Can Someone Guide Me As To How To Find A Good Astrologer?

[harrysmith]

Hi, this is my first post here. Hope I can find it again. : ) I used to have an incredible astrologer, but she was in her seventies and ended her work several years ago. Since then, I have a friend who has a computer program that generates transits. I don't really understand them very well, although a description is given. Right now, I am at a huge crossroads in my life, as is my 22 year old son.

[Ken]

Hi, this is my first post here. Hope I can find it again. : ) I used to have an incredible astrologer, but she was in her seventies and ended her work several years ago. Since then, I have a friend who has a computer program that generates transits. I don't really understand them very well, although a description is given. Right now, I am at a huge crossroads in my life, as is my 22 year old son.

 

Excuse my skepticism, but I doubt that there is such a thing as a "good" astrologer.

 

Obviously, your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

[freeztar]

Welcome to Hypography, Harry!

 

You might want to check a different site for the information you want. Astrology is very different from astronomy and cosmology. Astrology is not considered a science.

[HydrogenBond]

An astrologer uses the exact position of the stars and planets to tell things about people. At the preliminary stage, astrology makes uses of science, to generate charts which tell the exact position of the stars, planets, moon and sun in the sky, at the exact birth latitude and longitude, the minute one was born. After the chart is generated, astrology leaves traditional science, using that chart to tell something about the innate propensities of a person and how these innate propensities interact during the current/future positioning.

 

Generating the charts uses the rational principles of math/science, since science makes the chart generation easier than the old fashion tables. If you stopped there and check the data it is right on. The interpretive aspect of the chart is more based on the empirical method, using the premise that the position of the planets and stars has an impact on a person's life.

 

This main premise is not accepted by science, due to its unproven cause and effect. However, based on that premise, their empirical correlation stems from centuries of data collection (exact position vs personality). I am not saying astrology is true, but it does use science method.

[Ken]

An astrologer uses the exact position of the stars and planets to tell things about people. At the preliminary stage, astrology makes uses of science, to generate charts which tell the exact position of the stars, planets, moon and sun in the sky, at the exact birth latitude and longitude, the minute one was born. After the chart is generated, astrology leaves traditional science, using that chart to tell something about the innate propensities of a person and how these innate propensities interact during the current/future positioning.

 

Generating the charts uses the rational principles of math/science, since science makes the chart generation easier than the old fashion tables. If you stopped there and check the data it is right on. The interpretive aspect of the chart is more based on the empirical method, using the premise that the position of the planets and stars has an impact on a person's life.

 

This main premise is not accepted by science, due to its unproven cause and effect. However, based on that premise, their empirical correlation stems from centuries of data collection (exact position vs personality). I am not saying astrology is true, but it does use science method.

 

No. There is nothing of the empirical method of Science in the "interpretation". There are no controlled observations, no attempts at rational subject selection, no limitations on the number of variables that might be influencing a person's life beyond the single extraordinary notion that somehow the position of a star at a single moment of a person's life could possible have any effect, much less a life-long effect. No explanation and no justification for making that particular confluence of events more notable than any other.

 

Further, the anecdotal evidence is subjected to no statistical analysis. Confirming "stories" are accepted and non-confirming events ignored. There is no "centuries of data collection" rather a handful of claims, anecdotes, selected apparent correlations that are more easily understood as selected coincidences.

[HydrogenBond]

Astrology began 3000 years ago. That is 5000 years of field experiments, data collection and revision. Again, I am not saying there is cause and effect, but even without cause and effect, the empirical method is able to use blind testing (blind is used because of lack of cause and effect). For example, drugs that enter the market place will employ empirical methods to screen out possible placebo and side effects. However, the correlation will not be able to tell which people will have which effect, until they try the medicine. All we know, it will work for some, but not for all, with some people having an adverse effect or effects.

 

Let me give another parallel example. Studies may show that a few alcoholic drinks may have positive effects for health. This sweeping statement may be based on averages, but it may not reflect the cause and effect for all people as individuals. The average is an imaginary person which the pitch attempts to overlap for all, using science prestige. With astrology, they try to tailor the dose to each person based on their unique chart; birth place in position and time, so one is not dealing with an imaginary statistical average person. Again, I am not saying astrology is cause and effect, but if empirical science was able to tailor to each individual, science would undergo a major upgrade. Experiments would take longer and would not be as expeditious for the market place.

