RESEARCH - A Simple Mercury Retrograde Study

[Frank]

A Simple Mercury Retrograde Study
By Frank Piechoski

Thesis: Mercury retrograde disrupts communications.
If this statement is to hold up, only verifiable and documented communications interruptions and degradations should be used in any study that would seek to support the above thesis. This is a simple and preliminary attempt to do this.

Explanation of the Data Used

As some of you might know, my “benefits job” is with a major communications corporation (which will remain nameless to protect my continued employment there). Thus, I have access to some numerical information that might be used to test the above thesis. This short study is an attempt to do so.

The type of information I’m using is the number of trouble tickets left over that were unable to be worked by the end of each working day for the department – 11 p.m. The last appointed person to leave each night fills out a spreadsheet on how many tickets were left in the two main trouble ticket queues worked. This is for a telephony product using Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) technology.

An increasing number of tickets on the end-of-day report points to more trouble tickets being created during that day – hence more customers are having difficulty with their telephone service.

The two queues are:

Minor – These are tickets that completely disrupt communication, such as complete loss of dial tone and the inability to make or receive calls. The usual expectation is that someone in the department will work these tickets within an hour of their creation.

Degraded – These calls are for less severe problems, such as degraded call quality (static, distortion, etc.) and features not working correctly. The usual expectation for these tickets is that they be worked by someone within three hours.

Methodology:

I collected available data for both queues from the updated of the spreadsheet that is sent out every night at 11 p.m. I then determined the Mercury retrograde periods by running Solar Fire’s Dynamic Events Report. I then separated the collated monthly data from the spreadsheets into three extra worksheets – one that contained all the days, one that included only the days when Mercury was direct in motion, and one that showed only the days when Mercury was retrograde in motion. I designated the day Mercury stationed on both ends of the period as retrograde. I then tabulated the findings and determined the average tickets per day that were not worked by 11 p.m. under each condition. I also deleted any days for which no data was collected. The Mercury retrograde shadow period was not examined for the purposes of this brief study. The data was collected from July 2008 through January 2010 and included four complete Mercury retrograde periods and one partial one – the extent of the data available.

Results:

Total Tickets (498 days)
Average Number Tickets Left Per Day- Minor 54.775; Degraded 86.8

Mercury Direct (409 days)
Average Number Tickets Left Per Day - Minor 53.31; Degraded 83.95

Mercury Retrograde (89 days)
Average Number Tickets Left Per Day Minor 60.83; Degraded 98.81

As we can see by the above numbers, there appears to be a significant increase in the average daily number of tickets left over at 11 p.m. on days when Mercury was retrograde. The results of this study appear to support the thesis that Mercury retrograde disrupts communications.

© Copyright 2010 by Frank Piechoski

[StarReader]

wow, interesting research Frank. Thanks for sharing this with us.

[Mr stellium]

Interesting... You could apply statistics to check if it is "statistically significant" (Heres a link if you aren't familiar with it: http://www.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa696/696stsig.htm )

[vanila]

Great research ....Mr.Piechoski :)
I was wondering is it possible to be made similar research on another planet and the effects when Rx, for what we can look that can be measured?...it will be more difficult I guess....
:)

[byjove]

A great piece of research Frank, we're lucky to have some able and willing to do this research so professionally and share it with us.

This is the kind of research the world needs to see. On one of my favourite TV programs recently they mentioned how ridiculous astrology is, 'because what it says in the magazine can apply to anybody'...will the difficulties presented by Sun-sign horoscopes ever stop plaguing us? How do we present this kind of information? What people think is astrology and the work Frank has presented above are two completely different things.

Thanks Frank! :wink:

[Frank]

Interesting... You could apply statistics to check if it is "statistically significant" (Heres a link if you aren't familiar with it: http://www.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa696/696stsig.htm )

Well, thus far we have about a 20 percent higher number of tickets for Mercury retrograde over Mercury direct. It really doesn't warrant a chi square test, because it doesn't need one - the difference is self-evident.

