cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (08/06/85)
First off, (and this may surprise some readers of net.physics), I do not
believe in astrology. That said --
1. Astrology is a scientific theory: it makes testible predictions about
physical reality.
2. The source and justifications of a scientific theory are irrelevant to its
validity. These may be used to decide whether or not to expend the resources
necessary to check a theory's validity. They may also be used to help decide
between two competing theories which make roughly the same predictions. I
think that most people with any knowledge of modern science will agree that
classical astrological theory is not in accord with it. We can nevertheless
accept it as a "heuristic" theory (i.e., one which provides a useful tool for
thinking about a particular area, whether or not it is accurate, or even
meaningful on a deep level) if it makes accurate predictions. Several attempts
have been made to reconcile the structure of astrology with modern scientific
knowledge, but none, to my knowledge, have gained wide-spread acceptance.
None that I have seen are very convincing.
3. Virtually none of astrology's predictions are astronomical in nature. The
most common form of astrology make psychological predictions. Others make
economic, political, social, personal, meteorological and geological
predictions (there are probably more but those are the major ones that I can
think of). For this reason a discussion of the scientific validity of
astrology does not belong in "net.astro". I suggest "net.sci" as the most
appropriate place for all follow-ups. I will post a copy of this there.
4. Every system of belief which is not "science" (in the modern sense of the
word) is NOT religion. For the most part, belief in astrology is not based
on faith (not that this basis automatically equates to religion) but on
personal observations. I believe that the patterns seen by believers in
astrology are created by the inaccuracy of peoples intuitive concept of
probability and the human facility to generate pattern where none exists.
The failing is natural, human, and something which we are all prone to. Until
the invention of modern statistics in the first part of this century, it was
all ANY science had to go on. The believers in astrology have made
observations and have found a theory which seems to explain those
observations; there is nothing wrong with that.
5. Most, though not all, of the people who publicly criticize astrology, don't
know what they are talking about.
6. To the best of my knowledge, all attempts, with one outstanding exception,
to test the truth of astrology's predictions have failed. Gauquelin, who
produced the exception, denies the relevance of his results to traditional
astrology, but there seems to be more resemblance than he is willing to admit.
Attempts to replicate his work have failed, but the accuracy of the attempted
replications is questionable, so the status of this work must still be
considered very much unsettled.
Topher Cooper
RESPONSES: net.sci
USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl
Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/09/85)
[Topher Cooper] >First off, (and this may surprise some readers of net.physics), I do not >believe in astrology. That said -- Actually, I am not surprised. I found your article on statistical errors made by parapsychologists to be very informative. You don't appear to be an unreasonable person. >1. Astrology is a scientific theory: it makes testible predictions about >physical reality. But there is more to being a scientific theory than the ability of a theory, in the abstract, to make testable predictions. Science is first and foremost a human enterprise; it is in fact, what scientists (defined as those who follow the rules of science) do! The real test of whether or not a discipline is science is the behavior of those *who claim to be expert in the discipline*. As Gauquelin's work shows, it is possible to approach astrology as science, and to test its predictions. Gauquelin's work is unquestionably *science*. But Gauquelin is a rare exception; it is hard to find many other examples of astrological research, particularly by those who claim to be astrologers, that are recognizable as science. Most of the support for astrology that I have seen is anecdotal, and that hardly qualifies as scientific in today's world. Even Gauquelin's work is misused by astrologers to support their case. Gauquelin's research did not support traditional sun-sign astrology; quite the contrary, he found no correlations of the type that traditional astrological systems predict. The correlations he did find were quite unlike traditional astrology, and in my view it is questionable that they are astrological at all. Yet I once had a conversation with an astrologer who referred to Gauquelin's work to support his traditional sun-sign astrology. He was unaware of the failed attempts at replication by others. I call this attempt by him to put a scientific face on Astrology "pseudoscience". So I would claim, that despite the *theoretical* possiblity of testing astrological assertions scientifically, for the most part, astrologers who claim to be scientists are in fact classic examples of pseudoscientists. >4. Every system of belief which is not "science" (in the modern sense of the >word) is NOT religion. For the most part, belief in astrology is not based >on faith (not that this basis automatically equates to religion) but on >personal observations. I believe that the patterns seen by believers in >astrology are created by the inaccuracy of peoples intuitive concept of >probability and the human facility to generate pattern where none exists. >The failing is natural, human, and something which we are all prone to. Until >the invention of modern statistics in the first part of this century, it was >all ANY science had to go on. The believers in astrology have made >observations and have found a theory which seems to explain those >observations; there is nothing wrong with that. I disagree that belief in astrology is not based on faith. For the vast majority of believers, it is. And, since those few studies that have been made using modern statistical and sampling theory have uniformly failed to confirm the predictions of any classical astrological theory, I would have to say that *today*, continued belief in astrology is no different in nature from religious belief. At least, I can't see any difference between the personal experiences that confirm people's belief in, say, Christianity, and those that confirm their belief in astrology! Whether astrology is a form of religion for most of its adherents is probably a semantic question. There seem to me to be many similarities. >6. To the best of my knowledge, all attempts, with one outstanding exception, >to test the truth of astrology's predictions have failed. Gauquelin, who >produced the exception, denies the relevance of his results to traditional >astrology, but there seems to be more resemblance than he is willing to admit. >Attempts to replicate his work have failed, but the accuracy of the attempted >replications is questionable, so the status of this work must still be >considered very much unsettled. There are problems with Gauquelin's study as well. I agree that the status of his work is unsettled; but if I had to predict, I would guess that when it is done right, the correlations Gauquelin found will not be confirmed. I disagree with your assertions concerning the resemblance of Gauquelin's results to traditional astrology (as should be obvious from what I wrote above)! I think that the connection is tenuous at best. But that is a point on which reasonable people can disagree. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)