jabberwalkie
i don’t know about Cecil but, --I’m going out on a limb here-- are you a Taurus?
Hello again…
JonF and BigAl, I have given some thought to your last posts, and will attempt to answer both of you. However, I will do this in two separate posts, since I may not have time to answer you both in one.
JonF, regarding the fatal flaws in the “Who Will Survive” study: Y’know, ever since you used that wording, I keep thinking of the Bangles first single, “Hero Takes A Fall”. “Emotion is virtue/For you it is the one, the fatal flaw…/” Can’t get the song out of my head now. Thanks so much. grin
Anyway. I looked over that study and noticed two problems. Since I am not the strong statistician you seem to be, these may not be exactly the problems you spotted, but I think they are valid scientific objections nonetheless:
(1) Data set is too small, and the data points (individuals) are not independent of one another. To properly test the “Lilly predictions”, a larger number of unrelated “violent death” occurrences (and non-occurences) should have been studied. That is, one would need to eliminate all other known connections between individual instances of “violent death” before one could hope to spot any previously unknown correlations, astrological or otherwise. This particular study overlooks one very obvious connection. All of these students and teachers were where they were, at that time, for a reason: it was a school. So right away, one cannot make the assumption that the 30 or so instances of violent death (or not) were “random” or otherwise unconnected. Until you “correct” for that by including other, non-related incidents, you can’t hope to distinguish any astrological connection on top of the obvious ones. And even then, statistically one must have “enough” data points to properly ascertain whether any apparent correlation is real, or falls within some acceptable limit of error/variations. I can’t say what would be “enough”; but considering the number of students vs. the number of distinct astrological features which are considered, I’d have to say that the data set is too narrow on which to base any conclusions. You’d have to have a much larger population to show that those who do die violently all share these chart features, and those that do not, don’t have those features.
And here is a related problem with the study: even if this particular group of students was statistically “large enough”, there is no evidence that the correlations would apply to the larger world under other circumstances. How is “violent death” being defined? A seemingly random gunshot wound? A self-inflicted gunshot wound? Getting run over by a car? Getting shot because you didn’t pay you drug dealer? Perhaps it is a problem of wording, but it isn’t clear to me whether this astrologer is suggesting that the apparent “indicators” he found apply only to this group, only to this particular situation (of which, sadly, there are many instances) or more generally. My impression is that he is saying the last, which is an unwarranted extrapolation from the data.
Second problem: time. What good (use/value) are these “Lilly predictors” if you can’t predict when violent death will occur? More importantly, in scientific terms if the theory (indication of violent death) is not potentially falsifyable, then it cannot stand up as a theory. For this astrological theory to be rigorous, one should be able to examine a chart (from outside the study), predict whether violent death will occur; and if so, observe whether the prediction holds true. But if the theory doesn’t allow you to predict when, then how can you hope to disprove it? You can find any connection between even unrelated victims if you look hard enough; the key is, does this hold up in situations that have not occurred yet? That would be like saying: these murder victims all have the same lamp on their bedside tables, therefore everyone who has this lamp will be murdered. It may be so, but if it doesn’t allow you to make (dis)proveable predictions, it’s not scientific. The theory in this study cannot possible claim to predict the timing of violent death, since it is based solely on natal/birth charts. Such charts (alone) cannot be used by astrologers to predict timing of events.
There. Those are the major problems that I see. Perhaps you have noticed other, more specific problems, but I hope we can both agree that the foregoing two problems are significant flaws in the study.
However, the best we can do is to discount the study on scientific grounds, and draw no conclusion other than: the study did not prove – or rigorously disprove – the “Lilly predictors”. Furthermore, one flawed study of this nature does not, of necessity, cast doubt on the whole of astrology. As I said in one of my earlier posts, I have issues with this kind of astrology anyway – in part because of the inherent assumption that everything can be explained by astrology. I don’t think this is so. Maybe I am wrong, but bad science on the part of these astrologers doesn’t do anything to convince me.
