Split Thread General astrology discussion with Astro Teacher

[Astro Teacher]

Split from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156374

Posted By: Professor Yaffle

Collect the birth data for 10 people and label those 1-10. Have your astrologer use some randomization device, such as a 10-sided die, to pick a number. Send him the birth details that correspond to that number and have him write an essay for only that person. Check the essay to make sure that it doesn't have any obvious clues (references to age, etc.). Send the same essay to all 10 people and have all of them rate it as if it were their own. The highest rating should match the person for whom the essay was written.

To make the test even more exacting, have the astrologer do two or three essays and all of the participants rate all two or three. If the highest rating for each matches in all three cases, I would be impressed.

ETA: Your astrologer should be warned that he should use very distinct features and descriptions in his essays. Vague language will not be rated very well by a bunch of skeptics!

It is nearly impossible to "test" Astrology in this way. Natal astrology especially falls into the difficulty of validating astrology in this manner. I always tell my students of astrology that is it very hard to "prove" anything of Astrology within Natal Astrology because it belongs to the advanced Judicial Branch which is only for those who have achieved superior knowledge and understanding of celestial forces after first practicing Natural Astrology.

That branch of Natural Astrology includes areas that are better suited to "test" since it includes Weather Forecasting, and Medical Astrology, which is much easier to test scientifically than is Judicial Astrology. This is because the analog data from cases in these fields can be easily used to prove the validity of astrological principles as they relate to the Physical World, and not the metaphysical.

One of the problems some skeptics have in understanding this fact is that they are under the false impression that "astrology" is reduced only by Natal Astrology, which it surely is not. The physical, or material world is easier to measure.

The metaphysical world of natal astrology is very hard to measure since there exists no one method for measurement of the happenings in a person's life applying conventional tools of measurement. Do attempt this is folly since it requires a system of conventional measurement that does not exist.

It is very difficult to prove anything in the natal area of astrology as it is a very complex metaphysical field and can only be measured by those who have had many years of astrological study, and who have first mastered the Natural Astrological Branch.

 

[Neally]

That branch of Natural Astrology includes areas that are better suited to "test" since it includes Weather Forecasting, and Medical Astrology, which is much easier to test scientifically than is Judicial Astrology.

So do you concede that Natural astrology has been conclusively proven in multiple tests to be bogus?

 

[Astro Teacher]

So do you concede that Natural astrology has been conclusively proven in multiple tests to be bogus?

No, I do not. There has been very few honest conventional tests of Natural astrology - mainly because those who pretend to do this research are not qualified to do so based on their own lack of knowledge of even the most basic astrological princips.

If a skeptic is to even consider doing such a test - the skeptic must first learn basic principles in order to thus perform such tests. Anyone who professes to attempt this must be objective and allow any outcome to develop on its own.

Predetermined opinions, and bias on the part of anyone performing such tests would immediately invalidate them as an objective researcher.

 

[Neally]

Actually there have been many studies and meta analysis of studies that fail to find any truth to astrology.

1. Psychologist Bernard Silverman of Michigan State University looked at the birth dates of 2,978 couples who were getting married and 478 who were getting divorced in the state of Michigan. No correlations found between "incompatable" signs.

2. Physicist John McGervey at Case Western Reserve University looked at biographies and birth dates of some 6,000 politicians and 17,000 scientists to see if members of these professions would cluster among certain signs, as astrologers predict. He found the signs of both groups to be distributed completely at random.=09

3. Physicist Shawn Carlson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory got groups of volunteers and asked to provide information necessary for casting a full horoscope and to fill out the California Personality Inventory, a standard psychologists' questionnaire that uses just the sorts of broad, general, descriptive terms astrologers use.

A "respected" astrological organization constructed horoscopes for the volunteers, and 28 professional astrologers who had approved the procedure in advance were each sent one horoscope and three personality profiles, one of which belonged to the subject of the horoscope. Their task was to interpret the horoscope and select which of the three profiles it matched.

Although the astrologers had predicted that they would score better than 50 percent correct, their actual score in 116 trials was only 34 percent correct - just what you would expect by guessing. Carlson published his results in the December 5, 1985, issue of Nature, much to the embarrassment of the astrological community.

