Richard Rockley writes the blog Skeptico. His most recent essay discusses astrology, and he cites no less than 37 scientific trials attempting to demonstrate the validity of the practice, including these two:
"In 1979 Michel Gauquelin put an advertisement in Ici-Paris offering a free horoscope. Recipients were asked to reply saying how accurate they and their friends found the horoscope. Of the first 150 replies, 94% percent said it was accurate as did 90% of their friends and family. Unfortunately, they all got the same horoscope, that of Dr. Petiot, a notorious mass murderer."
"On June 7, 1989 on American television, James Randi offered $100,000 to any psychic or Astrologer who could prove the truth of their claims. An astrologer who took up the challenge was given the birth information of twelve people and had cast their charts. He interviewed the twelve without knowing who was who and was to identify them by matching them with horoscopes. He got none right."
I quote these two because of their humour, but most of the studies cited are of a serious nature, as are their results, which speak for themselves. Astrology cannot be demonstrated to have any accuracy in describing or predicting an individual's personality traits. I encourage you to visit Richard's blog and read for yourself.
31 comments:
Astrology has a strong Rorschach component. Like fortune cookies, they're vague enough that you can usually apply then to your life somehow.
Myself, I got fed up with them when I was about six or eight years old. I got one of those vending machine ones that come in a little scroll. The one I got started off on one side (the side about famous Pisces people) talking about a son of Napoleon who killed himself (ior something like that). This is not helpful or inspiring, I thought, and that was that. Later education about the scientific method and empirical thinking only confirmed what I already knew.
Karen
The Bible states that we should flee from such.
Lahoma
wait, does this mean that love is *not* in the air for me today?
To me, astrology is something to be used for entertainment, rather than fact. I don't read my horoscope everyday, because it is so generalized it could apply to anyone. If you have ever worked in a hospital though, you will know for sure when there is a full moon. But perhaps thats a different thing. And, I agree with Lahoma. But spirituality is a whole different ballgame...
I LOVE the Amazing Randi!
If these swamis can predict the future ... why aren't they down at the racetrack making big bucks?
I stopped believing in horoscopes during a difficult time in my life when I looked to them for some sign of things getting better and was met with negativity I did not need. I'd rather wish on stars.
It sounds just like the theory that people can predict what sex a baby is going to be when a women is pregnant by the way she carries. Statistically it's right 50% of the time. Well, there's only two choices so anyone can be right 50% of the time. That's about how astrology is. Anyone can read a horoscope and make it work for them. It's all in how you interpret it.
I have to admit I am amazed at how many people I personally know that consult their daily horoscope from the newspaper. I have to believe it's more for amusement rather then truth. I have enough dreamy star stricken thoughts traveling around in my head, the last thing I need to do is muddle it up with unknown cosmic forces. Stars are meant to be gazed upon, the pictures provided by telescopes astounded by, but otherwise, I'll keep my feet on the ground, my notions all my own in my mind and I'll take my Taurus sign and nod sure anytime someone says I'm the perfect specimen of a damn bull..........
Rebecca
pifft, If you can tell things by the stars, how bout the winning lotto numbers stp. Until then, get out of my newspaper! and my magazine, and my inernet, and get a real friggen job. WHy do we buy them, at stores, we should say to the casheirs, I'll take this magazine/newspaper, without the horriscope, I that way I won't waste my hard earned money to help some lying bumpkin tell me that I might possibly have some love intrest and I should wear this brand of mascara until then. roar.
Wow, I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it on the first guys blog, but people are actually re-hashing this little reality that someone invented. And poorly invented I might add. To hear Gaquelin's work dismissed with such falsified incoherent drivel is truly disappointing.
Instead of simply making a strongly worded, but completely unsupported statement like that, why not open a dialogue? Can you direct me to a description of Gaquelin's work that will explain to me why you refer to the passage I quoted as "falsified incoherent drivel?" I would be interested in reading it.
On the other hand, if we remove the Gaquelin example from the list, we are left with a mere 36 scientific trials that show astrology to have no validity. I don't believe my conclusion is unwarranted. Can you offer me any contrasting data?
-Paul
First of all you did not cite anything yourself, so why should I? But because you seem genuinely interested in trying to find the truth of the matter, and because I am simply a nice person I will oblige your request. You can find an article which addresses the controversy surrounding the validation of Gaquelin's work <a title="sTARBABY article" target="" href="http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html">right here</a>. It's a bit lengthy but absolutely nessecary if you're trying to understand the matter. <br>
The article you linked to, pixiequix, is a long and rambling account of one man's opinion of a CSICOP investigation of one of Gaquelin's studies. If the account is true, and there are corroborating accounts that suggest it is, it shows nothing more than the fact that CSICOP, in its infancy, botched the way it handled a refutation of Gaquelin's work. It doesn't, in any way, show that Gaquelin's work was valid, only that CSICOP's work was clumsy.