Again, I am not so much defending astrology as trying to demonstrate to you that we do share some common ground in our abilities to examine it. We may not draw the same conclusions about everything we examine, but I think we agree that certain procedures must be followed.
Yes?
BigAl, I will answer you later…
MJH - As others have already said, I too applaud your rational approach to the subject. Usually the responses to all the anti-astrology points are weak (like saying, “well, science is wrong”) or non-existant.
The subject would benefit from an in-depth study (like Chronos mentions above).
Considering all your good arguments, for me, it seems to boil down to one fundamental point…there is no known mechanism by which the positions of the planets would have any influence on the natal/developmental aspects of our lives.
You touched upon this earlier by acknowledging that you don’t have the scientific proof to support it, but your experience is that it works (or is at least a beneficial mental exercise). That’s fine. But for me, the extraordinary claims of astrology requires extraordinary proof.
I’m curious about what a “full reading” entails (you mentioned some details), but I suspect that you would agree that the quick/daily horoscopes in newspapers, etc. are pure entertainment.
BigAl: our discussion seems to be one misunderstanding after another. So in an effort to be clear about some of the issues you raise, let me summarize a few points. I have made most of these in one way or another throughout this thread, but I’ll repeat them here briefly, then expand on them below:
(1) two people with exactly the same birth data – date, time and place – will have the same chart.
(2) for these purposes, “birth time” should be accurate to the nearest minute. This information readily obtained from a birth certificate.
(3) a time difference (or error) of several (say, 4) minutes can (though does not necessarily) result in a somewhat different chart, and therefore a somewhat different analysis.
(4) twins are not necessarily born at the same time; therefore they do not necessarily have the same chart. Obviously, the closer their birth times are, the more similar the charts will be.
(5) one difference between two charts does not result in completely and utterly different chart analyses. The more similar any two charts are, feature for feature, the more similar the analyses will be.
Expanding on points (1) through (5):
(1) I don’t think there is anything more to add, since I think we agree on this point: the same birth data should give the same chart (and, implicitly, the same chart analysis).
(2) for my purposes, I have to assume that the time on a birth certificate is the most accurate birth time available. You could argue about how accurate that is, but I would have to ask: if the information doesn’t need to be accurate for the certificate, why does it appear there? In any case, to proceed with a chart I have to assume this information is accurate to plus/minus one minute, which seems to me a reasonably accurate assumption to make. Also, a window of two minutes does not introduce huge inaccuracies into a chart, for reasons which I will explain in (3).
(3) the fastest-moving astrological features of a chart, the Ascendant and the other House cusps, change on the average by 1 degree every four minutes (of time). If birth time is known within a 2-minute window, then house cusps will be in error by no more than plus/minus 15 arc-minutes. Planetary positions do not shift significantly within this 2-minute window; the fastest-moving “planet” is the Moon, at 12-14 degrees per day. This works out to roughly 1 arc-minute per two time-minutes, which is not significant.
Obviously, the larger the time difference between two birth times (or the error in one), the greater the (potential) effect on the chart. The greatest significant change that could occur in say, 4-5 minutes, is that the Ascendant (rising degree) could move into a different sign. The Ascendant’s sign is one of the three most important chart features, along with the Sun and Moon positions. The Ascendant is also, by definition, the cusp of the first house; so if the Ascendant shifts, the other House Cusps could shift enough for one (or more) planet to fall in a different house. This is considered a significant change, too, since a planet’s house position is as important as its sign.
However, exactly how large of a time difference is significant depends on the chart in question. For instance, if the Ascendant falls right in the middle of a sign, and all of the planets fall in the middle of the houses they occupy (average house size: 30 degrees wide), then a time difference of a few minutes won’t affect any of these. But if a planet falls near to the beginning of its house, then a time differences could push the planet back into the earlier house – at a rate of 1 degree every 4 minutes.
If the astrologer has an estimate birth-time, then he/she has to ascertain, based on the estimated chart, whether the birth-time is accurate enough to be worth doing. (More on this below.)
