dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) (03/10/88)
In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > > The very question of Astrology itself may lie on the existence of seasonal > mating cycles that are vestigal from our evolutionary ancestors. What kind > of person one is may depend in part on what part of the seasonal cycle the > mother is in during conception. And yet, despite the fact that this shows > there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will > scoff just at hearing the very idea. How dare they when most know next > to nothing about biology as it relates to the possibility raised above. > It's another case of prejudice leading one to inappropriately use his or > her (but usually his) authority. > I don't believe that scientists scoff at astrology because they believe it's inherently absurd. Rather, they scoff because they see people behaving in a very credulous fashion in the utter absence of any valid evidence that astrological analyses or forecasts have any predictive capability at all. I studied astrology (the Rosicrucian interpretation) for some time while I was in college. I cast a fully-detailed horoscope for myself, and looked up the interpretations of the various aspects, etc. in a number of the standard reference works. I was impressed at the degree of detail that the interpretations provided, and was struck by the "resonance" between what was written and my own view of myself... ... until I realized that I had made a substantial mathematical error at the beginning of my calculations... I had miscalculated my time of birth (in GMT) by several hours. My miscalculation had thrown all of the short-term angles completely out of whack, and about half of the interpretations I had looked up didn't apply to me at all. I looked up the correct ones, and once again was struck by how closely these interpretations seemed to match my personality. However, I was a bit suspious at this point, and I picked out a number of other interpretations from the books and random. Once again, the same "sense of rightness" arose... I felt that the interpretations applied to me, even though they were chosen at random. A wider reading of the references led me to the conclusion that most of the various personality characteristics, described as applying to people of specific signs and aspects, would actually apply to a large fraction of people in our culture. I also noted that different authors had _very_ different interpretations of certain aspects... there was little or no agreement on the details. Some studies I've read of in the years since this incident have tended to confirm my hunch. A few double-blind studies have failed to find any statistically-significant correlation between subjects' astrological forecasts and well-studied aspects of human personality as measured by (for example) the MMPI test. "Spoof" tests (in which people were provided with detailed astrological analyses that were allegedly derived from the subjects' actual birthdates/places but which were actually constructed at random) showed the same result that I achieved by accidental miscalculation... the subjects tended to identify strongly with the astrological analyses even though there was _no_ connection between these analyses and their actual birthdates. [I apologize for my inability to cite references for these studies.] I agree with your suggestion above... there may(!) be some connection between certain aspects of human personality and birthdate, seasonal mating cycles, climate-at-time-of-birth, and similar factors. Frankly, I wouldn't be greatly surprised if some such factor, of greater or lesser strength, were to be identified... humans are certainly subject to day-length and light-exposure influences, among others. HOWEVER: there's a _big_ leap between saying "a connection may exist" and saying "Astrology is scientifically valid"! I also agree that valid scientific theories have been rejected by the scientific establishment in the past due to inertia... it sometimes seems that an old generation of scientists must often die off, and a new generation mature into power, before a radical shift of viewpoint can occur. However... for such a shift of viewpoint to occur and have any validity at all, the new point-of-view/theory MUST achieve a certain degree of maturity... it must show itself to be _more_ able to make valid predictions and withstand attempted disproofs than the theories that it is intended to displace. It's important to remember that these two points are really at the base of the scientific method. In order for something to be considered as a scientifically-valid theory, it _must_ be able to make predictions (simply explaining what's already been seen isn't sufficient), and it _must_ be testable and capable of disproof (which is why the ability to make predictions is so important). If an idea is impossible to disprove, then it is _not_ scientifically valid. It may be an attractive idea, and it may very well be true(!), but it isn't a valid theory. To the best of my knowledge, astrology in its current state is really a set of beliefs that qualify in many ways as a religion. It has not achieved acceptance in the scientific community because solid, bias-free evidence simply hasn't been presented to justify this acceptance. There are many anecdotal reports of its usefulness, and many testimonials to its worth; there's no real evidence. Should someone perform a valid study (e.g. double-blind, with controls and a sufficiently large test population) that does show a statistically significant correlation between astrological analysis and human personality or fate, then I think that people (scientists included!) will sit up and pay attention. But, until such scientifically-valid evidence has been collected, people who believe in astrology have no right to claim that they're being ignored. Based on what I'm reading on the net, folks' major reason for disliking Omni's approach seems to be that Omni pushes popular and attractive hypotheses (psi, UFOs, etc.) in a credulous and uncritical manner; Omni takes a "Gee, look at what might be so" stance without having the intellectual honesty to ask "Well, if it's so, how can we test and prove it; if it isn't so, how can we test and disprove it; what's the REAL evidence?" I tend to agree. Some of the speculations published in Omni may turn out to be the truth... but I don't believe that Omni's uncritical and sensational attitude is doing ANYTHING to support an honest attempt to find out what the truth really is. I still read Omni occasionally... primarily for the fiction articles... but I treat the entire "Anti-matter" section as an example of the willingness of humans to accept ideas in an uncritical fashion as long as the ideas are attractive and fill a psychological need. -- Dave Platt UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@sun.com, ...@uunet.uu.net
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (03/21/88)
In article <2118@coherent.com>, dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: > I tend to agree. Some of the speculations published in Omni may turn > out to be the truth... Didn't one of the SciAm folks do some research that compared the validity of SciAm predictions/statements in articles with articles from our friend, the National Enquirer, and find that Nat'l Enq was more accurate? I remember an acquaintence (one I normally trust) telling me something about this, but I don't remember the details. It all has to do with how the publication presents its ideas: "Wouldn't it be neat if it worked like this..." vs "We've figured this out, and this is how it works.." > Dave Platt > UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com > INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@sun.com, ...@uunet.uu.net -- Just say NO to skate harassment. Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007