4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin sent the horoscope for one of the worst mass murderers in French history to 150 people and asked how well it fit them. Ninety-four percent of the subjects said they recognized themselves in the description.

5. Geoffrey Dean, an Australian researcher who has conducted extensive tests of astrology, reversed the astrological readings of 22 subjects, substituting phrases that were the opposite of what the horoscopes actually stated. Yet the subjects in this study said the readings applied to them just as often (95 percent of the time) as people to whom the correct phrases were given.

6. Astronomers Culver and Ianna tracked the published predictions of well-known astrologers and astrological organizations for five years. Out of more than 3,000 specific predictions (including many about politicians, film stars, and other famous people), only about 10 percent came to pass.

7. In 1992 the Quebec Skeptics tested an astrologer of 25 years experience who claimed that her chart readings would be rated at least 75% accurate by their owners. Under an agreed procedure she prepared 3-page readings for each of seven anonymous subjects, who then rated all seven readings for accuracy on a scale of 0-100%. The mean accuracy rating of the authentic readings was 33%, more than the mean rating of 29% but less than the mean highest rating of 45% and well below the claimed 75%. Only one subject gave an accuracy rating of more than 75% but this was not for the authentic reading, which was rated at 28%.

8. An attempt on the Randi $10,000 prize was made in 1983 by US astrologer John McCall who, in an ad in the Washington Post in late 1982 announcing that "I also can demonstrate astrology in a scientific way". He challenged scientists to test his discovery and thus "prove once and for all that there is a scientific basis to astrology". McCall proposed the following test: "Let a person write down the date and place of his birth, plus four times of day. One of those times is to be his actual time of birth. By studying the face and build of that person and consulting astrological tables, I can pick out the true time of birth." His claimed hit rate was above 80% provided the births were not induced or Caesarean and the subjects were not non-Caucasian or senile. Randi provided under double-blind conditions a trial sample of five subjects that McCall agreed met all his requirements. But McCall scored only one hit, the result expected by chance (5/4), which he attributed to the small number of subjects. So a second test was arranged, this time with 28 subjects. McCall was completely satisfied with the test conditions, but he scored only 7 hits, again the result expected by chance.

9. Meta-analyses of nearly 300 empirical studies reveals zero support for astrological claims. http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-meta2.htm

 

[Astro Teacher]

Actually there have been many studies and meta analysis of studies that fail to find any truth to astrology.

1. Psychologist Bernard Silverman of Michigan State University looked at the birth dates of 2,978 couples who were getting married and 478 who were getting divorced in the state of Michigan. No correlations found between "incompatable" signs.

2. Physicist John McGervey at Case Western Reserve University looked at biographies and birth dates of some 6,000 politicians and 17,000 scientists to see if members of these professions would cluster among certain signs, as astrologers predict. He found the signs of both groups to be distributed completely at random.=09

3. Physicist Shawn Carlson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory got groups of volunteers and asked to provide information necessary for casting a full horoscope and to fill out the California Personality Inventory, a standard psychologists' questionnaire that uses just the sorts of broad, general, descriptive terms astrologers use.

A "respected" astrological organization constructed horoscopes for the volunteers, and 28 professional astrologers who had approved the procedure in advance were each sent one horoscope and three personality profiles, one of which belonged to the subject of the horoscope. Their task was to interpret the horoscope and select which of the three profiles it matched.

Although the astrologers had predicted that they would score better than 50 percent correct, their actual score in 116 trials was only 34 percent correct - just what you would expect by guessing. Carlson published his results in the December 5, 1985, issue of Nature, much to the embarrassment of the astrological community.

4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin sent the horoscope for one of the worst mass murderers in French history to 150 people and asked how well it fit them. Ninety-four percent of the subjects said they recognized themselves in the description.

5. Geoffrey Dean, an Australian researcher who has conducted extensive tests of astrology, reversed the astrological readings of 22 subjects, substituting phrases that were the opposite of what the horoscopes actually stated. Yet the subjects in this study said the readings applied to them just as often (95 percent of the time) as people to whom the correct phrases were given.

