Exegesis V3 Issue #62

Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #62

From: "Mark A. Melton"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #61

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #61

From: mary downing
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #61

Exegesis Digest Wed, 28 Oct 1998

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:34:14 -0800
From: "Mark A. Melton"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #61

Metalog wrote:
>
> Exegesis Digest Tue, 27 Oct 1998 Volume 3 Issue 61
>
> Contents
>
> -----e-----
>
> From: Andre Donnell
> Subject: Re: Is astrology a statistical science ? (Exegesis V3 #60)
>

> ....Many researchers don't understand the methods....One group
> wants the APA to ban even the simpler versions of the most common type of
> statistical test, called the null-hypothesis test" (Vincent Kiernan writing in New
> Scientist, 10 May 1997, p.5). Further reading and more in-depth discussion can be
> found in Carver (1978), Cohen (1994), and Signorelli (1974).
>

My statistical mentors, in 1954-58, were Howard Lavene at Columbia Univ., and Bill Kruskal at the Univ. of Chicago. Both warned about reliance on null hypothesis testing, especially without using the full arsenal including power of the test (1- beta) and so on. They recommended using confidence intervals. Please note that I did not address the NHT issue and did not do on purpose! It apparently has taken psychologists a long time to find this out.

Both Lavene and Kruskal emphasized that basing a study on a single test leads to fallacies somewhat of the sort that Andre was belaboring. For a research paper one might present the results of a single study, but certainly I think that is very chancey, especially if one uses alpha = 05. In astrology it is not difficult to obtain much smaller probabilities of some relationship occurring by chance alone, but I feel these must be "corrected" for the lack of randomness of the planetary motions, i.e. for something like persistence that we see everywhere in nature --daily temperatures etc. The last time I saw Kruskal I asked him about that but he had a dinner appointment and had to leave. He did say the answer was in his article in the Encycl. of Social Sciences, which I have never seen. Maybe some psychologist can look it up??

>
> There is a problem with any experimental design applied to astrology based
> on protocols proper to physics, biology or any of the other hard
> sciences--temporal contamination.
>

> We exist in "time" and we are
> trying to run an experiment on another section of time, perhaps multiple
> snippets of time. We think we are studying earthquakes, cancer or orphaned
> children, but they are simply manifest effects of "time".
>

I do not think I can agree with this, however, unless she means it figuratively. It is important to keep in mind that all *growth* time series are correlated (formally), whether there is a meaningful causal relation or not. As a geologist and geophysicist, I can assure you that earthquakes are not *simply* manifest effects of time.

> Recognizing what astrology really is -- is fundamental to this discussion.
> One can't derive a method to test something until we understand what it is
> we're testing.
>

This is too vague to be sure what she means. I can't agree with it without tighter definitions. Certainly we can test something we do not understand fully. And "derivation" is not the appropriate word to use for designing a test.

> From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #60
>
> - However, measures of central tendency should probably reflect the
> actual behavior/activity being observed, i.e., the astrologers'
> "interpretations" of charts and so forth. I cannot personally conceive of
> an appropriate task for such an inquiry...but that would be a good start. ....
> Participants in the group
> labeled "astrologers" should be assigned to that group on the basis of their
> repeated demonstrations of their ability to complete a given task of
> interpretation successfully. We should at least assume, as with many
> nebulous endeavors, that self proclaimed *artists* are the majority rather
> than the minority in the field.

Roger Saterlee's comments would mean more to me if he defined his terms. Otherwise I see little relevance to what I was trying to discuss.

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:55:00 -0800
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #61

To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Is astrology a statistical science ? (Exegesis V3 #60)

" I am personally interested in applying psychometric methods to Astrology, but I also intend to consider the role of qualitative and discourse analytic methods which - owing to the problems outlined above - are making a strong and perhaps welcome return to psychology.

Hi Andre, I would settle for a "test" that produces an individual, unique result which has a better chance of being compared to a unique birth chart...:) What happened to any attempt to appreciate individuality in psychometric land...:)?

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:57:47 -0500 (EST)
From: mary downing
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #61

With all respect: you are confusing astrology with psychic development. It's simple to identify an "astrologer". Give the candidate an "event", see if he can erect a chart, and have him delineate according to a specific tradition. Each tradition limits itself to specific indicators and will work on a simple level consistently. A computer can do it and does.

Astrological prediction is the problem, not "interpretation" or as an astrologer would say "delineation". To predict one must isolate one possible manifestation from a vast pool of probable effects. To delineate one must only list salient features that are universally connected with a planetary position or combination. If the practitioner limits himself to a very broad brush, he can do it from a cook-book; and frankly computer interpretive programs are a lot better than you'd have any right to expect.

A good astrologer describes the broad principle and interacts with a human client to determine exactly how it applies in that given instance. Playing God by making categorical pronouncements is firmly discouraged.

As I said the problem lies in prediction and the inherent abstraction of planetary (and other) indicators. My favorite embarassing story is a lecture I gave demonstrating the interaction of the UK, Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher's charts for a given year. All the indicators for war were there, with very personal connections for the PM and Queen. I thought it was a real hot-war flare up with the Northern Ireland situation (which did start smoking)with a new round of terrorism.

Then Argentina invaded the Falklands, one of the crown princes was flying a Harrier and Thatcher's son was missing during a cross country road race in North Africa at the same time and totally unrelated. There are a lot of possibilities I considered, Hong Kong, etc., but Argentina invading England was not one of them.

Perhaps if I had been "psychic" I would have zeroed in on Argentina. The point is Astrology does not rely on such eldrich talents (if they actually exist). I could have compared England with the entire complement of world independent states -- and I would have found a few that fit. I would still have discarded Argentina. Why? Because I wouldn't have realized the Falklands belonged to England nor that Argentina lusted after them. So---

To a large degree the success of the astrologer depends on non-astrological knowledge. One would hope astrologers counseling individuals had some psychological and cultural anthropology indoctrination. One would hope business astrologers had run a business. One absolutely must have the client fill in the blanks.