|
Back in January 1998, I had lunch with Dr. Michael Shermer,
the editor of Skeptic Magazine. I admire Dr. Shermer
very much and think that he has done a magnificent job
(and with limited resources) of making the public aware
of the value of clear thinking, a skeptical attitude,
and the necessity of evidence. During our conversation,
I mentioned that I thought that skeptics knew little
about astrology and that they should study the subject
before criticizing it. His wife, who was also present,
said 揥hy don't you teach us?? That is one of the
main purposes of this website. Before one can discuss
whether or not astrology 搘orks? one has to know
how the subject is practiced. Before one asks for
evidence, one has to be able to evaluate that evidence.
The lessons here are for everyone who wants to learn how
astrology is done and how to do astrology. They are
especially for skeptics because science demands that
knowledge of a subject must come before evaluation.
Skeptics get into trouble when they try to discredit
astrology because they fail to keep things simple. All
they have to say to astrologers is: 揚lease provide
evidence to prove astrology works? That's all. The
burden of proof is ALWAYS
on the people who claim that something is true. The
ball is now in the astrologer's court and discussion
can begin.
Unfortunately, many skeptics try to go further. This is where
problems arise because it is obvious that they know
nothing about the subject. Not only that, some rush into
print without bothering to check what they write for
flaws in their logic. Here are some errors committed by
two Ph.D.'s who should know better.
The first is Dr. Andrew Franknoi, a professor of astronomy,
who came up with a list of 揟en Embarrassing Questions
to ask Astrologers? Personally, I think that most of
the questions on this list should be included in a
textbook on logic under the chapter titled 揈rrors in
Logic and How to Avoid Them? but examine the list
yourself and see what you think.
Question 1:
揥hat is the
likelihood that one-twelfth of the world's
population is having the same kind of day??o:p>
Answer:
Well this one I agree with. Those so-called horoscope
columns in the newspapers were designed as a publicity
stunt to increase circulation. Unfortunately, that
worked. As a result, most people think that all there is
to astrology is to know about your 搒ign?
Absolutely untrue. Sun-sign columns are most
emphatically not real astrology. I denounce them at
every turn, and I do so again here. However, Dr.
Franknoi would know this if he were familiar with the
field.
Question 2:
揥hy is the moment of birth, rather than
conception, crucial for astrology? ...I suspect that the
reason astrologers still adhere to the moment of birth
has little to do with astrological theory. Almost every
client knows when he or she was born, but it is
difficult...to identify a person's moment of
conception...?o:p>
Answer:
The reason astrologers use the time of birth is
because birth gives us a completely formed human being.
After conception, all we have is a fertilized egg. But
notice the subtle shift here. The real issue is 揇oes
astrology work and can the assertions of astrologers be
tested? Dr. Franknoi seems to change this to 揥ell,
it doesn't sound right so it must not be true? When
quantum mechanics was first proposed, it didn't sound
right either. It took years for it to be accepted.
Opponents called it 換uacker Mechanics? Whether
something sounds right or not is not proof one way or
another.
Question 3:
揑f the mother's womb can keep out
astrological influences until birth, can we do the same
with a cubicle of steak??o:p>
Answer: This is a complex
question fallacy, the most famous example of which
is the question 揇o you still beat your wife?? The
question itself assumes facts not in evidence. Dr.
Franknoi's apparent procedure is to first ask why the
moment of birth has an effect, and then to propose a
ridiculous reason which he has no trouble ridiculing. So
he is making a second error here as well: the strawman
fallacy. Please notice that this question
contradicts the previous one. If the moment of
conception is important, then the mother's body cannot
act as a shield, and vice versa.
The proper procedure is to investigate
first and see if there is any effect at all. Then, if
there is, one looks for a reason as to why. By reversing
the order, Dr. Franknoi comes to the conclusion that
astrology can't work because he cannot think of a good
reason why it should. For decades, no one could explain
how bumblebees could fly. They seemed to violate all
known laws of aerodynamics. Following Dr. Franknoi's
procedure, one would have to conclude that the bees
really didn't fly and it must have been some form of
illusion.