6. Astronomers Culver and Ianna tracked the published predictions of well-known astrologers and astrological organizations for five years. Out of more than 3,000 specific predictions (including many about politicians, film stars, and other famous people), only about 10 percent came to pass.

7. In 1992 the Quebec Skeptics tested an astrologer of 25 years experience who claimed that her chart readings would be rated at least 75% accurate by their owners. Under an agreed procedure she prepared 3-page readings for each of seven anonymous subjects, who then rated all seven readings for accuracy on a scale of 0-100%. The mean accuracy rating of the authentic readings was 33%, more than the mean rating of 29% but less than the mean highest rating of 45% and well below the claimed 75%. Only one subject gave an accuracy rating of more than 75% but this was not for the authentic reading, which was rated at 28%.

8. An attempt on the Randi $10,000 prize was made in 1983 by US astrologer John McCall who, in an ad in the Washington Post in late 1982 announcing that "I also can demonstrate astrology in a scientific way". He challenged scientists to test his discovery and thus "prove once and for all that there is a scientific basis to astrology". McCall proposed the following test: "Let a person write down the date and place of his birth, plus four times of day. One of those times is to be his actual time of birth. By studying the face and build of that person and consulting astrological tables, I can pick out the true time of birth." His claimed hit rate was above 80% provided the births were not induced or Caesarean and the subjects were not non-Caucasian or senile. Randi provided under double-blind conditions a trial sample of five subjects that McCall agreed met all his requirements. But McCall scored only one hit, the result expected by chance (5/4), which he attributed to the small number of subjects. So a second test was arranged, this time with 28 subjects. McCall was completely satisfied with the test conditions, but he scored only 7 hits, again the result expected by chance.

9. Meta-analyses of nearly 300 empirical studies reveals zero support for astrological claims.

Actually, your list above is not accurate. However, nonetheless, to try to come up with ways to "measure" the metaphysical actions within Natal astrology is a fruitless effort that will yield no determined correlative results under the context of how these nativities, or horoscopes, are to be measured.

You cannot even use the so-called studies of "psychology" which, as a science, has not proven to be anything more than a pseudo-science itself.

The Gauquelin study is about the closest to seeing any relevant astrological factors in nativities. The rest you can dispense with as just as useless as a skeptic's opinion towards disproving astrology as a whole, or, even in part.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, your list above is not accurate.

That's an insufficient refutation of very solid evidence. My answer which rises to exactly the same level of discourse is, "Is so!"

However, nonetheless, to try to come up with ways to "measure" the metaphysical actions within Natal astrology is a fruitless effort that will yield no determined correlative results under the context of how these nativities, or horoscopes, are to be measured.

You cannot even use the so-called studies of "psychology" which, as a science, has not proven to be anything more than a pseudo-science itself.

This is all nonsense. Astrology and astrologers make testable claims. In fact, many of them take money in exchange for readings that are based on these testable claims (one way or another, all astrology claims a correlation, maybe even a causal relationship, between the apparent location of the planets in our sky and human endeavors). The claims have been tested and found to be false.

Oh, and your dig at psychology as a pseudo-science won't make you a lot of friends!

ETA: well done, Neally.

 

[Astro Teacher]

That's an insufficient refutation of very solid evidence. My answer which rises to exactly the same level of discourse is, "Is so!"



This is all nonsense. Astrology and astrologers make testable claims. In fact, many of them take money in exchange for readings that are based on these testable claims (one way or another, all astrology claims a correlation, maybe even a causal relationship, between the apparent location of the planets in our sky and human endeavors). The claims have been tested and found to be false.

Oh, and your dig at psychology as a pseudo-science won't make you a lot of friends!

ETA: well done, Neally.

Wow! So I suppose that ends it all right? It's all nonsense and that's that. You would not know how to to test astrology mainly because you do not know what it is that you are testing.

BTW - just where, tell me, has psychology, which is supposed to "measure" a person's "psyche" (something that is not seen in the physical world) is a qualified science with results. How can you prove this to be?

 

[Hokulele]

The moderated thread has been requested. I will PM you the details and location when they have been determined.

 

[Astro Teacher]

The moderated thread has been requested. I will PM you the details and location when they have been determined.

Thank you Hokulele.