[Frank]

Great research ....Mr.Piechoski :)
I was wondering is it possible to be made similar research on another planet and the effects when Rx, for what we can look that can be measured?...it will be more difficult I guess....
:)

Sure - we could search for anything, really. But Mercury retrograde has long been thought of as disrupting to communications - plus it happens three times per year so there's more of a chance to study it.

[Frank]

A great piece of research Frank, we're lucky to have some able and willing to do this research so professionally and share it with us.

This is the kind of research the world needs to see. On one of my favourite TV programs recently they mentioned how ridiculous astrology is, 'because what it says in the magazine can apply to anybody'...will the difficulties presented by Sun-sign horoscopes ever stop plaguing us? How do we present this kind of information? What people think is astrology and the work Frank has presented above are two completely different things.

Thanks Frank! :wink:

You're welcome. I've been devoting much of my spare time to research these days. I just lectured this past Sunday at the NCGR Conference in Cambridge, Mass on my research into fatal aircraft accidents - using almost 4,000 charts.

Also, if you haven't seen this before here, I've done a lecture on Mensa-level inteligence:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=146912&postcount=110

And the astrology of artists:

http://www.frankstar.com/artists.htm

If we don't know what is really going on with astrology by doing valid research, how can we claim that we know whereof we speak? We have to measure things that are measurable to see if our preconceptions hold up.

[waybread]

Good job, Frank. I have no idea what "tickets" are in your line of work, but I suspect the differences you detected would be statistically significant.

I agree that it is important to do these kinds of analyses. I am beginning to wonder, however, how good a fit statistics or probabilities are with the more definitive nature of astrological prediction and cookbooks.

Probably you should run the study again several times during different periods just to make sure there isn't some other factor at work, like Mars retrograde, or somesuch. The larger the data set, the more convincing the conclusions if they hold up...or sometimes a small data set's results can't be replicated with additional trials.

One of the questions I have in my own mind, however, as someone who has also looked for correlations in astrological data, is how to explain the data that don't fit the hypothesis. I think in general one might conclude that Mercury retrograde is correlated with more problems....but then, there are cases in which apparently there are no problems; or at least, clients didn't complain about them.

If Mercury retrograde were always a problem, then no phone calls would go through, planes wouldn't fly, and so on....yet we know that they do. So what explains which data points behave as predicted, and which ones don't?

This indeterminacy can be problematical for astrological prediction, because we can't say with certainty how any one datum will play out. We can only say, "usually", or "generally" or "75% of the time" A correlates with B.

I have Mercury retrograde natally [plus Saturn in Virgo], and I seldom expect things to work as they should. I have learned to build a lot of redundancy into my day-to-day scheduling to allow for slip-ups. Maybe a good plan for communications corporations!

Please post more about your interesting studies.

[waybread]

Frank, I just skimmed your interesting article on astrology and artists. I started a thread on this topic over at Astrodienst on the Psychological and General Astrology board on their forum [www.astro.com] (http://www.astro.com]) a few weeks ago, and kind of gave it up as a bad job.

I had one university course in statistics ages ago. I am sorry I didn't take more, but I had no idea back then I would be interested in astrological research. I would be interested to learn which statistical method you used. Chi-square and Spearman's rank correlation were about at my level. My recollection is that correlations generally come with some measure [called "r" or "r squared, if I recall] of significance; meaning some indication of the odds the correlation could be due to chance alone. So statistics go beyond simple frequency counts. I wish I learned some higher-powered mulit-variate methods, which is what I think astrological research needs.

I really thought there was a relationship in the charts of French painters plus other charts I've read on both Forums between artistic talent and aspects from Neptune to the moon, Venus, or Mercury. I used the 10 aspects shown by Astrodienst in their aspectarian, and used their orbs; getting my birth data from their Astro-DataBank. Eureka!, I thought. Neptune/moon, /Venus, or /Mercury aspects were showing up all over the place!

Then I did a control group or two. And got the same high frequencies.

I realized then that the problem was. With 30 possible aspects, they were all taking up a lot of circumferance around the perimeter of the 360-degree horoscopic circle, even with narrow orbs. Indeed, people without a major or "major minor" aspect from Neptune to Mercury, moon, or Venus would have to be a minority on the planet.