Question 4:
揑f astrologers are as good as they claim, why
aren't they richer??o:p>
Answer: Really Dr. Franknoi, doesn't that sound like the
question 揑f you've so smart, why aren't you
rich??that uneducated relatives always seem to ask
college graduates at family gatherings?
The answer is that knowing something valuable and making
money off of it are two different skills entirely. You
could ask the same question of economists and financial
analysts. Not a billionaire among them. Bill Gates and
Michael Dell, on the other hand, are dropouts. And by
the way, this question is an ad
hominum fallacy. If you can't refute an opponent,
slander them. The main questions are, I repeat, 揇oes
astrology work?and 揅an it be tested??
Question 5:
揂re all horoscopes done before the discovery
of the three outermost planets incorrect??o:p>
Answer: Is all physics done before the discovery of
relativity and quantum mechanics 搃ncorrect? Does
the discovery of a new element invalidate all previous
knowledge in chemistry? Yes, horoscopes in past
centuries were less complete. Yes, some things were
missing. No, they were not totally wrong. The knowledge
that doctors have today dwarfs that of doctors 200 years
ago. Are all the cures doctors achieved in 1800 somehow
搘rong?because they didn't know as much as we do
today? Will all the cures doctors achieve this year be
搘rong?if new knowledge is discovered in the
future?
Question 6:
揝houldn't we condemn astrology as a form of
bigotry? In a civilized society we deplore all systems
that judge individuals by sex, skin color, national
origin, or other accidents of birth. Yet astrologers
boast that they can evaluate people based on another
accident of birth - the positions of celestial objects.
Isn't refusing to date a Leo or hire a Virgo as bad as
refusing to date a Catholic or hire a black person??o:p>
Answer: This is another clear example of the error called the
argumentum ad
hominum, or what can better be called the argument
by insult. Does astrology work or not? Never mind that.
Astrologers are BAD! Why they are just like bigots, so
don't listen to them. Tell me doctor Franknoi, can
genetics be used to determine the probability of people
getting certain diseases? Is that also not due to an
揳ccident of birth? Can this knowledge be used by
insurance companies, for instance, to deny coverage? Why
then, by the same argument, the doctors who perform
those procedures should also be condemned as
揵igots?
Question
7: 揥hy do different schools of astrology disagree
so strongly with each other? Astrologers seem to
disagree on the most fundamental issues of their craft:
whether to account for the precession of the Earth's
axis,...how many planets and other celestial objects
should be included, and - most importantly - which
personality traits go with which cosmic phenomena. Read
ten different astrology columns, or have a reading done
by ten different astrologers, and you will probably get
ten different interpretations.
揑f astrology is a science, as its proponents claim, why
are its practitioners not converging on a consensus
theory after thousands of years...?(complex question
fallacy again, Dr. Franknoi; you are assuming facts not
in evidence). Scientific ideas generally converge over
time as they are tested against laboratory or other
evidence. In contrast, systems based on superstition or
personal belief tend to diverge as their practitioners
carve out separate niches while jockeying for power,
income, or prestige.?o:p>
Answer:
If that is the case, Dr. Franknoi, when a doctor
tells you that an operation is needed, why bother to get
a second opinion? Medicine is a science, isn't it?
First of all, there are disagreements in every field.
Secondly, the disagreements between astrologers are not
nearly as great as you make them out to be.
Thirdly, there has been, until recently, no certification of
astrologers. Anyone can call themselves an astrologer
after reading a book or two, or even without any
knowledge of the field at all. By way of contrast,
imagine the chaos in the health field if anyone could
call themselves a doctor and there were no way to tell
the difference between a Harvard graduate and someone
who just decided to hang up a shingle. This situation is
slowly being remedied. There are now two astrological
organizations, the AFA and the NCGR, that provide
certification by examination.
As far as the differing opinions about 搘hich personality
traits go with which cosmic phenomena? there is very,
very little of that. I believe I talk to other
astrologers more than you do, so I am most likely in a
better position to know.
