From: yoo@netcom.com (Young-Kyu Yoo)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:03:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

skh@draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) asks:
>Have you applied probability and statistics in full context in evaluating
>astrology?  

I haven't conducted them (astrology is a hobby, computer 
programming is my vocation), but there have been studies that 
have attempted to gauge the accuracy of the personality profiles 
generated in natal astrology.   At least one such study came to
the conclusion that we cannot trust personality profiles in 
general, whether they be generated by astrology or modern 
psychology.  However, the study conclusively demonstrated 
that the author had an extremely poor grasp of the fundamentals 
of statistics and probability.   This has been the largest deterrent 
to serious scientific study of astrology:  the scientific incompetence 
of both its practitioners and would-be debunkers.  

Gauquelin (sp?), a statistician if I remember correctly, did a 
controversial study of natal astrology.  Persons born under a 
certain sun sign are predicted to be inclined towards athletic 
pursuits.  Gauquelin found that a statistically significant 
number of a random sample of athletes (sample size of over 
5000) had been born under the sun sign in question.  He 
also found at least one of the assumptions of natal astrology 
to be wrong.  There have been attempts to debunk Gauquelin's 
study.  And attempts to debunk the debunkers of Gauquelin.  
Astrologers as well as disbelievers have criticized the statistician.  
Astrologers point out that he neglected the factors that temper 
the influence of sun signs.   Still Gauquelin's conclusions are 
intriguing and I would hope someone would conduct further
 research in that direction.  

Personality is indeed a nebulous thing and not easily 
categorizable.  However, almost to the extent that we can 
categorize personalities through standard psychological 
tests, I believe we can through astrology.  I have able, for 
instance, to tell from most birth charts whether the persons 
in question are introvert/extroverted and intuitive/logical.  

>I've often found that "amazing coincidences" have more to do
>with the power of selective human observation than supernatural causes.

Quantum mechanics tells us that truth is all in the observation.  
Of course, some observations are more objectifiable than others.  
Personality profiles are not easily objectifiable.   Perhaps selective 
observation plays some role in my perception that there is something 
to natal astrology behind the smokescreen of mysticism.  My 
standard answer to this is that the questioner should check out 
natal astrology for himself.  There's plenty of shareware and 
freeware out there to generate natal planetary charts.  If you 
invest $10-20 in a good astrology text and an evening or two of 
your time, you can cast simple horoscopes and see whether 
your doubt holds up under the weight of empirical evidence.

As for "supernatural causes," I have an unreasonable faith in 
"natural," "scientific" explanations.  I believe astrology can be 
grounded in science.  The fact that it is not today is no indication
 that it cannot be or that it is "wrong."  Take an example from 
medical science.  Scientists with their unscientific prejudices 
have ridiculed folk medicine in the past.  Today, pharmaceutical 
companies are racing to isolate the active ingredients in the 
plants used by "witch" doctors of various cultures.
.

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa