This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 4, Issue 3, from 1990.
The ancient Babylonians believed that the positions of the stars and planets could exert an influence on human behaviour and so, it appears, does twentieth century man. Many people regularly consult their daily newspaper horoscope whilst ‘professional’ astrologers compile charts for film stars, politicians and business concerns. In this two-part article, physicist Anthony Garrett answers some basic questions about astrology and describes a recent meeting at which a professional astrologer confronted professional astronomers.
What is astrology?
What is commonly called astrology divides into two: prediction of personality of an individual from the positions of the stars at birth; and prediction of events likely to befall an individual, given that person’s birthday and the present disposition of the heavens. The second of these is the popular type commonly used in newspaper ‘horoscopes’. Few serious practitioners of the first kind regard it as reliable. Nevertheless it is the type which most people encounter on a day-to-day basis.
Invariably the statements found in popular astrology columns are so broad as to fit – or to be made to fit – almost any recent or subsequent event. Examples, pulled at random from a popular newspaper on the day of writing, include ‘A well-intentioned friend will want to take you on one side and whisper some wise words in your ear’, ‘After the last few days you deserve a well-earned break’ and ‘Just for once forget your aspirations and start enjoying your life’.
The more serious birth-chart side of it suffers from the same problem. Look at this personality sketch:
‘Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept others’ opinions without satisfactory proof. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety, and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. Your sexual adjustment has presented some problems for you. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to admire you.’
I expect that this fits you well. It came from a standard horoscope and was used by Bertram Forer in 1948 in a demonstration of astrological susceptibility. Forer’s subjects were individually told that the sketch was custom-made for them, and were asked to rate it for accuracy on a 0-5 scale. 16 out of 39 gave it a perfect 5, the mean was 4.26, and only five rated it below 4. Thirty years later the same profile produced almost identical results. This typical example of how most people view themselves, together with the crucial but subtle fact that we notice coincidences but ignore non -coincidences, accounts for the popularity of astrology. Its predictive methods are not even consistent: one technique is incapable of assigning horoscopes to anyone born north of the Arctic Circle. (This hasn’t done Eskimos much harm.) Two other, popular systems – sidereal and tropical astrology – are based respectively on the constellation and sky sector in which the sun falls at the time of birth. They frequently lead to opposing predictions.
In personal consultations, the latitude of horoscopes like Forer ‘s can be combined with information gleaned from other sources. For example, it is likely that someone with a constriction about the base of the third finger of the left hand has been married and is presently unmarried (why is the ring off?), and face-to-face statements about’ traumas concerning one who was close to you’ could hardly fail to impress. Appearance gives more away than we generally realise. Then there is verbal fishing for information, a technique known to stage magicians as cold reading, which is quite extraordinarily convincing to somebody not in the know. Consultants may not even realise they are using this technique.
There exists no remotely plausible explanation of how astrology might work. While this does not rule it out – most effects are observed before they are explained – it provides strong corroboration. And before trying to construct a theory it is as well to be sure there is something to explain. Recently a ‘double-blind’ test of astrological predictions has been undertaken. A double-blind experiment is one in which the tester does not know in advance the’ correct’ result, and so cannot cue the subject in on it unconsciously. This protocol was essential, as unconscious cueing has proved responsible for spurious results in many fields in the past. Equally important was the involvement at every stage of some of America’s leading astrologers, so that there could be no cry of ‘foul’ after the event. The result (published in the leading scientific journal Nature, 5 December 1985, volume 318 pages 419-425) was decisive:
‘We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practised by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to ensure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology… despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by the advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the ‘minimum’ effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance (33%). Tested using double-blind methods, the astrologers’ predictions proved to be wrong. Their predicted connection between the positions of the planets and other astronomical objects at the time of birth and the personalities of test subjects did not exist. The experiment clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis.’
Some astrologers nevertheless defend astrology using the very weak correlations apparently found by Michel Gauquelin between certain physical attributes (such as sporting prowess) and the position of Mars at birth. But it would be surprising if there weren’t correlations between the positions of some planets and some professions, in view of the number of each; and this may be the true explanation. (This is not the same as testing against chance levels within any one profession.)
Even if Gauquelin’s correlations prove to be statistically significant, they are very selective and bear no resemblance to astrology, whose practitioners set great store by its validity for all. And a far more plausible explanation would be the effect of the weather in very early life-which is of course correlated with time of year. Moreover, the Nature result still shows that astrologers cannot do what they claim.
In 1975 a who’s who of 192 US scientists, including 19 Nobel laureates, signed a statement Objections to Astrology. Why did they feel it necessary? Is astrology not just harmless fun? The answer is no: astrology fools people, and is potentially dangerous. In one of the superpowers, the last President’s schedule – including summit meetings on whose outcome depends world stability – was drawn up with the input of astrology. A court case involved an astrologer who had advised against a needed operation for a child; the child died. Companies increasingly look at the birth charts of job applicants: you could be the loser. Once enough of an electorate believes in it, astrology will become part of political manifestos. Undoubtedly most astrologers are not dishonest, merely deluded; but the more astrology becomes part of the fabric of life, the more important will be the decisions taken at every level based on nonsense–to the detriment of everybody.