(4) Because the birth times of twins are often close, their charts will be strikingly similar. The closer the birth times (as defined above), the more similar the charts. Therefore, if twins are born 2 minutes apart (or closer), the 2-minute “windows” for each birth time overlap; so within the limits as I’ve defined them above, the charts will be identical. But the charts of twins born 5, 10, 15, 30, 60 minutes apart will be increasingly divergent. As I said in (3), how much time will result in significant chart differences depends on the chart(s).
(5) Even significant differences in a chart (due to different birth times, or an erroneous birth time) do not result in a completely different chart analysis – because there will be many features that didn’t change as a result of the time difference/error.
In the case of an estimated birth time, the astrologer has to assess: which features could change within the limit of error; how much the features will change; and whether these changes, separately or collectively, alter the chart to such an extent that it’s unwise to interpret/analyze. For instance, if the error on a birth time could result in a maximum 2% change to the overall chart, then one can interpret it and expect a reasonably accurate analysis. On the other hand, if the error on a birth time results in a possible 20% change to the overall chart, then it’s probably not wise to proceed with the analysis.
I wish I was able to post the sample chart I have in front of me, so that you could see it. In any case I calculated but did not interpret this chart, for reasons which I hope will be clear as I describe it. The date and place of birth were known, but the individual’s mother said he was born “about 9:30 AM”. Ordinarily I prefer to verify time of birth from the birth certificate, but this information was not presented to me. As an exercise, I calculated the chart for 9:30 AM; then went back and calculated it for 9:15 AM and 9:45 AM and noted the differences. (My reasoning here was that if he had been born earlier than 9:15 AM, his mother would have said, “about 9 AM”; later than 9:45 AM, “about 10 AM”.) At the outset, I guessed that 30 minutes was too wide to make any kind of accurate analysis, and I was right.
Between 9:12 AM and 9:45 AM, there were twelve separate chart features which changed. Four of these were shifts in house positions (of the Sun, Venus, Jupiter, Neptune); all but the last of these (Neptune) are very significant shifts, Neptune only moderately so. Uncertainty in the house position of the Sun alone is too significant to “work around”. The other eight were aspects (angular separations between planets/cusps) which either formed or ended during the 30-minute period; of these, four or perhaps five would be considered “significant”. So during that half-hour period, there were eight or nine significant changes to the chart. In my judgement, this was too many to attempt an analysis and expect any reasonable degree of accuracy.
When I extended the window to the 9:00-10:00 AM timeframe, seven more changes occurred, five of which are significant: two changes in house positions; a change in the Ascendant’s sign; and two major aspects either forming or ending. I point these out to illustrate that the number of changes within any given time frame is “uneven”; we have twelve for a 33-minute period, and 19 for a 60-minute period, and they do not occur at regular 2-3 minute intervals.
Anyway, I hope you were able to follow all that. If not, please let me know and I’ll try to explain again.
As for “how did they figure all this out anyway?”, I’ll have to get back to you, when I have time to write more.
Most definitely! Most aren’t even written by astrologers, let alone based on anything important to astrology. Besides making a mockery of any serious astrological interpretation, it has also had the unfortunate consequence of over-emphasizing the importance of the Sun sign. While the Sun is generally the single most important feature in a chart, the Ascendant and Moon run a close second. Sometimes these can be places so strongly as to rival the Sun’s influence. But people can easily determine their Sun signs; Ascendant and Moon sign require time and place of birth, so fewer people know these off-hand.
I agree: astrology makes some extraordinary claims (not all of which ought to be taken seriously!) which require extraordinary proof. Just because we (you, I, science, astrologers) can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean their isn’t one. J.H. Haldane once said (forgive me if this is not verbatim): “The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.” Meaning the ability of the human mind to imagine the structure of Universe may be limited. Anyway, the inability to point to a mechanism isn’t proof against astrology; if anything, we should be trying to determine if there really is one. But I just don’t see this happening anytime soon, given the unsmiling relations between Science and astrology. And no doubt lots of poor science on the part of astrologers – but what do you want from a group which Science itself pushed out of the mainstream centuries ago?
I’d be happy to outline what’s involved in a full chart analysis, but later or perhaps tomorrow. Stay tuned.
