The wisdom hierarchy

by Sjoerd Visser

> Index <

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (Genesis 2:17).

The wisdom hierarchy

Top

When studying a subject you start with reading articles and books about that subject. The opinions of your parents and peers might be mistaken, so you might look for more knowledgeable persons to teach you. The best information should come from experts in the field. For this you could take a course or attend a school or university to get a more coherent picture of that particular field of knowledge. Depending on the art of a science, the kind of knowledge involved and the goal of that course, different arguments will be given as evidence for the information presented. A wisdom school based on some religious or philosophical tradition will provide different information and arguments than a secular State University interested in modern research. But both schools try to provide their students the best information as known to them to base their decisions on.

Because of limited time and resources we cannot study all fields of knowledge that thoroughly. We always have to choose which courses we want to attend and which ones we have to skip. But a definitive choice for one field of knowledge will seriously hamper our possibilities to understand other points of view, as we cannot become all-knowing omnivores in science. So most people will end as experts in one particular field of religion or science, but have little knowledge of other branches of knowledge. But we still have to deal with all kinds of information. We cannot simply regard the news only from our point of view, as this would lead to a potentially dangerous tunnel vision. So we have to rely on the information presented in popular mass media and books from trusted journalists and experts in the field.

In the article The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy, Jennifer Rowley referring to prior work of Awad and Ghaziri, differentiates between data, information, knowledge and wisdom: "Typically information is defined in terms of data, knowledge in terms of information, and wisdom in terms of knowledge." So they constitute a kind hierarchical pyramid: Wisdom relying on knowledge, knowledge relying on information, and information on data. Let us have a look at the several layers of wisdom and knowledge.

• Data. Observation is the basis of any empirical science. Recording instruments proved to be of great help, as humans are typically subjective and fallible when collecting facts. Today, computers coupled to sensors collect most facts.

• Information. Information as data in formation deals with presenting data in a meaningfully ordered way. If a scatter plot of raw data shows a connection between the variables Intelligence and Time needed to resolve a puzzle, this might hint to a causative effect: Our study showed a negative correlation between intelligence and the time needed to solve a puzzle. This could be called information. But we cannot yet speak of causation as the above association could just be the result of some kind of bias or coincidence.

• Knowledge. Knowledge as actionable information is the relevant information you need to base your decisions on. When Intelligence reliably predicts the time needed to resolve a puzzle, there might be some empirical rule involved in here. The correct formulation of that mechanism would be called knowledge. Typically, this knowledge is embedded into a larger model of the reality (IQ theory), that is shared and tested by different disciplines. Knowledge should thus never be based on the dominant state of art. As this will inevitably lead to tunnel vision. It should try to integrate and understand all major perspectives on the world.

• Wisdom. Wisdom relies on the use of knowledge and information to come to the right judgement. It might involve intuition, paying attention to important information at the right time. Wisdom will also involve social factors, as any judgement has a social context. And the process of learning from mistakes and misfortune has a learning curve: You cannot expect to become wise after only studying some celebrated wisdom books. You first should have the required knowledge and experience to grasp the essence. Many wisdom stories deal with this paradoxical topic.

Growing wisdom will have implications for survival, when elephants sense, warn each other and collectively flee for a tsunami. We do not understand their communication, so we cannot know if this by animal watchers noticed competence was intentional or accidental. But we know that for humans and animals most data, information and knowledge is unconscious, laid down in genes and brain cells and messaged to us as biochemical information.

But in that case even dogs, ants, trees, forests or ecosystems could be said to be wise: Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! (Proverbs 6:6). Human actions like thinking, speech and movement are highly automated processes. People intuitively think and use words spontaneously, before they are fully aware of the content and impact of their thoughts.

When writing, we use a more carefully chosen syntax then when we are just thinking or speaking aloud. When we try to influence others or try to understand the found reality, we choose different words depending on our particular situation. And all words seem to be truly reflecting our subjective and objective reality. The here and now, we now see and know.

For both scholars and scientists, wisdom depends on accumulated knowledge, but more knowledge does not always yields more wisdom. We would not expect the commercial algorithms of Facebook or Google to behave wise, but the scientist who checks his model of the world with big data probably is wise.

