always find aperfectly good reason, in their terms, why your [astrological] result is not valid."For Curry the reference to "in their terms" allows him to dismiss the reason out of hand, because in postmodernism any set of terms is as good as any other. Youcan dismiss whatever you want just because you don't like it, period. Which islike claiming a change of terms will save you if you jump off a cliff. If on the waydown you dismiss the researchers as hopeless bigots, then according to Curry"they will simply ignore you." So what would he have them do, believe thatgravity is a silly idea?

UpdateThe above review also appeared on the philosophy websitewww.butterfliesandwheels.com, to which Patrick Curry sent the following replydated 27 Nov 2005:



Curry's replyI am writing as one of the co-authors of Astrology, Science and Culture,"reviewed" by Geoff Dean for this website. On page 107, note 7 therein, Imention that Dean, as a longstanding critic of astrology, has two principalrhetorical strategies: "One is to tendentiously 'summarize' his opponent's

arguments and then deal with the resulting creation. The other is to engage inapparently endless reply and counter-reply, while conceding nothing, to the pointwhere his opponents sensibly decide that the process has become fruitless anddecline to continue -- whereupon Dean claims victory."

The first strategy is what, yet again, he has done with our book, and I have nointention (having a life) of giving him the opportunity to engage in the second. SoI will only comment that it is a shame that Dean continues to refuse to engagewith - as opposed to merely attempting to destroy - any arguments which throwinto question his own foundational assumptions. (Thinking is hard, but that's noexcuse.)

For the same reason, I would invite readers, if they are interested in the subject,to read the book for themselves and then make up their own minds.

Response from reviewersIn January 2006 Curry was invited to provide a more reasoned response but didnot reply. Until he does, here is an interim response from the reviewers:

The Butterflies and Wheels website imposed their own title "Pulling down theMoonshine", and failed to mention that there were other contributors to thereview besides Geoffrey Dean. That the review summarises the book's

arguments is hardly a sensible criticism -- reviewers have no alternative but toproceed in this way, and indeed Curry does exactly the same when reviewing our own work.

Nor is it the case that Dean routinely engages "in apparently endless reply andcounter-reply, while conceding nothing." For example Wout Heukelom inCorrelation 13(1):24 describes Dean and Mather as "having open ears" and"without any feelings of superiority of their own opinions", and Joanna Ashmun in16(2):68 describes Dean as using "every relevant comment he can get ... he isnot stuck on his own opinions at all." Indeed, Garry Phillipson's interview of theresearchers (see this website under Doing Scientific Research) would hardlyhave happened if they conceded nothing.

Is Curry a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?We disagree that our review fails to engage with the book's arguments. Curryneeds to justify this and his other statements with examples. If he had time towrite a book then he should have time for a proper response to a consideredreview, if only because this is an occupational commitment when an academic.Bear in mind that the Sophia Centre was made possible by the Sophia Project,



and that according to the Project's website www.sophia-project.org.uk one of theCentre's goals is "to undertake the academic and critical examination of astrologyand its practice." Curry's reaction implies that this goal is not to be takenseriously, at least not where views contrary to his own are concerned.

Furthermore, in his Carter Memorial Lecture, Curry stresses that educationinvolves "not imposing your ideas" but discussing them "as widely as possible ...so a big part of what we do [at Sophia Centre] is to try to make possible newconnections and wider conversations." Curry's response to our review so far would seem to reduce these fine ideals to mere lip service, a case of "do as Isay, not as I do."

However, a proper response now seems unlikely. Early in 2006 Bath SpaUniversity College announced that it is discontinuing the study of astrology at theSophia Centre. Dr Curry's position there ceased at the end of June 2006.

What have other reviews concluded?Curry's suggestion that people should "read the book for themselves and thenmake up their own minds" seems to assume that nobody but us would findproblems with it. So what have other reviews concluded?

Reviews by astrologers have been generally positive. Garry Phillipson's view inthe Astrological Journal (2004, 46(4), pp.36-37) that the book is a "key text"although "frequently abstruse" has already been cited. Jane Ridder-Patrick(www.scimednet.org) says the book challenges "assumptions in science andwestern culture", and hopes it will lead to "productive debates on the subject."Mark Urban-Lurain (Journal of Scientific Exploration 2005, 19(1), 142-145), after

an excellent chapter-by-chapter overview, concludes that the book is "thought-provoking" and "a pioneering work that brings a postmodern perspective to thisancient subject." He notes that the book's postmodern view "that there is nopreferred perspective" is problematic because the view "is itself a preferredperspective." Readers "are likely to be sympathetic to the objections Willis andCurry raise to scientism, but they may find this work a bit too eager to throw outthe baby with the bathwater."

