Fixing Astrology.

[astro_novice]

So how can this statement be resolved? What appears here is that you are questioning the relationship between astrology and the psychic. I can tell you quite emphatically that these forecasts were astrologically reasoned out.

I am probably not smart enough to answer this. Maybe someone can decide a way to make sure that the only source of information was astrology. Otherwise, anyone can question on the accuracy that was obtained. It can be even aliens tell him the information, or other world spirits visit and tell him the information, etc, etc.

That's why I think to show any validity of anything, the very first step is to ask the right question or proposal. The hypothesis must be testable. By testable, it would also mean that it needs to be repeatable. For example, you cannot propose to test the validity of astrology by using 911 twin tower collapse. Yes, some great astrologer may have been able to predict that. But there is just no more twin towers to be collapsed again for another person to repeat the test. Yes, the great astrologer can claim all he wants that his successful prediction is based on astrology. But how can someone else repeats the test to validate astrology using exactly the same event? It just cannot. So whatever happened is whatever happened and that's just that. Maybe it was via astrology. Maybe it was by aliens. Maybe it was thru psychic power. Maybe it was luck and fate. Maybe.... Who knows!?

So forming the correct hypothesis is one of the most important steps. Then once it's stated clearly without any possible ambiguities or confusion, one can proceed to either prove or disprove it. The end result is only true or false. If it's true, it can always be repeated. Just like Galileo dropping two balls and both balls fell to ground at the same time. It's always repeatable. It was not due to Galileo's psychic power. Another person that comes along and repeats the same test will still get the same results. The original hypothesis from Galileo doesn't specify that he must drop the ball himself or that he must be right there to observe the event to use his psychic power, or anything like that. The hypothesis is stated, and it's proven, and it can be repeatedly proven again and again.

That's my idea of how one should prove astrology as anything valid. And another dumb person who comes along but does exactly all the steps necessary and can repeat and reproduce the same results. Then we know that there is really truth behind astrology.

Otherwise it's difficult to know if the experimenter used psychic power to make the results happen. Or if it was luck, or if it was by bribing someone. When it's repeatable, that removes all the doubts. Because for anyone who has doubts, he or she can simply repeat the test, and he or she can find out and rediscover the truth for himself or herself.

As a kid, I didn't take the words from Galileo. I tried to repeat the test to show it to myself that Yes, Galileo was right. The hypothesis stands up through the test of time. Different eras, different people, they will always get the same results. Such we all can contribute and increase the total body of human knowledge.

 

[John Thompson]

I am probably not smart enough to answer this. Maybe someone can decide a way to make sure that the only source of information was astrology. Otherwise, anyone can question on the accuracy that was obtained. It can be even aliens tell him the information, or other world spirits visit and tell him the information, etc, etc.

That's why I think to show any validity of anything, the very first step is to ask the right question or proposal. The hypothesis must be testable. By testable, it would also mean that it needs to be repeatable. For example, you cannot propose to test the validity of astrology by using 911 twin tower collapse. Yes, some great astrologer may have been able to predict that. But there is just no more twin towers to be collapsed again for another person to repeat the test. Yes, the great astrologer can claim all he wants that his successful prediction is based on astrology. But how can someone else repeats the test to validate astrology using exactly the same event? It just cannot. So whatever happened is whatever happened and that's just that. Maybe it was via astrology. Maybe it was by aliens. Maybe it was thru psychic power. Maybe it was luck and fate. Maybe.... Who knows!?

So forming the correct hypothesis is one of the most important steps. Then once it's stated clearly without any possible ambiguities or confusion, one can proceed to either prove or disprove it. The end result is only true or false. If it's true, it can always be repeated. Just like Galileo dropping two balls and both balls fell to ground at the same time. It's always repeatable. It was not due to Galileo's psychic power. Another person that comes along and repeats the same test will still get the same results. The original hypothesis from Galileo doesn't specify that he must drop the ball himself or that he must be right there to observe the event to use his psychic power, or anything like that. The hypothesis is stated, and it's proven, and it can be repeatedly proven again and again.

That's my idea of how one should prove astrology as anything valid. And another dumb person who comes along but does exactly all the steps necessary and can repeat and reproduce the same results. Then we know that there is really truth behind astrology.

Otherwise it's difficult to know if the experimenter used psychic power to make the results happen. Or if it was luck, or if it was by bribing someone. When it's repeatable, that removes all the doubts. Because for anyone who has doubts, he or she can simply repeat the test, and he or she can find out and rediscover the truth for himself or herself.

As a kid, I didn't take the words from Galileo. I tried to repeat the test to show it to myself that Yes, Galileo was right. The hypothesis stands up through the test of time. Different eras, different people, they will always get the same results. Such we all can contribute and increase the total body of human knowledge.

Sorry, but I think the Aliens have got to you!

 

[astro_novice]

Sorry, but I think the Aliens have got to you!

That's always a possibility, .

I have Uranus in my 9th house. So I always question anything in religion, science, astrology, and I just won't think the same way and simply take the words from anyone.

So forgive my rudeness here as an astro_novice, but that's just how I am for 9th house affairs.

