From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: "The Case for Astrology"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:33:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.015620.3146@udel.edu>, hughes@gloin.cis.udel.edu (John Hughes) writes...
>In article <C1BIJ9.8oJ@cs.mcgill.ca> pisces@cs.mcgill.ca (L. M. P. McPherson) writes:
>>
>>Has anyone read John Anthony West's "The Case for Astrology" 
>>(first published in 1991)? 
> 
>Hmm, I thought this book (or at least one with an identical title) came out in
>the early eighties. I was in fact impressed with most of it then; I felt he was
>rather more eloquent and believable than some others who defend the art with
>more of a fervent religiousness.

Well, I probably have a different angle on the subject matter than a lot of
you.  I found a very few parts of the book, including the part about CSICOP,
interesting, if universally slanted and unbalanced, and frequently ranting.

West begins by denouncing the 'dreaming Chaldean' 'speculation' about the
origins of astrology (meaning that it arose as a folk-omenistic quasi-religion)
and then launches into a much more fanciful and speculative flight of his
own imagination, using a single hieroglyph of an ancient looking up at a star
as his only evidence.  According to him, the ancients began with a vast
store of nearly perfect astrological wisdom, which has become bastardized
rather than refined with the passing of time, until what we have today is a
mere fragment of their once almost divine understanding.  This seems to me an
obvious example of rewriting of history to suit one's own prejudices, in this
case, raging hostility to science.   An example which comes to mind is the
theory advanced by some radical black movements that Africans once ruled the
entire world in an empire dwarfing that of Rome (they claim this was 66
trillion years ago, by the way).  In any case, West's argument ignores a lot
of evidence about the level of mathematics and astronomy in the early Near
East, and he struggles to explain why no written records of all this technical
knowledge, nor even a single horoscope, have been found.

In terms of evidence for astrology, the book offers none, other than Gauquelin's
work, which has been frequently discussed and which fits rather imperfectly
at best with 'normal' astrological techniques.  He offers no rebuttal of the
many refutations of various astrological claims about physical and other
characteristics demonstrated in the works of Gauquelin and Dean.  This is a
common practice among advocates of astrology - to ignore the much larger number
of negative results and concentrate on the small number of anomalous 'positive'
ones (I put positive in quotes, since while Gauquelin may be evidence for
something, it is not in agreement with the standard astrological interpretations
of houses).

The discussion of CSICOP is mean-spirited and also one-sided even if CSICOP
does deserve criticism.  Again, it is clear that West is a single-minded
science-basher, and a master of rhetorical-point scoring and character
assassination of those who cannot defend themselves in his book.  No doubt
any equally unbalanced approach by a critic of astrology would be greeted with
howls of derision and derided as evidence of the close-mindedness of its
authors.

So, obviously, when one picks up a book named "The Case for Astrology", one
expects that a viewpoint will be expressed.  Even so, I found his arguments
to be unconvincing and not nearly as plausible or reasoned, not to mention
interesting, as many I have read here on the net.  Indeed, to my mind,
'fervent religiousness' would be a perfect description of West's defense of
astrology.  A convincing defense would at least confront the problems with
experimental evidence for astrology, rather than dismissing them and launching
ad hominem attacks on the critics.

On the other hand, maybe being panned by a skeptic is the best review such a
book can get...

I would recommend Eysenck and Nias, "Astrology: Science or Superstition" as
the most informative and balanced treatment of the subject I have read.  The
authors worked closely with Gauquelin, and seem, if anything, to be a bit
too much in his awe.  Even so, they recount many of the unsuccessful tests of
'textbook' astrology and show the ways at least some of the apparently positive
results failed to account for systematics and fell apart under closer scrutiny.
Despite reaching the conclusion that the evidence for astrology is largely
lacking, the book is calm in its argumentation and fair in its approach.


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.astrology,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal