16
Hi Woodwater,

You've started a number of posts like this and asked for opinion. I'm curious to know what your position / opinion is, if you don't mind sharing.

Deb

18
Deb wrote:Hi Woodwater,

You've started a number of posts like this and asked for opinion. I'm curious to know what your position / opinion is, if you don't mind sharing.

Deb
to be frank i dont have one yet.
I dont know enough people of my sign to know if they identify with certain traits more than other signs or whether they apply to anyone

by the way you can find the charts of all these skeptics at www.astrotheme.fr

dean and smit are capricorns

19
I think astrologers need to be able to take themselves out of the centre of the issue before they realise the sanity of not expecting scientific acknowledgement.
The sanity of not expecting scientific acknowledgement is something I wouldn't argue with, Deb, because it clearly won't come without some kind of proof, but I have doubts about the sanity of expecting none. I can see that a huge amount of what astrologers do wouldn't be susceptible to the processes of science, but I think there is a definite overlap between them - I can't see any reason to think that no part of it at all can be proved. I'd be interested to know where your certainty comes from; is it just a belief you've formed or is it astrologically based?

James, I don't see any danger at all of science taking the mystery out of astrology - any more than they could empty the oceans with a bucket. But I do see their disconnection from Meaning as a serious problem, which would be transformed if they were obliged to recognise the existence of phenomena that are outside the scope of the scientific method. But I don't expect science to prove astrology; if it happens it will be astrologers proving it to scientists and it will have a much greater impact on them than it will on us.

20
Deb wrote:Hi Woodwater,

You've started a number of posts like this and asked for opinion. I'm curious to know what your position / opinion is, if you don't mind sharing.

Deb
your question reminds me that gemini ascendants like me are often said to be neither fish nor meat, avoiding giving opinions and simply showing what others say, like a journalist :-T

21
Oops, it seems I owe another apology to Mr. Smit for misspelling his name. I also want to thank him for sending the message that Geoffrey Dean is aware of my writings...I do hope he read the part where I expressed my sincere admiration. I meant every word I said and it was not a tongue in cheek remark.
response by rudolf smit:
I spoke to Dean, on the phone, this morning. He is aware of Frazier's writings. He should consult the issue of Correlation which is mentioned in the article on the site. This issue of Correlation can be ordered from the Astrological Association in London.
As to the Correlation issue, I will have to ask if anyone has a copy of the article they could send to me since I am assuming Mr. Dean is saying that his references are located there.
Does anyone have a copy they could perhaps scan and send to me?

Dean G (1996). A Re-Assessment of Jung's Astrological Experiment. Correlation, 14(2), 12-22.

What I am most interested in is the evidence to back up this claim:

"But the charts had come from the files of an astrologer, whose advice to the couples had nudged the sample into detectable conformity."

This appears to contradict what Jung reported.

Lets examine this statement again.
1) It states plainly that the charts had come from an astrologer-that is one astrologer. Now unless this astrologer had residence in Zurich, London, Rome, and Vienna, then it seems highly unlikely that these charts came from a single astrologer. What possible reason would Jung have for lying about this detail especially considering the results of the experiment, and Jung went to great lengths to affirm the experiment did not bode well for astrology.

It is true that Jung's daughter appears to be the main person who calculated the charts so if this is what Dean is referring to maybe the words of his statement are better understood but I would still need to see evidence that she "fudged" the charts. If she did do that, given that she was a professional astrologer one would think that the results would have been fudged toward "proving" astrology, which I claim they did not. It seems incredible that an astrologer would ?nudge? the evidence against astrology!

2) the astrologer then gave the advice to the couples which "nudged" the sample into detectable conformity.

Again this seems impossible as the charts came in at different times and were grouped into three different batches rather than analyzed together. So how would the astrologer know when to send which horoscopes to make them have a statistical correlation? Especially difficult is the fact that the three batches all show a different results as far as the most frequently observed planetary aspects. This is the part that completely throws the evidence for an astrological proof right out the window in terms of mathematical and statistical ?proof?. I ask how could any astrologer have had pre-knowledge of how to accomplish this super human feat? It also contradicts what Jung stated in terms of when the charts were gathered.
The claim that this experiment showed a statistically significant result for astrology is simply wrong or, at least, I can say that this statement about the experiment contradicts my, admittedly, limited understanding of how statistics should be used. Jung's method is completely out of alignment with normal statistical studies and to my way of thinking absolutely did not "prove" any astrological results. The experiment did demonstrate synchronicity but was not a statistical victory for astrology. It was very symbolically stunning but not statistically meaningful what-so- ever.

