From: lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: same old same old
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:00:27 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.121842.1246@tfs.com> ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>
>Even easier - if you know why astrology *does not work*, then publish your
>results - yes? Do you have any?
>
>Any response to the LONG posting about RESEARCHED correlations between
>astronomical phenomena and human types, by L. McPherson? Did you read it?
>Over in rec.org.mensa, it's still there - for the *mere reading* of it.
>


I'm afraid you're wasting your time if you think that scientific
evidence can dissuade an anti-astrologer from his views. So-
called "skeptics" simply ignore data that does not fit their
world view. I have seen this time and again. Take, for example,
my recently posted summary of some research findings in astrology
(posted to rec.org.mensa, and then forwarded by someone to
sci.skeptic). A member of sci.skeptic (JWN) posted a reply in
which he ignored every single finding I mentioned but one: the
famous Gauquelin "Mars effect." His excuse was that he could not
reply to the entire posting because it was *too long*! (To admit
that he had never read any of the other research studies would
have been more truthful.) He listed several possible weaknesses
in the Gauquelin's original study of Mars and sports champions,
and made some dubious claims about weaknesses in Ertel's analysis
of the CSICOP sample (e.g., that if you take small subsamples
such as just the French athletes or just the extremely eminent
athletes in a particular sample, you don't always get a
significant effect! Someone should explain the statistical
concepts of power and variance to him...). He also tried to
devalue the effect by pointing out that it occurs only among the
most eminent athletes (which makes perfect sense according to
astrological theory), and that it is not an overwhelming effect
in terms of size, despite its statistical significance. (There
goes all of social science...) And he accused me of lying for
describing Ertel's results, which were published in CSICOP's own
journal. (He also accused me of lying for repeating one CSICOP
member's version of the events surrounding the Mars study done by
that group; he prefers another version of the events.) So then
another "skeptic" (TK) picked up the thread on rec.org.mensa, and
advised *you* to forget about the evidence I presented because, he
claimed, JWN had "corrected the rumors spread by McPherson," and,
he added, "Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence."
Recall that JWN dealt only with one of the many findings I had
described! If that isn't an interesting study in human nature, I
don't know what is!

I know, you think these guys will be sensitive to evidence
because they're always crying for it. But the demands for
scientific proof are just rhetoric. No amount of evidence would
sway them. The only way these guys would change their minds about
astrology would be if Carl Sagan, James Randi, and all the other
big-shots at CSICOP (their church) made a public statement that
the evidence indicated that astrology was a valid discipline, and
if all their supervisors, professors, and employers at the
university became open-minded about astrology. Only then would
they have the authoritative *approval* they need to believe in
astrology. These people are tied to what Jung's student Erich
Neumann calls the Great Father: the body of beliefs accepted
within the culture and its most Saturnian institutions (e.g., the
universities). They identify with the Great Father the way a
young boy learns to identify with his flesh-and-blood father, if
he has him around. (Ever notice how few *women* are die-hard
"skeptics"? It is a man's need to identify with a father image.)

Data and logical argument do not affect beliefs. We are animals.
We are visceral. We only change our world view if we find
ourselves in such crisis that we have to accept the fact that our
current world view is maladaptive. Only severe emotional and/or
physical stress causes people to reevaluate their belief systems.
Study brain-washing techniques some time. You don't brainwash
someone by calmly explaining a coherent position to them, backed
up by logical argument, statistics and data. You have to submit
them to emotional and physical torture, being careful to link the
pain to their old belief system by association, and then you have
to reward them for adopting the target belief system. Change
comes through the emotions, through the drive to survive, not
through the intellect. This fact has been brought home to me by
my years of experience in science. It is painfully common to see
academics cling to a theory for years or even decades long after
substantial evidence against the theory has been accumulated.
It's human nature. Some of them would only give up the theory if
clinging to it caused the end of their career and the consequent
turmoil -- but tenure prevents such an occurrence. If they
invented the theory and it once achieved some popularity, they
are rewarded with endless attention for maintaining it. If they
are simply a follower, they are rewarded for continuing to follow
the theory with the positive approval of other loyal followers. I
would never have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own
eyes! There is this wonderful myth out there that scientists are
cool, disinterested, and perfectly rational -- that data are
their only teachers. Nice myth. As the Gauquelins showed,
scientists are typically Saturnian, not Uranian (that is, they
are more likely to have Saturn angular; no such effect was found
for Uranus). They are *conformist* and *conventional*, cautious
and conservative. They seek to maintain the status quo, not to
overturn it with new findings. In general. Every once in a while
a Uranian type slips into the system somehow and causes an
intellectual revolution. Then we call them a "genius." And when a
sufficient number of prominent scientists accept their ideas, the
Saturnian types fall in line. Yawn.


Maggie