spock
Well-known member
I've done so, and the obvious implication — ta da! — is that most of the specific predictive or character delineation abilities that have been tested are not valid.Unfortunately -- as you know -- most empirical studies of astrology have not affirmed astrology's predictive or character delineation abilities. We need to ask ourselves why this is so.
Wouldn't hurt, and in fact that's exactly what the Gauquelins did, and their findings suggest there is something to astrology, but not what astrologers thought.Do we need bigger data sets, better controls, more sophisticated statistical methods?
Yes. That's what I've been doing.Or do we fundamentally need to rethink both astrology and how we study it?
We should ask, what's the basic assumption of astrology that makes it astrology and not something else, and I'd say it's that there are parallels between change in the heavens and change here on earth, especially as it involves people's lives. We can then note that elements of the former are regular, and look for elements of the latter that are equally regular and that more or less match the timing of the former.If it's the latter, then we need to start at square- or step-one. This isn't even the hypothesis-formulation stage, but getting a much broader and deeper awareness of the process of astrology.
No we don't, except perhaps to explain why we are presently so extremely limited in our knowledge of astrological phenomena. The explanation is that most astrologers are not objective in evaluating truth claims — what we think we know — in fact, don't appear to know how to be objective, because astrology hasn't advanced that far and it's therefore not part of the curriculum. The subjectivity that is so ubiquitous in astrology isn't a contribution to but a drag on its progress and an indication of its current backwardness as a field of study.We have to acknowledge the enormous contribution of subjectivity to astrology.
No two astrologers interpret the same chart the same, standard astrology cookbooks sometimes give radically different interpretations, and six competent astrologers can give six different rectified birth times for Churchill, all wrong, because of the way astrologers learn to reason when they learn astrology. We learn to create meanings via standard word games (i.e., astrological symbolism), loose logic and a multitude of factors, rather than going by which effects have been observed to reliably coincide with which astrological factors.No two astrologers will interpret the same chart identically, and even standard astrology cookbooks can give radically different interpretations of the same variable, so the whole basis on which variables and their effects could be identified and defined first has to be explored.
For the most part no. Some astrologers seem more accurate than others because they're more facile, better able to play the word games so characteristic of astrology and create interpretations that seem logical to astrologers even though they're no more valid that the more clumsy creations of those who are less verbally adept.Some astrologers are far more accurate than others
Subjective human beings can in principle agree, based on observations, on the effects of various configurations, just as astronomers do in fact agree, thanks to observations, on the distances, speeds and orbital shapes of the sun-orbiting bodies in our solar system. What astrologers bring to astrology are learned ways of fudging, absorbed via exposure to paradigms, invisible to the astrologer herself, that make whatever specific beliefs astrologers currently hold, even though often contradictory and almost always wrong, appear to "work for me."so we need to look at what the astrologer brings to the process of astrology, not imagine a kind of disembodied planet-subject effect. Several fields have been termed "both an art and a science," such as medical diagnoses and map-making; and we neglect the more intuitive "art" portion at our peril. Astrology doesn't exist without subjective human beings who read horoscopes.
Did you, or did the astrologers whose word you're taking first-hand, second-hand . . . or one hundredth-hand, discover the effects/meanings of signs, houses, progressions, traditional and modern rulerships ("I look at both"), or intercepted planets, all of which you've unequivocally expressed a belief in, by anything remotely resembling the means you allude to above? If not, what is the basis for your beliefs? Apparently you and astrologers who share a belief in traditional astrological concepts (even if not the same ones!) get a free pass. In a post in the Read My Chart/Children in Birth Chart thread you say that "Saturn's location in a chart can indicate some disappointments or delays in that area." Yet in this and other methodological discussions you claim it's not possible, with everything affecting everything else, to isolate the effect of a single factor, at least not by any means that you or any other astrologer can credibly be considered to have used. I of course disagree. Every Saturn Return will be different, because no factor acts in isolation — they all affect one another — but I nonetheless say it's possible in principle to study detailed accounts of a hundred Saturn Returns, and notwithstanding the fact that each will be unique nonetheless see something they have in common. Conversely, if this is not so, if there is no detectable commonality even in principle, then by the same argument there's absolutely nothing you or any other astrologer can meaningfully say about any Saturn Return . . . or for that matter any other individual factor. Your posts are full of apodictic statements that belie your methodological arguments.In a horoscope, planets modify one another's actions. If we are looking at a synergistic system, then we can't just isolate variables for study, because they don't operate (or don't operate normally) outside of hundreds of interactions. (Astrology isn't the only field with this problem, incidentally, it is common to real-world complex systems.)
The operative phrase is "seems to work," which I've addressed on multiple occasions. Another way of putting it would be "doesn't actually work" in most or all of the instances cited. All of the above seem to work because of the fudge factor(s) built into all extant astrologies. That doesn't mean correspondences between the celestial and terrestrial spheres don't exist, only that astrologers don't know what they are or have only vague ideas about what they are, nothing resembling the clarity with which we normally perceive what we think we know.Spock-- one more thing, a complication in your statement,
Astrology seems to work, if imperfectly, across a wide range of practices: Vedic vs. western modern vs. western traditional; horary, sidereal vs. tropical, Magi or Uranian vs. conventional, and so on. It's fine to analytically separate out signs or houses in a highly focused analysis; but then people's planetary signs are typically different in Vedic vs. western tropical astrology (by 24 to 27degrees, depending whom you ask.) Signs mean something different in medical astrology than they do in mundane astrology. Ceres is still treated like a relatively unimportant asteroid (despite its dwarf planet status) in modern psychological astrology; whereas in Magi astrology Ceres as seen as a serious malefic. Essential dignities are essential to traditional western astrology, whereas most modern astrologers don't use most of them. In horary astrology we aren't looking at birth charts, but at questions like, "Where is my missing cat?"I have also argued . . . that while astrological effects are indeed interconnected in practice, nonetheless they can be analytically separated to determine what each contributes to the whole.
Except that's not what the Gauquelins did. They tested various existing ideas, including Lasson's claim that eminent professionals in a number of occupations tend to have certain planets above the Asc or past the MC. Most of Lasson's claims did not bear out, and for the two that did, Mars for eminent athletes and Jupiter for military men (but only for culminating, not rising Jupiter, because Lasson didn't think successful military men would be as fat as he thought Jupiter rising should indicate), Lasson's statistical results were flawed and thus invalid. Gauquelin found (while somewhat unfairly dismissing Lasson's claim because of the direction in which he numbered houses) that Mars and Jupiter were indeed nonrandomly distributed for those two professional groups, and ditto for other planets for other groups as well, including nonrandom avoidance of the angles for some of the planet/eminent professional correlations. Statistical studies can affirm or fail to affirm and in the former case further refine existing ideas, but they can't in and of themselves come up with new ideas. New ideas that turn out to be capable of passing such tests must be arrived at by other means, some of which I've previously outlined.I think you could conduct a study as a kind of fishing expedition with no preconceptions, just to see what lands in the net, sort of like the Gauquelins did. But a research design that cannot accommodate all of astrology's complexities might not yield the simple results you seem to look for.