 

[Astro Teacher]

I understand your point, but I don't think you're getting mine. It doesn't matter what system or school of astrology the astrologer subscribes to. The fact that the subjects are aware of their Western zodiac sun signs (which is something that correlates with their birth info) means you have to be careful to remove anything that could be a hint to that as a source of information leakage. Basically, I'm saying whatever the astrologer purports to be doing is irrelevant, he could still cheat if he could slip through references to typical sun-sign things. Similarly, he could cheat if he were allowed to say "your family was preparing for Christmas when you were born" in a profile.



Yup. If it's only a self-test, then cheating isn't an issue. But if it's any kind of public test, I'm of the opinion that the question of a well-designed protocol is really an all or nothing thing. Either it is conclusive or it is not conclusive. If it's not conclusive, that means no one has to accept the results. If that's true, it's better not to do it at all.


I agree. I still think someone connected with a university psych department might be able to have access to already complete personality profile test data.

Otherwise, I'd be more inclined to get the astrologer to agree to a very specific claim, like the ability to match a current occupation with birth info. (And try to get all the subjects in a fairly similar "stage of life" age.)

I just don't much like the idea of trying to evaluate all the Forer effect type of "profiles" the astrologer provides. For one, there's always the chance of information leakage. Also, you end up awarding hits that are based on retrofitting and cherry picking. I remember in that one Campbell film, the astrologer said of one person that he thinks they are either a dancer or a martial artist. The subject claimed both as a hit because, she said, "I like to dance" and she once took some sort of karate-type of class. I think it would be rare to find a subject that couldn't retrofit a hit that way.

(Additionally, if the gestalt of the profile is an obvious miss, how can it be meaningful to claim even one or two minor "hits"? This is my issue on Sylvia Browne supporters claiming she had a "hit" in naming Shawn Horbeck's abductor as "Mike" when her overall reading was wrong since she claimed he was dead, and that the abductor was a murderer. You can't claim she was even 2% accurate. On that case, she was zero for 1.)

Real Astrology does not work like this. I continue to make this point. Most people falsely believe that the whole purpose of an "astrology reading" is to tell the person something about themselves. This is not true, and any so-called "astrologer" who says so is not a true astrologer.

When a client seeks my professional astrological help I ask as many questions as possible, and not to predict anything for them, rather, to help them through whatever it is that they want to know, or need to know about their future options from their own transits.

I do not waste my time with so-called "personality readings." People know themselves very well, and it is useless to pay for a reading based on telling a person about themselves. Never have I told a person "about themselves" - they tell me, I don't know them better than they know themselves, but I do know their personal transits better than they do, and that is the whole point of consulting with a professional astrologer.

You will find many so-called "astrologers" playing the "prediction" game to prove that they "know something" about the future to "impress" the client with what they "think" they know about them. That's a joke, but it is not funny to this teacher of astrology. If I ever caught one of my students doing this, they know what will happen to them - and it will not be funny at all. The first rule is to protect the client at all costs, and to respect their needs, their personal information, and their privacy. If any of my students broke this principle they get my wrath. It is not wise to piss off a real astrologer.

The whole point of any astrological reading is to help the person to gain more knowledge than they had before the reading, and this is done by helping the client answer some complex questions about their transits so the person can make informed decisions about times and dates to accomplish their professional and personal goals.

The client is sacred, their dreams, wishes, and hopes for the future must be respected, and protected at all cost, and never, ever, ever give a client a "personality reading." Ever.

All this is practical: to help direct the client to their own goals, and to be real about it, adding none of the superfluous junk astrology that is so common these days with all the charlatans and wannabes who say they are "astrologers" when they surely are not.

The only "test" needed for junk astrology is to simply watch for those who make general "personality readings" their bread and butter. Know this: you are wasting your money, and more importantly, your time.

 

[Kuko 4000]

You will find many so-called "astrologers" playing the "prediction" game to prove that they "know something" about the future to "impress" the client with what they "think" they know about them. That's a joke, but it is not funny to this teacher of astrology. If I ever caught one of my students doing this, they know what will happen to them - and it will not be funny at all. The first rule is to protect the client at all costs, and to respect their needs, their personal information, and their privacy. If any of my students broke this principle they get my wrath. It is not wise to piss off a real astrologer.