 

Again, astrology may not be in touch with cause and effect, but its empirical approach addresses the individual, since that approach is more in touch with cause and effect than any one-size fits all average, no matter how fancy the math and machines. I tend to look at astrology as one of the historical roots of science, before machines and reason, which saw the limitations of the one size fits all approach of quickie averaging science, needed for the market place.

[CraigD]

...

Generating the charts uses the rational principles of math/science, since science makes the chart generation easier than the old fashion tables. If you stopped there and check the data it is right on.

Up to this point, a pretty reasonable synopsis, I think.

 

The interpretive aspect of the chart is more based on the empirical method, using the premise that the position of the planets and stars has an impact on a person's life.

 

This main premise is not accepted by science, due to its unproven cause and effect. However, based on that premise, their empirical correlation stems from centuries of data collection (exact position vs personality).

What collected data shows this claimed correlation? Can you cite any? :QuestionM :Exclamati

 

Centuries of anecdotes – informal stories reflecting belief that such data and correlation exists – is not the same thing as actual data and correlation!

 

Personally, I was surprised, when I seriously researched it a couple of decades ago, to discover that there is not a statistically significant correlation between personality and sun sign (also know as star sign), the simple system familiar to most westerners that assigns 1 of 12 signs of the zodiac based on ones birth month and day only. One would think that many people who are informed of their sign and the expected personality traits at an early age would adopt these traits simply due to belief.

 

For example, born on 26 April, my sun sign is Taurus, signifying “solidity, practicality, extreme determination and strength of will” (or simply bull-headedness :)). As various trusted adults credulously explained this to me, I assumed it was true, and made a special effort to develop my sign’s positive traits, and avoid its negative ones, such as jealousy, possessiveness, and inflexibility. Intuitively, I expected that, regardless of the physical reality of sun sign astrology, this conscious effort on my part would have a lasting effect on the development of my personality.

 

However, every statistically sound study testing this effect (as of about 1990, when I stopped seriously following the literature) finds no significant correlation between sun sign prescribed personality traits and objectively testable data (eg: “neurotic” Pisces vs suicide, “quick-tempered” Aries vs. violent crime), even among populations where most people know their sun signs from a young age, and many people believe that their personality is somewhat influenced by it.

 

(Principle source: Astrology: True or False? : A Scientific Evaluation Culver and Ianna 1988)

[Ken]

Astrology began 3000 years ago. That is 5000 years of field experiments, data collection and revision. Again, I am not saying there is cause and effect, but even without cause and effect, the empirical method is able to use blind testing (blind is used because of lack of cause and effect).

 

No, a blind method is used to prevent subject knowledge of the test variable presence or absence and experimenter knowledge of which subjects received which level of a variable.

 

For example, drugs that enter the market place will employ empirical methods to screen out possible placebo and side effects. However, the correlation will not be able to tell which people will have which effect, until they try the medicine. All we know, it will work for some, but not for all, with some people having an adverse effect or effects.

 

I'm sorry but you use the term empirical in an unusual way.

 

Definitions of empirical on the Web:

 

•derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"

•empiric: relying on medical quackery; "empiric treatment"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

•The word "empirical" denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

 

•Empirical is a jazz ensemble consisting of Jay Phelps on trumpet, Nathaniel Facey on alto saxophone, Kit Downes on piano, Tom Farmer on double bass and Shaney Forbes on drums. Previously, the band featured John Escreet on piano and Neil Charles on bass.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_(jazz_band)

 

•Marcel Bear is an engineer and musician from New Zealand. In 1993 he formed Empirical, a project devoted to the shimsaw, an instrument of his own invention. Empirical was often a solo project, but it occasionally expanded to multiple players, under the name Empirical Orchestra. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_(band)

 

•Pertaining to or based on experience; Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations made using the physical senses or using instruments which extend the senses; Verifiable by means of scientific experimentation

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/empirical

 

•empirically - Based on experience as opposed to theoretical knowledge; Based on data gathered in the real world

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/empirically

 

•based on experience or observational information and not necessarily on proven scientific data. In the past, AIDS vaccine trials have been performed based exclusively on empirical data and without a full understanding of the disease processes or correlates of immunity.

www.iavi.org/WHY-A-VACCINE/Pages/glossary-of-terms.aspx

 

•The ratio of elements in a substance. For example: the chemical formula of common salt is NaCl, sodium and chlorine in a ratio of 1:1.