No, my apologies. I was feeling kinda testy that day. Not that I’m letting you off the hook, mind you. 
Until recently, we did not know exactly how many moons Jupiter has (and we may find more). This means we could not accurately calculate the influence Jupiter-plus-moons has on us until now. This means one of two things:
- Astrology is based on sound principles, but there’s no way we’ll ever know exactly how many planets, moons and stars have an influence on us and astrologers’ calculations will never be accurate enough to be useful.
OR
- Astrology is not based on sound principles because the notion that a tiny ball of ice and stone half a billion miles away influences our lives flies totally in the face of well-established laws of physics.
Seems to me you lose either way.
I know you directed this statement to someone else, but I’ll answer it anyway: It’s not that I don’t want to believe it, it’s that I can’t believe it. I simply cannot reconcile it with what has been learned about how the universe really works. The pieces don’t fit. The laws of physics contradict the laws of astrology and one of them has to go. Astrology goes because its experiments and observations cannot be repeated and cannot be shown that it really exists.
No need to apologize, jab1. I’ve had to resist the urge to be testy, perhaps rather unsuccessfully, on this thread myself.
No. The moons, discovered and otherwise, are there whether we can observe them or not. Assuming that the moons of Jupiter have an effect (and as I said before, no reason from an astrological point of view to rule that out immediately) it means that what we have, until recently, considered the effect of Jupiter by itself is actually the combined effect of Jupiter and its moons. I mean, come on: Jupiter’s moons can’t even be seen without a telescope; for all intents and purposes, the moons occupy the same position (to the nearest fractions of an arc-minute) in a natal chart as Jupiter does. Whither Jupiter goest (and influences), so goest its moons. How would you propose we differentiate between Jupiter’s influence (alone) and that of its moons anyway?
As for astrology contradicting the laws of physics: which law do you mean? Since we are agreed (I think) that astrology has yet to propose a mechanism of action for itself, how can it have contradicted the laws of physics? I have not asserted that planetary gravity is the mechanism of astrology, if that’s what you’re thinking of. Other non-astrologers on this thread seem to laboring under that misapprehension, but no astrologer is going to tell you that.
MJH,
Thank you for your explanation. I now have a better understanding of how the accuracy of birth data can effect a horoscope. If I understand you correctly, the further one gets from his “true” time of birth, the less accurate the reading but if the time is within a few minutes either way then you should be pretty close.
This brings me back to my original question to Jabberwalkie, which started this whole discussion about birth times. If I was expecting a child, why couldn’t I hire an astrologer to do charts for several different times (as you did for the person whose birth time you weren’t sure about) and then pick the time that I liked the best. Then, through C section or induced labor, arrange to have the baby born as close to that time as possible. Would I be assuring that baby a good future? That seems to be a logical extension of what you are saying.
I question whether astrology measures any real effect for a number of reasons. Yes, one is my inability to imagine a mechanism that fits in with everything else I understand about how physics and biology work. MJH, you could be correct that this is just a failure of my imagination. However, I would need evidence that physics and biology aren’t enough to explain how the world works before I put a lot more effort into strengthening my imagination.
I don’t think that astrology has a lot of evidence going for it, though, and I think a good sign that it isn’t a description of a “real” phenomenon is that there are numerous types of astrology, each of which claims to be the correct one. This can’t be true, since different types of astrology yield different predictions, or rely on completely different base assumptions.
I understand that sciences in their infancy often have a number of different competing schools. However, one of the schools of thought gets better results than the others, because it better matches reality. So, alchemy gives way to chemistry, animism gives way to physics, the four humours give way to biology.
Astrology hasn’t undergone this process, even though people have been seeing their destiny in the stars for thousands of years. Jabberwalkie asked a question about Vedic astrology versus Western astrology. I would think that devotees of both types of astrology would think that their type is the correct method, which gives the best answers – but both can’t give the best answers if they give different answers, can they?
