The 'Science' of Astrology

[Guest guest]

At 04:41 AM 5/4/03 -0000, Jesse Milligan wrote:

 

>>> I'm a scientist, interested in the science of astrology (and there is

one, as Fagan's statistical research has demonstrated).

 

Uh, huh, and what might this 'statistical research' be?? Who replicated it?

What were the studies? When were they performed?? If you are a scientist,

then you know that research is virtually worthless until it's been

replicated by others. (I know about the early research by Bradley.)

 

>It frankly amazes me that 10 celestial objects and the three cardinal

aspects (conjunction, opposition, and square) that have been demonstrated

statistically useful aren't enough for people.

 

Again, what are these statistical sources and the replications?

 

>(Pursuant to this, I have developed a freeware western sidereal astrology

program to make calculation of all of this easy and correct.

http://home.attbi.com/~jesse.m/aldebaran/

 

Thank you. I'll check it out.

 

>> The other flaw is that nobody gives predictions but runs to explain

>> the events once they have happened!

 

>At this point, I think the best we can do is determine a probability of an

event happening. Prediction may come eventually.

 

Yes, agreed.

 

>>I agree with you that this list has far too much drama and fuzzy

astrology, and too little honest and proven technique--but the only way to

change it is by speaking up, not running away.

 

Yes again. Easy to complain and criticize. Difficult to show some evidence

for an astrological principle and speak with clarity so everyone can

understand what we are saying.

 

I appreciate your comments. It's nice to see a new name on the list.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

> >>> I'm a scientist, interested in the science of astrology (and there is

> one, as Fagan's statistical research has demonstrated).

>

> Uh, huh, and what might this 'statistical research' be?? Who replicated it?

> What were the studies? When were they performed?? If you are a scientist,

> then you know that research is virtually worthless until it's been

> replicated by others. (I know about the early research by Bradley.)

 

Don't mistake experimental studies with analysis of objective data. The former

is subject to all sorts of errors and confounding variables, and must be

replicated many times before it can be thought of as particularly valid; the

latter is not typically subject to error outside of incorrect data and errors in

analysis, and do not need to be checked much beyond that.

 

Bradley's research (which I would hardly call 'preliminary'--he did some pretty

massive studies) into the effects of the cardinal ingress positions of Jupiter

and Venus on rainfall, and the effects of Mars and Saturn on earthquakes and

volcanic eruptions, was checked and verified by independent scientists. I can't

seem to find the reference right now, but I'll post it when I do.

 

There was even a conference of interested scientists (including meteorologists,

astronomers, and if I'm not mistaken, physicists) to discuss the rainfall

study--most of whom I'm told were impressed. (Not that that's any form of

evidence; just interesting.)

 

 

> >It frankly amazes me that 10 celestial objects and the three cardinal

> aspects (conjunction, opposition, and square) that have been demonstrated

> statistically useful aren't enough for people.

>

> Again, what are these statistical sources and the replications?

 

Gauquelin's widely-known research into the effects of planets near the cardinal

angles has also been independently checked, if I'm not mistaken, although since

birthtimes were involved, and they can be inaccurate, his research falls more

into the 'experimental research' category, and warrants further verification.

 

And I believe it was Fagan who did the research into zodiacal aspects, although

I don't know the details of the study. Note my careful use of the word

'demonstrated' instead of 'proven'.

 

 

Jesse Milligan