To prove anything, anybody can be wrong, but likewise, anybody can be right as well. If one has ANY prejudice or preconceived notions, he or she cannot reach the real truth. I always try to be as open-minded as possible. Nothing is impossible, but on the other hand, everything should be examined to the utmost details.

 

[waybread]

Replying to OP and others, I do believe that if there is any truth or knowledge in astrology, it can DEFINITELY be proven. One just needs to ask the right question.

I came from a background of engineering and science and I am a professional in engineering. I thought about raising some money via crowdfunding website to prove some validity in astrology. It's all about formulating some provable hypothesis. For example, one can scientifically prove whether any human is prone to feel emotionally worse under Saturn opposing natal Moon transit, if some methodical measurement or questionnaires defines what's emotionally worse and grades on whats feeling good or bad. Or one can scientifically prove whether it's statistically significant that a human will get luckier under Uranus trine natal Jupiter transit, and again define and measure luck by some methodical questionnaires or even net worth.

We all know that these are many different astrological outcomes for a particular transit, but as long as you can prove that it's statistically significant for certain effects to happen, versus the null hypothesis, that already shows the validity of astrology. Furthermore, as astrologers, you can refine the hypothesis and screen out other conflicting transit effects to produce better results.

If something is repeatedly true, then it can be shown scientifically that it's true. The bigger issues is that most scientists don't understand astrology, and most astrologers don't understand science. But I wholeheartedly believe that some astrological statements can be proven true scientifically.

Also I think because sometimes astrologers gets carried away and make some bold statements beyond what astrology can provide, especially due to the limited language and symbolism in astrology, such failures of predictions or statements add to mistrust from the general public.

As someone said in this thread that Pluto now is into Aquarius, it could help this cause of "Fixing astrology".

Just don't know who can be crazy enough to undertake and prove a few things in astrology. But almost certainly, he or she won't be the traditional scientists who view astrology as taboo.

I applaud your optimism and willingness to apply statistical methods. I'd be curious to learn which ones you think would be most beneficial. My statistics background is pretty meagre: long ago and far away. But I rubbed shoulders with colleagues who did a lot of quantitative research.

One thing they had to address up front was how they eliminated bias in their research design and how they defined their terms. For example, how does one define "prone to feel emotionally worse"?

Another thing is that you can get a result that is statistically significant: let's say it explains 75% of a correlation. How does one explain the remaining 25% of cases that are not explained by that statistical test?

Some social scientists do see their work as scientific, but many these days prefer more qualitative methods. There are no social science "laws," such as one would find in physics. Theories abound, more or less robust, and these are often historically and culturally contingent.

I would be very interested in a quantitative analysis that addressed the complexity of both human beings and the horoscope.

 

[waybread]

It's possible to measure a subjective experience and define what's emotionally worse. Assuming that a person answers the questionnaire honestly, you let him or her answer the same questions everyday or every week. You can remove the "moving average value" from daily experience. And you can add redundant questions to detect the truthfulness of the answers. If you have this data from someone, you can then plot out a curve of his or her personal emotional wellness.

Then you cross check with astrology transits and test certain astrological hypothesis.

Or you can collect the birthdays with people who have episodes of depression and go to see therapists or counselors. Armed with dates of birthdays and consultation dates, you can test the predictive power of Saturn opposing Moon transits. Without birth time, you have a wide window of 13 degrees out of 360 degrees. Including other aspects of square and conjunction, that will you a total of 52 degrees out of 360 degrees. You can generate N numbers of wrong birthdays with a random value of day offset from actual birthday associated with each consultation date, and evaluate the predictive power of Saturn adverse transits on natal Moon. If anyone randomly takes X picks from N birthdays, the chance of including the actual birthday is X divided by N. If astrology has any predictive power, then it should show a consistently and statistically higher chance of including the actual birthday, simply by calculating all birthdays and see if the psychological consultation date falls within the dates of Saturn adverse transits for each birthday.

If the chance of random guess after normalizing by X ( meaning divided by X per sample) is 1/N, and astrological predictions produce 3/N on the average, then you would have just proven that it's statistically significant (whether by correlation or by causation) that Saturn adverse transits have some effects on human emotional well-being. For obviously reasons, nothing in the current science can produce any guesses that are better than 1/N. Any results that are better than 1/N but can be shown that it's statistically almost impossible that astrological results are better due to small numbers of samples will be a valid scientific result.

For every different astrological transit, you can scientifically "measure" and scientifically prove it. The experiment needs to be designed such that it can measure what it needs to measure whether the person is Bill Gates or Donald Trump or a homeless person for their personal subjective life experience. The samples taken from population are preferred to be random without any bias of social status, etc.

If any of the statements from astrology are true, then they can each be proven scientifically.

It is totally doable and that's how all modern drug or medicine tests are done. If you plot out personal "happiness" as a curve, and if astrology is if any values, this curve absolutely needs to take a dive when you have Saturn transit opposing natal Moon.

That is just my personal opinion. If it's proven, it doesn't justify any other astrological transits, but at least, you would have shown some "new" knowledge beyond the current body of scientific knowledge.

