Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00117)

Thank you for your comments on the article.

>Astromony is accepted because it is testable and because the
findings of one astronomer can be authenticated or verified by
another. This is simply not true for astrology.

Specific hypothesis are given in the article. If astrology's
theories are at all consistent then they are experimentally
testable. Correlations of demographics and well-researched
personality tests with the aspects of an astrology chart would
provide an excellent test and this is what is proposed.

>It is NOT because scientists "lack interest" but rather that no
testing to date has shown any evidence of any truth soever in the
principles of astrology.

This is true, but no one has yet done good scientific research on
astrology (I did an academic computer search and took a college
course on so-called "pseudo-sciences").

>David Ruelle (Discoverer of strange attractors) asks, "does one
find significant statistical correlations between horoscopes and
reality?" And then answers, "The answer is negative and totally
discredits astrology."

A fundamental informal logic error on his part because negative
evidence cannot be interpreted -- the lack of correlations so far
discredits astrologers who practice without any scientific basis,
but it says nothing about the principles of astrology. I do not
know what statistical correlations he is referring to but I know
of no study which has even attempted to do a part of what I have
proposed.

>His response was his theory of synchronicity, which is neither
measurable or repeatable (this is all recorded in his paper on
Synchronicity).

If something is not repeatable nor measurable then it is random
and randomness is not a sufficient cause for its own existence
but is simply a function of our temporary ignorance.

>quoted an ancient maxim that the stars impel, they do not compel
- if they did compel, we would probably see some measureable
results.

Indeed, but they would impel with consistency and the
correlations would still show up with proper data gathering.
Astrology by itself is insufficient to completely describe the
psychological nature of people. The age of the soul and the
energy qualities or rays (types) which build the personality must
also be considered and then complete psychological correlates can
be worked out. What the article proposes is a start on this.
I've also designed personality assessments for which research is
planned in relation to this.

>No one has yet been able to measure such "resonances" in any
lab.

Actually, so far, mood states have been correlated with positive
and negative ions and these ions are of the ethers or plasma
state of matter (the densest component of the human aura).
Empirical correlations of symbol systems like astrology with
demographics and personality tests is the place to start in
establishing the existence of this relationship.

>I would like to say, though, that I agree with you that we need
to integrate science with the occult arts, as much as possible.

Yes indeed. Any energy or force which impacts the personality
can have its effects scientifically and statistically noticed.
Occult processes certainly qualify in this.

>A statistical comparison between astrological predictions of
personality characteristics and the MMPI would be very
interesting, and is probably a valid step in the right direction.
I would love to see the results.

As soon as the opportunity presents itself then this will be
done.

>However, specific predictions of events such as those found in
the daily papers are very wide of the mark and have no real
scientific validity at all.

Right, and the world would be a better place if such pop
astrology (and pop psychology) went away.

Peace,
Patrick