Jabberwalkie: sorry, but I can’t accommodate your request. I have too many other (non-astrological) projects as it is, and I don’t have the time to devote to a proper chart analysis for you. But it would be an interesting exercise.
Jab1: I wasn’t avoiding your questions, I just didn’t have a lot of time last week to answer. My apologies. Let me try to answer you here.
Re: size vs influence. I think I touched on this topic in my answer to your last post regarding the modern planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto). Yes, Pluto generally has less influence on the individual than the Moon. Qualitatively speaking (since I don’t have a “formula” for this at my fingertips), a planet’s relative influence is a combined effect of its proximity to earth, its size and its apparent speed of motion through the zodiac. Astrology definitely does not give equal weight to each planet/chart feature; there is a “pecking order”.
Regarding planetary moons, extra-solar planets, comets, and other objects: I am not certain about planetary moon-studies, but I think one assumes that the perceived planetary influence (of, say, Jupiter) is actually the influence of Jupiter-plus-moons. Studies of asteroids and other “rogue” bodies have been done and reference works are available for incorporating those influences into the overall chart analysis. There are astrologers who study the effects (if any) of extra-solar objects such as comets, quasars, etc.; one presumes that this will eventually, if it does not already, extend to the recently discovered extra-solar planets. As with any body of knowledge, when discoveries are made one must assess their impact on the existing whole; they do not invalidate what came before per se. As I said earlier, the discovery of relativity did not completely invalidate Newtonian physics; the discovery of extra-solar planets does not invalidate astronomical theories about our own solar system. Advances in the understanding of the biochemical and psychological functions of the brain do not invalidate psychology as a whole. Science is enriched and expanded by new knowledge, and it adapts. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that current astrological theory cannot incorporate the effects of extra-solar objects.
But how do you propose that astrologers should conduct this research? As BigAl suggests, a study to correlate the accuracy of birth info to chart accuracy would be interesting (as would some of the other ideas we have discussed here) – but since astrology is outside the academic and scientific mainstream, where are astrologers supposed to find the resources to do this? Even if I had the time, I don’t have the resources to conduct my own studies; and I seriously doubt any of you would want to contribute your own money to finance them. And not for entirely “objective” reasons, either.
This brings me to what I think is the real issue here. I have listened to what all of you have had to say. I have tried to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge. I have acknowledged that your points of view have validity, should not dismissed out of hand, should be investigated. I have admitted that perhaps my own experiences can be attributed to something besides astrology, and that this bears further consideration on my part. I don’t hear the same from most of you in return. Instead all I keep hearing (in the end) is that I am being illogical, non-objective, unscientific.
Are your own objections to astrology entirely objective? BigAl, where are your objections rooted: in the “garbage in, garbage out” idea? In your misconceived notion that birth charts of twins are identical? That people with identical charts have identical personalities throughout their lives (something which I have not postulated)? That birth data cannot be accurate enough for a good chart analysis (though since you know nothing of how a birth chart is calculated and interpreted, I don’t know on what you base this idea)? Each time I answer your technical questions or correct your misinformation, you shift to a new objection. You want to say that astrology can’t work because you don’t see how there can be a connection between birth data and personality. Granted, the connection is counter-intuitive; but then, the theory of relativity was not “intuitive” from the perspective of Newtonian physics. Why should the experience of time be dependent upon velocity? Ultimately, we don’t know; yes, we have demonstrated that the theory is correct and have formulas to describe the effect. But we don’t know why the Universe works that way – any more than we know why gravity attracts rather than repels objects. That’s just the way things are. To say, “Because I can’t perceive how or why these things are connected means that they aren’t,” is at best unscientific; at worst it is arrogant.
Basically, you just don’t want to believe that astrology works. How is that any more objective than my point of view? What technical expertise do you bring to this forum that makes you any more qualified to render a valid opinion than I?
If we were having this discussion about something other than astrology – chemistry, for instance – the differences of opinion we have would be called a “scientific debate”. (Or perhaps even more importantly: if you didn’t know anything about chemistry, you’d have the sense not to offer an opinion at all.) Regardless of what you might think, Science as it defined today is not an absolute thing; the ideal of the objective scientist is just that – an ideal. Even in day-to-day science (such as I perform in my job), this is hard to achieve. I am working within a fairly well-defined and well-understood set of parameters; but often I am presented with new data, something which has not been specifically observed before. I have to draw upon my experience, and the knowledge available to me, and make a judgement call. This is a subjective activity, but within the boundaries of self-defined Science it is acceptable.
Consider how science operates on its fringes – where theory and the technological proof of theory are strained to the limits. Eddington’s original proof of relativity was not a simple, straight-forward or uncontroversial thing. His hypothesis was sound; but gathering data to assess it strained the limits of the available technology. The data had other, non-relativistic effects on it which had to be accounted for – and the data adjusted accordingly – before he could proceed to analyze the data for evidence of relativistic effects. These adjustments to the data were, in his mind, scientifically sound, but not everyone agreed with him – some on equally scientific grounds, others on personal/subjective grounds (relativity was a threatening idea!). Regardless, these disagreements were considered a “scientific debate” through which the proof of relativity by other means was eventually found and Eddington’s work vindicated.
The study of astrology by Science falls into this same “fringe” realm, because Science a priori cannot/does not intuitively theorize why birth data and personality might be connected. But, as with relativity, any inquiry into astrology which would claim to be “scientific” must suspend this “disbelief” and proceed in an open-minded fashion. This does not appear to have occurred. Either studies were conducted in total ignorance of astrological theory and prediction (which, no matter what one “believes”, cannot be properly tested unless one first understands them); or negative results in one area were taken as invalidation of the entire subject (e.g. Gauquelin’s so-called “Mars effect”); or positive results were attributed to other factors, without any attempt to demonstrate that those effects were significant enough to explain the positive result (e.g. self-attribution or self-delusion).
If Science approached other areas in this way, the work would be dismissed as bad science. Period. Eddington could not have investigated relativity without some understanding of physics, astronomy and relativistic theory (regardless of what he “believed”). Gauquelin’s work on the correlation between Mars and athletic “champions” was a new astrological hypothesis which his data did not bear out; and he misrepresented the data and the results in the process. If Eddington had done this with his results (and some thought he had), his conclusion would have been dismissed as apropos to nothing and perhaps his reputation as a scientist called into question; but relativity and physics as a whole would remain inviolate. Likewise, some scientists suggest that observed correlations between Sun-sign and various personality traits (in psychological studies of this area) could be explained as “self-attribution”. Perhaps this is so; but before one can conclude this with any reasonable certainty, one must first demonstrate that the potential for self-attribution is sufficiently large to account for the apparent correlation, which was not done. One cannot draw conclusions from the results – for or against astrology – until one has done so.
My point is not that astrology works or doesn’t work. My point is that Science does not conduct itself according to its own principles when dealing with astrology. Our small-scale discussion in this thread has demonstrated this larger-scale issue.
Or to put it another way: I have bothered to learn Science – including chemistry, physics, mathematics, history of Science, philosophy of Science – as well as astrology. My views are not rooted in ignorance of one or both subjects, nor in a blind or misinformed belief (or disbelief) of either subject. If ever any of you can say the same, let me know. Until then, I really have no more to say.