Reviews by academics have been less positive. For example Jon Marshal( Australian Journal of Anthropology 2005, 16(2), 277-279, available online fromwww.findarticles.com), writing from a social history perspective, notes thatCurry's use of disenchantment "simply names what is observed and makes thatan explanation." Despite the subtitle, culture "is neglected beyond the suggestionthat astrology gives bursts of enchantment", and restricting astrology to divinationconflicts with the diversity of its present roles in society. So the book is"problematic" but is at least "a base from which others can venture."

Similarly Alessandro Giostra (Reviews in Religion and Theology 2005, 12(1),125-127), a historian of philosophical and scientific thought, notes that "Some



correct statements in this book, such as the important role of astrology in thehistory of knowledge or opposition to the absurd pretensions of scientism, do not

justify belief in a sort of pantheism with no order and logical coherence, foundedupon an even more generic conversation with the celestial bodies."



Why the study of astrologyshould be encouraged

Prize-winning essay from Alan Leo's Modern Astrology 1907, 4, 5-7

Abstract -- Gives 33 reasons presented in 1907 why the study of astrologyshould be encouraged. Some of them (such as showing "whom to admit as

equals") might be unacceptable to many astrologers today. The rest reduce to:Because astrology has attracted great minds, is a better source of knowledgethan science, reveals our place in the world, prevents many mistakes andmisfortunes, is a speedy cure for profanity, gives good guidance on health,marriage, friends, travel, employment, where to live, in fact on all things, willrevolutionise the world, and has never been proven false. Seven similar reasonsfrom a 1910 article are included. Most of the reasons are incompatible withmodern research findings.

Thirty-three reasons, supplied by E.T.Manderville, to whom a special prize of oneguinea has been awarded. See The Astrologer's Annual for 1907, p.24. [One

guinea was then roughly half the average weekly wage]

BECAUSE1. It has been studied by some of the keenest intellects of the past, and is stillstudied by intellectual men in the present.

2. It appeals to the intellectual side of our nature and encourages the active useof mind and thought.

3. It invites and stimulates an honest enquiry into the laws governing the earthand its inhabitants.

4. It enables us to obtain a more correct knowledge of ourselves in our relation tothe physical world than any other scientific system of enquiry.

5. It is the main entrance into a fuller and more complete understanding of thenew psychology.






6. It clearly demonstrates to the average mind a wise intelligence behind themanifested universe, and reveals a perfect ordering of all things.

7. It denotes the place in evolution of each individual, and indicates thelimitations imposed upon him for the purpose of learning the lessons that earth

life has to teach.

8. It teaches us whom to respect as true superiors, whom to admit as equals, andthose whom we have to help as inferiors.

9. It establishes faith in a Divine Ruler, and soon establishes the conviction that"we suffer from ourselves," thus confirming St Paul's teaching that we shall reapas we have sown.

10. It enables us to accept our environment, as the best for our immediatepurpose, in which our energies may be fruitfully expressed.

11. It enables us to discover with whom we may make profitable acquaintance,and how to adapt and adjust ourselves to circumstances.

12. It shows where our affections may be safely placed, and also when andwhere they will be reciprocated.

13. It rationally explains our sympathies and antipathies, and why we aremagnetically drawn toward some individuals and repelled by others.

14. It quickly proves that there is no such thing as chance or accident, and

inspires us to see that all is designed for our eventual perfection.

15. It leaves no doubt as to character being destiny, and thus aids us to avoidcareless censure of others, but instead produces a better understanding of their actions.

16. It helps us in knowing how to acquire command over our lower nature, andcontrol those sensations and vapourings likely to hinder our higher evolution.

17. It enables us to trace consequences, events and happenings to their legitimate cause, and realise that it is not impossible to read the register of our

motives.

18. It enables us to forecast the result of certain feelings, thoughts, and actions,and by the use of forethought to turn them to good account and future welfare.

19. It shows us in which direction to look for genius, how to use the creativefaculties and in which direction to exercise our imagination.