But like information and data, knowledge has to be digested. An overflow of information could result in confusion, indecisiveness, residing in an ivory tower but at the same time neglecting the real needs of life. Wisdom, as knowledge in action, will thus also have an ethical component. Self-reflection, admitting one's faults and limitations and being able to deal with the human condition are part of wisdom. Socrates said: An unexamined life is not worth living. But he also warned his students that the results of that query could be rather disappointing.

Levels of evidence

Top

Qualitative measures of the evidence given for particular claims are important, because decisions based on them are not just of academic interest, but could deal with life and death. Does this medication work? Can we prevent a famine? Does this bridge hold? That are important questions, we cannot leave up to speculation. For this reason, the quality of evidence for any claim must be considered.

Quality of evidence depends both on relevant observations and correct reasoning. You cannot simply conclude: The bridge will hold, as I just walked over it. You can only state: The bridge held me, when I just walked over it. The logical error involved would be an unjustified generalisation based on only one case. This is an empirical error. More observations should be done to prove that fact.

But there could be rational reasons to trust that bridge. It could be made of steel, stone or another strong physical structure. Before you, many others could have passed that bridge, etc. So there could be plenty of information from independent sources leading you to trust that bridge. Those considerations, in combination with your personal preferences, could guide your decision to trust this bridge, instead of using a much stronger bridge that is much further away.

You seldom need to do scientific research to answer those questions. You can rely on background information and personal experience of other people. Cultural myths, habits and laws will also belong to that realm, for the simple reason that nobody can be an academic expert in any field of knowledge. So we need myths, habits and laws to guide us in unknown territories and to suppress our selfish natural inclinations in the interest of society. Children learn their inherited culture by singing songs, playing with others, reading books and listening to educational stories. Implicit and unconscious methods of transfer of knowledge seem to work for them. And what they learn is a general view on how things should work according to their teachers and peers.

But when the road to go is unknown and you and your teachers have no experience with it, you better think twice. Maybe you would prefer to consult a local expert. Maybe new studies are needed. Maybe many studies already have been done, but should be retrieved and reviewed.

This is typically the case with astrology and many other so-called wisdom schools. The last words are not yet said, even when Putins destructive tanks use the word Z. As the blinded by power manipulative Putin is not the Alpha and the Omega of Russian history. One day, the by him denied bitter truth will show up.

Synthesising the found fact is typically done by academic experts in a particular field, who try to integrate the unfiltered information of empirical research in the light of the existing background information. From the previously and recently gathered pieces of information they try to distil new knowledge or more sophisticated insights. But they might also conclude that the subject has been studied extensively, but is not yet understood. Wisdom would then imply: More studies have to be done. As knowledge and wisdom are always work in progress.

But political wiseacres believe they understand it all. And if they convey successfully their one-sided message to not that brilliant voters, the could win the election. And the winner takes it all. But in a divided nation stagnation would be the result. As the winner is not a real winner, but is opposed to a partly silent majority thsat was not heard.

In evidence based medicine (EBM), three factors are considered to be essential to base your decisions on: Relevant scientific evidence, clinical judgement and the patient's values and preferences. As medical researchers did not study your individual story, the clinical judgement of your medical doctor and your own values and preferences are needed to advise you. The same principles are used by engineers, psychologists and other professionals who customise their advice to the client.

Sometimes the on consultants dependent clients have little choice (advice on cancer treatment, aircraft design, legal advice), at other times professionals can give plenty of time to the personal preferences of their clients (psychological counselling, designing a house interior). But in all cases, reliable information and professional guidance from the side of the contracted consultant are needed. As a paid for personal advice differs from the marketplace situation, where all merchants are free to promise what they want. Because as soon as there exists a professional working relation, some contractual basic rules apply:

A contract is a legally enforceable agreement that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations among its parties. A contract typically involves the exchange of goods, services, money, or a promise of any of those. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or cancellation. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda, ( "agreements must be kept").

