From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: newspapers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: scientific method
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:16:00 GMT

In article <BttHwI.47E@exnet.co.uk>, s0jrej@exnet.co.uk (James Ellis-Jones) writes...
>In article <28AUG199210071010@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>In article <Btn9Lq.2M5@exnet.co.uk>, s0jrej@exnet.co.uk (James Ellis-Jones) writes...
>>
>>> [stuff written criticising Caspar's argument by my flatmate (I am the real
>>>  J Ellis-Jones and he has his own account now) with which I generally
>>>  agree]

[I should start by pointing out that the argument your flatmate was criticizing
was not posted by me but by Eric Praetzel.  I responded to his criticism that
Eric was ignoring "all the strongpoints of the theory".  I asked about what
evidence that was.]

>The reason I believe astrology works is because I have personally
>experienced its effectiveness many times.  

Well this is the problem in a nutshell isn't it?  It only works when no one is
looking too closely.  How many times have you found it not to work?  The problem
is to establish in advance the criterion for something working or not, assess
whether "working" could be due to some other phenomenon, and then faithfully
apply the test.  In cases where a prediction of the future is involved, one
has to be certain that a self-fulfilling prophecy is not created.  Or equally,
a self-avoiding prophecy. Like if you see a transit that convinces you that a
train wreck is looming in your future, you don't take the train.  So was the
prediction correct or not?  Also, is the prediction specific enough that some
chance occurence is not likely to fulfill it?  Without getting into specifics,
the "troubled times" prediction seems to fall into this category.  In the space
of some weeks, there is always a natural calamity somewhere in the world.  This
hurricane did a lot of property damage, but compared to your average
Bangladeshi monsoon flood, or earthquake, or even a good blizzard, was
insignificant in terms of loss of life. 

>[skeptical and approached astrology that way, found that it works, not because
> I believed uncritically]
>and I find that the majority of professional astrologers I have met are
>highly intelligent people mostly educated to degree standard who take a very
>academic approach to the subject.

You mean they take it seriously.  But that is not the same as approaching it
critically.  I have to believe if they approached in an academic manner, there
would be more carefully prepared research papers and (if there was anything to
it) we would have a lot more hard evidence than we have today.  Otherwise
intelligent people have believed a lot of insane things over the ages, of which
astrology is by no means the craziest.  The intellect of the practitioners by
itself is not really relevant.

>Therefore, I do not accept the 'explanation' of people's belief in astrology
>as merely wishful thinking.  However, I do agree with you that there is very
>little 'hard' evidence, i.e. evidence produced by scientific method of the
>effectiveness of astrology.

In the above, 'little' can effectively be read 'no'.

>I found myself for a few years left with a problem that in scientific terms,
>astrology was groundless, but in my own personal experience (and do not tell
>me I am deluding myself) it works.  

But the problem with "deluding yourself" (your choice of words) is precisely
that merely being convinced one is not deluding oneself is insufficient to
prove that one is, in fact, not.  Otherwise, no one would ever delude themself
into anything!  But you must concede that people can and do delude themselves
about a lot of things big and small.

>The only way I found to resolve this (and
>also a lot of other problems in parapsychology and related areas, of which
>I do not have direct experience, but which a lot of intelligent people also
>seem to think work) is to assume that scientific method is an inadequate tool
>for the analysis of something as 'high level' or irreducibly complex as
>astrology.

You are trying to have it both ways!  One minute, it works enough to convince
you with near-complete certainty, but the next minute, it only works when no
one is looking.  Everyone can assemble enough proof, little by little, day by
day, to convince themselves, but when it is all put together, there is no real
evidence at all.  Again, I think this is because of selective memory.  When it
works, it is remarkable, when it doesn't work, it is a coincidence, an incorrect
interpretation, or an overlooked influence.

>There seems a lot of philosophical basis for this point of view, as it is
>generally agreed scientific method cannot be used for analysis of unique
>events - and the astrological configurations in place at any given time
>and place are (effectively) unique.  

I'm not sure I really follow this.  If there are no unchanging rules which
apply more than once, what use is it?  If Mars trine Venus means something
different everytime, what is the point?  If on the other hand, there is an
enduring meaning to the symbolism, enough to convince people, it should be
testable.

Even if this held, it doesn't really seem to be a valid objection.  You can
survey a number of people at the same time.  The ones whose birthcharts or
whatever contain features that "connect" with the configuration at the moment
will show an effect, and the others won't.

>This leads to the symbolism of
>astrology having to be constantly used in new ways to determine the meanings
>of new configurations.  Thus to form an 'experiment' to verify astrology is
>nearly impossible.

But you say you have performed enough experiments to convince yourself...

>So it often appears that astrology is merely *suggestive* and is essentially
>unreliable - however in my experience it *does* work efficiently and
>effectively enough to be of use.

Well, I gotta agree with you about the suggestive and unreliable part...your
sentence seems self-contradictory though.  Is it unreliable or
efficient/effective?

>An interesting astrological coincidence
>which is not merely anecdotal as it is documented in previous news postings,
>is that in my posting of 23 Aug 92 (Troubled Times!) I mention having
>crashed a car the previous day (22nd) - the next but one posting (from
>kenneth@ducvax.auburn.edu 23 Aug 92 Car something, retrogrades and psychic
>ability) mentions that the poster has also had problems with his car on the
>same day.  I presume he didn't read my posting before making his.  

There were a lot of posts around that time dealing with Mercury retrograde,
and I think the other guy even started with a statement like "All this talk 
about...".  Also, the subject line "Broken cars, retrogrades, and psychic
ability" made _me_ presume he was referring to something he had seen on the
net.

>He mentions his date of birth which is 2 days before mine.  It seems the
>configuration I was 'blaming' for my crash had also caused problems of a
>car-related nature to someone with a very similar chart to my own - and we
>had both been prompted to talk about it on the net at much the same time!

There are millions of people with birthdays within 2 days of yours.
Probably even quite a few on the net, given that people here cluster in a fairly
narrow band of ages.  How many do you think had car trouble that same day? 
Again, you have to look at the other side of the coin.
Perhaps he will tell us himself whether he saw your post. 

>Just to cover the multiple astrological systems point, the symbolism used in
>the different systems is not identical - therefore they cannot contradict
>each other, only provide symbolic indications which are hard to reconcile.
>But this happens within a single astrological system anyway when two seemingly
>contradictory indications arise in one chart - both the indications will be
>true, it is just a matter of finding an interpretation which includes both.

..Which will no doubt prove easy after the fact.  I know a bit about Western
astrology, but next to nothing about the other kinds.  The symbolism may be
different...indeed that is exactly the problem I mean.  Both of them ultimately
refer back to people and events which are symbolized. I think one should
operate on that level.  Reduce the symbolism to whatever concrete predictions
it may make, and see if they agree with what happens.


Dave Casper
CERN - Geneva
casper@vxcrna.cern.ch