I'm intrigued, what have you told would happen to your students if they behaved in a way that would piss you off?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I do not waste my time with so-called "personality readings." People know themselves very well, and it is useless to pay for a reading based on telling a person about themselves. Never have I told a person "about themselves" - they tell me, I don't know them better than they know themselves, but I do know their personal transits better than they do, and that is the whole point of consulting with a professional astrologer.

The whole point of any astrological reading is to help the person to gain more knowledge than they had before the reading, and this is done by helping the client answer some complex questions about their transits so the person can make informed decisions about times and dates to accomplish their professional and personal goals.

All right. If you claim that making decisions at certain times and dates will best accomplish my personal goals, and someone else claims that making those decisions at different times and dates will accomplish my personal goals better, is there any objective way to tell which of you is right? Is there any way to test how good your predictions actually are?

 

[Astro Teacher]

All right. If you claim that making decisions at certain times and dates will best accomplish my personal goals, and someone else claims that making those decisions at different times and dates will accomplish my personal goals better, is there any objective way to tell which of you is right? Is there any way to test how good your predictions actually are?

Say you want to drive in bad weather conditions from Point A to Point B and then return from Point B to Point A and need instructions and directions how to do this. You can ask a person who does not know, a person who thinks that they know, and a person with a map who does know.

This is the dilemma facing people who come to astrologers for help. The astrologer can be a person who does not know, a person who thinks that they know and a person with a map who does know.

The client who needs these instructions must make a decision on whom to ask, and whom to trust. This is the hardest thing to do for a person choosing an astrologer because there is no way to really know who is going to give you the proper directions unless you do your own initial homework to come to a determination about what you need.

It is useless to see a person who is going to tell you about your personality when you need instructions to get from Point A to Point B and then back again. What the hell do you need that for? What you need is something you can use, to apply in the physical world.

This is why I am very tough on my students who want to learn applied astrology. Principles must be maintained and astrological practice must be synthesized to the point of providing the proper report for the individual client who can use this knowledge to navigate their particular part of the world.

The only way to prove that the directions worked is by the client. They can say that it worked well, not so well, or not at all, depending on their own experiences. How do you test such a thing?

You cannot. You can ask the person how it went, and they can say it went well, or that it did not go well, and discover that they did follow your instructions, or that they chose to do something else entirely.

This is something that depends on the person, and there is no way to test this unless the person tells the truth about their own experiences about getting back and forth from Point A to Point B.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The only way to prove that the directions worked is by the client. They can say that it worked well, not so well, or not at all, depending on their own experiences. How do you test such a thing?

I can distinguish between a person that has a map and a person that doesn't have a map by asking each of them questions that I already know the answer to, and seeing whether or not they can provide the information that map gives. I could test your claim by going to certain places along the route and asking you what is at those places. If you actually have a map, you would be able to tell me -- and then I would know to trust you when I need to navigate an unknown region.
To get back to the case of astrology: I agree with you that a "personality profile" might not be useful to actually use in my life -- but it would be a valid test that you actually know what you're talking about in the first place.
The point is that, in any case where you can make meaningful predictions, we can come up with a way to test whether or not you ACTUALLY have that power.
How can I distinguish between a real astrologer, like you claim to be, and a fake -- or even just someone who claims that all of your predictions are off by three weeks and need to be adjusted accordingly? How can I objectively know which of you is right?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If it is so difficult to do a proper test of this sort of astrology, can I ask you how you came to your conviction that it works? On what evidence did you base your opinion of its validity?

 

[Astro Teacher]

I can distinguish between a person that has a map and a person that doesn't have a map by asking each of them questions that I already know the answer to, and seeing whether or not they can provide the information that map gives. I could test your claim by going to certain places along the route and asking you what is at those places. If you actually have a map, you would be able to tell me -- and then I would know to trust you when I need to navigate an unknown region.
To get back to the case of astrology: I agree with you that a "personality profile" might not be useful to actually use in my life -- but it would be a valid test that you actually know what you're talking about in the first place.
The point is that, in any case where you can make meaningful predictions, we can come up with a way to test whether or not you ACTUALLY have that power.
How can I distinguish between a real astrologer, like you claim to be, and a fake -- or even just someone who claims that all of your predictions are off by three weeks and need to be adjusted accordingly? How can I objectively know which of you is right?

