This research paper goes with sidereal ASC signs

I thought I'd share with you a research paper I found online that compares the sidereal zodiac with the tropical in terms of the ASC sign ruler (traditional).

Now this paper may be focusing on one thing and not taking other considerations like planets on the axis that also is a great effect, but it is an interesting read anyway.

Maybe some of you already saw this one, but may I ask the members who visit here who are using the sidereal zodiac?

I hope it is ok I share this paper here.
http://sdrv.ms/1bUPxgP

And here is the position of the Earth and the Sun

In May the earth "sees" the sun in Aries
In November the earth "sees" the Sun in Libra

http://www.astronomynotes.com/nakedeye/s5.htm

A problem I see with the research paper is the basic (foundational) assumption that the dispositor ("ruler") of the ascending sign (or zodiacal constellation) is THE PRIMARY INFLUENCE upon the nativity-this is a questionable assumption, since there are other factors upon the nativity which can be-and often are-equally (some say more) significant than the dispositorship of the ascendant (see for example the discussion in the thread entitled "The Chart Ruler and the Ascendnt", in the Astrology and Psychology Forum)

Some of us (including myself) also have problems with the Gauquelin material extensively referenced in the research paper-note that Gauquelin was led to consider that signs (or zodiacal constellations) had no statistically demonstrable influences, and came to the same conclusion regarding Mercury (!) and the Sun (!!)-in the system of astrology developed by Gauquelin (called "neo-astrology") no signs (or zodiacal constellations) are included, and only the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are considered (Mercury, Sun among the traditional planets, and the outers, being excluded)

Nonetheless, although I have seen this research paper previously, thank you for posting it as a reference source-there are certain interesting and intriguing elements in it, although I cannot myself even partially support the author's final conclusions...

I am going to actually read this paper later, but after just skimming it, I can see some problems.

Just to highlight one problem with the paper that should make people wonder as to its validity is the analysis of Mars in the very beginning. When comparing the tropical zodiac to the sidereal zodiac, why not use the same samples to compare the two zodiacs? This author analyzes "Athletes" in the tropical system but does not in the sidereal system. Huh? Really? Why not? Then the author analyzes "murderers" using the sidereal zodiac but does not with the tropical system. This pattern of selective analysis pervades the whole study. That should cause one to really doubt the conclusions this author makes. The methodology is dubious and casts suspicion on the author's motives.

dr. farr said:

Some of us (including myself) also have problems with the Gauquelin material extensively referenced in the research paper-note that Gauquelin was led to consider that signs (or zodiacal constellations) had no statistically demonstrable influences, and came to the same conclusion regarding Mercury (!) and the Sun (!!)-in the system of astrology developed by Gauquelin (called "neo-astrology") no signs (or zodiacal constellations) are included, and only the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are considered (Mercury, Sun among the traditional planets, and the outers, being excluded)

Click to expand...

Personally, I think Gauquelin's work is brilliant. And just because he did not find a noticeable effect with Mercury, the Sun and the Zodiac does not imply that these planets have no effect, just that Gauquelin's studies did not allow for a quantifiable expression of these stellar influences. He acknowledges that. I am sure if he had lived longer and pursued these areas further, he would have found an effect.

Okay. I see what the author is doing. All of these groups are being analyzed, and the groups with the highest hits are placed first based on the p-value. Nonetheless, I think the inferences the author is making are dubious.

As mentioned before, "athletes" were ranked in the top 25 for the tropical zodiac but not for the sidereal zodiac. "Extreme amount of sex" was ranked highest in the tropical zodiac for Mars. Keep in mind that both of these did not even make the list in the sidereal section. The author points to Nazism as a Martian trait, but is it? Socialism/nationalism is Mars? And what about the dominant Martian sidereal groups? We see "humor writers" and "adventurers/explorers." That sounds like Jupiter to me. We see "psychics." That sounds like Pisces to me. We see "chemists," "political activists," "thieves" (Neptune) and "philosophical/humanists," all of which sound like Pisces and Jupiter. This should be the case with the tropical zodiac, not with the sidereal zodiac. All of these Piscean professions seem very inconsistent, not aligning with either zodiac. That should hint that this method of analyzing the rising sign as being ineffective.

Let's look at Venus. With Venus in the sidereal zodiac, we find "textbook writers," "journalists," "fiction writers," "composers," all of which sound like Gemini/Mercury to me, which matches perfectly with the tropical zodiac. Nothing of these professions seem Venusian, or Taurean and Libran.