Your comment about not 揷onverging on a consensus?has
been partially true only because anyone can call
themselves an astrologer. That situation, as I have
mentioned above, is changing.
That last part, however, about practitioners carving out
搒eparate niches while jockeying for power, income,
and prestige? well it took me a while to think of an
answer because I had to stop laughing first. Most
astrologers work part time for little pay. Research is
done for no pay at all (other than the small sums
offered for magazine articles). Most of us work for the
love of the field. If money were the first
consideration, we would all start .com companies. And
now, it is my turn to play skeptic and ask for evidence.
Tell us Dr. Franknoi, based on the research you did in
order to pose these questions, what are the names of
these practitioners who are carving out those
搒eparate niches? and just how much 損ower,
income, or prestige?are they achieving?
Questions 8:
揑f the astrological influence is carried by a
known force, why do the planets dominate?
揑f the effects of astrology can be attributed to gravity,
tidal forces, or magnetism (each is invoked by a
different astrological school), even a beginning physics
student can make the calculations necessary to see what
really affects a newborn baby. These are worked out for
many different cases in Roger Culver and Philip
Ianna's book 慉strology: True or False?..For
example, the obstetrician who delivers the child turns
out to have about six times the gravitational pull of
Mars and about two thousand billion times its tidal
force...?o:p>
Answer: So who says that gravitation or tidal effects are the
forces that are operational here? Yes, some astrologers
have wrongly postulated that they are what makes
astrology work. But the fact that they were wrong in
identifying the source does not show that there is no
effect. And this was done by individual astrologers, not
揹ifferent astrological schools?as Dr. Franknoi
suggests.
And once again, Dr. Franknoi is putting the cart before the
horse. Instead of investigating to see if there is in
fact an astrological phenomenon, he says, in effect,
that there cannot be because he can't think of a good
reason why there should. In a similar fashion, Simon
Newcomb, a famous mathematician, 損roved?that a
heavier-than-air machine could not fly. He, of course,
was proved wrong by two bicycle mechanics who did not
read his 損roof? Subjectivity like this has no
place in science. The proper scientific procedure is to
first check if something is so, and then
to find a reason why.
Question 9:
揑f the astrological influence is carried by an
unknown force, why is it independent of distance??
揂ll the long range forces we know in the universe get
weaker as objects get farther apart. But, as you might
expect in an Earth-centered system made thousands of
years ago, astrological influences do not depend on
distance at all. The importance of Mars in your
horoscope is identical whether the planet is on the same
side of the Sun as the Earth or seven times further away
on the other side. A force not dependent on distance
would be a revolutionary discovery for science, changing
many of our fundamental notions.?o:p>
Answer: I agree that such a force would be 揳 revolutionary
discovery for science, changing many of our fundamental
notions? What is the point here Dr. Franknoi? Are
scientists supposed to be afraid of this? Quantum mechanics overthrew fundamental notions too.
Would you have advised Max Planck to back off publishing
his results for that reason? Is the purpose of science
to advance knowledge, or to defend 揻undamental
notions? I would really like to hear your answer to
this one.
Question 10:
揑f astrological influences don't depend on
distance, why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies,
and quasars??o:p>
Answer: THERE IS AN ASTROLOGY OF STARS, AND THERE HAS BEEN
FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS! Furthermore, there are books on
the subject in print. The fact that you even ask this
question shows a lack of familiarity with the subject
that you are criticizing. Please study first and
criticize later.
Next is a list titled of statements titled 揥hy Astrology
is Bunk?compiled by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D., a
psychologist. 揌ere are some more reasons astrology is no more useful
than stacking marbles on a football.
揂strology has contributed nothing to our knowledge of the
world, the planets or to human behavior. Information
given by astrologers is worse than psycho-babble.?o:p>
揂s old as it is, astrology has accomplished nothing of
value in thousands of years. Science is only a few
hundred years old and yet it has put us on the moon,
found cures for illness, brought you radio, TV, movies
and computers. When you compare the achievements of
science and astrology, the latter becomes laughably
insufficient.?o:p>
Notice again how Sandbek, like Franknoi, avoids the
questions: 揇oes astrology work??and 揌ow may it
be tested??in order to indulge in ad
hominums. 揥orse than psycho-babble?indeed.