The problem comes, also, if we try to use statistical findings when someone asks, "Do I have what it takes to be an artist?" Generally, a statistician would give them some probability measure. The more the astrological "signatures" compound, the more we might predict that such an individual could be successful. We would need some method of doing that.

Because if only 11% of artists have the moon in Aries, for example, we are stuck with the problem that 89% of artists have their moon in some other sign. Even if 11% is still higher than the control group, it is still a small minority of artists.

I should also mention that I selected French artists because (a) France is a country where the arts are encouraged; and (b) I understood from the Gauquelin studies that French birth records included accurate birth times. I was aghast to find out that many of the birth times--in the Gauquelin sample--were rounded to the nearest hour! This just wasn't good enough, in my book, for using house cusps or even angles.

Something to consider in doing correlations involving ascendants, midheavens, and so on.

But please keep up this sort of research. Astrology needs it...even if it is only to discard what is problematic.

[Modcleopatra]

Frank! Wow, you lectured at the recent conference in Cambridge? That is excellent. I'm sure you research stunned quite a few conference participants, or at least impressed them. :teehee:

I very much wanted to attend, as I live only about an hour and a half away. I'm kicking myself for not going, especially now that I learned you would have been there.

I wish THIS forum would look into doing something like that.

mod.

[Amy Vir Sn Ari Mn Pis Ris]

I LOVE seeing results like this! Thank you Frank~

And I agree it'd be interesting to check out the other retrogrades but I see your point about more opportunities with Mercury.

[lillyjgc]

Frank: Hope you don't mind-I moved a copy of this over to the Ed Board.
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22923

Lilly

[Frank]

I had one university course in statistics ages ago. I am sorry I didn't take more, but I had no idea back then I would be interested in astrological research. I would be interested to learn which statistical method you used. Chi-square and Spearman's rank correlation were about at my level. My recollection is that correlations generally come with some measure [called "r" or "r squared, if I recall] of significance; meaning some indication of the odds the correlation could be due to chance alone. So statistics go beyond simple frequency counts. I wish I learned some higher-powered mulit-variate methods, which is what I think astrological research needs.


I was using the tools in AstroDatabank (the original program, not the Web-based stuff that astro.com devolved it to) and Jigsaw. I also had Alphee Lavoie look at it with his research program, which I should be purchasing soon since AstroDatabank is a legacy program that is no longer being supported.

What I've found is the combinations of identified significant factors (even though each individual factor might be rather low in number overall) shows some interesting results. For example, in the fatal aircraft incidents, if more than three factors showed up in a chart for the departure time of the aircraft, there was a strong correlation. 9/11/2001 had FIVE factors in the charts for each of the four flights involved. And my experimental group didn't even contain those flights (the data hadn't been year for that year yet - I was just using 1988-1996). The recent landing on the Hudson, with no fatalities, showed NONE of the 16 factors. The thing I was testing for was aircraft-related fatalities, not just incidents.

[Frank]

Frank: Hope you don't mind-I moved a copy of this over to the Ed Board.
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22923

Lilly

No problem.

[Frank]

Frank! Wow, you lectured at the recent conference in Cambridge? That is excellent. I'm sure you research stunned quite a few conference participants, or at least impressed them. :teehee:

I very much wanted to attend, as I live only about an hour and a half away. I'm kicking myself for not going, especially now that I learned you would have been there.

I wish THIS forum would look into doing something like that.

mod.

It was a great conference - you should have stopped by, even if it was just to visit the trade show (open to the public) and hang around a bit.

Unfortunately, not many astrologers want to attend lectures on numerical research - too boring. Richard Tarnas did attend my lecture, however and had some very nice things to say about my research and lecture.

I've decided all my future lectures will have names that will attract attendees, no matter what the subject matter is. I think my next lecture will be titled "Sex and Chocolate" - even if it's about numerical research.:biggrin:

[waybread]

Frank, when we talk about "statistics" do we mean the same thing? It isn't about simple frequency counts, except at the most elementary level, although these always provide the basis for statistical tests. Statistics basically are mathematical tests of hypotheses based upon logical principles and assumptions. They indicate the strength or weakness of correlations, and then the probability that seemingly strong correlations could have occured by chance through "confidence intervals" and rather precise measures of significance.