20. It is the best means of removing ignorance from our path, and paves the wayfor much greater enlightenment than we had anticipated.

21. It is of inestimable value in the training, disciplining and educating of children.

22. It is a speedy cure for profanity, corrects irreverence, stops scepticism andcannot fail to encourage a true religious attitude of mind.

23. It brings into active use judgment, perception, discrimination, impartiality,right understanding, careful conclusions and many other mental virtues.

24. It is based upon a perfect symbology, handed on by those wise men whostudied before us, in which are preserved universal ideas, illustrated by simpleideographs, metaphors and pictorial hieroglyphs.

25. It enobles all who are sincere and earnest in its study, and when understood

its inner meaning broadens both mind and sympathies.

26. It leads to a cultivation of a loyal and faithful obedience to the law of love andharmony.

27. It cannot fail to produce the true spirit of self-reliance; it does away withservility, weakness and inertia and quickly awakens intuition, reason andintelligence.

28. Its universal study would undoubtedly revolutionise the world's thought andattitude, and it is foreseen that when the universal intelligence permeates all

beings, that the time will arrive for its general understanding, and thereforehuman emancipation.

29. It would prevent many misfortunes, and lead to the avoidance of manycalamities and enable individuals to act wisely and discreetly.

30. It would prevent many mistakes in marriage, and avoid linking unsuitablepartners, thus doing away with separations, divorce and deceptions.

31. It would enable all to select the best legislators, and thus secure a wiseadministration of worldly affairs, eventually producing a perfect management of

national affairs.

32. It would become an abbreviated method of obtaining knowledge of how totreat the body and maintain health, whom to marry, where to travel, the bestplace to live in, when best to unfold our spiritual nature, when to conserve andeconomise, in fact of all things, thus saving energy, time and waste of force.



33. It has never been refuted, and no one has succeeded in proving its story tobe false, and even after a superficial study it has never failed to commandrespect and the conviction that it is a possible explanation of the mystery of life inall its various manifestations.

PostscriptAn Astrologer's Creed by A.S.Ellerbeck, Modern Astrology 1910, 7, 318-321,provides further reasons. Summary: I BELIEVE in Astrology because it investsthe entire planetary system with Life and Consciousness, it reduces everything toutter law and predestination, it is wholly complementary to Theosophy, it implieswe are not ruled by injustice: it says there is a proper time for everything, there isobvious truth in it, and it has shewed me my own nature, defying all blinkingaway of defects. [Note the strong influence of Theosophy]



Ways of knowingA swim in the shark-infested waters dividing science and spirit

Geoffrey Dean

A slightly expanded version of an article in Pulsar 8, 2-8, Winter 1991-92.

Abstract -- A simplified and nontechnical exploration for the general reader of the divide between science and spirit, and of ways of knowing. Most astrologers

claim that astrology encompasses both the material and spiritual planes. Thespiritual approach removes doubt because none is possible, which to somepeople is comforting. By contrast, the scientific approach demands tests andemphasises doubt, which to some people is far from comforting. There areseveral recognised ways of knowing (intuition, experience, authority, deduction,induction, and science). The trick is to distinguish between knowledge and belief,which are not the same, just as facts and values are not the same. Astrologerstend to look at astrology from a value viewpoint and conclude that it works.Critics tend to look at astrology from a factual viewpoint and conclude theopposite. Beware the difference. 12 references.

Some fools employ all their lives in writing nonsense,and others all theirs in trying to make sense of it.Anon, quoted in James Wilson's Dictionary of Astrology 1819:305

What in astrology turns you on the most? Practical matters such as relationshipsand vocation? Or spiritual matters such as potentials and transcendant meaning?Do you soothe your clients with "you have career difficulties"? Or do you sock it






But it is not that simple! In practice no person uses religion as the ultimateauthority for moral reasoning. In reality we pick whatever suits us (like therequirement to love thy neighbour) and ignore the rest (like the requirement tostone adulteresses). So we have some other authority, and that authority is "whatmost people think is moral", which of course can change over time. Similarly,

some religious claims (like angels exist or souls survive bodily death) are alsoscientific claims that are therefore not outside the domain of science. But suchcomplications do not upset my argument.