I can see you've thought a lot about this, which is great. I actually have a social science background, which is why I'm picking up on your intriguing posts.

The problem gets more complex when we consider that professional astrologers need not only birth dates, but birth times and locations. Without them, we don't have astrological houses, and the moon moves 12 degrees in a 24-hour period. It changes sign every 3rd day. The psychology clients themselves would have to release their information, not the psychologists, whose records are confidential.

Orb would be critical. If it is too wide, or if too many aspects qualify as a "hard" aspect (for example,) one ends up with a lot of real estate around the horoscope.

Then what about the people born within the select parameters, who don't experience depression or emotional hardship?

Vedic, modern, and western astrology are similar, but actually different systems. Sidereal or tropical zodiac, for example?

 

[astro_novice]

I can see you've thought a lot about this, which is great. I actually have a social science background, which is why I'm picking up on your intriguing posts.

The problem gets more complex when we consider that professional astrologers need not only birth dates, but birth times and locations. Without them, we don't have astrological houses, and the moon moves 12 degrees in a 24-hour period. It changes sign every 3rd day. The psychology clients themselves would have to release their information, not the psychologists, whose records are confidential.

Orb would be critical. If it is too wide, or if too many aspects qualify as a "hard" aspect (for example,) one ends up with a lot of real estate around the horoscope.

Then what about the people born within the select parameters, who don't experience depression or emotional hardship?

Vedic, modern, and western astrology are similar, but actually different systems. Sidereal or tropical zodiac, for example?

I understand that accurate birth time and location is needed for astrology. And I understand the orb, etc. I think in general the birth date and location can be accurate. I am not sure about the accuracy of birth time and it's availability.

So it's best to test something that is not related to the House. Moon moves fast, and obviously tests involve Sun position is far better than Moon for that reason. But one needs to also consider what hypothesis is the easiest to test.

One needs not to be concerned about explaining everything or the other 25%. ANY results that shows without any doubts that it is beyond pure chance is already significant and good enough.

If someone tells you that instead of 1/6 of chance of throwing a six from a dice, he can refuse to throw a dice 30% of time (due to difficulty in predicting from astrology), but for the other 70% of the time, he can throw a six at a probability of 1 out 4 instead of 1 out of 6 tries. That will an astounding result. No scientist on Earth can beat the pure random chance. Furthermore, one can show that the predictive power is consistent, meaning that it wasn't due to pure luck event of getting more predictions correctly just because you only tries it 5 times in 5 samples. When the sample size is big enough, the positive result due to simple pure luck can be reduced indefinite by keeping increasing the sample sizes.

The only reason that I brought up Saturn opposing Moon is that based on talking to people, this event may remain in people's memory with higher accuracy. Few people remember their life with good accuracy. Yes, they may have got lucky but they don't remember or notice. Or they may be defeated by a Saturn opposing Sun transit, but they may not recall it many years later. So to prove anything, we need accurate birth information and also accurate life information. And the life information needs to be objectively quantified and also removing some of the subjective (natal) bias. Then we can do actual studies.

What I am proposing is not undoable. And if there is any truth in astrology, it will for sure be revealed by any stringent scientific tests. Truth is always there. You just need to reveal it.

 

[waybread]

It's possible to measure a subjective experience and define what's emotionally worse. Assuming that a person answers the questionnaire honestly, you let him or her answer the same questions everyday or every week. You can remove the "moving average value" from daily experience. And you can add redundant questions to detect the truthfulness of the answers. If you have this data from someone, you can then plot out a curve of his or her personal emotional wellness.

Then you cross check with astrology transits and test certain astrological hypothesis.

Or you can collect the birthdays with people who have episodes of depression and go to see therapists or counselors. Armed with dates of birthdays and consultation dates, you can test the predictive power of Saturn opposing Moon transits. Without birth time, you have a wide window of 13 degrees out of 360 degrees. Including other aspects of square and conjunction, that will you a total of 52 degrees out of 360 degrees. You can generate N numbers of wrong birthdays with a random value of day offset from actual birthday associated with each consultation date, and evaluate the predictive power of Saturn adverse transits on natal Moon. If anyone randomly takes X picks from N birthdays, the chance of including the actual birthday is X divided by N. If astrology has any predictive power, then it should show a consistently and statistically higher chance of including the actual birthday, simply by calculating all birthdays and see if the psychological consultation date falls within the dates of Saturn adverse transits for each birthday.

If the chance of random guess after normalizing by X ( meaning divided by X per sample) is 1/N, and astrological predictions produce 3/N on the average, then you would have just proven that it's statistically significant (whether by correlation or by causation) that Saturn adverse transits have some effects on human emotional well-being. For obviously reasons, nothing in the current science can produce any guesses that are better than 1/N. Any results that are better than 1/N but can be shown that it's statistically almost impossible that astrological results are better due to small numbers of samples will be a valid scientific result.

For every different astrological transit, you can scientifically "measure" and scientifically prove it. The experiment needs to be designed such that it can measure what it needs to measure whether the person is Bill Gates or Donald Trump or a homeless person for their personal subjective life experience. The samples taken from population are preferred to be random without any bias of social status, etc.