I think this analysis is weak and the results are inconclusive. There is nothing to be gleaned from this other than a different methodology must be used, the classes clearly categorized, and a less subjective interpretation of the data, which seems more based on the author's bias, given that only the traditional seven were used.

Statistical approaches to astrology don't work. This "researcher" makes the assumption that the lord of the horoscope determines profession, temperament, destiny.....

And we all know that a horoscope is to be interpreted as a whole and integral unit, not as bits and pieces.

So the approach is not consistent with astrological practice. It is not in accord with the way astrologers "read" a chart.

There is a fundamental dichotomy between "modern science" and astrology. Science is statistical in nature -- it concerns itself with the collective behavior of, for example, 33 million helium molecules contained within a flask. It does not concern itself with the behavior of Molecule 27,344,032, which may not conform to the statisical norm. We can say that 25% of all people on Earth have "lobeless" ears, and it is true. But that does not tell us the shape of Judy's ears. Astrology deals with Judy.

The researcher (to my mind at least) shows his ignorance of astrology when he says "the tropical [and sidereal] zodiac has not been tested." He doesn't even understand the fundamental nature of a zodiac. We might as well say "the meter has not been tested." A zodiac is a means of measurement, like an inch or an ounce. Both zodiacs measure the circle that is the ecliptic. The ecliptic is used because that is where the planets live and play. The difference in the two zodiacs is in their point of beginning. One says "The fixed star Spica is the fiduciary." The other says "The point at which the sun crosses the equator this year is the point of beginning, Zero Aries." Thus, the tropical zodiac is Earth-centered (the observation of the equinox is made from Earth, relates to Earth.) Contrary to the claims of many siderealists, the tropical zodiac does take precession into account; the siderealists do not understand this, and claim that the tropical zodiac does not account for precession -- patently false.

Is your question about the two zodiacs and which is "better"? My answer to that question is "both". I happen to use the tropical, and not just because it was handed to me. It makes sense to me, using the equinox as the beginning point. But almost all Vedic astrologers use the sidereal zodiac, and it works just fine for them. I get very good and dependable results using the tropical. Pick the one that fits you and go with it. But use one or the other; they are not meant to be mixed.

The tropical zodiac works without a single star in the sky. Just Sun and Moon and planets. But the sidereal zodiac depends on the fixed stars; without them it can't exist. Therefore, the tropical zodiac fulfills the scientific criterion of "pusilanimy", or "Occam's Razor," which says that the system or theory that explains the mostest with the leastest is the bestest.

If one is going to read "research about astrology", s/he would do well to investigate the author. I would, in most cases, give more weight to the author who is a practicing astrologer, rather than one ignorant of the fundamentals of the art who cannot read a horoscope.

I was handed a paper showing why Barack Obama is a pathological narcissist. I investigated the author of the paper. Turns out he has been twice diagnosed as a pathological narcissist and convicted/incarcerated on 3 counts of fraud. Now, understanding the source of the allegations, I am in a much stronger position to judge the premises of the paper, to assess its validity.

Thank you for your input and viewpoints.

I am the kind of person that welcome and acknowledge all views, although I may not necessarily agree with them all - but in fact I sometimes find them useful in order to have a different kind of aspect onto things I am thinking about.

I do not think only practicing astrologers can have an opinion on this one as it might even help to do statistical analysis NOT to be an astrologer, and therefore look at the data from outside the ring without bias. However, I am not saying this one does, I am just saying that this sometimes can be the case of outsiders of a trade/profession.

I do think it is interesting to try and do this as astrologers seem to agree that the ASC does rule a lot in a persons life - but of course it is right what you say, other planets close to axis or stelliums can have equal impact so it can be hard. ... However judging a profession by the ASC is not such a far reach, because the position of the ASC also tells us the position of the 10th house using whole sign houses. Profession is a combination of the ASC and the 10th house and the placement of their rulers.

I do not understand why astrologers seem so "afraid" or sceptical of trying to analyse astrological data and see where it takes us on the search for a "truth"

What you say about tropical and vedic both being right and working out well I do not understand. I cannot comprehend how both could possibly work, unless both just make up a lot of jargon so that some of that jargon must fit a description. I do not believe that is how astrology should work, at least not for me. This is why I am trying to find which one is more accurate - but I have not found the answer yet as I have not taken hundreds of charts to compare them yet and do not have the deeper knowledge to be able to either. So still searching

If determining a person's profession is so simple as looking at the 10th House, pick up six charts at random and tell us what the profession of each of the persons is. Good luck.