I don't see evidence of statistical tests in what you've presented on artists: rather, percentages based upon frequency counts.

Also, different statistical tests have different requirements for the sample size, nature, and collection methodology in order for it to be valid.

I say this not to be the fly in the ointment of the considerable and commendable work you have undertaken, but because statisticians and other professionals with statistical backgrounds could really tear a strip off your work if you cannot convincingly demonstrate your procedures.

I won't be the only person to note that for each of your measures of artists, for example, the aspects or placements noted are a small minority of your sample. If 12% of your sample, show variable X, then 88%--ie. the vast majority--do not show it. If you claim some kind of compound interest on these, as you did in your previous post to me, then you need to explain what it is and how it operates mathematically.

You are aware that the Gauquelins were statisticians, and even their work was critiqued. Fortunately they were in some position, based upon their backgrounds, to interact productively with their critics.

The Wikipedia introduction to statistics is probably about as good as anything for lay people, and then it provides links to some of the specific statistical tests.

Another way you might run your data on artists, is to do a "blind" study of a stratified random sample of anonymous charts selected by somebody else, and see whether, using your methods, you could accurately select those belonging to artists.

Further: how many artists' "signatures" need to compound before you can predict a professional artist with some certainty? Are some signatures more important than others? Do some of them interact synergistically, such that a suite of signatures provides more explanatory power than other variables? There are multi-variate statistical tests [I think one is called "cluster analysis"] that should allow you to make such inferences.

Barring that, I would strongly urge you to locate someone with a statistics background--there are many such people in the universities closest to where you live, in science, social science, and mathematics departments--to work with you on applying statistical tests to your frequency counts. See what they come up with.

Please don't blow off my comments. With your material now on the Internet, I would hate to see someone with a proper statistics background claim that astrologers are using invalid techniques for their conclusions. And I am not saying you are, but I don't believe you have a statistics background sufficient to address their concerns.

Best wishes--and truly with a lot of respect for the preliminary work you have undertaken. I realize that my comments are unwelcome, but their intention is to be fundamentally helpful. W.

[Frank]

I am constantly in discussion with people with statistics backgrounds. I do the basic studies of occurence, then let the statistcians do the rest, if they are so inclined. I'm content to collect the data and do the preliminary research.

My intention is to make better astrologers, not prove astrology statistically.

[Frank]

I think I have changed the references from "statistical" research to "numerical" research in all instances in my text.

I just wanted to distinguish it from historical research. My actual methods, and even the databases I use are available to anyone who wants to do numerical research.

[waybread]

Frank, have it your way, but...I don't see any evidence of statistical tests in what you presented.

It occurs to me that there are probably a lot of "starving grad students" in your area if you live anywhere close to a university. A simple classified ad in the campus newspaper, or notice posted on bulletin boards in likely departments [math, psychology, sociology...] might elicit someone willing to put in a few hours on your data for a reasonable fee. I just strongly encourage you to get some true statistical input.

Probably le mot juste for what you have done would be "quantitative" rather than "numerical".

I would also encourage you to look at your orbs, as well as placements occupying a sign, to see how much "real estate" along the 360 degree circumferance so many placements entail for you mensa members and artists. As I said above, I thought I really had something with Neptune aspecting Moon, Mercury, or Venus, till I discovered that my calculation accounted for about 80% of the possible degrees of a horoscope.

In your Mensa calculations, too, sample size is just crucial. For example, if I toss a coin four times, I am likely to get 3 heads and one tail, which would suggest a ratio of 75%/25%. Eureka! I might imagine. But if I toss a coin a hundred times, I am not going to get anything close to 75% heads--which was a chimera of a small sample size. I actually looked at the Mensa data on Astrodienst's Astro-Data Bank last month, and it is not a large sample.