If any of the statements from astrology are true, then they can each be proven scientifically.

It is totally doable and that's how all modern drug or medicine tests are done. If you plot out personal "happiness" as a curve, and if astrology is if any values, this curve absolutely needs to take a dive when you have Saturn transit opposing natal Moon.

That is just my personal opinion. If it's proven, it doesn't justify any other astrological transits, but at least, you would have shown some "new" knowledge beyond the current body of scientific knowledge.

I think what is needed is a team of researchers: top-drawer professional astrologers, social scientists who know their way around statistics and survey research, a clinical psychologist, and possibly an astronomer.

The horoscope is so complex, that a hard Saturn transit might be mitigated by a simultaneous beneficial Jupiter transit. Then transiting Saturn can go retrograde and direct a couple of times over the same horoscope degree. That's a much tougher proposition than a straightforward quick transit.

In my experience mental health problems are often (but not always) related to hard aspects with the natal moon (hence "lunacy") especially moon conjunct Uranus. If we consider moon transits, 12 degrees of motion per day is huge, notably when it changes sign somewhere in the midst of every third day.

With over 8 billion people on the planet, what would be the population sample -- and what size would that sample be? Although statistical methods themselves generally specify a minimum sample size, who gets sampled? Some cultures train their members to be stoic. Expressing sadness or depression is culturally discouraged, even when keenly felt, because it is like admitting to a character flaw. Would Macho Guys respond differently than emotionally expressive women?

The population of people in therapy with a psychologist would be small indeed, and then generally their condition is chronic. Psychologists are often booked up, and then even a client being treated for depression may have additional conditions.

The best one could do would be to say that the results are confined to the sample studied. They may be suggestive, but not conclusive.

I'm not saying a statistical analysis would never work, but it would have to be massive, multivariate and very, very carefully thought out.

 

[waybread]

I understand that accurate birth time and location is needed for astrology. And I understand the orb, etc. I think in general the birth date and location can be accurate. I am not sure about the accuracy of birth time and it's availability.

So it's best to test something that is not related to the House. Moon moves fast, and obviously tests involve Sun position is far better than Moon for that reason. But one needs to also consider what hypothesis is the easiest to test.

One needs not to be concerned about explaining everything or the other 25%. ANY results that shows without any doubts that it is beyond pure chance is already significant and good enough.

If someone tells you that instead of 1/6 of chance of throwing a six from a dice, he can refuse to throw a dice 30% of time (due to difficulty in predicting from astrology), but for the other 70% of the time, he can throw a six at a probability of 1 out 4 instead of 1 out of 6 tries. That will an astounding result. No scientist on Earth can beat the pure random chance. Furthermore, one can show that the predictive power is consistent, meaning that it wasn't due to pure luck event of getting more predictions correctly just because you only tries it 5 times in 5 samples. When the sample size is big enough, the positive result due to simple pure luck can be reduced indefinite by keeping increasing the sample sizes.

The only reason that I brought up Saturn opposing Moon is that based on talking to people, this event may remain in people's memory with higher accuracy. Few people remember their life with good accuracy. Yes, they may have got lucky but they don't remember or notice. Or they may be defeated by a Saturn opposing Sun transit, but they may not recall it many years later. So to prove anything, we need accurate birth information and also accurate life information. And the life information needs to be objectively quantified and also removing some of the subjective (natal) bias. Then we can do actual studies.

What I am proposing is not undoable. And if there is any truth in astrology, it will for sure be revealed by any stringent scientific tests. Truth is always there. You just need to reveal it.

The availability of an accurate birth time would be critical IMO. That in itself should affect who's in or out of the study sample. Not just because of the moon, although it's an obvious problem, but because we expect planets to behave differently in different houses. (And then, which house system?)

Who's the control group?

Falling back on the sun is the source of a lot of trouble with quick & dirty studies that show no significant correlations. Because the sun in the horoscope has specific meanings that may or may not be appropriate for the research question being asked.

Also, aspects. suppose we look at Saturn transits to natal Mercury. Key words are "negative" ( Saturn) thinking (Mercury.) But then Mercury isn't just sitting there by its lonesome. Suppose Mercury has a nice exact trine to Jupiter. Transiting Saturn hits Mercury, but equally activates the Jupiter trine. Instead of turning into Mr. Grumpypants, the native becomes stoically (Saturn) philosophical (Jupiter.)

Your dice question is enticing, but it doesn't get at the complexity of the horoscope. Any statistical tests would need to be robust in complex systems.

As a comparable, consider an engineer who is asked to design a highway bridge over a river. Great! But it's not so simple. The engineer needs to know something about minimum and maximum water volumes, the character of the substrate, plus any upstream issues, such as an old earthen dam or housing development likely to increase run-off and sediment. What type of traffic volume does the bridge have to withstand? In winter is road salt likely to be a corrosive problem in years to come? What's the budget like? Oh, and here comes the local rod and gun club, concerned about construction impacts on fish habitat.