Here's one to try......17 May 1931, 0320, 33N30, 100W51. Male.

I don't expect you to work out this man's profession...but if you did try -- using the Tenth and its lord, you would end up in the ditch. The point is that it is not so easy as "Tenth House and its ruler." And besides, your "researcher" was using the Ascendant and its lord exclusively, which is not the same as using the 10th and its lord, because the Ascendant and MC do not have an exact correlation true for every horoscopic chart.

I would not send a plumber (or a statistician) to write up a psychological profile of a person. And a horoscope is a pyschological profile. That is how I, personally, use a horoscope primarily.

The "statistical" approach has been "current" since Gauquelin. It has never been successful. A human being is not a pile of statistical bits and pieces. Astrologers are not afraid of this methodology; it just doesn't work very well.

That both the tropical and sidereal zodiacs give good results has nothing to do with jargon and a shotgun approach to interpretation. Western astrologers have been using the tropical zodiac for near 2000 years. It works (which can be easily demonstrated). Hindu astrologers have been using the sidereal zodiac for an even longer time. It works (which can be easily demonstrated). Mysterious but true.

Zodiacs are systems of measurement. If you will study the two systems from this viewpoint (laying aside their astrological symbolism for the time being) until you understand this, you will be way ahead of many astrological students.

I've been a student of astrology for over 40 years. That's not meant to impress you, just to let you know that I have studied the question of zodiacs for a long time. The "siderealists" [those who insist that the sidereal zodiac is the only true one, the only one that allows for precession, and that the tropical zodiac is "wrong"] simply do not understand the fundamental nature of zodiacs -- or the precession of the equinoxes. We could do away with both zodiacs and just express longitudes in right ascension. The planet in question wouldn't change position in any of the three systems of measurement, its position would just be expressed differently.

No one gives symbolic meaning to right ascension, so it doesn't carry the baggage of the zodiacs. Yet it serves exactly the same function as the zodiacs. 6 hours 0 minutes of right ascension is exactly the same as saying 0 Cancer (tropical) or 6 Gemini 30 (sidereal). We say that Gemini and Cancer are not the same....but let 6 hours 0 minutes remain neutral. This simple fact tells us that the supposed differences between the tropical and sidereal may not be as real, or as rigid, as we at first thought.

What is obstructing your understanding of the zodiacs (and astrology generally) is that you are bringing preconceptions with you into the study. These preconceived notions get in the way of seeing the simplicity and the true nature of astrology.

Astrology is the study of the correlations between celestial facts and human affairs. How we perceive and evaluate these celestial facts occurs within the human mind...and here is a key to understanding your dilemma of understanding. It is to be found at the interface of the facts, and our perception and evaluation of them. Astrolgy is fundamentally a system of thought. There is nothing in the heavens that "influences" us in any physical or mechanistic way. The celestial facts, when introduced to the human mind and interacting with it, are symbols, not "real" things. And this is one of your preconceptions. You think the zodiacs have some "real" properties, unalterable, solid, fixed and therefore one must be right or better than the other. Is it more correct to call H20 "Water" or "Agua"? Water and agua are symbols for the wet substance we need for life; they are not the substance itself.

The two zodiacs might also be seen as two different points of view. I may look at an elephant from the side, or from the rear. My description of the animal will vary somewhat according to my point of view, but both will be true and not alter the fact of the animal in the least.