The fact is, Gaquelin participated in many studies of astrology over the course of his career, and in only one - the Mars Ascendent study - was there any authentic statistical significance. In fact, in several of the studies he authored, the results directly refuted the authenticity of astrology.
His results in the Mars study have never been replicated by any other independant testing, and the one time he claimed to have been able to replicate them, he was shown to have manipulated the data post hoc to obtain the results he wanted (ouch).
I am confused by your comment that I have not cited anything. If you click on the word "astrology" in the second sentence of my entry, you will be taken to another blog entry, where the writer has cited 39 different studies of astrology. By my count, two of those studies appear to show statistically significant results supporting astrology, and 37 of them show no effect. Let me ask you a question. If you went out in the sun 39 times, and got sunburned on 37 of those occasions, would you point to the two occasions you did not get sunburned as evidence that the sun does not cause burning?
-Paul
If you had botherd to even glance at the content of the article, you would have noticed it was written by CSICOP's co-founder and long time Executive Council member Dennis Rawlins. And he is a fair authority on the subject because he was the person who did all the calculations for CSICOP's original refutation of Gaquelin's work. He also explains quite clearly the reason for all the commotion surrounding the affair...BECAUSE THEIR RESEARCH VALIDATED GAQUELIN'S WORK!!! But you see an organization like CSICOP can't have that, because they only allow things to be proven correct if they want them to be. And astrology is not on their list of acceptable ideas, so it doesn't matter how right it is, it will always be wrong.
And when I say you don't cite your sources that's because you have no first hand resources.
Oh, my. Where to begin...
If you had even glanced at my reply to you, you would know that I did read that article, and responded directly to it. There are two separate issues here.
#1: The fact that CSICOP did their best impression of chickens running around with their heads cut off, in no way lends more credence to Gaquelin's work. If the Three Stooges proved unable to navigate the English Channel, would you declare it impassable? Gaquelin's work has to stand on its own merits, regardless of what CSICOP said about it.
#2, And this is important, so read very carefully: Correlation does not imply causation. Stop. Think about that for a minute. I'll say it again. Correlation does not imply causation. Every morning the sun comes up. Every morning I have to urinate. Does that mean the sun causes urination? Don't be silly. Just because two events happen at the same time does not necessarily mean they are related.
So, Gaquelin found a correlation between "sports champions" and the position of Mars in their charts at birth. This correlation is slightly above chance. Just enough so to make it a statistically significant result. So what?
Does that mean that astrology is valid? Of course not. All it means is that there is a correlation between those two variables. We can't say with any confidence what the cause of that correlation is. It could even be a completely random fluctuation of the data. Yes, the extremely large sample size makes that unlikely, but you must always remember that unlikely does not equal impossible.
The only way to know for sure is to replicate the results in another study, something that has so far proven impossible to do. Answer the question in my last comment. Would you ignore the 37 times you got sunburn, and point to the two times you did not as proof that the sun does not burn skin?
-Paul
You:
"Gaquelin found a correlation between "sports champions" and the position of Mars in their charts at birth. This correlation is slightly above chance. Just enough so to make it a statistically significant result."
Article:
"For the 2088 sports champions in Gauquelin's sample, such a difference is statistically very significant (because of the largeness of the sample); the odds are millions-to-one against its having occurred by chance."
Either you didn't read the article or you just didn't comprehend it. Or maybe you intentionally overlook anything that doesn't suit your personal philosophy. And you are so angrily blind to your own faults that you accuse everyone else of your own failing. This is a very common occurence in a society brimming with denial. Regardless, your arguments are obtuse and ill reasoned, and your overall tone is condescending at best. Therefore this will be my last comment on the subject...
I think that astrology is best explained as an abstract language. The usual approach in trying to "understand" astrology is flawed right from the start by looking for cause and effect where there is none. I use quotation marks around the term understand, because what most are looking for is someone to mock rather than actual understanding. The interpretation of astrology is based around the concept of the macrocosm and the microcosm, and in that regard astrology is simply the language that some have chosen to use as a means for understanding it.
Yes, I stipulated that the results were statistically significant. You clearly have not read and understood my comments. My question was, "so what?" If there were validity to astronomy, we would expect to see other correlations, for example, between Saturn and successful businessmen, or between Neptune and politicians, or between Venus and manicurists (yeah, I'm making those up. I have no idea what planets you claim are associated with what professions). The problem is, Gaquelin found no such other correlations. The Mar/Sports correlation was the only one he was able to find, out of tens of thousands of people. So, according to Gaquelin's scientific study, astronomy is good for only one thing: it is able to predict whether or not your child will grow up to be a sports champion with about 22% accuracy. Wow!