Some astrologers do indeed restrict astrology to super-personal values. LikeParacelsus they may be committed to a "metaphysick" or Grand Scheme of Things which happens to be conducive to astrology, yet reject certain of itsclaims (in this case mundane astrology), just as Hindus can be committed to aconcept of God and reject certain claims of Christianity. But most astrologersclaim that astrology has the unique advantage of encompassing both the materialand spiritual planes. For example, Dennis Elwell (1987:4) says "astrology is the

best and maybe the last hope of religion, because it offers a meeting-ground for the scientific and religious views of reality, reconciling many of their differences".No matter that both sides show no interest in astrology.

Now for the bad newsInvoking spiritual values does not elevate astrology beyond criticism. Indeed, itmay be the death of it. Let me explain.

To start with, an astrologer who seeks spiritual fulfillment rather than truth willusually toss inconsistencies and falsifying data out the window. For example,Gregory Szanto (1985) claims that the astrological symbols in our birth chart help

us align our outer physical expression (where we have free will) with our inner spiritual nature (which is set by God) to achieve harmony with the universe. Hethen claims that only intuition can reveal the inner nature shown by the birthchart. So the meaning must be allowed to rise spontaneously from theunconscious (where he claims meaning resides), for example by using the birthchart as a crystal ball. Note the problem -- there is nothing here that could be trueor false. Worse still, the problem of how to resolve opposing intuitions (which,given that astrologers show no useful agreement on what a given birth chartshows, is the rule rather than the exception) is simply ignored. In these warmenticing waters we have met our first shark.

Spiritual sharks for saleThose with a taste for shark will find a gourmet feast among the claims of the lateDane Rudhyar, perhaps the best-known proponent of the broad spiritualapproach, spiritual being the word preferred by him (Rudhyar 1975:49). Whatfollows is largely a condensation of a detailed analysis due to Kelly and Krutzen(1983) and Kelly, Culver and Loptson (1989). Rudhyar's claim comes first initalics, then their analysis:



Astrology deals with individuals, science does not. According to Rudhyar (1936/1970:460), "modern science is obliged to ignore the individualness of every living entity" whereas astrology "deals essentially with the individual". Butscience does not ignore individuals. In fact a major focus of psychology is thestudy of individual differences. If a theory does not stop bedwetting, or cure fear

of spiders, or identify ability, or help Gladys learn better, then we reject it or revise it. Rudhyar has set up a straw man.

Astrology's truths are not empirical. Rudhyar (1936/1970:459) denies thatastrology gives empirical truth, that is, truth which can be confirmed byobservation. Thus the birth chart reveals a person's potentials but does notindicate what will actualise these potentials. To paraphrase Eysenck's (1985:195)critique of Freudian theory, this presents us with a difficulty. What if the potentialsare merely speculations that are actually untrue? How can we tell? Tests haveshown that astrologers generally disagree on what a given chart indicates, sohow can we tell who is right? Thus even if we accept astrology as a source of

insight, we still need criteria for deciding its truth or falsity -- and none areprovided.

Astrology sees man and the universe as a whole. This requires theassumption that it is meaningless to examine any part in isolation. Just as a notehas meaning only as part of a melody, so life can be understood only as part of the universe, and astrology "if it is properly used" is the best way of finding your place (Rudhyar 1977). If you disagree, then astrology "is not being usedproperly". Compare this with faith healing -- if you have faith you will be healed,but if you ain't healed then you have insufficient faith! By invoking holismastrology is thus made nonfalsifiable and is elevated beyond criticism. The

impossibility of examining the whole is conveniently ignored. Furthermore, eventhe supposedly "whole chart" of 10 planets is still a microscopic "part" of theuniverse of over 1022 stars, so by Rudhyar's own argument the birth chart isnecessarily meaningless.

Ultimately Rudhyar (1980) defines astrology as being beyond inquiry: "To reduceastrology to a practice susceptible of...[objective analysis] is to me to repudiateits very special character as a discipline of understanding -- a path to broadpsycho-spiritual wisdom." This would seem to absolve astrology from anyresponsibility to establish the truth of its claims. Thus the real foundation of spiritual astrology is that no belief about anything could be false, and its defenceagainst criticism is nonfalsifiability. The problem of course is that, if you believe itis all foolish nonsense, then by its own rules you are right. In the long run thedifference between surviving and being devoured by sharks is largely a questionof knowing, coming up next.