As you want the expert in his filed to help you to deal with your reality, some basic reality testing from the side of the expert is required. Otherwise blind experts would just lead blind clients. One is free to sell a product from the most promising merchant on the phishing for fools free market, but promises must still be kept. And in this respect the supernatural products of wisdom schools relying on old traditions (I promise you eternal life) differ from teachers at secular state universities involved with empirical research. Scientists only speak of temporally and for the time being found effects. Those teachers have thus different approaches to deal with the by them found reality. One could broadly divide them in positivistic and traditional approaches.

Positivists assume that all behaviour is a response to observable external stimuli. They do not deny the existence of invisible forces like gravity or subjective cognition's, but they need to quantify these factors with validated instruments varying from questionnaires to Geiger tellers to take them into account. One single subjective I know it experience of a guru during a special transit would not count for them. But many objective investigations by means of questionnaires, behavioural observations or PET scans could lead to well informed hypothesis formation about the nature of Eureka experiences that people sometimes have.

In the on empiricism based hypothetic-deductive method, our always changing ideas about reality should be tested and improved when needed using well-designed experiments to minimise effects of other causative or confounding factors. When experiments cannot be done under laboratory conditions, control groups are used. Statistical methods are used to deal with to be expected forms of bias like the sampling error, which is caused by observing a part instead of the whole population.

Traditionalists and scholars striving for eternal wisdom are seldom interested in the results of scientific research. For traditionalists the old established values are the ultimate truth, even if they obviously conflict with the habits and norms of modern society as found in most control groups. But they stick to their opinions, even if many others experience another reality. Quite often, traditionalists reject the habits of modern society, at least in their own field of expertise. Thus, they would preferably advise you according to their traditional view, maybe adapted a little bit to modern reality. As that is their core business, their by their peers, followers or sponsors paid for expertise in their traditional marketing field.

And that home made personal advice for you could be gratis, but that market price does not imply that that transaction is without any vested interest. If you get an unsolicited email spam internet message about how to get rich and lucky with a few clicks, you better do not respond on it. As it could be malware, destroying the functionality of your personal internet computer.

Email spam, also referred to as junk email or simply spam, is unsolicited messages sent in bulk by email (spamming).

But the for you important others, well known family members or managers influencing you all the way, could do the same. With mortals, gold outweighs a thousand of arguments said Euripides in Medea. When you visited a medical doctor, you wanted him to pay attention to your perceived health problem and not to your yin-yan status. If you visited a lawyer, you would pay him to defend your point of view, not to question it. If you visited an astrologer, you would expect at least some astrological expertise, not an astrologer who became confused after reading Astrology and science. If you consulted a Jungian therapist, you would expect him to be really interested in your private dreams. Even if they seem trivial to most other persons, who soon forget their dreams after waking up.

And in between Falls the Shadow, wrote the poet W.H. Auden in the Hollow Men:

“Between the idea / And the reality / Between the motion / And the act / Falls the Shadow”

Top

All approaches to reality have their merits and their shadow sides. So instead of attacking or ignoring approaches that are foreign to us, we could better determine their strength and weaknesses in their own field of competence. Staying within the limits of their competence, the medical doctor, jurist, astrologer and psychologist could and should complement each other, for the benefit their individual clients. But this form of synergy seldom happens. As most specialists in the field are seldom modest, as they have problems with the concept of a multifaceted world.

All living persons have to adapt to an ever changing reality, and thus will at different times have different motives and interests, but still will be valuable members of society. For this reason, we should not pin somebody down on one statement made in a particular context. A scientist, for instance, could perfectly well both contribute to empirical science and go to church each Sunday. A medical doctor could advise a long day on health issues and after that go home to drink a beer and smoke a pipe. One might argue: But those guys are not consequent!

Yes, indeed, they do not behave like robots in a plant. Robots are predicable. But should humans or animals also strive for it? No, because they have to move around in a complex and multifaceted world. Of course, they all will have their personal preferences, but willingness to compromise and adaptation to society are essential to survive.

Traditionalists, unless withdrawn in a closed environment, like a monastery or an old fashioned internet forum, needed to adapt their views to an ever changing world. For this reason their sacred books were creatively rewritten, extended and reinterpreted. Modern scholars wrote new books, expanding and refining the old views of how the world should be understood.