You then say, "The usual approach in trying to "understand" astrology is flawed right from the start by looking for cause and effect where there is none." I am gobsmacked. It was my understanding that the basic underlying premise of astrology was that the position of the planets at the time of one's birth, and indeed, all through one's life, *caused* some kind of *effect* that influences what kind of person one becomes. Clearly you and I have been talking at cross purposes. Are you now saying that the planets have absolutely no effect on our lives? Then we agree.
-Paul
Gotta say Pixiequix that looking at this exchange your statement:
"maybe you intentionally overlook anything that doesn't suit your personal philosophy. And you are so angrily blind to your own faults that you accuse everyone else of your own failing"
is pretty ironic given the tone of your own posts. I'll admit I agree with Paul and so I'm no doubt equally blind and biased, but it seems to me he's pointing out fair logical arguments.
One study, which can't be repeated, simply isn't enough to show proof of something, be it astrology or any other topic.
You say:
"The usual approach in trying to "understand" astrology is flawed right from the start by looking for cause and effect where there is none," and yet you get upset when people therefore don't accept it.
It oft seems like astrologers want it both ways: to claim there's a correlation between the planets and one's life, but not have to explain this correlation. You may think us wrong, but can't you at least understand our impulse to say "wow, the planets affect my life! Explain how and why!"
Suppose I held a system similar to astrology, but in my system whatever underwear the Queen of England happens to be wearing at the time of your birth is what affects your life. It's complicated to explain exactly, because of all the charts involving Parliament, but trust me, I've studied this and there's a connection. Now you might be inclined to say: "Hmm. That's interesting, because I can't see any reason there'd be such a connection. Could you tell me how this works, and come up with some repeatable tests that will show these correlations aren't somehow arbitrary or the result of chance?"
Just as you would be right to be skeptical in the above situation, can't you see why we're skeptical that a planet that--by you're own admission--cannot be understood in terms of "this will lead to this because of this" is any less difficult to credit?
What I'm saying is that none of you have the capacity for complex insight, you're neither capable nor willing. And I'm done wasting my time. Ciao.
Wow. Have you ever considered a career in teaching Pixiequix? :p
Listen for a second. I wasn't attacking you with my post or even trying to convince you that astrology doesn't make sense; I was simply trying to point out that I don't understand why you (and many others that do believe in astrology) get so upset over those of us that don't.
I mean, let's say you're right in all you say, and astrology is simply so "abstract", requires such "complex thought", and doesn't work in terms of "cause and effect" (to use your own words), and so cannot be easily explained or in any way tested. Why oh why then are you so surprised and angry when some of us have trouble believing in it? Even though I understand you don't think we should, why is it difficult to understand that we--with our limited capabilities--ask what the difference is between planets and the queen's underwear that one of them has some sort of connection to our lives and the other doesn't?
If you're Einstein trying to explain a theory to people that are rejecting it because it doesn't fit into how they currently understand the way the world works and, as far as they can tell, doesn't make any sense, what do you do?
It seems to me you can either try harder to explain your position and answer the objections raised against it. (And if for whatever reason you can't answer the objections or prove your theory in any testable fashion, understand that it makes sense people will be skeptical. After all, perhaps you'd react the same way if someone told you something that seemed extraordinary to your mindset when they weren't able to demonstrate why or how.)
OR I suppose you could just call them too stupid and biased. Probably easier that way.
...continued from above...
pixiequix: "You obviously didn't read the article, because it is clear as day from that article that Gaquelin's work completely validates astrology as a science."
Paul: "I'm sorry, but it doesn't, and here's why. The way science works requires independent corroboration of a study's results by other researchers. That means that other people have to be able to duplicate a scientist's work in order to show that it is truly valid in the real world. To date, despite several attempts, no one has been able to do that for Gaquelin's work. That results of one study, that everyone else has found impossible to replicate, can not be relied upon. That's how science, and the real world work."
pixiequix: "You are clearly unable to understand astrology because it is beyond science, and cannot be explained scientifically."
Paul: "Didn't you just come here attempting to use science to prove the validity of astrology? Now you say that can't be done? Your argument has completely contradicted itself."
pixiequix: "Oh yeah? Well ur stooped!!!!!eleventy-one. I'm taking my pail and shovel and leaving this sandbox."
I'd almost laugh, except your tragic lack of critical thinking skills is so indicative of the general state of discourse in North America right now. It's sad, really, that people like you are so afraid of living in the real world that you have to invent fantasy realms in which to play.
-Paul
As I noted in my response to Asha and Leah in the comment thread attached to my more recent post about Homeopathy ( http://journals.aol.ca/plittle/AuroraWalkingVacation/entries/2007/02/01/homeopath-asha-frost/2227 ), your comments are illustrative of the way believers in pseudo-sciences - like astrology and homeopathy - think. Here is how I would condense our conversation to this point:
pixiequix: "You have misunderstood and misrepresented Michel Gaquelin's work."