Ways of knowingKnowing requires sufficient evidence. When evidence is not sufficient, we can, inorder of increasing difficulty and decreasing popularity, either (1) believe, (2)



suspend judgement, or (3) try to find out. There are several recognised ways of knowing, as follows:

Intuition (Ideas directly intuited to the mind, traditionally much trusted but highlyunreliable, how do you resolve opposing intuitions?). Experience (much used

but will not indicate how to compute square roots). Authority (acceptable only if the source is reliable). Deduction (from the general to the specific, if all greenapples are sour then this green apple is sour, not a source of new knowledge).Induction (from the specific to the general, if this green apple is sour, then allgreen apples are sour, not infallible). Science (the art of looking carefully, notwhat is done but how ).

If our warm spiritual seas contain too many sharks for comfort, it is little better inthe cold demanding waters of science. Let me show you what I mean.

Scientific sharks

The scientific approach developed gradually over many years and has proved tobe an excellent method for understanding the natural world. It provides no ethicalpronouncements, no alternative religions, just a good pair of eyes and ears. Itproceeds by having ideas, testing them rigorously, then fitting them into acoherent overall pattern. The assumptions are events have causes, therelationship exhibits at least some order, and the relationship can be discoveredby observation.

If events are beyond observation, they are beyond scientific investigation. Thisdoes not mean that events cannot be approached in other ways, eg byintrospection. But without independent tests that give them public verification,

such approaches carry little weight in science. Life is short, and speculations areten a penny.

Avid shark watchers will note much in common with the spiritual approach. Ineach case every detail is seen as part of nature's plan. Many people prefer thespiritual approach because, like instant coffee, it is richer and more satisfying. Itremoves doubt because none is possible. By contrast, the scientific approachdemands tests and emphasises doubt, which to them is as comforting as havingtheir teeth drilled. The sharks here are of a different kind.

Sharks out for a duck

In his account of quackery in twentieth century America, Young (1967: 427)comments "The quack can erect a beautifully logical structure on the basis of onefalse but plausible premise. Countless intelligent and educated men have missedthe premise, admired the logic, and been trapped." Can countless intelligent andeducated astrologers be wrong?

A scientist usually tests ideas by conducting an experiment. The results arecritically examined by other scientists, who conduct further experiments, and so



on, until consensus is reached. The scientific approach thus has three features: itis collaborative, it is impartial, and it is self-correcting. At least in principle. Inpractice, human fallibility introduces hiccups, but not serious ones. In the longterm, as the history of science shows, truth in science has always prevailed over prejudice. This makes science almost unique among human endeavours.

For example, suppose the idea is that astrology is explained by "as above, sobelow". The questions that a scientist might ask, together with the answers as far as we presently know, would be: Is this explanation correct? (don't know). Is itcompatible with existing knowledge? (no). Are there other explanations? (yes).What would prove each explanation wrong? (research). Here the research wouldconsist of tests of hypotheses based on each explanation. The last question is apotent corrective to woolly thinking. But in cold waters the sharks run deep.

Sow the wind, reap the sharkThe scientific approach is unlikely to produce results unless the variables are

uncomplicated (at least to start with), and the variables can be measured(otherwise it is impossible to keep track of what is happening).

These points apply in the physical sciences, where the behaviour of a gas or apendulum can be predicted in detail using only a few variables. They do notapply in the social sciences, where countless variables (most of them imperfectlyunderstood) can interact in complex ways, so that the behaviour of a rat or aperson is currently beyond all but the broadest prediction. To make mattersworse, measurement, control and replication are more difficult, and the mereexistence of an observer may change everything.

Despite these difficulties, great progress has been made to the point wheresystems just as complex as astrology have been investigated with appreciablesuccess. Examples are Freudian ideas and phrenology, whose untestabilitywhen they were invented steadily disappeared as methodology improved. So itcannot be claimed that modern methods are inadequate for research intoastrology. Imperfect, yes. Inadequate, no. Even sharks are entitled to a fair Trades Description.

Shark lovers uniteCentral to our noble natatorial navigations is how we view our experiences interms of values vs facts. If our experience happens to be based on values thenfacts tend to be irrelevant, because if it feels right then it is right. Thus the idea of Santa Claus is uplifting even though he does not exist. But if our experiencehappens to be based on facts then values tend to be irrelevant, because it canfeel wonderfully right and still be wrong. Thus smoking is harmful even thoughsmokers say it feels good.