And although most of their personal wisdom sayings and laws could be based on personal wishful thinking and speculation, the elderly still provide theoretical guidelines that individuals could not deduce that easily from their own practice. So, thanks to old and maybe superstitious cultural traditions, most members of society were raised with beneficial ideas like the ten commandments that helped to structure societies. That role of keeping together quite different people with shared believes into societies and groups, is without doubt the greatest merit of tradition.

At the same time positivists who can say a lot about the actual physical reality, still have to face the fact that they cannot rely on scientific knowledge alone when deciding whom to love and what to do in most personal empirical questions. As no scientific study has been done on their particular situation. But their not yet by empiricists noticed daydreaming about a certain person or action could give them a hint. Should they consult a dream interpreter like the biblical Pharaoh did? Or should they rely on their own gut feelings? And with the help of whom? A psychologist? A Jungian astrologer? A mindfulness coach? Consulting only friends and parents could be a bad idea, as one should not set up one's life according to the expectations of important others, though their consent and support would without doubt stabilise a marriage.

Our ultimate point to be made is that traditionalists cannot ignore the implications of rough epidemiological data and that positivists cannot deny the subjective or moral experiences of themselves and others. Both should embrace all aspects of reality. That is the essence of being aware. Do not exclude any facet of reality.

Implications for astrology

Top

Whereas in most fields of empirical research, growth of knowledge depended heavily on statistical tests to evaluate ongoing empirical observations, astrologers still rely on the outcomes of outdated medieval research of poor quality to serve their clients. But to maintain that position, astrologers had to ignore the results of modern empirical astrological research. That attitude became a deadly sin, as they threw away the baby with the bathwater.

When being attacked with bullets and bombs, it is a good habit to find shelter in quickly digged foxhole or well-designed bunker. But your foxholes and bunkers should not act like Plato's cave. It should just be a temporarily escape for you as long as the piece negotiations did not yet result in a cease-fire. A normal human should not stick to too long in the for humans unpleasant habit of living underground. A blind mole can do this job much better thanks to his better developed nose.

But what if people digged a hole or cave for themselves, when they sensed that they were confronted with inconvenient truths? With the aim of just don't spam me with the by you and my obvious enemies found facts? Are those found facts not just opinions and believes of others that I simply can ignore? Please keep me in rest. I will deal with these bothering me questions with my Uranian friends in the cave later. And I will send you at a my fitting time a message how we see this from our our point of view. As we kept our principles, we can easily dig them for ourselves out. And at any time our point of view should also seemingly be clear for others, but not exactly at this moment.

I got responses like this from the the personal assistent of Cosmos and psyche author Richard Tarnas (1950), whom I wrote about repeating patterns in time:

Dear Sjoerd,

I am writing on behalf of Richard Tarnas, who would like to thank you for your kind words and for sharing your Enneagram research results. Richard is not an expert in the Enneagram (and definitely not a statistical researcher), but it seems like a very promising and interesting direction to explore.

I apologize for the delay in response to your email. With Richard's teaching engagements, student papers, and lecture travels a backlog of emails has formed which we are working through.

With kind regards,

Becca

--

Personal Assistant

Richard Tarnas

And even the author of the by my used Radix5 software Koen van de Moortel was not really interested (or aware) of the advances of his ADB editor SVI who used his software to resolve a major astrological riddle. But I became known as an unwanted spy in the ADB according some Forum members.

Beste Sjoerd,

Bedankt.  Ik ga dat eens bekijken zo gauw ik wat tijd heb!

Groetjes,

Koen Van de moortel

www.astrovdm.com

www.lerenisplezant.be

www.defottograf.be

-------------------reply on -------------------

Op 27 november 2023 00:27:30 +01:00, schreef Sjoerd H. Visser <sjoerd.h.visser@hccnet.nl>:

Dankzij Radix5 en ADB editor Sy Scholfield kon ik de relatie tussen het sufi enneagram en astrologie ontwarren.

https://vissesh.home.xs4all.nl/mystiek/enneagram/index.html

Zie nu 13 jaar later de laatste NVWOA nieuwsbrief:

https://www.nvwoa.nl/nieuwsbrieven/

https://www.nvwoa.nl/nb/2023nb28-12.pdf

But is this legitimate reference to some past or future - but not being prepared to see in plain sight the now appearing facts to you - a realistic point of view?