Psycho-babble is complete nonsense. Exactly how does
something become worse than complete nonsense? And
wasn't the term 損sycho-babble?originally used to
describe some of the more ridiculous pronouncements of
psychologists? Could this be
an example of 損rojection?
First, of all, if astrology performs as astrologers claim it
does, it would be as useful as a good psychological test
as well as a predictor of future trends. Secondly, by
claiming that astrology is 搇aughably insufficient?
because it didn't bring us such things as radio, TV,
and computers, Dr. Sandbek is committing the error of comparing apples and oranges. Art and literature didn't give us
those things either. Neither did astronomy. And the
science of biology made no contribution whatsoever to
automobile production. Are we condemn these as well?
Dr. Sandbek continues:
揂strology
only 憌orks?because the pigeon paying the money has
the complete attention from someone who is attentive,
warm, and apparently sincere. It's called the halo
effect.?o:p>
I can't resist the temptation to indulge here in an error
myself: the argumentum ad hominum, circumstantial. The
exact same charge has been leveled at Dr. Sandbek's
own field of psychology. Carl Rogers showed this years
ago. No matter what the therapist's theoretical
orientation (psychoanalytic, gestalt, etc.) the 揷ure
rate?remains about the same. A psychotherapist (who
shall remain nameless) once told me that his first
patient was a hysterical woman who threatened suicide.
He was terrified. Finally, he told her that she was
揷ured?and dismissed her. He checked up afterwards
and found that she was 揳cting very cured?
An astrologer sees a client two or three times a year.
Psychologists see them at least once a week. And shrinks
usually charge more. Tell me Dr. Sandbek, is there a
possibility that this is another case of projection? By
the way, there are a number of psychologists who use
astrology as an evaluation tool, and not just the
Jungians.
Dr. Sandbek once again:
揧our sign
continually changes every 26,000 years because of the
cosmological phenomenon called precession
of the equinoxes (try asking an astrologer to
explain that -- any beginning astronomy student knows
what this is). What it means is that everybody's
sign is off by one zodiac position. For example, if
your astrological sign is Aries, then you were really
born under the sign of Pisces. Funny, huh??o:p>
This is an old red herring of a question. First of all Dr.
Sandbek, signs shift about every 2,200 years, not
26,000. The 26,000 year figure is the time period
required for the Earth's orbit to completely precess
around the Sun. Secondly, there are TWO
zodiacs, the tropical and the sidereal. The vast
majority of astrologers use the tropical. In that
zodiac, the signs have not changed. Thirdly,
constellations do not really exist at all. Astrologers
know this. Constellations are used as place markers,
nothing more.
The next two assertions that Dr. Sandbek makes can be dealt
with together.
揗arriages
with incompatible signs have no more problems or
divorces than marriages with compatible signs.?o:p>
揟he Marines and Special Forces of all Armed Services have
no more men with warlike signs than men with peaceful
signs.?
This is another example of the strawman fallacy. Put words in someone's mouth and then
搑efute?them. Astrology is based on the entire
horoscope, not just the Sun-sign. As far as I know, no
astrologer ever asserted that marriages have to be
between compatible 搒igns?or that there should be
more people from 搘arlike signs?in the armed
services. And if they did, they would be wrong.
揂strology
readings are so vague as to be meaningless. Read one to
a room full of people and people with different signs
will tell you it belongs to them.?o:p>
If you are referring to those misnamed Sun-sign astrology
readings, I agree with you 100%. Those are not real
astrology readings and should be labeled as such. Real
astrology readings name can name specific events and
times. You are beating a dead horse here Dr. Sandbek.