If I were born in China or Guatemala or France at any time in human history, the physical laws of nature would apply to me, no matter how well I was able to understand them. I would eventually develop the wheel, the ramp, and other simple machines no matter where I lived. But I would grow up relying on very different astrologies depending on where I was, and in no case would I think that my astrology was wrong. That is why I don’t think astrology describes a real phenomenon.
Playing catch-up…
MJH replied to me:
I agree that just because a person will accept lies as true that does not make everything the person accepts as true a lie. The whole point of the argument is to show how easily people will accept falsehoods as truth. As long as there is no way to distinguish between the two, it is useless as an information source, because it yields not useful information. If an accepted statement can equally be the truth or not, then it doesn’t matter if you tell them the truth or not. Say whatever you want to say that you think they will like, they will believe it and find a way to make it apply to their behavior and personality and sense of self, and justify it to themselves. And maybe the go try to affect their lives based on that advice. Maybe it helps them find for themselves an issue they need to deal with. But I submit the real solution there was not the information you provided (that was potentially false) but rather their own introspection. Thus astrology may provide a somewhat useful way to focus a person on thinking about themself, but may just as easily be misdirecting the person.
While your second (highlighted) description is more specific than the first one, it still suffers from being general. In fact part of it’s fatal flaw is that it does sound specific. It sounds more specific than it is. It really is still a very generic description, and something that a person, while maybe not happy to learn about themselves, would be able to accept as a valid criticism that shows why sometimes they aren’t happy with results of their endeavors. But the truth is, who doesn’t get more wrapped up in finding the answers to the questions that most interest them? Who doesn’t get bored with stuff in which they aren’t interested and find tedious or confusing? Who doesn’t project their own preconceived notions about situations or people, then in hindsight realize their error?
“You’re generally a caring and sensitive person to the people you are close with. You have a desire to help your friends, and empathize with their problems. But sometimes you let your anger get in the way, and can be a bit selfish, which you regret later.”
Does that not sound rather specific - at least as much as your example above? I bet if you ask everyone in this thread, 90% of them will say it refers to them. That is exactly the psychology behind how astrology works.
And you just made my point for me. He supplied the relevant details. He is the one that decided you meant his career choices that weren’t working out. He is the one who knew he had some problems with his personality that needed fixing, and you provided him with a ready answer.
That something is allowing him to supply the meaning to your descriptions. It’s cold reading. You provide a description (however you generate it), and he then makes it apply. Or decides it doesn’t apply, because he doesn’t want it to.
For an experiment - not as part of a counseling session, but maybe as part of a carnival or fair or public demo booth or at a party with friends for kicks, because I wouldn’t want you to feel unethical about it, like you’re causing harm - have you ever tried generating the horoscope exactly as you think you should, then reversing the interpretation and providing wrong descriptions to people, and seen how they react? You would of course need to be just as specific, just as convincing, and not give away revealing information - works better on those not fully versed in the intricacies of their charts, because another astrologer would have some knowledge of what you should be finding.
I appreciate your participation in this discussion. You’ve provided a lot of insightful and thoughtful answers. Welcome to the Straight Dope.
P.S. There’s a FAQ page that explains how to use vB code to do things like quote and bold and italicize. Basically you use [square brackets] around the commands, use b for bold, i for italics, u for underline, and quote for
. You put a bracket code bracket before the text you want it applied to, and a bracket slash (/) code bracket after.
Try hitting the “quote” button on the bar right below my post. It should open a reply window with my text in it, which you can use to see what I typed.
Hopethis doesn’t wind up a double post … I’m not trusting the CGI.
A few comments on flaws:
Not necessarily. The data set may or may not be suficient to test a hypothesis. The real flaw is that no attempt was made to assess significance other than anecdotally.
It certainly would have been appropriate to consider possible dependencies. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the data are independent, but a professional statistician might fel otherwise.
That’s a good one that hadn’t occurred to me.
Well, a fact doesn’t have to be useful to be a fact. However …
You’re touching on my other major flaw. You could prove or disprove the theory by an appropriate sample of dead people. Since most of the sample in the study ain’t dead, there’s absolutely no possibility of drawing a conclusion (unless the theory did predict when the death should occur, which it didn’t).