www.fisicx.com/quickreference/science/glossary.html

 

•An awkward adjective that can have contrary meanings in medicine. The word comes from the Greek for experience. ...

www.jansen.com.au/Dictionary_DF.html

 

•Based on actual data. You might believe that 50% of the population is male and 50% female, but empirical data for nearly all countries shows that the balance is closed to 49% men and 51% women. The opposite of empirical is theoretical.

www.audiencedialogue.net/gloss-eval.html

 

•From the Greek en, (in), peira (trial), meaning derived from careful observations or experiments rather than from speculation or theory.

www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sp/teaching/glossary.shtml

 

•Based on experimental data, not on a theory.

aidsinfobbs.org/letters/e.html

 

•The term "empirical" has been used in many different ways. In one use, it is pretty much interchangeable with a posteriori justified (if justified at all). In this course, I use it more narrowly to mean a priori justified on the basis of outer experience. ...

faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil450/hdmetaepist.htm

 

•a characteristic of science, meaning that the ultimate test of truth of a proposition requires the gathering of data and letting the facts decide. This is in contrast to common sense, authority, or repetition as methds of fixing beliefs.

www.msu.edu/course/prr/389/glossary389.doc

 

The key element is based on data. In Science, data is actual, objective, measurement. Further some medications are virtually universally effective, and some have negligible adverse effects.

 

Let me give another parallel example. Studies may show that a few alcoholic drinks may have positive effects for health. This sweeping statement may be based on averages, but it may not reflect the cause and effect for all people as individuals. The average is an imaginary person which the pitch attempts to overlap for all, using science prestige.

 

You are using the most naive of analytic techniques to make that statement. Statistical inference, based on actual data, comparing groups differing if just one or several clearly define characteristic yields far more than an "imaginary person".

 

With astrology, they try to tailor the dose to each person based on their unique chart; birth place in position and time, so one is not dealing with an imaginary statistical average person. Again, I am not saying astrology is cause and effect, but if empirical science was able to tailor to each individual, science would undergo a major upgrade. Experiments would take longer and would not be as expeditious for the market place.

 

Let me respectfully suggest that your impression of science bears little resemblance to the logic, methods, or analytic techniques actually employed.

 

Again, astrology may not be in touch with cause and effect, but its empirical approach addresses the individual, since that approach is more in touch with cause and effect than any one-size fits all average, no matter how fancy the math and machines. I tend to look at astrology as one of the historical roots of science, before machines and reason, which saw the limitations of the one size fits all approach of quickie averaging science, needed for the market place.

 

Again, I would say that there is nothing empirical about the Astrological approach. It depends on anecdotal reports from individuals, collected over long periods of time, and under very different conditions and interpreted by the people who are casting the predictions with full knowledge of the things that they think are relevant. That's simply not empiricism, its self-justification.

 

I apologize if this seems adversarial, but I have a long career involved with studying Science as a discipline and teaching research methods to students. Its difficult for me to read what I consider mischaracterizations of Science.

 

Obviously, we disagree and I'm not optimistic about changing your view, but I think it important to point out what I think are errors in your statements.

 

Ciao, B)

[modest]

Generating the charts uses the rational principles of math/science, since science makes the chart generation easier than the old fashion tables. If you stopped there and check the data it is right on. The interpretive aspect of the chart is more based on the empirical method, using the premise that the position of the planets and stars has an impact on a person's life.

 

This main premise is not accepted by science, due to its unproven cause and effect. However, based on that premise, their empirical correlation stems from centuries of data collection (exact position vs personality). I am not saying astrology is true, but it does use science method.

 

I think it is a very good point you make about the empirical character of astrology, and a mistaken point you make about astrology being scientific because it has empirical character.

 

This issue was, in fact, debated very earnestly in the first half of the 20th century. When science used to use the inductive method (as defined, for example, by the Vienna circle) philosophers objected, like HydrogenBond just did, that the method would admit astrology as being scientific.

 

Popper makes this objection here:

 

This is Carnap’s view too: his new criterion of demarcation is, as we have seen, confirmability. And in these two books, Carnap explains that the methods of confirming a sentence are identical with the inductive method. Thus we must conclude that the criterion of demarcation now becomes, more precisely, confirmability by inductive methods. In other words, a linguistic expression will belong to the empirical sciences if, and only if, it is logically possible to confirm it by inductive methods, or by inductive evidence.