Matthew 25, the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, continues the Olivet Discourse or "Little Apocalypse" spoken by Jesus Christ, also described as the Eschatological Discourse, which had started in chapter 24 (6).

Matthew 25 (7) verse said 13 (4), Lou Reeds sad song, The Parable of the Ten Virgins deals with the 9th sin of sloth of being only busy with earthly matters, and at the same time ignoring the arising Heaven of Kingdom, that only requires you to experience the by already your siblings and friends found facts in the here and now. And to definitively abandon all your born with prejudices. But that seems to be a tough encounter that humans tend to avoid, while praising the Lord:

25 At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.

2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise.

3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.

4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.

5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

6 At midnight the cry rang out: .Here.s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!.

7 Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps.

8 The foolish ones said to the wise .Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out..

9 No, they replied, there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves..

10 But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

11 Later the others also came. Lord, Lord,. they said, .open the door for us!.

12 But he replied .Truly I tell you, I don't know you.

13 Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

A young person who enriched my understanding of kabbalistic spiritual affairs was Etty Hillesum:

Esther "Etty" Hillesum described in letters and diaries her plain "sociological" descriptions of Jewish life in Amsterdam during the German occupation. She decided to stay and became generations after her 1943 death in Auschwitz in 1981 a honoured woman of whom Pope Benedict XVI on 13 February 2013 (Ash Wednesday) in his last days as pope would say:

"...I am also thinking of Etty Hillesum, a young Dutch girl of Jewish origin who died in Auschwitz. At first far from God, she discovered him looking deep within her and she wrote: “There is a really deep well inside me. And in it dwells God. Sometimes I am there, too. But more often stones and grit block the well, and God is buried beneath. Then he must be dug out again” (Diaries, 97). In her disrupted, restless life she found God in the very midst of the great tragedy of the 20th century: the Shoah. This frail and dissatisfied young woman, transfigured by faith, became a woman full of love and inner peace who was able to declare: “I live in constant intimacy with God"...

Amen

Esther Hillesum (Cosmo natal report_for_young_people.pdf) did as most Jews not went underground, but she preferred to face the Shoah with her own eyes. Like the many in Gaza living Palestinians (Hibri) who were ordered in 2023 (5) to go back the West (Egypt) by the irrationally bombarding them Israeli.

But sometimes there is an invisible G'd in the midst of this seemingly senseless tragedy. The involved with the found facts Esther Hillesum made me cry, mourn and hope for a better honouring her seemingly irrational vision that all the inhabitants of the world earned a better future. And not just the self proclaimed best of them. And that could be the much needed aim of any open spiritual system, like the prophetical Jewish believe in an us all surrounding G'd who cares for the benefit of the by us seemingly forgotten rest. Thus not a G'd who only has mercy with the on his Agora (Temple) best starring guys and ladies. But genuine gumanitarian that aslo cares with the forgotten rest. Even if they (women, coloured people) were only once regarded as an insignificant minority.

But the still in their astrological cave hiding astrologers got stuck in the superstitious believe of astrological symbolism, assuming that it has a better explicatory quality than any empirical rule ever could provide. As it performed relatively well in their local bunker community, until statisticians debunked their magical play. But under the not on empiricism based parole chance does not exist, astrological symbolism still can shine as their alternative truth. They could apply their prejudices on virtually any problem in the world and were satisfied with the results. As long as outsiders did not interfere with their symbolic word play, they were content with it. As their methodology seemed since ancient times to work mostly for them. The books that confirmed their principles became sacred and the books that denied them were banned.

But modern astrologers had major problems with the statistical methods that came up in the second halve of 20th century. Statistical tests done with astrologers have been very disappointing for them, because individual astrologers did not perform any better than could be expected by chance alone. More disappointing was that large scale statistical research seldom provided support for astrological symbolic principles. If they were found , the found effect sizes were small and the actually found correlation's seldom fitted the rules suggested by astrologers in their astrology books.

Only by using tricks like cherry picking, impressive results could be shown in their books. See: The plumbers story:

How to use and abuse the binomial distribution to do some small scale astrology research having no predictive value.