My comments, Frank, are purely in support of your own tag-line: "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams

Please accept them as such. I would hope you would be pleased to encounter someone who is sufficiently interested in your work to try to get "under the hood" a little bit. Congratulations are heart-warming, but they don't improve our analyses.

[Frank]

Waybread, you are making some incorrect assumptions about my research. I present it the way I do so non-statisticians can understand it. If I just threw chi squares out there to astrologers they'd have no idea what I was on about. Expressing the numbers as simple, comparative percentages makes the point much more clearly.

No, I'm not a statistician, but I am a researcher - quantitative, qualitative and historical. My work has been examined by several experienced researchers, including a full professor with a huge background of published works on statistics.

You don't even know the full designs of my studies, the methods used to calculate the control groups, or the way the data was obtained, yet you feel obliged to disparage them and tell me I need to hire a statistics student to examine my data and methods?

I'm not going for publication in a refereed journal here - yet. These are all preliminary studies that seek to educate and enlighten - not to prove the astrological paradigm. If I ever get close to having something I might want to publish in a refereed journal you can bet that I'll be careful to make sure my design and execution is rigorous.

[waybread]

Frank, thanks for keeping up the dialogue. I believe you would rather not!

But here are some crucial points.

1. It is important not to under-estimate "non-statisticians", which would be about 99.9% of the planet. I taught university courses for over 30 years, and even 18-year olds barely out of second-rate high schools with a "B" average can understand fairly complex topics if they are clearly explained, step-by-step. This "teaching moment" approach does mean explaining your approach in a simple [not simplistic] and logical way. My department/s required a statistics class of all of our undergraduate majors, which they normally took at about age 20/21.

2. Even with the research you have done, it is important to walk the reader through it step-by-step regardless of whether they know a lot or a little. They non-experts will then be on your same page. The experts will want to look "under the hood."

Just for example, I don't know why you aggregated your results as percentages without first indicating the actual results or "raw data." Percentages may be important to include, but most statistical tests of which I am aware [which is very few, but I was surrounded by statistically literate colleagues for over 30 years and saw a lot of their publications] work with raw data in the first instance.

Then you might go on to explain that if, for example, if the moon in Aries varies by 3% [and/or by a given raw number] between your target sample and the control, you can have some method of showing whether this is or is not statistically significant.

Why? Just for example, if you hear about Gallup poll results on the news, the pollsters' fine print is generally that the probability that their small telephone survey sample represents the general population is actully plus or minus some percentage: oftentimes it is 3% or close to it. When a few hundred people are surveyed in order to represent a much larger population, 3% could easily be the Gallup Poll's margin of error.

This is the role of statistics: to tell you if your results are easily within the margin or error, whether your results might dissipate with a larger sample, or whether they are an artefact of the methodology itself, vs. of reality.

3. In most quantitative research, there is no difference between a "researcher" and a "statistician." Most statistical research is not conducted by card-carrying statisticians [usually based in mathematics departments, government (like the Census Bureau) or the corporate sector] but by scientists, business analysts, and social scientists [like demographers, economists, and psychologists.] But like the undergraduate majors in my former departments [I am retired now] they take statistics at university--normally at the higher levels, and by that point, as they keep up their reading of the literature in their field, they have enough statistical proficiency to be self-taught with newer or more advanced methods.

4. I retired as a tenured full professor at a large research university, although my statistics background ended with that one course plus ongoing shoulder-rubbing with statistically literate colleagues. Because I sat on tenure committees and that sort of thing, and attended a lot of conferences in my field, I read and heard a lot of their research. Frank, in all honesty, if a full professor at an accredited university with a strong statistics background "examined" your work, I suspect that one of three things happened. (a) S/he had no background in astrology, or (b) S/he shared the widespread academic prejudice against astrology and actually provided little feedback on your research, or (c) S/he asked very few questions about your work and actually provided you will little more than a kind dismissal. I don't say this to be mean-spirited. I am trying to be honest, based upon my experience. Anyone can call herself a "researcher", but until we know that individual's credentials, [I]caveat emptor.