 

As I have indicated in section 2, this criterion of demarcation does not satisfy my requirements: all sorts of pseudo-sciences (such as astrology) are clearly not excluded. The answer to this would be, no doubt, that the criterion is not intended to exclude what I call ‘pseudo-sciences’, and these consist, simply, of false sentences, or perhaps of disconfirmed sentences, rather than of metaphysical non-confirmable ones. I am not satisfied by this answer (believing as I do that I have a criterion which excludes for example astrology and which has proved extremely fruitful in connection with a host of problems) but I am prepared to accept it, for argument’s sake, and to confine myself to showing, as before, that the criterion produces the wrong demarcation.

Conjectures and refutations

 

And... perhaps another quote,

 

On the other hand, many superstitious beliefs and many rule-of-thumb procedures (for planting, etc.) to be found in popular almanacs and dream books, have had much more to do with observations, and have no doubt often been based on something like induction. Astrologers, more especially, have always claimed that their ‘science’ was based upon a great wealth of inductive material. This claim is, perhaps, unfounded; but I have never heard of any attempt to discredit astrology by a critical investigation of its alleged inductive material. Nevertheless, astrology was rejected by modern science because it did not fit accepted theories and methods.

 

Thus there clearly was a need for a different criterion of demarcation; and I proposed (though years elapsed before I published this proposal) that the refutability or falsifiability of a theoretical system should be taken as the criterion of its demarcation. According to this view, which I still uphold, a system is to be considered as scientific only if it makes assertions which may clash with observations; and a system is, in fact, tested by attempts to produce such clashes, that is to say by attempts to refute it. Thus testability is the same as refutability, and can therefore likewise be taken as a criterion of demarcation.

Conjectures and refutations

 

So, I essentially agree with HB that astrology uses (or could use) the empirical method... but, this does not make it scientific. The scientific method is no longer inductive. Wikipedia puts it well:

 

The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] further states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment" [emphasis added]. In this case, an empiricist can be someone who conducts an experiment but without using a hypothesis to guide the process, i.e., strictly by the trial-and-error method. This is counter to one of the main tenets of the scientific method, that of the hypothetico-deductive method, where the manipulation of the variable in an experiment is dictated by the hypothesis being tested.

 

Empirical method -- Wikipedia

 

Under the current definition of the scientific method (or, with its current demarcation) astrology is not scientific even with its empirical nature. That is to say, astrology may well make predictions (even good predictions) based on past observations (even good observations) but this does not make it scientific.

 

Under the current scientific method astrology is metaphysical and pseudo-scientific.

 

~modest

[Ken]

I think it is a very good point you make about the empirical character of astrology, and a mistaken point you make about astrology being scientific because it has empirical character.

 

This issue was, in fact, debated very earnestly in the first half of the 20th century. When science used to use the inductive method (as defined, for example, by the Vienna circle) philosophers objected, like HydrogenBond just did, that the method would admit astrology as being scientific.

 

Popper makes this objection here:

 

 

Conjectures and refutations

 

And... perhaps another quote,

 

 

Conjectures and refutations

 

So, I essentially agree with HB that astrology uses (or could use) the empirical method... but, this does not make it scientific. The scientific method is no longer inductive. Wikipedia puts it well:

 

 

 

Empirical method -- Wikipedia

 

Under the current definition of the scientific method (or, with its current demarcation) astrology is not scientific even with its empirical nature. That is to say, astrology may well make predictions (even good predictions) based on past observations (even good observations) but this does not make it scientific.

 

Under the current scientific method astrology is metaphysical and pseudo-scientific.

 

~modest

 

You make several good points, however I'm not sure that I accept the OED definition, or perhaps your statement on it.

 

The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] further states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment" [emphasis added]. In this case, an empiricist can be someone who conducts an experiment but without using a hypothesis to guide the process, i.e., strictly by the trial-and-error method. This is counter to one of the main tenets of the scientific method, that of the hypothetico-deductive method, where the manipulation of the variable in an experiment is dictated by the hypothesis being tested.

 

There are many experiments in the published, refereed literature that are acceptable examples of Science that essentially ask "I wonder what would happen if...", or "how do we resolve apparently conflicting results in similar experiments, could it be that....".

 

But certainly Falsifiability is critical to any investigation.

[modest]

But certainly Falsifiability is critical to any investigation.