How can you distinguish between a person who has a map and does not? Have you ever asked a person for directions who did not have a map in their hand, thinking that they already know how to give you the proper directions?

To do this with astrology then, you should have some basic knowledge of what you are asking directions. Education of what constitutes applied astrology - that is real astrology - means that in order to ask for directions you should at least have some basic level of knowledge of astrology to then be able to ask questions about transits. It is hard enough for an astrologer to do this complex work for you, then they have to educate you on top of that, so, you can see how hard this work is for any astrologer.

Reading such total rubbish like that of popular culture junk astrology, and asking silly questions based on your sun-sign isn't going to do it. You must make a decent effort to read a little serious astrological material, which there is plenty of in the world so you can then have a foundation to stand on so you are able to then meet the astrologer eye to eye with some knowledge of transits and the world around you.

To answer your question: the best way to distinguish between a real astrologer and one who is not, is to ask if they give "personality readings," and then ask them if they write their own astrological reports. Most astrologers do not. I do. I do not allow any computerized astrological software to interpret a report. Some astrologers do, and I am very harsh on them.

The astrologer must be the most serious person you will ever meet, but kind, and a good listener. They must not be flippant or casual with astrology. If they talk more than they listen at the first meeting, or consultation and if you get a so-called "astrologer" who goes into "you're like this, and you're like that" and "your horoscope tells me that you are like this and like that," and so on and so forth - it's a pretty good sign that you are dealing with a clueless dummy who is wasting your time. Keep your money tucked deep in your pocket and walk out.

I've cracked a number of these losers by pretending to be a client who needed astrological work and exposed the frauds for who they were. I'm sick of these wannabe losers. Astrological work is difficult enough without these bozos pretending that they can read the motions of time and forecast accurately.

As for knowing who is right: you will have no guarantee of this at all; especially in natal astrology. You must make your own decision anyway on how to proceed with what it is that you want to do from the guidance of the professional astrologer.

The best you can hope for is something like a weather report, which helps you to know the kinds of climates ahead in the future that then allows you to plan - in advance - for those favorable and unfavorable climates. You have your own free will to make your choices. That is the best any astrologer can offer you and a true astrologer can provide you with better views on the future climates than a bad one.

 

[Astro Teacher]

If it is so difficult to do a proper test of this sort of astrology, can I ask you how you came to your conviction that it works? On what evidence did you base your opinion of its validity?

From direct observations of the influences of celestial bodies on the natural world - the physical world. From this, one can see how time works, and is inclined by the motions and mathematical configurations of the celestial bodies on the Earth.

 

[AvalonXQ]

To answer your question: the best way to distinguish between a real astrologer and one who is not is to ask if they give personality readings, and then ask them if they write their own astrological reports.

If someone comes along and gives the exact same answers to these questions that you do, but her forecasts are the complete opposite of yours, is she wrong?
If she's wrong and you're right, how could you prove it?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

From direct observations of the influences of celestial bodies on the natural world - the physical world. From this, one can see how time works, and is inclined by the motions and mathematical configurations of the celestial bodies on the Earth.

Can you give some examples of these direct observations that are so convincing to you - and how they relate to giving astrological advice?

 

[Astro Teacher]

If someone comes along and gives the exact same answers to these questions that you do, but her forecasts are the complete opposite of yours, is she wrong?
If she's wrong and you're right, how could you prove it?

Not necessarily. Just as there are different kinds of doctors, and specialists, so there are different kinds of astrologers. They will look at your transits from their own specialty, according to your needs.

I teach students to listen to the client, and to then read their horoscope to delineate what can help them into, or out of situations that they are encountering, or about to encounter.

As for being "right" and "wrong" - try not to see it this way. The intricacies of an individual are very tough to see, and only advanced astrologers are able to deconstruct personal transits enough to then come up with solutions.

The "personality" astrologers come a dime a dozen. You would never need them because your "personalty" is not an issue - your personal transits from your own nativity is the issue. You have free will. You can make informed choices or uninformed choices that have impact on the future.