There could possibly be a corrrelation between bedside lamps and murders. I doubt there is, but it’s possible. It’s about as reasonable to my mind as astrology.
True. However, that study is just an example; and it’s one of the better examples. Most studies that find positive results about astrology are far poorer. It doesn’t take much research to check my claim; feel free.
It’s also easy and instructive to see how astrologers regard that study. From the introduction at the link I posted:
" It is a beautiful piece of research … It is a fascinating and well executed study."
From Who Will Survive Feedback:
“This is amazing and conclusive! The depth of the study is truly an addition to the empirical evidence of Astrology.”
“An excellent presentation!”
From Web Site Review: Considerations Magazine:
“Ken Gillman, is a serious research astrologer in his own right, and the quality of his contributors reflects his own high standards.”
I find it interesting that I can’t find any negative mention of this terrible study. How can astrologers expect to be taken seriously if their work is of this poor caliber or worse and they can’t even figure it out?
I would be glad to read and critique any studies that you think I should …
Harumph! Harrum! Harrremmmm! Hak hak hak! S’cuse me. Now then:
The fault is not in the stars, but in ourselves.
Velikovsky, of course, had an ingenious explanation for the origins and the sustained import of astrology.
Wha… why, as I live and breathe, is that you, JonF? 'pon my soul! You know, that not-so-fresh-feeling Jill Gates shut us down before I had a chance to clobber you a good final one, and it still keeps me awake nights. But I’m playing hooky from my other tasks again, so you’ll just have to get your drubbing from some other worthy opponent here. I don’t see any. Where was I? Oh, yes –
Velikovsky explained that the origins of astrology began in the direct and hard-to-miss observations of activities of the planets as they whizzed past or near-collided with the earth. (Just last December some Brits caculated that the planets have to have been in other positions than they are now)
A few Romper Room examples: Mercury is associated with the intellect because that planet, escaping its orbit as a moon of Saturn, whizzed past the earth and triggered a staggering electrical exchange, which had more or less the same effect on mankind as does electroshock therapy on a man. This is the reality behind the story of the tower of Babel, Velikovsky explained, and behind all the other eerily similar tales put down in the lore of ancient civilizations worldwide.
Mars was associated with war because of its “battle” in the sky with Venus, as they collided, and the concurrent panic and pestilence in the populace below. By the way, JonF, that gigantic scar they’ve photographed on Mars? And the evidence of billions and billions of gallons a minute floods? Yup. Back in 1940 Velikovsky figured stuff like that would be there.
And Venus is associated with beauty because of its appearance as it dominated the sky for so many years, etc.
The moon, too.
It should be noted that while we think of these ancient planet-gods as part of a simultaneous pantheon, historically, each of them dominated religious worship in turns for generations… until some other planet rolled close by and wowed and killed most of the populace again. (Note the prayer in Monty Python’s MEANING OF LIFE, "oh lord, you are so positively huge…)
These ancient rolling planets gathered their respective lore and and mythologies – in the days when “a myth” was not confused with “a falsehood” – and the art of astrology was sanitized of its priestly origins and mish-mashed around until it became the sort of quasi-entertainment in the newspapers that it is today, as well as the bone of contention it is from those who resent the fact that others don’t give a damn about it and seem to get along just fine without it.
Statistical gatherings and scientific tests can’t prove a thing about it. No way. You can fool with astrology the same as you can fool with your idea of gravity, and come up with “immutable laws” just the same and create an endless patchwork of jerry-rigged exceptions that make it seem to stay immutable, if covered with bandaids. And as JonF has proven that he is very fond of “immutable laws,” one wonders why he argues with others who seek the same thing in other kinds of intellectual coloration. The immutable laws of astrology have outlived the immutable laws of gravity by quite a few moons, so far. Why not subscribe?
After all, Isaac Newton, as I pointed out back when Velikovsky ruled this site, considered himself first an astrologer. Not merely a means of making a living. He chided the Royal Academy about it, too. He said “After all, gentlemen, I have studied the matter and you haven’t.”