The distinction between values and facts explains why some things can bestrongly accepted by some people and strongly rejected by others. Thus a



certain religious or superstitious idea may be strongly accepted by millions of people because it has value, and equally strongly rejected by millions of othersbecause it has no factual basis. For example Roman Catholics before AD 1000were forbidden to believe in witches flying through the air (= no factual basis),whereas 500 years later they were forbidden to disbelieve (= value for increasing

power of ruling class). The distinction values vs facts is explored in more detailas subjective vs objective in the Phillipson interview of researchers on thiswebsite under Doing Scientific Research.

By definition there is only one viewpoint based on facts. But there are manyviewpoints based on values -- in principle as many as there are people -- eachsupported by the slogan "it's true for me!". Those seeking a value viewpoint arethus confronted not with a single neat package but with bewildering confusion.

To a shark trying to decide which restaurant has the best view, the point is notwhich view is best, but that the views tend to be incompatible. Thus rating an

experience in terms of value will not be acceptable to a shark who insists onfacts, and vice versa. The more value-oriented the viewpoint, the less relevantscience becomes, because the issue is increasingly not about facts but aboutvalues. As we fall flailing between the Scylla of sharks and the Charybdis of sharks, we get one final insight into this conflict of swimming rights by looking atthe distinction between knowledge, ignorance, and belief.

Jaws and the meaning of lifeFor convenience I define knowledge, ignorance, and belief as follows:Knowledge = Testable ideas that have been verified (the Earth is round, malariais spread by mosquitoes). Ignorance = Testable ideas not yet verified (there is a

planet closer to the Sun than Mercury, meditation helps you levitate). Belief =Untestable ideas impossible to verify (angels feel no pain, we are here to helpothers).

Knowledge is not necessarily more helpful than belief. Believing that we fly in our sleep may make life more meaningful than knowing we do not. Knowledge is noteven necessarily more helpful than ignorance, as when ignorance (but notknowledge) is bliss. So if we prefer values to facts, it is not important for ideas tobe verified, or for astrology to be scientific -- at least not up to the point where our belief leads us to jump off cliffs. Whatever our preference, constructive debate isunlikely unless we observe two golden rules:

(1) Knowledge, ignorance and belief are not the same, just as values and factsare not the same. Do not parade one in the guise of the other, especially in frontof those about to jump off cliffs. Be aware also that each side may have its ownperspective on these matters, so watch out for misunderstandings.

(2) Astrologers tend to look at astrology from a value viewpoint and conclude thatit works. Critics tend to look at astrology from a factual viewpoint and conclude



the opposite. Beware the difference, especially as each side tends to be unawareof the other's viewpoint.

Ultimately the question is whether astrology is to be applied for the good of people, for the good of astrologers, or for the good of sharks. As they used to say

on BBC's Blind Date, the choice is yours.

References

Blackstone WT (1963). The Problem of Religious Knowledge: The impact of philosophical analysis on the question of religious knowledge. Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs NJ.

Elwell D (1987). Cosmic Loom: The new Science of Astrology . Unwin Hyman,London. Contains no science despite the title.

Eysenck HJ (1985). Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire. Viking Penguin.

Kelly IW and Krutzen R (1983). Humanistic astrology: A critique. Skeptical Inquirer 8, 62-73

Kelly IW, Culver R and Loptson P (1989). Arguments of the astrologers. In SKBiswas, DCV Malik and CV Vishveshwara (eds), Cosmic Perpectives. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Rudhyar D (1936/1970). The Astrology of Personality . Doubleday, Garden CityNY (originally published 1936).

Rudhyar D (1975). From Humanistic to Transpersonal Astrology . SeedPublishing, Berkeley CA.

Rudhyar D (1977). The birth chart as a celestial message of the universal wholeto an individual part. Review Monthly May 1977, 32-34.

Rudhyar D (1980). Personal communication, January 1980.

Szanto G (1985). The Marriage of Heaven and Earth: The philosophy of astrology. Arkana (Routledge & Kegan Paul), London 1985.

Wilson J (1819). A complete Dictionary of Astrology, in which every technical and abstruse term belonging to the science is minutely and correctly explained . Thirdreprint, Weiser, New York 1974.

Young JH (1967). The Medical Messiahs: A social history of health quackery intwentieth-century America. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.

the scientific exploration of astrology-articles by reseachers

Documents