A horoscope is kind of like that, but with relevant variables multiplied many times.

I'm not opposed to well-thought out and pre-tested survey research.

But probably you're aware of all of the statistical tests on astrology that have foundered, or that looked good initially but didn't stand up to subsequent scrutiny.

See: Suitbert Ertel, National Center for Geocosmic Research, International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR,) and the journal Correlation.

 

[waybread]

I understand that accurate birth time and location is needed for astrology. And I understand the orb, etc. I think in general the birth date and location can be accurate. I am not sure about the accuracy of birth time and it's availability.

So it's best to test something that is not related to the House. Moon moves fast, and obviously tests involve Sun position is far better than Moon for that reason. But one needs to also consider what hypothesis is the easiest to test.

One needs not to be concerned about explaining everything or the other 25%. ANY results that shows without any doubts that it is beyond pure chance is already significant and good enough.

If someone tells you that instead of 1/6 of chance of throwing a six from a dice, he can refuse to throw a dice 30% of time (due to difficulty in predicting from astrology), but for the other 70% of the time, he can throw a six at a probability of 1 out 4 instead of 1 out of 6 tries. That will an astounding result. No scientist on Earth can beat the pure random chance. Furthermore, one can show that the predictive power is consistent, meaning that it wasn't due to pure luck event of getting more predictions correctly just because you only tries it 5 times in 5 samples. When the sample size is big enough, the positive result due to simple pure luck can be reduced indefinite by keeping increasing the sample sizes.

The only reason that I brought up Saturn opposing Moon is that based on talking to people, this event may remain in people's memory with higher accuracy. Few people remember their life with good accuracy. Yes, they may have got lucky but they don't remember or notice. Or they may be defeated by a Saturn opposing Sun transit, but they may not recall it many years later. So to prove anything, we need accurate birth information and also accurate life information. And the life information needs to be objectively quantified and also removing some of the subjective (natal) bias. Then we can do actual studies.

What I am proposing is not undoable. And if there is any truth in astrology, it will for sure be revealed by any stringent scientific tests. Truth is always there. You just need to reveal it.

Just one last point, Astro Novice about the 75% correlation and 25% no-correlation problem. Suppose the test is for Saturn + moon =sadness, gloomy thoughts.75%??? Wow! There's a negligible probability that this is due to chance alone.

But not so fast.

Astrology to me is one of the "helping professions." Suppose someone asks for a chart reading, saying he's been feeling down in the dumps and unworthy lately. I look at the chart and see that, natally or by transit, there's no real moon-Saturn connection. Alternatively, I suggest in a general chart reading that the native with Saturn opposite moon is prone to bouts of depression. She comes back with "Nope. Not me."

Astrologers have to speak to that 25% also. I will sometimes say, "People with your moon-Saturn conjunction are prone to depression. " I would never say, "You suffer from depression," because he might be part of that 25%. I'm going to scan the chart for other clues.

BTW, I hope this doesn't all seem like a thread hijack HMcArthur. For your theses to gain traction, we have to look at their competition.

 

[astro_novice]

I think what is needed is a team of researchers: top-drawer professional astrologers, social scientists who know their way around statistics and survey research, a clinical psychologist, and possibly an astronomer.

The horoscope is so complex, that a hard Saturn transit might be mitigated by a simultaneous beneficial Jupiter transit. Then transiting Saturn can go retrograde and direct a couple of times over the same horoscope degree. That's a much tougher proposition than a straightforward quick transit.

In my experience mental health problems are often (but not always) related to hard aspects with the natal moon (hence "lunacy") especially moon conjunct Uranus. If we consider moon transits, 12 degrees of motion per day is huge, notably when it changes sign somewhere in the midst of every third day.

With over 8 billion people on the planet, what would be the population sample -- and what size would that sample be? Although statistical methods themselves generally specify a minimum sample size, who gets sampled? Some cultures train their members to be stoic. Expressing sadness or depression is culturally discouraged, even when keenly felt, because it is like admitting to a character flaw. Would Macho Guys respond differently than emotionally expressive women?

The population of people in therapy with a psychologist would be small indeed, and then generally their condition is chronic. Psychologists are often booked up, and then even a client being treated for depression may have additional conditions.

The best one could do would be to say that the results are confined to the sample studied. They may be suggestive, but not conclusive.

I'm not saying a statistical analysis would never work, but it would have to be massive, multivariate and very, very carefully thought out.

Many scientific publications have far less number of samples than you mentioned above. The sample size is NOT to be a significant percentage of the 8 billion people. It just needs to be big enough to be able to say that the significance wasn't due to chance of 1 in 10000 for example. Let's say you propose to throw a coin, and your hypothesis is that on Dec 1st at certain location, you can throw 10 heads in a row. And you proved that you are right. People will challenge you that by pure luck, one out of 1024, you can achieve that. So then you can expand your sample sizes and/or repeat the experiments. When you (or somebody else) can repeat the same experiment once more, then by pure chance, you together with two tries would have reduce such pure luck event to 1 out of about 1 million.

My point is that you just don't need a lot of samples. Maybe a few thousands, but not in millions.