When I first read you post, I wondered why it is that you so vehemently contest the use of statistics in validating or illuminating some of astrology’s tenants and mysteries. But it did not take long for me to realize that the reason for your brickbat attack is due to your belief system. In much the same way as the Catholic Church assaulted Galileo’s science and humanism, you assault contemporary science and mathematics. The Church challenged Galileo’s confirmation of Copernican theory based on Christian dogma, and you challenge the use of statistics based on Hellenistic stoicism. Statistics, of course, cannot work in a universe that is predetermined. If it is all predetermined, then statistics falls apart with the exception, or as you analogized, molecule 27,344,032. Beliefs, however, have never done well in a head to head match with facts. And the fact is that statistics do work and have helped elucidate some of the tenants of astrology, allowing for change and a greater level of accuracy. Examples are not as numerous as I would like, but that is simply because those interested in such work do not have the resources to allow them the time necessary to develop such research projects. But to name some names, we have Glenn Perry, Theodor Landscheidt, Suzel Fuzeau-Braesch, Nicholas Kollerstrom, and I could go on, but before I stop, a name that need not be mentioned but will be is that of Michel Gauquelin. Gauquelin provided definitive, incontrovertible proof of one, the validity of astrology, two, that planets have a meaningful relationship to certain points along the ecliptic, and three, the nature and quality of the planets themselves reflect traditional doctrine. More importantly, however—and what you have the greatest difficulty in accepting—is that statistic show that there is no causal determinism in astrology but rather, that it is based on probabilities created by inclinations, solidified into reality by personal choice as influenced by the stars.

Of course, I know the argument that many make in regard to their theory of causal determinism. To put it succinctly, our universe is a collection of causal connections interconnected, running parallel to one another, and that because event A already occurred and preceded event B, A being intrinsically attached to the other, there is no way that you could have avoided event B. One of the classic arguments in this regard is that you are ill and you need to call a doctor or else you will die. But if everything is fated, you will die anyway, regardless as to whether you call a doctor. And if you are destined to live, you will live, regardless as to whether you call a doctor. So the only logical choice is for you to not call a doctor for your continued existence or nonexistence is already predetermined. And that is the real challenge to the stoic, so next time you are ill Greybeard, do not go to the doctor or seek help because whether you die or live is already predetermined. Incidentally, Stoics believe that the best indication of an individuals philosophy is not what a person says but what a person does.

Please do not let your beliefs preclude you from growing as an individual and becoming a better astrologer, but more importantly, please do not dissuade others from trying to grow and become better astrologers by applying mind and science to the world's mysteries.

I have to say, however, that there are some other points that you make that I agree wholeheartedly, which is the use of the tropical zodiac, but I think you are discounting some aspects of astrology without any evidence showing that it is not so.

P.S. I will try to guess this man's profession, but it will have to be in the form of a scattershot approach, or one that focuses on an umbrella category.

Arena said:

What you say about tropical and vedic both being right and working out well I do not understand. I cannot comprehend how both could possibly work, unless both just make up a lot of jargon so that some of that jargon must fit a description. I do not believe that is how astrology should work, at least not for me. This is why I am trying to find which one is more accurate - but I have not found the answer yet as I have not taken hundreds of charts to compare them yet and do not have the deeper knowledge to be able to either. So still searching

Click to expand...

You are right, and there is evidence for only one.

Well, I agree with the stated results of Gauquelin's work. Being an astrologer, it pleases me that he validated astrology, found that planets have a relationship with certain points along the ecliptic, and that the nature and quality of the planets is confirmed.

And yes, I am inclined toward stoicism and determinism (I'm not quite sure about the causal part). I continue to hold to the view that our choices themselves may be predetermined, that is, my very character may incline me toward a certain type of choice which appears to be taken freely but in reality is chosen because of my inborn nature. And this is one of those things that is not subject to proof. It may be that we actually possess and exercise free will, or it may just as well be that our free will is not so free as we like to think, that our choices grow out of the root of character. Neither extreme can be proven. It is also possible that there is some middle ground, a limited free will. I have said often enough on this forum that I tend toward doubting the existence of free will, but live as if I have free will. Life stubbornly and constantly demands that we make choices. And it is my human nature to do so. Whether or not free will does or does not exist, living as if it does makes it so. As far as I know I did not address this issue in my previous comments, so I think you are here putting words in my mouth. But that's ok.

In a different thread, earlier today, I said "A man's character can be known by what he does." I guess that makes me a stoic. Which I am. Does that make Jesus a stoic? He said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

I have no objection to statistics. The particular research paper offered here has, in my opinion, some errors (which I touched on briefly earlier) that render it highly questionable. I am constantly looking at science. But science, like astrology, has its limitations. It is good to recognize the limitations. Science is not a god, but a tool. If you look at our modern society you will see the sad results of misapplied science all around you.

It is not my intention to dissuade others from growing as persons or in their skills. The contrary is true. The OP has questions about the two zodiacs. I pointed out that the research paper she offered seems to have some serious flaws which may render its conclusions doubtful. I also said that both zodiacs are valid. I happen to use the tropical zodiac, but I am not prepared to argue against 2000 years of practical application of the sidereal zodiac by Hindu astrologers. Both work.

