'Tests of Astrology' - new book by Geoffrey Dean et al

1
Some of you will be interested to know that Geoffrey Dean has just released a new book - in many ways an expanded version of 'Recent Advances in Astrology'. Its conclusions are overwhelmingly negative for astrology, but for anyone who wants to know the case against astrology, and perhaps chip away at it a little, this could well be the best place to start.

Since it's not the easiest book to get hold of I'm appending details, supplied with my copy, which should enable you to order it...


Image
[/img]

2
Hello Garry P,

Thank you for the news.

Could I ask: have any of these numerous studies included ancient natal astrological techniques, particularly up to the year 1000 AD?

What about actual predictions made over a period of time and not just from 1-2 hour brief consultations?

Thanks.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

3
Hi Zagata,

I can't think of any such studies - if anyone can, perhaps you could chip in?

There is some discussion of astrological predictions of world events in the book.

On p.2 Wout Heukelom invites readers to let him know of any studies that may have been missed, with an eye to future editions or new publications, so if you know of any studies you think should be included it might be a good idea to get in touch.

Best,
Garry

4
Hi Garry P,

I don't know how the authors of the book published it, what resources or funding they have at their disposal etc, but when it comes to testing Astrology, rectification is one of the quickest and most impressive ways, even more so when it is from an unknown time of birth.

I don't know of any studies that I can recommend but there are 2 other members of the Skyscript forum besides me who may show interest in this as well. I refer to Atlantean and Regulus Astrology. I want to say that I don't know either of them not have I communicated with these two people.

Provided my efforts are compensated I am willing to do it.

Best,
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

5
Geoffrey Dean has been in touch with a collective response from the contributors to the book (himself, Arthur Mather, David Nias and Rudolf Smit) which I suggested I could share here on their behalf. Here it is:

Garry is right about the results of hundreds of tests, whose negativity is hardly our fault. But our actual conclusions -- as opposed to other people's results -- are far from being totally negative. For example:

(1) We stress that if your astrology has to be meaningful but not necessarily testably true, then test results are irrelevant.

(2) Should you wish to chip away at the case against astrology, or strengthen the case for, we summarise the case for. All the way from Alan Leo and Evangeline Adams to the present day.

(3) We have collected in one place all the published empirical evidence (something never done before), all backed by 1200 references and comprehensive indexes. What you do with it is up to you.

(4) The book should appeal to both astrologers and researchers.

Thus long-time US astrologer and researcher Therese Hamilton tells us:
"I am greatly enjoying Tests of Astrology. The book is very attractively laid out, with an initial approach that is entertaining, humorous and factual. The background research required for the thousands of quotes and citations (articles, PhD theses, Internet links, personal communications, 600+ books) can only be called massive. I see this book as a 'must have' reference for serious astrologers. Congratulations on completing a Herculean task!"