But if they had used control groups or had some understanding of probability calculation, astrologers could easily see that the reverse effects than those described in their astrology books actually happened quite more often than the suggested ones. In 79 art critics we provided some examples of them.

But realise that, how impressive this fictive case for astrology might appear, 95% of the people having that transit would not have an accident!

So to maintain their position, astrologers had to deny or ignore the results of empirical astrological research. Writers of recent astrology books know about this empirical lacuna and prefer to use vague words as could and might, whereas they according to modern standards should provide effect sizes and confidence intervals to justify their claims. But those found facts were never that for them that convincing. So astrologers preferred to ignore those kind of found facts.

Instead of trying to retrieve those statistical measures in the field of astrology, astrologers simply denied the already proven value of statistical research. As they did qualitative and not quantitative research. Or they studied individuals, not groups. As if those kinds of false dilemmas really do matter in the astrological practice, where claims also must be made about groups like individuals having Sun in aries. For the simple reason that without knowledge about a mediocre Sun in aries, no valid claims about any Sun in aries can be made. Only speculations based on prejudice could be made.

Without quantitative knowledge of what is actually found in ADB categories, writers of astrology books discussing recently discovered planets can not rely on the necessary background information to predict possible additional effects of new planets. Not to speak of the many interactions (aspects) with other planets and house cusps: A myriad of effects and interactions that had to be explained in the light of the whole chart. Even multivariate analyses done on huge astrological databases cannot solve this empirical problem, because of almost infinitive possibilities.

But that major empirical problem was tackled by astrologers just by hypothesising that the newly discovered planet should also obey the rules of astrological symbolism. As that great idea resonated with and stood at the core of their belief system. So planet x in house or sign should behave like any other planet in house or sign, but of course (and the “should” and “of course” are of course the not yet proven prejudices) with its own resonance and field of influence.

And indeed, astrologers could illustrate their books with some well selected cases that could have made sense to their believers, enabling them to sell their books. But could they ever predict with it? That seems unlikely. See Predicting at the individual level:

Astrologers warn against generalisations. But at the same time, they ignore the problem of statistical variation, when they assume that the interpreter has to consider the whole chart, as if it were possible to understand the interaction of all its components. They simply explain away the many exceptions to their rules with supposed to be known other modifying astrological factors, thus with the complexity of the chart, transits and so on.

When a Taurean just by chance displayed Taurean behaviour, astrologers would see this as a case for astrology and when he did not, there should be some other astrological factor involved with it. But, astrologers never provided any serious statistical evidence for the presumed effect or interaction of any of them. And that is serious problem. How could a judge ever believe a suspect who explains his incredible statements with other incredible statements?

Astrologers would reply that they never predicted events, but only explained or justified things afterwards, when they framed some facts in the astrological perspective. And that their vision was real magic compared to the dullness of the day. But a Sherlock Holmes kind of investigator would argue: The usual suspected planet (Mars, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto) might just be an innocent passenger of the place of verdict, walking the dog at the usual time. So what? What is the proof? Did you research it thoroughly? Did you consider other facts? Did you use control groups?

Here modern investigators, judges and astrologers have different views on causation and proof. As claims based on medieval believes in magic, witchcraft, astrological symbolism and the so-called so above, so below principle are not any more regarded as sound arguments. Modern judges would now label them as superstition, prejudice or bias. In justice a suspect is innocent until proven otherwise, but in astrology the reverse seems to be true. Ask astrology researcher Rudolf Smit, citing the astrologer David Hamblin, who questioned the biased way of thinking of his peer astrologers:

If I find a very meek and unaggressive person with five planets in Aries, this does not cause me to doubt that Aries means aggression. I may be able to point to his Pisces Ascendant, or to his Sun conjunct Saturn, or to his ruler in the twelfth house; and, if none of these alibis are available, I can simply say that he has not yet fulfilled his Aries potential. Or I can argue (as I have heard argued) that, if a person has an excess of planets in a particular sign, he will tend to suppress the characteristics of that sign because he is scared that, if he reveals them, he will carry them to excess. But if on the next day I meet a very aggressive person who also has five planets in Aries, I will change my tune: I will say that he had to be like that because of his planets in Aries.