Greetings to both of you and thanks for participating in this discussion.

In my mind I do not look at my self as having preconceptions, but some people might think so anyway. I look at myself in the area of astrology as very curious and eager to learn, but having limitations in doing so as I keep running into barriers. I also do not see myself as attacking or assaulting anyone at all - just have a need for discussing different kind of approaches to astrology and why one person chooses to follow this approach and not the other.

I do admit that there is not enough scientific research available to look into and analyse. But I do wish there had been made more attempts to analyse and make statistics out of astrological data. It seems that Magi Society is attempting to do so and this makes it interesting to me.

I did not post this research because I had already decided that the sidereal zodiac should be used, but rather to look into it and see what others would think. Looking at my own chart in sidereal seems very unreal to me, but I still do not reject it as I do not have enough knowledge on astrology to do so.
There is also a huge problem and a BIG barrier in the quest for "the truth" not to know one's own ASC for sure

I guess the reason for me wanting statistics is the need for me to take this out of the belief/religion field and into reality for myself and see some kind of proof beyond myself and family if it really works in a consistent manner for everyone that have a known birth hour.

If you do know of more research about astrology I would appreciate you pointing it out to me.

Astrology, for those who have studied and practiced for a (relatively) long time is neither belief nor religion, but is knowledge based on experience. As I have said earlier, it is not subject to statistical analysis because each horoscope is unique, as are its subjects. The "scientific method" is unable to deal with astrological thought, which is based on analogy. Although astrology is firmly based on "science", its practice (the actual interpretion of a chart in terms of a human life) is an art, not science.

In order to remove it from self and family requires a basic mastery of the fundamentals of astrology and their application to subjects other than self and family.

In 1972 I bought a book on astrology written by a non-astrologer. I was a skeptic at that time, actually had a distaste for astrology, but still had an open and curious mind. I followed the crude instructions and used the crude tables provided to first cast a birth chart and then a solar return. I chose as a "test year" for the solar return the year of my marriage (the book said to use a year in which some very significant, life-changing event occurrred). What I saw in the solar return made me think "This seems to be more than coincidental" despite my utter lack of knowledge and skill. And so I decided to investigate further. I found a couple of real astrology books, kept looking and experimenting, and after some time was convinced that astrology "works". It was in fact "mind-blowing". It might be that investigation of the predictive side of astrology will provide you with what you are looking for. Events occur when progressed (I use this word broadly here, to include such things as transits) planets contact natal points and planets. When several "significant events" are found to correlate with progressed positions, curiosity is transformed into an understanding that we are part of the universe and our lives are lived in harmony with it.

I could use my personal chart to show you sickness, marriage, divorce.... and how these events in life correspond in time with the pertinent astrological indications. Such correlatons are in fact quite striking. By looking at the charts of yourself, your family, famous people whose lives are well documented, you will see that these correlations occur over and over again and consistently appear in the lives of everyone.

It becomes clear that science has its boundaries when we look at such things as the Big Bang. Science (mathematics) can describe the state of the universe back in time almost to the moment of the Big Bang (now a well-confirmed theory) but when it reaches the Planck constant it becomes powerless to penetrate further. Yet clearly something existed during this impenetrable period, and probably even before. An electron or proton fired at a target and offered a variety of possible ways to reach the target is found to take all available paths to the target. It is found that two beams of light, traveling away from each other and at distance are somehow in communication with each other and act in unison. We don't know the true nature of such things as gravity, time, energy or even space. It is well known that we live in a universe of matter, but for each "particle" of matter there must be a particle of antimatter. Yet we can't find antimatter except as occasional "poofs" that are obliterated almost the instant they appear. Seeing these things, might it not be that astrology is also among the things that cannot be grasped through the scientific method in its present state?

We can see in the natural and physical universe phenomena that validate the ancient teachings of astrology. A convenient example is found in the Lagrangian Points L4 and L5 and their correspondence to the trine aspect in astrology. What happens at these points (which each constitute an apex of an equilateral triangle involving Sun, Earth and the point (L4 or L5) corresponds exactly with the ancient descriptions of the trine, laid out 2000 years ago. Jupiter and Neptune provide other and stronger examples of the same effect.

My suggestion to you is that rather than looking to statistical studies (they have their uses, but also serious limitations) you look to astrology itself to answer your questions.