Paul: "Please point out to me how I have done that."
pixiequix: "Here, read this article. It explains everything."
Paul (reads article): "I don't see that it does. The fact that Gaquelin discovered one correlation between planetary aspect at birth and later personal accomplishments (when he was expecting to find many different correlations) in no way supports the validity of astrology as a science."
...continued below...
I leave it to the reader to decide if my interpretation of our conversation was accurate or not. I must say, pixiequix, that I am surprised to hear from you once again. You have now said on two separate occasions that you were leaving, and not coming back. I find I have only one thing to say in response: "How can I miss you if you won't go away?"
-Paul
At this point I simply find it amusing to see how long someone as petty as you will continue to vie for the last word.
Oh, the irony... "I know you are, but what am I?"
-Paul
"Rationalist thought rejects all propositions which have not been "proven" according to its own criteria, grounded in the presupposition that a statement must refer to a tangible, measurable reality, divorced from the impressions which are at the root of judgment. Now, this reality which serves as referent is nothing more than a supposition (William of Ockham), a simplified schema of lived experience. Hence one denies to consciousness the ability to see, to intellect the ability to think that which is worthy of being seen or thought. Each is circumscribed by technico-analytical practices performed on a fragment of reality, extirpated from the realities to which it is linked. The course of modern science leads to a relativism which obscures any metaphysical intention. The essential disappears more and more from the preoccupations of consciousness. The neutralization of the body and the mind and above all the "decivilizing of the soul" (Robert Musil) increase the sectarianism of assertions and partial rehabilitations. In our modern factories of knowledge the organization of research imposes an excessive division of function: mediocre or insignificant results achieved with more or less dexterity are legitimized, and one imposes a superachieving technicity on the performance of meaningless tasks. All this is pointless obscurantism which separates us more and more from ourselves."
Pixiequix,
If you are going to quote someone else's words, it is not enough to simply put them in quotation marks. It is necessary to identify the quotation by both author and work quoted. You have much to learn about polite, learned discourse.
For those who might be interested, Pixiequix has quoted from Astrology: The Manifesto, by Patrice Guinard, Ph.D. ( http://cura.free.fr/07athem1.html ). It is interesting reading, not for what it says, because it says nothing, but for how exactly it goes about saying nothing, ad nauseum, while seeming to say something. An excellent primer in circular reasoning. I recommend it to you all.
-Paul
Pixiequix, I have to say again that you should reconsider your approach in presenting your position. I mean, your quote basically seems to boil down to saying there is more to reality than reality; it's bad people don't know this.
"Rationalist thought rejects all propositions which have not been 'proven' according to its own criteria, grounded in the presupposition that a statement must refer to a tangible, measurable reality, divorced from the impressions which are at the root of judgment." What impressions? What criteria should we use?
"Hence one denies to consciousness the ability to see" Ability to see what?
"intellect the ability to think that which is worthy of being seen or thought." What is worthy of being seen/thought?
"Each is...performed on a fragment of reality, extirpated from the realities to which it is linked." What realities?
"The essential disappears...from the preoccupations of consciousness." What essential?
It only seems to say that by not believing in astrology we're missing a chunk of reality. But it doesn't explain to us what this chunk is, because it is not logical or testable like the sliver of reality people like Paul and I apparently limit ourselves to. Which takes us back to where we were a dozen posts ago. Given that we've limited ourselves to reason/logic, measurable propositions, or whatever you want to call it, and don't believe in (which by the way is different than rejecting as impossible by the way) these other realities, you're going to have to convince of these other realities by using the one we already accept. If a person thinks all magic is just tricks and not real magic, you can't simply perform more magic to change their mind, right?
I'm still wondering why the alignment of the planets at our birth is meaningful to our lives but what colour underwear the queen was wearing isn't. I need an argument or explanation from you that supports t
Sorry for the double post, but reading the quote yet again, I can' help adding that it has got to be the most ironic use of the word "obscurantism" ever. ;)
(Gah! I guess I should proofread my own posts for typos before making any obscurantism jokes. The last sentence of my first post should finish "that supports the one but not the other.")
Hello aleclynch. You have been courteous in your comments to me, and I apologize for not being terribly civil in my own. If you would like to discuss any of this further, please feel free to email me at: pixiequix AT gmail.com. I'm afraid that my perspective of this blog's owner has shifted from mild irritation and a desire to enlighten, to thinly veiled contempt and a desire to poke with sharp sticks. Which leaves no purpose for continuing this discussion except to show who can be the bigger jerk.
Thank you to both of you for this very unusual and entertaining learning experience.
Namaste
Post a Comment