I would put that backwards from how you put it. Falsifiability is not critical to every investigation. The statement "for every beta emission there is a neutrino emitted" is not falsifiable, but it is nonetheless worthy of investigation. There are many such statements—or beliefs—which have produced wonderful results even if they are not falsifiable. The alchemist's search for the philosopher's stone is, I recall, an example that Popper gave. It was a useful investigation—the search for the philosopher's stone. It led to many useful discoveries about the nature of chemistry. Yet, the idea that there is a such a substance—that turns anything it touches into gold—is inherently non-falsifiable. So, it was a useful investigation even if not a scientific theory by our current demarcation of the scientific method.

 

There are many experiments in the published, refereed literature that are acceptable examples of Science that essentially ask "I wonder what would happen if...", or "how do we resolve apparently conflicting results in similar experiments, could it be that....".

 

I would have to disagree... I think. A scientific theory needs a falsifiable hypothesis. "I wonder what would happen if..." may be a useful and productive means of investigation, but it is not itself scientific (ie a scientific theory) unless it says something like "x will happen because of y and if x doesn't happen then y is wrong". In fact, "I wonder what would happen if..." is essentially what astrology investigates. I wonder what would happen if a ruler of England is born in November... Previous such rulers were born in November and we could make predictions based on that premise, and tha twould be, in a sense, empirical, but it is not scientific... not by today's standards.

 

~modest

[Rade]

To Harrysmith:

 

I suggest you visit your local library. They will have many different newspapers. Read your daily astrology predictions for as many newspapers you can find--more the better. Over a period of time (100 days) keep track of how many of the predictions come true for that day for each newspaper. It is possible one newspaper will provide better predictions for you than all the others. Now, a good predictor must do better than chance for specific prediction. So, over 100 days, I would expect that any astrology in the newspaper would give a correct prediction about 5% of the time (5 days correct prediction out of 100). To be fair to the test process, you should only read the prediction for the previous day (after the fact of living that day). In this way you will not be motivated to change your behavior to match the prediction.

 

You will find that some newspaper astrologers give very general predictions, others provide very specific predictions of what will happen on each day. For example, in one newspaper it claims that today I will change my mind (on some issue) and that action will cause confusion to the person that I am closest and will require an explanation. No such event has occurred yet (4:13 pm), and, now that I alert to the possibility, I will make sure it does not happen, being Christmas eve and all, seems like the best course of action.

[Ken]

I would put that backwards from how you put it. Falsifiability is not critical to every investigation. The statement "for every beta emission there is a neutrino emitted" is not falsifiable, but it is nonetheless worthy of investigation. There are many such statements—or beliefs—which have produced wonderful results even if they are not falsifiable. The alchemist's search for the philosopher's stone is, I recall, an example that Popper gave. It was a useful investigation—the search for the philosopher's stone. It led to many useful discoveries about the nature of chemistry. Yet, the idea that there is a such a substance—that turns anything it touches into gold—is inherently non-falsifiable. So, it was a useful investigation even if not a scientific theory by our current demarcation of the scientific method.

 

 

 

I would have to disagree... I think. A scientific theory needs a falsifiable hypothesis. "I wonder what would happen if..." may be a useful and productive means of investigation, but it is not itself scientific (ie a scientific theory) unless it says something like "x will happen because of y and if x doesn't happen then y is wrong". In fact, "I wonder what would happen if..." is essentially what astrology investigates. I wonder what would happen if a ruler of England is born in November... Previous such rulers were born in November and we could make predictions based on that premise, and tha twould be, in a sense, empirical, but it is not scientific... not by today's standards.

 

~modest

 

I think you and I differ somewhat on what is "scientific". My take is that Science is a method of inquiry, based on the collection of physical, publicly observable, and measurable data. At some point enough data is collected to attempt generalization, or an attempt at integrating the observations of similar phenomena into some sort of explanatory construct.

 

That explanatory construct is sometimes called a Theory and sometimes an Hypothesis. I don't see them as interchangeable terms. It makes much more sense to me to describe the explanatory construct as a Theory, a statement of the functional relationships between observed data points that is reducible to a mathematical formula. Curve fitting (or straight line fitting) to observed data points is essentially a prediction of what might be observed at those coordinates.