The question of which zodiac to use (there are more than two, incidentally) can be referred to the question of which system of domification (house system) to use. Which, among the two dozen or so available, is "the best"? The neophyte is totally unprepared to address this question, lacking knowledge and experience. And so this beginning student or investigator must, by force, choose one among the many available systems and use it on faith.

Is it possible that this vast and complex universe we are part of was created out of Nothing? A little equation offers us the answer: (0 = +1 -1). Yin and yang in numbers: duality, the polarity that created and maintains the physical (and metaphysical) universe. As I interpret this simple equation, provided the forces of yin and yang are equal, Being follows. But being came out of nothing, and is in fact nothing because yin and yang cancel each other out and result in zero, or nothing. Astrology, especially as seen through the lens of signs and houses (and polarities of planets) has taught the dual nature of the universe since its beginnings.

I’ve been debating with myself whether to jump in here or not, and I don’t really want to… but I feel compelled to defend greybeard’s position here, because he’s right.

First, despite a growing sense amongst the general populace (in America, at least) that astrology is scientific (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/public-opinion-astrology-dumb) the hope that astrology will one day be proven or made credible through scientific methods is a pipedream. I don’t mean to be mean about this, but let’s let mean ol’ Saturn step in here and set us straight with some reality principle. Anybody who hopes for that just doesn’t understand science. And those astrologers on this site who really seem to understand science make that point again and again. Zarathu, for example, has an intimate connection with the world of science – his son is an actual, working physicist – and Zarathu points out time and again that astrology simply does not fit the scientific worldview. Nor will it ever. Myself, I have studied the philosophy of science, know scientists intimately, and can equally attest to this.
But that’s only damning for astrology if you assume science is the only human endeavour that gives anything we do any credit --- and there’s no reason to think that. As is often pointed out, science can’t actually “prove” our inner experiences (despite the move to neuroscience and fMRI studies, which don’t actually “prove” inner states the way they are sometimes presented as if they are). Science can’t actually “prove” that you love or don’t love whoever it is you think you love in the world. Does that mean your feeling of love has no worth? No credit? Something we shouldn’t take as somehow true? Psychoanalysis can’t actually be “proven” statistically or scientifically (if we don’t confuse psychoanalysis with the science of psychology – and even psychology would be seen by many scientists as a “soft” science). The art of interpreting poetry can’t actually be “proven” scientifically. The whole endeavour of the humanities can’t be “proven” scientifically. Should we to stop giving them great credence in our lives? No. Instead, we just recognize these are things to which the questions and methods of science simply aren’t appropriate.
Greybeard’s point is that astrology is essentially an interpretive art – and the interpretation of a particularly complex semiotics at that – and so the sorts of questions and methods science engages in just aren’t appropriate to it. Contra Cypocryphya’s harsh and, frankly, ridiculous charge that greybeard is essentially an anti-science luddite, it seems to me all greybeard is doing is laying out an informed and rational critique of where the purposes and methods of astrology and science don’t meet. (I’m sorry Cypocryphya. I’m not spoiling for a fight or looking to offend. But it was too big of a jump, and got close to bad argument ad hominem. It’s clear in his posts greybeard isn’t simply “against science.”)
The main reason astrology will never be given credit in scientific circles is something that isn’t immediately pertinent to this thread: Astrology demands a key, fundamental, philosophical assumption about a kind of order to the universe that runs against the vision of an ordered universe scientists are philosophically committed to. But again, that’s not immediately relevant, so I’ll leave that unless anybody wants to take it up with me.
But since statistics are the focus of this thread, I’ll say my piece on astrology and stats, which will just go ahead and reiterate what greybeard said… But I'll do it in another post…

Some thoughts on stats as a poor way for thinking about astrology.
What are statistics and why do we give them credence? Statistical inquiry is a method of aggregating data (that is, looking at a massive number of cases at once) and finding common patterns in the aggregate data. When we take many many cases (e.g., billions) and see something occur (let’s call it X) most of the time in those many cases we tend to say that X happens in such cases. We give this form of inquiry credence because of the many times X seems to happen and the very few times X seems to happen. Empirical evidence.
So it’s a form of inquiry by numbers. It’s what we call quantitative inquiry – and there has been a strong bias towards quantitative data for a long time now exactly because when we quantify things interpretation doesn’t seem to get in the way. Interpretation is where things get messy. You and I may disagree on how to interpret the color red. What a car means. Whether cigarette smoke smalls good or bad. Etc. But if we stick to the numbers, numbers don’t lie. 5 = 5 and that’s more than 4, which is always more than 3, etc. No interpretation or disagreement needed. So it seems, at first glance, that qualitative inquiry is something we can be more certain about than anything that requires interpretation. (And by the way, let’s call the interpretive parts of a study its “qualitative” parts.)