(Which was why nobody here could whup me on the matter of Velikovsky, gentlemen – and the not-so-fresh one…)
I haven’t read all these threads, but I don’t really get why there’s so much attempt to compare astrology with nuts-and-bolts science. It bears instead a more eerie resemblance to the worst of our psychologies.
Whereas a badly aspected pair of planets over one’s head at birth is said to have negative effects on the course of one’s life, so too a badly aspected pair of parents over a child is said to have the same. We needn’t go on and on with more examples.
Either -ology will hasten to detail why one child grew up fine and another grew up a murdering thief under the same influences, within the rules of their respective games. Neither seems to question the fact that they actually expect to be able to determine an individual’s personality and probable fortunes merely with a glimpse of either where the planets were at thus-and-so o’clock or from the time Dad put the kid in the refrigerator as a joke and it went too far.
Like evolution and religious dogma and empiricism, astrology is entirely a matter of belief and the subsequent synapses of perception and “proofs” that enable one to filter out the parts that don’t seem as intuitively acceptable.
Two master astrologists can make entirely different profiles of the same chart. It’s good that they can. After all, they are trying to make an entire personality and all its probable courses of action out of a miniscule point of someone’s life that they don’t even remember, namely, the time it took to come out of the womb. Why should the time of day matter more THEN, than at any other time for the next 80ish years? Why shouldn’t one just take a snapshot of the back yard at that moment, then assign symbolic values to everything in the picture, and draw up as good a chart?
Someone did my chart some years ago and came up with a damn good one, I thought. It sure sounded a LOT like me.
One little thing: he got the wrong year. I was born a year earlier than that.
It was a good description of me because astrology is no cosmic camera. It’s just a toy or a training wheel for focusing one’s intuitions. Even scientists use “hunches,” so I read, ever so long ago. The charts aren’t necessary. But many people use it to get their minds on a roll, not wobbling from side to side with distractions.
Hey. Did Rudolph Hess succeed in getting England to join up with Germany after all? His horoscope said he could do that and that’s why he parachuted over there. 50,000,000 astrologers most certainly can be wrong, even Nancy Reagan’s.
Astrology “works” on hunches, that’s all. The mumbo jumbo is no less respectable than Darwin’s mumbo jumbo, though. It can be pretty interesting.
Oh, hey, JonF? I see that the speed of light has been busted. EINSTEIN WAS WRONG, JON. WRONG. DO YOU HEAR? HE WAS WRONG. LIGHT IS AS IMMUTABLE AS SILLY PUTTY.
And good old Larson is right after all. By the way, Larson was also quite right in the matter of the argument you were having about peer review. I now know that first hand, bub.
And there is no Cecil Adams. Burp. Seeya.
Hi, Tom. Sorry to see you’re still so deluded.
Velikovsky’s charlatinism has been done to death. Come up with something new, an I’ll be glad to debate.
Good morning all… thanks for all your responses. I am beginning to feel overwhelmed by all this; I am pretty much the only one on my side of the fence with this, and although I don’t feel especially “ganged-up” on, keeping up with everything you ask and say is starting to wear on me. So this might very well be my last post on the subject.
Irishman Thanks for the quoting and formatting tips. I had figured out some, but not all of them. We’ll see if my formatting works on this post!
I see your point about the individual fitting a seemingly specific interpretation to their own experience (or not), and being convinced at the accuracy of the analysis (or not). However, I’m not sure how to separate this capacity for “self-attribution” from the information I am providing. The experiment you suggest – reversing the chart analysis and presenting it as genuine – might illustrate this, but I would consider unethical. Regardless of how the process of self-awareness and introspection is triggered, I cannot deliberately mislead someone. If what I say doesn’t fit, they are free to ignore it and I do not pressure them to do otherwise; if they find something useful and helpful in what I’ve said, then that’s all to the good. I could no more mislead them deliberately than a good psychologist would deliberately present a false analysis to a patient.