 

The hypothesis is a test of the theory designed to subject the prediction to experimental verification. If the theory accurately predicts the outcome then the theory is supported to that additional degree. If the theory fails to predict the outcome of the test of the hypothesis then the theory, in its current state, fails. It can be modified or rejected.

 

With that preface, the role of pre-theoretical scientific research is aimed at identifying possible relationships among variables that might lead either to a theory, or to a restatement of a theory, or to resolving issues when theoretical predictions lead to opposite results in different experiments or at different laboratories.

 

I confess a certain "enthusiasm" for this approach as both my M.S. Thesis and my Ph.D. dissertation were directly focused on the examination of conflicting data in two very different sorts of visual phenomena. :) In both cases the research was not theory testing per se but more "I wonder if this, that, or this third factor or procedure in the methodology could account for what appears to be contradictory results. In one case the investigation was techncally a "critical experiment" since it led to a direct choice between competing theories and the other case demonstrated that conflicting results were based on methodological differences that on face examination didn't see important, and which ended up in some tweaking of the theoretical explanation.

 

I'm sure I was doing "science". :D

[Moontanman]

Astrology doesn't even take into account the fact that the positions of stars have changed significantly in the last few thousand years and many if not most people are not really born under the stars that astrology claims, astrology is nothing more than lies used to confirm lies and take advantage of people.

[HydrogenBond]

One thing that is not taking into account is that the personification of the stars and planets, such as in mythology/astrology, could have been a projection stemming from unconscious processes. The ancients did not know about psychology. The result could have been the unconscious projection/mapping itself via astrology.

 

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.

 

For example, a person may project their bad mood on the weather, since they assume the mood comes from the weather. If the weather changes they will change their mood. Once a person sees this is a projection, one is not at the same mercy to the weather. One can run science experiments of mood versus weather and get a correlation. One might use the theory that light and pressures changes via weather have an impact on mood, etc. Astrology uses the same projection process but science will give weather explanations more slack.

 

According to Jung, the human personality is rooted on personality firmware, which he called archetypes. These archetypes make human propensity similar in all humans; human nature, which defines humans as a species. If this firmware, which is normally unconscious, was projecting, ancient people would have assumed all the various archetypes stemmed from the external world; called the seven planets. They would attribute fate to the projected archetypes. Falling in love in a deep way involves an archetype activation we can't control consciously. Moderns people use different projections since archetypes are still unconscious and/or subject to denial, so they become/remain unconscious for projection.

[modest]

I think you and I differ somewhat on what is "scientific".

 

Perhaps.

 

My take is that Science is a method of inquiry, based on the collection of physical, publicly observable, and measurable data. At some point enough data is collected to attempt generalization, or an attempt at integrating the observations of similar phenomena into some sort of explanatory construct.

 

Right. It seems you have just exactly described the inductive method. I think the current scientific method would consider it lacking, and I personally find it faulty exactly because it admits things like astrology as science. Consider, for example, the description you give that I've just quoted above. Replace the fifth word "science" with "astrology". Does it not make perfect sense?...

 

My take is that astrology is a method of inquiry, based on the collection of physical, publicly observable, and measurable data. At some point enough data is collected to attempt generalization, or an attempt at integrating the observations of similar phenomena into some sort of explanatory construct.

 

That is exactly what astrology and many other pseudo-sciences do. And, I should clarify, I refer here to the ancient and medieval idea of astrology and not the modern practice of filling up space in a newspaper.

 

This is not something that I'm making up on the fly here. Many philosophers of science have pointed out this exact problem—that astrology would be scientific under certain definitions of science—and have taken steps to fix it. Hume really didn't have an answer, but Popper did at least have a meaningful proposal. If you read the Logic of Scientific Discovery, it was the problem of induction that led Popper to propose falsifiability as a requirement of science.

 

I'm not a naive falsificationist. I realize that Popper's system has problems. But, the requirement of falsifiability, itself, was adopted into the scientific method. Currently, if a system is not falsifiable, it just isn't science. It is the requirement of falsifiability that allows us to reject astrology, as a whole, as pseudo-scientific. There is no underlying falsifiable hypothesis that astrologers use.

 

And, believe me, I agree with the other respondents of this thread who have noted that astrology is not generally very precise and it generally doesn't make good predictions. But, neither is Newton's law of gravity precise or exactly correct. That is not a reason to say that it is unscientific. We wouldn't say that the Copernican model of the solar system was less scientific than Ptolemy's model because it was initially less accurate.