This could be a classic example of the Look-elsewhere effect and fallacy:

The look-elsewhere effect is a phenomenon in the statistical analysis of scientific experiments where an apparently statistically significant observation may have actually arisen by chance because of the sheer size of the parameter space to be searched.

...

The look-elsewhere effect is a frequent cause of "significance inflation" when the number of independent tests n is underestimated because failed tests are not published. One paper may fail to mention alternative hypotheses considered, or a paper producing no result may simply not be published at all, leading to journals dominated by statistical outliers.

Why do astrologers stick to astrological symbolism? It is just an old habit that gives them plenty degrees of freedom. Just like poets use the power of rhyme and metrics, all kind of writers use particular styles in their particular framework: story tellers, theologians, journalists, scientific writers, etc. Using the correct style and basic assumptions is the easiest way to get recognition in the field. It helps you to be heard and acknowledged in a particular field of knowledge.

But the trick only works as long as you apply your methods to your particular field of knowledge. And if you look for recognition, you also need to find an audience that is interested in your achievements. If you start applying astrological ideas to fields of knowledge that are not your business like medicine (Medical astrology) and psychology (Psychological_astrology) you have adapt to the basic rules of that field of knowledge. And you will have a major problem when others proved your methods to be wrong, your reasoning to be fallacious and your basic assumptions to be superstitious.

Then you could end in a difficult to decipher labyrinth of circular reasoning to defend yourself:

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

...

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.

Current astrology clearly suffers from lack of data. Astrology books are full of speculations, but correct references to their genuine origins are seldom found. In recent astrology, there has been a shift from traditional predictive astrology to psychological counselling. The fact that predictive astrology performed so bad compared to more developed sciences, undoubtedly speeded up this move. And the current focus on unconscious psychological processes makes astrology even more fuzzy, as those claims cannot be checked. But quite a lot of basic astrological assumptions can and should be checked. Including the taken for granted assumption that squares relations between planets differ from trine aspects.

Would you consider the advice of a medical specialist wise, if he had not read and digested his classic readings as well as more recent knowledge, information and data provided by the medical literature? Probably not, as wisdom relies on the use of actual knowledge and information to come to the right judgement. If he is an licensed doctor, you might assume he makes correct use of his knowledge of the field, but there is no guarantee that it works for you as an individual person. As his medical literature just dealt with groups.

But what should we think of a medical astrologer applying his understanding of the believes of medieval astrologers to explain your current medical affairs? Medical doctors would call him a charlatan, because he relied on outdated information and irrelevant rules. He could be called to court for it and become convicted, because his astrological predictions would be judged to be basically wrong and delusive.

Afterwards, the convicted astrologer's play with words could make sense to his followers, like tragic poetry does, or a good sermon or the reconciling words of a politician after loosing an election. But an athlete would just say: Next time I have to perform much better. And Sherlock Holmes would shout out: Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay..

Nevertheless, most astrologers assume that their opinions are based on empirical facts, and for this reason they illustrate their books preferably with AA examples of natives that can be found in the Astrodienst database (ADB). But by selecting only some special cases and ignoring the rest, almost every theory can be defended. But would a theory based on cherry-picking be predictive? Probably not. It could only explain things to people living in a cognitive bubble. Their rulers - being it their ego or some former KGB agent - determine and edit the found facts for them.

But you also can do more serious research on astrological categories using the whole ADB as a control group. We did a keep it simple, stupid exploration of ADB categories, not with the aim to confirm or refute any astrological theory. Our primary objective was to find out what is in ADB: What is in the data? Is it just randomness as critics expected? Or were certain patterns more seen than expected in certain categories? Could astrological effects play a role in it? And what would be there impact? Could you predict with it? What was actually found in the ADB? Below a preview.

The ADB category aggressive - brash

Top

According to traditional astrologers, Mars and Aries are associated with aggressiveness. That is written in their books. So if astrological factors were involved with certain events, like aggressive / brash being traditionally associated with Aries or Mars, both the relevant event and the supposed to be involved planets should be measured and being found quantitatively correlated, as this is implied in the astrological claim. But when a selection of 175 persons tagged as Aggressive / Brash in the ADB had a similar astrological profile as a group of persons whose names only started with A or B, positivists would not see that finding as a case for astrology.