BigAl Yes, theoretically you could “choose” the time of birth for your child if you wished – and could convince a physician to do a C-section or induce labor appropriately. I don’t see why that wouldn’t give you the desired “personality” (assuming astrology works, which of course we haven’t decided). That, too, would be rather unethical, akin to gene manipulation giving your child blond hair and blue eyes. But it could be done. Also, I am glad to have cleared up the confusion over birth times, etc. What I do may not mean anything, but I do it right, dammit! smile
Keenan I can’t really speak to your question about different types of astrology. All I can suggest is that astrology has not been codified the way the Sciences have been (to keep what works, eliminate what doesn’t) because it does operate outside the mainstream. Any non-mainstream group is going to feel free to operate by its own rules, and lack thereof. As we have seen, a lot of bad science goes in as a result. This is definitely not a good thing for astrology. Even for me, presently disposed to at least consider it useful, the more complicated, predictive methods are bewildering at best, and so I stay away from them. (Take a look at the “Who Will Survive?” article that JonF has linked us to, and consider that even I, the astrologer, look at this and say, “Huh?”) I think it’s clear from my posts here that I do believe astrology could benefit from some more stringent operating procedures. I try to approach my interpretations as methodically and systematically as I can; but I suspect other astrologers, even those regarded as “great”, might practice astrology in a more haphazard way.
JonF Well, at least we seem to agree that the study is pretty suspicious. I read the commentaries, too, and noticed that there was not one criticism of the study; all of them seemed to accept the results of the study because of who performed it. Great! Wonderful! Fantastic!.. Folks, the Emperor has no clothes! And, I’m sure, there may have been in little bias in determining which commentaries to post… so I agree with you: astrologers can’t be taken seriously if they can’t even evaluate their own work. This presents a huge, if not insurmountable, obstacle to credibility. So I do appreciate that in some sense you recognize my capacity for self-evaluation and take me seriously enough to have a discussion. (As for Tom Dark – you’re on your own there. I have nothing to add.)
Listen… it has been a very interesting, enlightening and stimulating discussion. But draining as well; my brain is practically picked clean. I hope that, at the very least, I have dispelled some misconceptions you all might have had about how astrology is done. Whether or not you “believe” the result, there is a precise and system approach to how it’s done. Which perhaps not everyone follows, shame on them.
Perhaps I will conduct some little experiments of my own, after all.
Assalam’allaikoom, my friends.
[MJH out]
If any of you would like me to explain certain things further (e.g. Phobos was curious how a full chart analysis was done), then please contact the Moderator for my email address.
Assuming the Moderators can/will do this, I give my permission. I just hesitate to post the address here, for all (outside the thread) to see.
Tom Dark, please refrain from personal insults in this area of the message board (referring to your description of the former moderator of this forum.)
moderator, Comments on Cecil’s Columns
MJH, thank you for your clear and lucid explanation of your view of the tenets behind astrology. Please stick around the board and participate in other threads!
We have other fora in the message boards that you might enjoy (see for example General Questions or Great Debates).
Say, Arnie?
Have a big cupped handfull of rabbit raisins, on me. Frank Truth is the price of my brilliant appearances – which as you know are precious and rare. The sanctimony of you literal-minded bottom-fact-feeders tends to gently impel Mental Giants Like Myself elsewhere for our entertainment. Go congratulate somebody mediocre some more. You’re doing fine.
JonF, JonF, JonF. God awoke me from a dream after several moons to check in here again. You’re too punch-drunk a debater for me to accept further challenges with anything like elan. The only reason I’m HERE is to get you and Velikovsky together, finally. Otherwise, I’m much busier with other matters.
It’s just that… you need Velikovsky, Jon. It’s in your chart. There was NASTY little disagreement between Mercury and Saturn and Neptune and the Sun on the day you were born. It made you a Major Square.
Reading Velikovsky will resolve it for you. Especially now that Einstein has been shown up for the charlatan he was.
Just trying to help.
'nite all… except Cecil Adams, who doesn’t exist.
Wrong yet again, Tom. It appears that you’ve taken distorted popular press articles and distorted them further through your own uniqe filter.
Tom Dark said
Sheesh! Why not just leave them as rare? And Frank Truth was banned as a sock-puppet.