And what you described about having Jupiter transits at the same time with Saturn transits, etc, they can all be taken care by computer software. If you can see my signature at this forum, I made a website to calculate Saturn transit for 90 years for one degree orb. There is nothing that cannot be done by software. If an astrologer like you can describe in words, I can code it. I have written codes since I was in sixth grade. I believe pretty much anything quantitatively that you can describe in words for any astrological transits and combination, I should be able to code it and automated it. That way nobody needs to read any natal charts nor calculate any transits. It can all be done in software. Just need the time to code.

I understand the complexity of a human being and on top of that, there is complexity of human life. I understand what you describe about patients. It may not be very straightforward. The whole thing is not easy obviously, but if it was easy, somebody would have done it already. But I think it's doable. And I am not looking for 10 out of 10 bull's eyes hit. Anything that is above random chance is very good already. For better predictions, you obviously need better data, and samples. But all that can come later and gradually get refined.

I took down my website now. My forum signature points to the backup that I saved at Internet Archive. I used to charge about $1 for the automated readings. But I couldn't get enough traffics and business to pay for itself. Everything was automated including the payment. It could calculate your lucky and unlucky times, using one degree of orb, and give you the time periods for 90 years from your birth. My point is that whatever conditions you can state, I should be able to code it out.

Statistics is the one class that I didn't take. But I believe that I should be able to pick it up, or just go and take that class. Hopefully, you don't need another person. Hopefully I can pick up the materials and calculate all the confidence levels of whatever hypothesis is to being put forward for testing.

But, assuming that I can find the time. Regardless, I am super productive as a person. In my spare time outside of my busy job, I have done quite a lot including that website betterluck4you.com. So maybe it's not a problem.

 

[astro_novice]

Just one last point, Astro Novice about the 75% correlation and 25% no-correlation problem. Suppose the test is for Saturn + moon =sadness, gloomy thoughts.75%??? Wow! There's a negligible probability that this is due to chance alone.

But not so fast.

Astrology to me is one of the "helping professions." Suppose someone asks for a chart reading, saying he's been feeling down in the dumps and unworthy lately. I look at the chart and see that, natally or by transit, there's no real moon-Saturn connection. Alternatively, I suggest in a general chart reading that the native with Saturn opposite moon is prone to bouts of depression. She comes back with "Nope. Not me."

Astrologers have to speak to that 25% also. I will sometimes say, "People with your moon-Saturn conjunction are prone to depression. " I would never say, "You suffer from depression," because he might be part of that 25%. I'm going to scan the chart for other clues.

BTW, I hope this doesn't all seem like a thread hijack HMcArthur. For your theses to gain traction, we have to look at their competition.

I totally understand what you are talking about that 25%, and "helping profession". In fact, I am forever grateful for the conversation that you had with me from many years ago, if you remember me. I just hate to let you down that after the last seemingly enlightening realization that I had by conversing with you, I still got dissolved by Neptune opposing my Sun/Mars, and destroyed my ego and identity. But I am still grateful to you for your help and wise words.

Going back to the thread, thr astrological hypothesis will probably fail for those 25% or whatever percentage. But as long as it can perform above random chance on the other 75%, that's all that is needed to say that Hey, this is something here indeed that cannot be explained by pure chance nor any current science. And such above predictions is solely from astrology. Then you can validate astrology for this particular statement, and hopefully there will be more to come with increased interest, funding, and resources to validate other hypotheses.

 

[waybread]

Thanks so much for your kind words.

I think we agree on sample size. One couldn't possibly test 8 billion people. So we take a smaller sample, and run our scientific method on them. But then the researcher has to specify how the sample was selected (stratified? random, "snowball"? ) and generally has to acknowledge that the results may not apply beyond the population sampled -- or beyond the sample itself.

This becomes critical once we recognize the lack of homogeneity in human populations.

In the social sciences a common research problem would be to draw upon a promising conclusion for population sample "A" and then to see if it works equally well for population sample "B." One methodology appropriate for Old White Men, for example, may not be productive for Young Black Women.

We also pay attention to those data point outliers in previous studies, because they may lead to more accurate interpretations in the future.

In the Saturn example, sadness and gloomy feelings are probably widespread human emotions. But some cultures teach their youth, notably boys, not to express sadness, but to toughen up and suppress their emotions. As kids internalize this socialization, it may well affect how they respond to a questionnaire.

To recap: I'm not saying that statistical tests of astrology's truth claims are a bad idea. Just that the problem is a lot more complex than is understood by non-astrologer researchers and astrologers without statistical backgrounds.

 

[Ecliptique]

Je pense qu'avant de se prêter à des tests de validation de la pratique astrologique, tout astrologue devra imposer son choix des données à étudier (pour des raisons de précision) en accord avec le groupe de scientifiques puis proposera des interprétations vérifiables dans le futur suivant les techniques qu'il utilise.

Ecliptique.