5. I totally agree that I "don't even know the full designs of [your] studies, the methods used to calculate the control groups, or the way the data was obtained." Frank, I am suggesting that you fill in these details--if not here, at least in materials you post on the Internet.

6. Frank, I am not disparaging you in any way. I have repeatedly congratulated you for what you have attempted--and accomplished. I wouldn't bother with this thread if I thought your game was not worth the candle. My indicating that there is "more for you to get to" is exactly the type of feedback that true researchers give out and receive amongst themselves all the time. Why? Because our focus is on the soundness of our work. Sure, our egos get dinged up in this process, but astrology will never truly develop research facility unless we welcome serious scrutiny of our methodologies.

Some of the later chapters of Garry Phillipson, 2000, Astrology in the Year Zero (Flare Publications) get at the issues of astrological research better than I could.

7. I agree that: "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams." That is all I recommend.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

[Frank]

Frank, thanks for keeping up the dialogue. I believe you would rather not!

But here are some crucial points.

1. It is important not to under-estimate "non-statisticians", which would be about 99.9% of the planet. I taught university courses for over 30 years, and even 18-year olds barely out of second-rate high schools with a "B" average can understand fairly complex topics if they are clearly explained, step-by-step. This "teaching moment" approach does mean explaining your approach in a simple [not simplistic] and logical way. My department/s required a statistics class of all of our undergraduate majors, which they normally took at about age 20/21.

2. Even with the research you have done, it is important to walk the reader through it step-by-step regardless of whether they know a lot or a little. They non-experts will then be on your same page. The experts will want to look "under the hood."

Just for example, I don't know why you aggregated your results as percentages without first indicating the actual results or "raw data." Percentages may be important to include, but most statistical tests of which I am aware [which is very few, but I was surrounded by statistically literate colleagues for over 30 years and saw a lot of their publications] work with raw data in the first instance.

Then you might go on to explain that if, for example, if the moon in Aries varies by 3% [and/or by a given raw number] between your target sample and the control, you can have some method of showing whether this is or is not statistically significant.

Why? Just for example, if you hear about Gallup poll results on the news, the pollsters' fine print is generally that the probability that their small telephone survey sample represents the general population is actully plus or minus some percentage: oftentimes it is 3% or close to it. When a few hundred people are surveyed in order to represent a much larger population, 3% could easily be the Gallup Poll's margin of error.

This is the role of statistics: to tell you if your results are easily within the margin or error, whether your results might dissipate with a larger sample, or whether they are an artefact of the methodology itself, vs. of reality.

3. In most quantitative research, there is no difference between a "researcher" and a "statistician." Most statistical research is not conducted by card-carrying statisticians [usually based in mathematics departments, government (like the Census Bureau) or the corporate sector] but by scientists, business analysts, and social scientists [like demographers, economists, and psychologists.] But like the undergraduate majors in my former departments [I am retired now] they take statistics at university--normally at the higher levels, and by that point, as they keep up their reading of the literature in their field, they have enough statistical proficiency to be self-taught with newer or more advanced methods.

4. I retired as a tenured full professor at a large research university, although my statistics background ended with that one course plus ongoing shoulder-rubbing with statistically literate colleagues. Because I sat on tenure committees and that sort of thing, and attended a lot of conferences in my field, I read and heard a lot of their research. Frank, in all honesty, if a full professor at an accredited university with a strong statistics background "examined" your work, I suspect that one of three things happened. (a) S/he had no background in astrology, or (b) S/he shared the widespread academic prejudice against astrology and actually provided little feedback on your research, or (c) S/he asked very few questions about your work and actually provided you will little more than a kind dismissal. I don't say this to be mean-spirited. I am trying to be honest, based upon my experience. Anyone can call herself a "researcher", but until we know that individual's credentials, [I]caveat emptor.

5. I totally agree that I "don't even know the full designs of [your] studies, the methods used to calculate the control groups, or the way the data was obtained." Frank, I am suggesting that you fill in these details--if not here, at least in materials you post on the Internet.