A Truly Astronomical Lunch
On Thursday, 1 March, a lunchtime forum on astrology was held under the aegis of Glasgow University Astronomical Society (GUAS). Originally two astrologers had agreed to attend, but one-a leading local practitioner-withdrew at short notice, pleading unforeseen pressure of work, and the forum was re-arranged such that the other, Jane Ridder-Patrick, gave a brief initial talk on astrology followed by a lengthy and lively question-and-answer session, concluded with summings-up from Ms Ridder-Patrick and Dr. Alec McKinnon, an astrophysicist at Glasgow University.
Ms Ridder-Patrick’s willingness to address a potentially hostile audience was greatly appreciated. Few of the audience will have been aware, though, that her colleague’s late withdrawal was part of a common pattern. It happens frequently at meetings of this sort, and while I know nothing in this case to suggest that withdrawal was due to inability to sustain the argument, it is plausible in general. Certainly this is a systematic effect, and has a systematic cause.
Ms Ridder-Patrick’ s address distinguished between ‘hard’ sciences like physics and chemistry, and ‘softer’ ones like psychology, sociology and arguably astrology. The major difference is the greater ability of ‘hard’ science to screen each effect out from others, and study it in isolation. However, the distinction is irrelevant as soon as a testable prediction is generated: whatever be the causes, the prediction can be tested, and confirmed or disconfirmed to whatever accuracy the experiment is capable of. Do astrological birth charts generate testable predictions? It was difficult to determine Ms Ridder-Patrick’s view, for this depends on what is meant by astrology, and getting a clear definition proved impossible. As discussed in the first section, however, leading American astrologers exhibit no such reticence: those nominated by the astrologically respected US National Council for Geocosmic Research, to advise in the joint astrologer-scientist test published in Nature were clear that astrology does generate testable predictions.
This test was important for two reasons: it was performed by scientists and astrologers cooperatively rather than antagonistically; and it was performed double-blind to prevent unconscious cueing by experimenters of subjects. No other test has combined these elements, and the outcome was clear: astrology performed at chance levels and was unable to sustain its predictions. I queried Ms Ridder-Patrick about this experiment She had heard of it, but had not read the write-up, despite professing great interest. (I know of no coherent field of knowledge in which a test of the foundations has been met with such silence by its practitioners. Nature is available in most public libraries.) Initially she expressed generalized doubts about the protocol, but when it was pointed out that this impugned the competence of the astrologers involved, she changed to a polite version of ‘no comment’.
There is more than one astrological system: Ms Ridder-Patrick referred several times to Hindu as well as to Western astrology but, as mentioned above, their predictions differ. Moreover, astrological predictions changed in the past when new planets were discovered. Rather than regard these as inconsistencies, Ms Ridder-Patrick suggested that as more Sun-orbiting bodies were discovered, their incorporation improved astrology. This highlights a difference between astrology and astronomy: the latter has mechanisms telling us how strong are the effects of one body on another. Astrology has none, and consequently every grain of dust in the asteroid belt might be as important as Mars or Jupiter. Moreover the inner workings of astronomy have been reversed in the past to actually find new planets: a situation inconceivable within astrology.
Ms Ridder-Patrick’s notion of astrology was concerned with helping people to come to terms with themselves. This worthwhile aim is shared by the psychotherapeutic community, and Ms Ridder-Patrick was quite at ease with the suggestion that a birthchart merely acted as a psychological focus for astrologer and client to tune in on. This being so, one wonders why a few lines on a piece of paper, constructed according to where a few planets once were, is such an effective focus. One also wonders at the therapeutic facility of astrologers, for while acute intuition is part of the make-up of a good psychotherapist, knowledge of the interplay between conscious and unconscious is another facet, in which many therapists-unlike astrologers-are systematically trained. With psychology an infant science having potential for abuse, it is disturbing that anyone can practice it through unregulated astrological means.
Most incredible was Ms Ridder-Patrick’s statement that she ‘didn’t believe in astrology’. This was later qualified by her assertions that ‘it doesn’t matter what people believe’. In the sense that, out of a given set of hypotheses competing to explain some observations, the extent to which the observations favour one hypothesis over another is irrespective of who believes it, it certainly doesn’t matter. (Truth is truth whether people believe it or not) But people holding different beliefs may allow them to modulate their preferences for one hypothesis over another (prejudice), and may also conceive of different hypotheses to start with. What we believe certainly does matter. I doubt that Ms Ridder-Patrick tells her fee-paying clients what she told us: that she doesn’t believe in astrology. In this statement and in her acceptance that birthcharts may be nothing more than psychological foci, she is very atypical, and it is important that others who meet this branch of astrology be aware of it.
Practitioners of astrology tend to be more intuitive, less analytical. Both facets are important to one’s make-up. And if one can inform the other, as did Carlson’s experiment, it cannot reasonably be ignored. Like GUAS, I am grateful to Jane Ridder-Patrick for airing her views before a sceptical audience in a forum which at all times remained good-natured. In view of the preceding facts, though, it is difficult to regard them as tenable.
The post From the archives: A skeptical look at astrology appeared first on The Skeptic.
From the archives in 1990, Anthony Garrett explores the then-popular trend of astrological charts and predictions
The post From the archives: A skeptical look at astrology appeared first on The Skeptic.