揂strologers have a 憂ame-fetish.?They actually
believe that the names the Greeks arbitrarily gave to
the planets mean something. How foolish. So if we find
another (not entirely impossible) planet and give it the
name of 1997 QB1, does this mean that people born under
this sign will be mathematicians??o:p>
First of all, how do you know that the names were given
arbitrarily? Could it be that the ancient Greeks
observed an effect first and gave the name later?
Secondly, the planet Uranus was not named by the Greeks.
In fact, for years, it was named after its discoverer,
William Herschel. The procedure astrologers used to
figure out this planet's influence was to first
calculate the position of Uranus in horoscopes and look
for charts in which it was strongly placed (for examples
of horoscopes with Uranus strongly placed, see the
horoscopes of
Lenny
Bruce
or
Salvador
Dali
or
Isadora
Duncan). Uranus was then found to correlate with
traits such as rebelliousness and increased originality.
These are traits that are totally unassociated with
Greek legends concerning Uranus. Incidentally, the
planet Saturn is, according to astrology, to be the
planet of conservatism, yet according to Greek myths,
Uranus was the established power and Saturn rebelled and
overthrew him. So much for astrologers having a
搉ame-fetish?
揟he problem of twins: astrologers say that the time of a
few seconds or minutes can make the difference in a
person's aspects.?o:p>
No, astrologers do not claim this at all. The degree of the
sign on the Mid-Heaven changes about one degree every
four minutes. There is a similar change for the Rising
Sign.
揑f this reasoning applies to homoziogot twins, then why
are they so amazingly similar? In answer to this
question (whatever it is), then why are fraternal twins
so different?
No astrologer, to my knowledge, claims that the astrological
effect is the be-all and end-all of everything. We do
recognize that there are other influences on people,
such as their genetic make up. If a kitten were born at
the same time and place as a human baby, and the
astrological factors indicated great communication
ability, the human would talk and write. The cat would
just meow.
Again, what we have here is an avoidance of the main
questions: Does astrology work? and How may it be
tested. This is another instance of the lazy
student syndrome. Some students will spend all their
time and effort thinking up reasons why they shouldn't
have to study a subject instead of just doing the work.
Now we come to James, the Amazing, Randi, a gentleman who
truly lives up to his name. Mr. Randi, for those few of
you who may still not be familiar with his work, has
made exposure of fraud and stupidity his calling in
life. He certainly has found no shortage of material.
Randi is to be commended for his efforts to remind us
all how
easy it is to be fooled.
He did a demonstration once with a bunch of college students.
They were told that an 揳strologer?was preparing a
personal horoscope for each of them and that they were
to evaluate it. Most of the students said that the
揾oroscope?fit them to a tee, even those who said
that they didn't believe in astrology. They were then
asked to change 搑eadings?with the person next to
them. Of course, most
were surprised to find out that they all had the
same 搑eading?
Doesn't this 揹isprove?astrology? Not at all. Suppose
each student were given a standard, accepted
psychological test instead, and then given these same
揾oroscope readings?and told that these were the
test results. Wouldn't their answers have been the
same? Would this have 揹isproved?a standard,
accepted psychological test? Of course not. What Randi
demonstrated here, as he has done so often, is that
people are gullible and easily fooled. The results say
nothing about the validity of astrology.
Other researchers are not so careful. There was an article in
in the July 1995 edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine
a few years back titled 揇id the Moon Sink the
Titanic? The author, Richard L. Branham, Jr; examined
the dates of several disasters at sea and found that the
sign position of the Moon showed no correlation at all.
Unfortunately for the author, no astrologer (at least to
my knowledge) ever claimed that it did. Another strawman fallacy. Had the author taken the time to study some
astrology, he would not have bothered to do the study.
Some years earlier than this, a study was published based on
examination of thousands of cases. It was found that
there was no correlation whatsoever between one's
occupation and their Sun-sign (although they did find
that an abnormally large number of lawyers were born
under Gemini). Once again, no astrologer worth their
salt would ever make such an assertion. One more case of
a strawman fallacy.
The first step in evaluation of any subject must be to put in
the effort to learn it. Only then may it be analyzed and
criticized. Hopefully, the lessons on this website will
get this get this process started.
|