 

[Cap]

So it's my opinion that for astrology to be recognized and validated by more people, it needs to be put to strict scientific and repeatable tests. You test it a thousand times, and the statement is always held true. Then we know that it's true. Like any other physical phenomenon, we know a day on Earth is about 24 hours and a year is about 365 days. We can put astrology to tests as well. If it's true, it will hold up every time (or at least statistically speaking).

Except astrology is not a physical phenomenon. Current scientific understanding uses materialism (matter is fundamental reality) and more recently physicalism (everything can be explained by physical processes) as their philosophical background. Using these philosophies as a starting point of their understanding of reality, it will be impossible for them to understand astrology.

So forming the correct hypothesis is one of the most important steps. Then once it's stated clearly without any possible ambiguities or confusion, one can proceed to either prove or disprove it. The end result is only true or false. If it's true, it can always be repeated. Just like Galileo dropping two balls and both balls fell to ground at the same time. It's always repeatable. It was not due to Galileo's psychic power. Another person that comes along and repeats the same test will still get the same results. The original hypothesis from Galileo doesn't specify that he must drop the ball himself or that he must be right there to observe the event to use his psychic power, or anything like that. The hypothesis is stated, and it's proven, and it can be repeatedly proven again and again.

That's my idea of how one should prove astrology as anything valid. And another dumb person who comes along but does exactly all the steps necessary and can repeat and reproduce the same results. Then we know that there is really truth behind astrology.

As I posted earlier in the thread, this attempt "to do astrology without an astrologer" is doomed to fail. Astrology cannot be reduced to simple "when A aspects B that always means C" and is infinitely more complex than dropping two balls from a tower. Astrology is a symbolic language that uses only 10 planets and 12 signs/houses to describe everything that is, so naturally every planet and house have multiple meanings. But to decipher which meaning out of hundreds possible meanings is appropriate to use in a given situation requires an interpreter (astrologer). It is not just a matter of context but also the whole chart as a totality gives clues. And every chart is different because life never repeats itself exactly the same. To deal with this humans are equipped with intuition. Intuition is regarded as "super intelligence" in recent scientific studies and is far more powerful than any AI or computing ability of machines. But then, under a materialistic paradigm. the exact workings of intuition will hardly be understood.

 

[Opal]

That's the problem with modern astrology in general, namely its focus on psychology. "Emotional issues" are highly subjective; if one wants to prove that a person is feeling emotionally worse, there's no way to do it other than taking their word for it. This cannot be considered as a scientific approach.

The only way to prove astrology works is by accurately predicting future events or outcomes of events.

Throughout history, astrology has been about predicting such events and outcomes. Any medieval court astrologer who approached the king with the words, "Sire, in the next period you will experience some emotional problems," would likely lose his job or face worse consequences. What the king wanted to know was: "Will I win the war?", "Will I have an heir to the throne?", "If I do this, will my treasury increase?", "Will I recover from my illness?" - all practical event-based questions with easily verifiable outcomes.

Yes, agreed, but I have to add the most common question that Lilly asked and was asked “Will I get laid?”.

 

[Cap]

Yes, agreed, but I have to add the most common question that Lilly asked and was asked “Will I get laid?”.

But that is also practical event-based question.

I guess, he figured if given positive answer that would automatically make him happy, so no need to inquire about "emotional issues".

 

[astro_novice]

...

As I posted earlier in the thread, this attempt "to do astrology without an astrologer" is doomed to fail. Astrology cannot be reduced to simple "when A aspects B that always means C" and is infinitely more complex than dropping two balls from a tower. Astrology is a symbolic language that uses only 10 planets and 12 signs/houses to describe everything that is, so naturally every planet and house have multiple meanings. But to decipher which meaning out of hundreds possible meanings is appropriate to use in a given situation requires an interpreter (astrologer). It is not just a matter of context but also the whole chart as a totality gives clues. And every chart is different because life never repeats itself exactly the same. To deal with this humans are equipped with intuition.

This is just my opinion. Astrology is something that can be observed. If it can be observed, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be quantified (no matter how crude the quantification process is). If it can be quantified, it can be studied systematically. If it can be studied, then some conclusion or formula can be drawn.

And thus I believe that it's possible to one day somehow conclude that the Saturn opposing Moon transits will tend to bring a gloomy mood and depression. And Saturn opposing Sun transit will tend to bring defeat or failure to a person.

If scientists stopped doing any work because human body is too complicated, and all different interactions between organ and system are too difficult to separate from each other, we wouldn't have what we have for modern medicine.

If we stop any inquiries by the complexity of human mind, then there is no future in this field. We ARE the scientists of human mind and psyche in a way. Yes, I totally understand all the complexity and difficulties of capturing the effect of a single transit, or something in a natal chart because no astrologers will look at one thing in isolation. But you would stop right there? Galileo lost his life over telling the truth, but that didn't stop him. A lot of science in the beginning is heresy, but if it true, and can be tested repeatedly as true, one day eventually it will be brought to light by discovery or rediscovery even if astrology becomes a lost art at some point in time.

My only question is that if astrology can stand up to the most rigorous tests. I will "bring all sorts of fires to test the gold". If it's truly gold, it will shine thru the tests. There is a Chinese proverb: "true gold isn't afraid of the testing by fire". I feel like there is some gold in astrology. If I have the resources, I would put it through scientific tests and reveal the golden truth.