But what greybeard is pointing out, which is absolutely right and every statistician will tell you this – it’s what you learn in Stats 101 – is that every statistical study is only as good as its qualitative parts.
What are the qualitative parts of a statistical study?
Everything that is being tested for, in any stats study, has to be coded for. If the point of stats is to look at a billion cases and find how many times X occurs, than the statistician has to make a decision about what X looks like and how she’s going to find it in each case.
That’s not difficult if X – the thing we’re looking for – is just a physical measurement. Let’s say for example, we want to test whether billiard balls move with force that is equal to the force they’ve been struck with. In stats, we run a billion cases of billiard balls being struck with force A. X = billiard ball moving away from the thing that struck it with the force of A. Every time we see that happen, we tick it off as a “yes,” and then we count the yeses. If the yeses are above 95% or so we say “O.k., we’ve found a statistically significant conclusion that says billiard balls move with a force equal to the force they’ve been struck with. (It’s a little more complicated but that’s the idea).
But what if X is not as simple as a physical measurement? What if the thing we’re looking for hinges on interpretation? What if we want to prove statistically, for example, that democratizing a nation brings peace. Unlike with the billiard ball example, we have to make some interpretations about what we mean by “democracy” and what we mean by “peace.” I may run that inquiry and find that everywhere we look, wherever a country has been democratized, democracy has brought peace. But then somebody comes along and disagrees with my study. I think I have the weight of science to give credence to my study. After all, the numbers are on my side. In my study every single case of democracy = a more peaceful country. But then it turns out I defined peace very narrowly. Peace in my study = no civil war. So cases like America count as peaceful. "But are they?" my critics ask. What about violent homicide deaths in America? Poverty? The international wars it engages in? Etc.
A quantitative study is only as good as it’s qualitative aspects.

And this, as I read it, is greybeard’s point.
What is greybeard taking issue with when it comes to this paper? One of the Xs in this paper – one of the things it’s look for in its many cases – is an individual’s career. How does the paper code for that. The 10th house. So this paper assumes that what astrology says is that a person’s career is defined by his 10th house. And so we can look to the 10th house in a billion cases and see how many careers are described by a case’s 10th house.
We must also ask how the paper is coding for how astrology indicates a career. Does Mars in the 10th house in this paper indicate a military career? Saturn in the 10th house = science?
All of these coding choices are interpretations that narrow what astrology is actually doing. Greybeard’s point: Astrology is a complex language of symbols that cannot be understood by breaking up the chart into particular, pinpoint pieces (like for example, career on the 10th). A chart must be read holistically, in a gestalt like fashion (and if anybody has read any of greybeard’s postings we all know this is his thing). Each point in the chart speaks to, and is informed by, the rest of the chart. Yet a statistical approach is going to demand that we find more narrow ways of coding for indications. We must find something more simple like “Mars in the 10th house = military career” to code as X so that we can sift through a large number of cases and find that specific X.


Notice, importantly, that this is exactly what Gauquelin did – which is why I never understand when astrologers point to him as evidence of astrology. In order to substantiate astrology statistically he wound up throwing out 90% of what astrology is. The interpretation of signs, houses and (for the most part) planets is gone in his stats work. Interpretation made things too tricky. Instead we’re left with a Mars affect and a Saturn effect (and a few others). In distilling astrology into something that might be made statistically verifiable it actually takes all the interpretation out of astrology, which in effect guts astrology.

So, why is statistics not a method well suited for thinking about astrology?
Because astrology is a language that is too complex and essentially interpretive - with it's key symbols (planets, signs, houses) being essentially too "polymorphous," to use Robert hand's word - for stats to be a method for saying anything of genuine insight about astrology.

(Polymorphism: There's a series of articles by Hand where he deals with what he means by this: http://www.stariq.com/astrologybyhandlib.htm Essentially he means this: "Astrological polymorphism is the fact that astrological indications can be expressed in many possible ways.")

Thank you all for your insights. They have been helpful in the process of acceptance