6. Frank, I am not disparaging you in any way. I have repeatedly congratulated you for what you have attempted--and accomplished. I wouldn't bother with this thread if I thought your game was not worth the candle. My indicating that there is "more for you to get to" is exactly the type of feedback that true researchers give out and receive amongst themselves all the time. Why? Because our focus is on the soundness of our work. Sure, our egos get dinged up in this process, but astrology will never truly develop research facility unless we welcome serious scrutiny of our methodologies.

Some of the later chapters of Garry Phillipson, 2000, Astrology in the Year Zero (Flare Publications) get at the issues of astrological research better than I could.

7. I agree that: "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams." That is all I recommend.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

I agree with all your points except 4. The professor is actually an astrologer - or at least astrology friendly.

[lillyjgc]

Hi-
I think everyone's point has validity here, but I'm happy to see this document that Frank has prepared as being *the results of an Individual/study /Experiment/ something along those lines.
I think investigations such as this do have validity amongst astrologers more so maybe than among scientific circles, but astrology is not just a science. It's full of subjective judgements and as such, it is very difficult to apply established scientific principles to any studies that may help us see trends.
I think it is useful though to record these findings and compare them with those we carry out on our own.
I've been meaning to conduct a look into into mercury retro for ages, because I seem to experience a lot of obstacles regarding short trips when Mercury stations retro-In the last one there was a landslide on the train line that I use on a day I was supposed to be travelling. Not the *usual* sort of thing.
That's when I have repeatedly experienced computer problems,phone problems, postal problems etc.Doesn't seem to matter what sign it's occurring in either, but if we were all to keep notes of these types of things I think we could manage to draw a few (albeit subjective) conclusions that are helpful.
Cheers
Lilly

[Matthew The Astrologer]

Frank: Bravo on the research! Astrology does NOT need to be afraid of science. The opposite, if anything.

And yes, I know the argument that astrology is an "art." So is medicine... at least, all the intangibles that come with dealing with patients. But it's based on science.

Again, though, Frank... I'm applauding.

[waybread]

Hi-
I think everyone's point has validity here, but I'm happy to see this document that Frank has prepared as being *the results of an Individual/study /Experiment/ something along those lines.
I think investigations such as this do have validity amongst astrologers more so maybe than among scientific circles, but astrology is not just a science. It's full of subjective judgements and as such, it is very difficult to apply established scientific principles to any studies that may help us see trends.
I think it is useful though to record these findings and compare them with those we carry out on our own.
I've been meaning to conduct a look into into mercury retro for ages, because I seem to experience a lot of obstacles regarding short trips when Mercury stations retro-In the last one there was a landslide on the train line that I use on a day I was supposed to be travelling. Not the *usual* sort of thing.
That's when I have repeatedly experienced computer problems,phone problems, postal problems etc.Doesn't seem to matter what sign it's occurring in either, but if we were all to keep notes of these types of things I think we could manage to draw a few (albeit subjective) conclusions that are helpful.
Cheers
Lilly

Are you familiar with Pythia Peay, Mercury Retrograde: its Myth and Meaning (Tarcher/Penguin, 2004) or Erin Sullivan, Retrograde Planets: Traversing the Inner Landscape (Samuel Weiser, 2000)? Although these books focus on personal chart interpretation, they both have a lot of material on the astronomy and orbits of retrogradation.

Sullivan says (p. 53) that people need to accept Mercury retrograde as a "teaching device." "It is common to blame fate or external circumstances when things go wrong...but this is not what retrogression teaches us...we must listen to what it says. In particular, when Mercury is retrograde, then something important is calling for awareness, [that] will emerge from the unconscious through the agency of Mercury. In the retrograde phase of Mercury's cycle...we discover that life, like art, is discovery, not design."

She goes on to suggest that if people can attune themselves better to Mercury retrograde's need for extra attentiveness, that the idea of Mercury retrograde as a kind of cosmic Murphy's Law should begin to correct itself.

This interpretation has a lot of merit, but it doesn't quite cover landslides on railroad tracks!

With Mercury retrograde and Virgo rising in my chart, I naturally expect that "if something can go wrong, it will;" and I normally build a lot of redundancy into long-distance travel plans.