 

[Monk]

This brings up the issue of precession, which we've already discussed here at some length.
The upshot of the deal is that the Tropical Zodiac, which almost everyone in the West uses, is in fact in motion. It is moving backwards (precessing, ie preceding itself) relative to the fixed stars about 50.2" (minutes) of arc every year. Because of that, everything in the heavens appears to move forward in the Zodiac about one degree in slightly less than 72 years; every single fixed star included.
This is due to the tropical Zodiac moving. The proper motion of the fixed stars is negligible in relation to human time.
Any astrologer using a Sidereal Zodiac (East or West, regardless of the Ayanāṃśa or fiduciary they are using) is not troubled by this issue. Since the Sidereal Zodiac is not moving, their fixed stars stay fixed.

Hi FraterAC
Sadly you didn't understand me, what you mention isn't the topic i was going to bring up.
My avatar on Skyscript astrology forum is Archaeostronomer, and what i wrote about this is below:-

As most know with Precession a star moves one degree every 72 years, so how can you have the same Heliacal rising star for 5,385 years?

Actually you can up to 9,300 BC.

Please debate and then i will explain, it does seem impossible, but is possible.

Look below on Starlight between 20 July 3805 BC
and 20 July 1581 AD and Sirius was the heliacal rising star in Rome, it only stopped then because the next year the Gregorian Calendar was established.

https://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/ ... 51f8c2.png
https://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/ ... 51f871.png
You would think my program was wrong but there is an answer
Look how much Regulus moves, but Sirus always rises with the Sun
The heading was "Could you have the same heliacal rising star for 5,385 years?"
Sirius isn't the only star to do this, but it is the brightest which makes it special, and it is this reason that it was used as a calendar star, but it only works with the Julian Calendar.

I'm pasting the quote needed below:-

"Mechanics

The ancient Egyptian civil year, its holidays, and religious records reflect its apparent establishment at a point when the return of the bright star Sirius to the night sky was considered to herald the annual flooding of the Nile.[2] However, because the civil calendar was exactly 365 days long and did not incorporate leap years until 22 BCE, its months "wandered" backwards through the solar year at the rate of about one day in every four years. This almost exactly corresponded to its displacement against the Sothic year as well. (The Sothic year is about a minute longer than a Julian year.)[2] The sidereal year of 365.25636 days is only valid for stars on the ecliptic (the apparent path of the Sun across the sky) and having no proper motion, whereas Sirius's displacement ~40° below the ecliptic, its proper motion, and the wobbling of the celestial equator cause the period between its heliacal risings to be almost exactly 365.25 days long instead. This steady loss of one relative day every four years over the course of the 365-day calendar meant that the "wandering" day would return to its original place relative to the solar and Sothic year after precisely 1461 Egyptian civil years or 1460 Julian years.[1] "

The error in the Julian Calendar are three leap days every 4 hundred years which is also applied to Sirius!

Sothic cycle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle#Mechanics
I will continue further when i see that all links work.

 

[Cap]

...


This is just my opinion. Astrology is something that can be observed. If it can be observed, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be quantified (no matter how crude the quantification process is). If it can be quantified, it can be studied systematically. If it can be studied, then some conclusion or formula can be drawn.

And thus I believe that it's possible to one day somehow conclude that the Saturn opposing Moon transits will tend to bring a gloomy mood and depression. And Saturn opposing Sun transit will tend to bring defeat or failure to a person.

If scientists stopped doing any work because human body is too complicated, and all different interactions between organ and system are too difficult to separate from each other, we wouldn't have what we have for modern medicine.

If we stop any inquiries by the complexity of human mind, then there is no future in this field. We ARE the scientists of human mind and psyche in a way. Yes, I totally understand all the complexity and difficulties of capturing the effect of a single transit, or something in a natal chart because no astrologers will look at one thing in isolation. But you would stop right there? Galileo lost his life over telling the truth, but that didn't stop him. A lot of science in the beginning is heresy, but if it true, and can be tested repeatedly as true, one day eventually it will be brought to light by discovery or rediscovery even if astrology becomes a lost art at some point in time.

My only question is that if astrology can stand up to the most rigorous tests. I will "bring all sorts of fires to test the gold". If it's truly gold, it will shine thru the tests. There is a Chinese proverb: "true gold isn't afraid of the testing by fire". I feel like there is some gold in astrology. If I have the resources, I would put it through scientific tests and reveal the golden truth.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and by all means continue with your research. My skepticism about scientific acceptance of astrology is simply based on a current scientific understanding of things (or lack of it), namely on its physicalist approach.

To quote IMO the greatest scientist of all time:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence”

Nikola Tesla

 

[Monk]

I know i'm speculating, but were some modern signs like Scorpio (scorpion) shown at Gobekli Tepe?
https://amaiccreation.blogspot.com/2019/07/zodiac-depicted-at-gobekli-tepe.html

[1307.8397] Sirius and the project of the megalithic enclosures at Gobekli Tepe