 

With that preface, the role of pre-theoretical scientific research is aimed at identifying possible relationships among variables that might lead either to a theory, or to a restatement of a theory, or to resolving issues when theoretical predictions lead to opposite results in different experiments or at different laboratories.

 

I confess a certain "enthusiasm" for this approach as both my M.S. Thesis and my Ph.D. dissertation were directly focused on the examination of conflicting data in two very different sorts of visual phenomena. :) In both cases the research was not theory testing per se but more "I wonder if this, that, or this third factor or procedure in the methodology could account for what appears to be contradictory results. In one case the investigation was techncally a "critical experiment" since it led to a direct choice between competing theories and the other case demonstrated that conflicting results were based on methodological differences that on face examination didn't see important, and which ended up in some tweaking of the theoretical explanation.

 

I'm sure I was doing "science". :D

 

I'm sue Archimedes was doing science when he took a bath and realized a means of measuring density. It doesn't mean that the act of bathing is scientific. The astrologer's inclination toward measuring and researching patterns in the heavens is a very empirical act, but it is not itself a scientific act. Research may or may not be scientific depending on whether it is used in conjunction with the other steps of the scientific method.

 

~modest

[Ken]

Perhaps.

 

 

 

Right. It seems you have just exactly described the inductive method. I think the current scientific method would consider it lacking, and I personally find it faulty exactly because it admits things like astrology as science. Consider, for example, the description you give that I've just quoted above. Replace the fifth word "science" with "astrology". Does it not make perfect sense?...

 

My take is that astrology is a method of inquiry, based on the collection of physical, publicly observable, and measurable data. At some point enough data is collected to attempt generalization, or an attempt at integrating the observations of similar phenomena into some sort of explanatory construct.

 

That is exactly what astrology and many other pseudo-sciences do. And, I should clarify, I refer here to the ancient and medieval idea of astrology and not the modern practice of filling up space in a newspaper.

 

I think not. There are always at least two variables that need to be a part of any data point. Some publicly observable, physical, measurable Independent variable and some publicly observable, physical, measurable dependent variable (the observed "caused" result). Ignoring for a moment the whole issue of causality, the Astrologer and other pseudo-sciences might do well on the Independent variable side, but they are characterized as a group, as using dependent "measures" lacking in either Validity and/or Reliability.

 

In other words, they may get the stars correctly placed, but the behavioral claims are made on the basis of unacceptable information - anecdotal reports, demand characteristics of the inquiry, selective data collection, outright investigator bias, dissimilar respondent pools, etc.

 

This is not something that I'm making up on the fly here. Many philosophers of science have pointed out this exact problem—that astrology would be scientific under certain definitions of science—and have taken steps to fix it. Hume really didn't have an answer, but Popper did at least have a meaningful proposal. If you read the Logic of Scientific Discovery, it was the problem of induction that led Popper to propose falsifiability as a requirement of science.

 

Well, that seems to put me in the unenviable position of humbly suggesting that they missed something directly under their noses. ;) The definition of Science should include the quality of measurements of both types of variables.

 

I'm not a naive falsificationist. I realize that Popper's system has problems. But, the requirement of falsifiability, itself, was adopted into the scientific method. Currently, if a system is not falsifiable, it just isn't science. It is the requirement of falsifiability that allows us to reject astrology, as a whole, as pseudo-scientific. There is no underlying falsifiable hypothesis that astrologers use.

 

And I agree.

 

And, believe me, I agree with the other respondents of this thread who have noted that astrology is not generally very precise and it generally doesn't make good predictions. But, neither is Newton's law of gravity precise or exactly correct. That is not a reason to say that it is unscientific. We wouldn't say that the Copernican model of the solar system was less scientific than Ptolemy's model because it was initially less accurate.

 

And I would add that those laws or theories failed to the extent that the measurements available at the time of their derivation were inadequate to the task. As the measurements improved, the theories were modified, and modified again, or in some instances (Lamarck comes to mind) discarded.

 

I'm sue Archimedes was doing science when he took a bath and realized a means of measuring density. It doesn't mean that the act of bathing is scientific. The astrologer's inclination toward measuring and researching patterns in the heavens is a very empirical act, but it is not itself a scientific act. Research may or may not be scientific depending on whether it is used in conjunction with the other steps of the scientific method.

 

And I think I've been addressing specifically those other requisite steps. B)