Again, the idea of me arguing against Dean arguing that there was a statistical validation for astrology, albeit one that was due to an astrologer "nudging" the result, is making my head want to explode.

22
Malcom you stated:
But I do see their disconnection from Meaning as a serious problem, which would be transformed if they were obliged to recognize the existence of phenomena that are outside the scope of the scientific method.
Couldn't agree more. Except that it would be difficult to know exactly what astrological "proof" would be large enough to accomplish that.

As to your statements about the scientist being so shocked by astrological proof, I can only state that if they are not shocked out of their scientism by the findings of quantum physics then I do not think any astrological evidence will do so.

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." Niels Bohr

23
Hi Malcolm
I'd be interested to know where your certainty comes from; is it just a belief you've formed or is it astrologically based?
It seems only fair to admit that I not only have very little knowledge of how scientific experiments are and should be conducted, I have even less interest. The only excuse I can offer for anything I say is that I can?t keep my opinions to myself (as you noticed earlier).

But to answer your question more directly, it is both. Here?s a demonstration of the problem as I see it according to reason, followed by my astrological insights of what the future holds:

First we need to have clear differentiation between the symbolic elements of astrology, and the objectively verifiable elements. The symbolic elements have meaning according to context, and for all the reasons James mentioned earlier science is not equipped to measure the merit and reliability of a symbol. So we probably need to strip away the terms, faces, and dignities generally, including the zodiac, because these are primarily based upon symbolic reasoning. Many astrologers, including Morin, John Gadbury and Kepler, have tried to differentiate between the ?natural? and ?judicial? elements of astrology, but they are so interpenetrated that this task alone is a very difficult ? possibly impossible.

Looking at something like ?the Mars effect? comes close to the kind of thing that seems worth examining. I?d like to see more examination of say, effects that appear with the Moon opposite Mars, as opposed to what we get with the Moon VOC or sextile Jupiter, etc. But even then there are all sorts of variables to be considered, like the orb used and whether latitude has an effect, and should we consider aspects in longitude or in mundo? But let?s just imagine that we have a clear approach and then get a good result. Two things will inevitably follow.

1) Firstly, the scientist who validated the claim will say ?this seems to show that there is some sort of effect here, but this is certainly not a verification of astrology or anything to do with the astrological system, which our experiments also show is complete rubbish?.

2) Then, the claim will either be:

A) (Extremely unlikely) taken seriously - in which case it will not be treated as an astrological principle but as an astronomical/ meterological/ geological one. In the same way that the lunar cycle is now proven to be connected with floods, no one will consider this to be of astrological concern. Science will snap the principle up, and titter about astrologers busying themselves with zodiac signs. (It?s catch 22 ? if the principle is heavily symbolic it can?t be tested, if it?s not heavily symbolic it won?t be counted as astrological).

Or,

B) (This is far more likely). All sorts of reasons will be proposed as to why the effect seems to exist but is not really there. Geoffrey Dean will suggest that we need to suspend our belief until at least 80 years after our own deaths to give science time to come up with a good excuse,... sorry artefact. Then we will be told that the parents involved (consciously or unconsciously) may have faked the times of birth to get good astrological results. It will be proposed that the only reliable study of natal effects are those where the birth does not involve a parent being present. In order to demonstrate the risk of accepting the apparent results, and to ensure that the enquiring mind is properly prepared for the kind of serious subject matter we are dealing with, references will be made to the Cottingley fairies and how we all nearly fell for that one, and also the Loch Ness Monster. (See, for example, the cited article).

In the meantime, and looking at my chart of where this all leads .... James will be trying to figure out who wrote what, how to spell his name, and where to buy digestible astrolabes; everyone will continue to argue over Barack Obama, whilst Dean suggests that even if the birth certificate is legitimate, the birth data may have been influenced, since it demonstrates a small tendency to be allowed to run for president. Oh and there's something about some poor cat being stuck in a shoebox; and some bloke surfing in Hawaii (who quite frankly doesn?t give a damn).

Now we have to get James a copy of the Correlation article. The details are: Dean G (1996). A Re-Assessment of Jung's Astrological Experiment. Correlation, 14(2), 12-22. Personally, I think this is a ploy by Dean to make sure that we read more of his work. (He loves the astrological attention really).

24
Deb,
Just in case, I lose this one, if you know of any sources of digestible astrolabes, I would be most appreciative if you would pass them on. :brows



"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours that's relativity." -- Albert Einstein

25
Here's Geoffrey Dean's response - to a large degree this duplicates what Woodwater already reported from Rudolf Smit:
The necessary references are given in my cited 1995 article, namely A re-assessment of Jung's astrological experiment, Correlation 14(2), 12-22, which is very detailed and has 24 references. Unfortunately it
now exists only on paper otherwise I would be happy to send it by email.
However, according to the RGCSA website www.astrology-research.net, any Correlation article is available on demand from the AA (use the form
given on the website). Readers might also want to read de Vries-Ek &
McGillion, A further look at Jung's astrological experiment in the
context of his theory of synchronicity, Correlation 14(1), 15-15, and
the long section on synchronicity in Theories of Astrology, Correlation
15(1), 17-52. All have something different to say.
The link to get hold of a copy of the article in question is below:

www.astrology-research.net

But perhaps someone is about to announce that they have a copy? I don't unfortunately.

26
James Frazier wrote:Deb,
Just in case, I lose this one, if you know of any sources of digestible astrolabes, I would be most appreciative if you would pass them on. :brows



"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours that's relativity." -- Albert Einstein
Rudolf: Tell Frazier that, since I was the Editor of Correlation at the time, I still possess alle copies of that period (1993-1999). He should send me his home address and I send a xerox of the mentioned articles to him. My mail adress: rhs@rudolfhsmit.nl

I do advise the participants of this forum to visit my site: www.astrology-and-science.com because then they will know what scientific study of astrology is all about.

27
I am working on a recipe for baked astrolabe right now James.

At this point I should probably decide to say no more as, what do I know? But I can?t help noticing so much prejudiced perspective in the cited article, that the issue of Dean?s sources seems like one drop in an ocean of the things that cause could controversy. I mentioned earlier that I don?t have any particular problem with Dean and this kind of assessment, but it?s left no great impression on me either. I feel no reason to be grateful to Dean, nor do I feel threatened by his arguments. Nor do I feel that the articles on that site demonstrate a scholarly approach or open-minded enquiry. I have no academic background in science, but isn?t it obvious that Dean is a professional debunker and about as impartial towards astrology as I am? The only difference may be that I am willing to admit my own prejudices. (My prejudices are based on the fact that I have reliably found astrology to be useful and meaningful when allowed to be what it is; just as Dean?s are based on the fact that he has reliably found it to be useless and meaningless when forced into being something it is not).

Mortal life is finite, and these arguments go on forever, so the bottom line for me is this ? is there any point in further studies of this kind when the possibility of personal intuition is used as an argument against astrological effect? Astrology without the possibility of intuitive reasoning is called astronomy. Intellectuals of all ages have acknowledged that there is a physical and a spiritual, and although they interpenetrate, they are not the same thing and cannot be treated as such. Astronomy measures the physical cosmos and physical effect, astrology seeks the spiritual meaning of it. I agree that astrologers should not treat astrology as a science. Neither should the scientists try to dissect its bits and reduce it to something that bends to experiment in artificial conditions. This ignores the traditional requirement that an astrologer approach the study with a mind that is open enough to receive and transmit inspiration (aka intuitive responses). Until science can find a new way to consider and allow for that then the whole ?scientific study of astrology? exercise is as worthless as the scientific study of whether there is, or there isn?t, life after death. So yes, we are dealing with hopeless evidence, but it is hopeless evidence in a pointless study.