So the proper astrological research question would be: Is that so? Can that presumed correlation between particular astrological factors and events on earth be found? Not once, not sometimes, but repeatedly and much more then could be predicted by chance alone. And how predictive (and thus explicative) would that observed association be? To answer those questions we need to get effect sizes, p-values and if possible confidence intervals.

The ADB Research group could provide you some relevant statistics: What were the observed values in the mentioned aggressive/brash category? The most aggressive persons according to ADB editors indeed happened to have Sun in Aries (23 against 15.06 expected), a not that forgiving Scorpio Moon (22, 14.52 expected) and Mars (20, 17.48 expected) and Ascendant in narcissistic Leo (20, 19.26 expected).

But a supposed to aggressive Libra (21) Ascendant could surprise you, until you would see that Libra is a slow rising sign in the Northern hemisphere and thus could be quite more often expected. This can easily be seen in the ADB control group:

What were the effect sizes of this ADB category (sample of the whole) as compared to all ADB members? We divided the categorical risk of having planet in sign by the risk of that event found in the ADB control group. The resulting effect size values indicate how more or less often a planet in sign was found in that particular category.

Values near to 1,00 indicate negligible effects of the measured astrological factor on this category, values like 1,53 indicate that the particular astrological factor was 53% more often found than expected in the ADB and values like 0,60 could hint to a protective effect. Values near zero (0,00) tells us that that constellation was not found in the measured category. The zero values for Pluto in Sagittarius and Aquarius could thus hint to less aggressiveness in certain periods of time, but also to lack of documented cases in the ADB. And the last form of bias was certainly the case. For this reason p-values have to be measured: If you throw a twelve sided dice (regular dodecahedron) 36 times the expected value is 36/12 or 3, but the risk of one side not showing up is 4,36 % per side. So this outcome is to be expected just by chance in 0,0436 times 32 is 1,57 cases. But if you throw it only 12 times, 4,22 sides would not show up.

Below we see that an Aries ascendant (1,72) was found 72% more often than expected. A Pisces ascendant had the lowest effect size (0,61).

Effect sizes are the best measures to evaluate and compare potential effects. They give much more insight than the might and could be found speculations in astrology books. For example, not all planets in Aries seem to contribute to aggressiveness. A scorpio moon (found 1,52 times more often) is more often associated with aggressiveness than a Moon in Aries (0,67). And that finding could be easily explained by astrologers who expect the scorpio moon to be more revengeful than the more easily changing its mood aries moon.

In the deductive-hypothetical method, observations like this, can help with hypothesis formation. One could ask why Venus is IV (1,40) is more seen in this category than Venus in VIII (0,38) or XII (0,72). Does the high score of Venus is IV hint to domestic violence? Does Venus have a soothing effect in the more troublesome houses? And why is Sun in X (0,43) found less in this category, but higher values were found for Sun in II (1,39) and XI (1,42)?

Are individual humans more cautious in the public domain? But not when one group encounter other groups? The first factor could be beneficial to individuals, the last two findings could explain mob mentality at the schoolyard (House II in traditional astrology) and in large football stadiums between competing groups.

It can be seen in the herding of grazing animals and in groups of humans. The principle is induced and manipulated by advertisers, political leaders, social influencers through social media and individuals in order to gain and protect their social influence.

But statisticians would first ask how significant the found differences were. Before explaining, explaining away or ignoring the found differences, one should ask if they were not just the result of looking at just a part of the whole, like interpreting the temporary results of regular dodecahedron. Before concluding that the twelve side dice gave false or true results, one should have some knowledge of the rules of gambling.

What is the risk of getting just by chance a special value through the sampling error? Is this an expected outcome or not? If we only study a small part of the whole, that sample is likely to be unrepresentative. So we cannot expect to measure the real mean value of the whole group, but only erroneous fluctuations around the mean: Relative large deviations with a small sample size and smaller deviations with a large sample. Drawing preliminary conclusions from the results would be a fallacious. So, if Sun in Aries was found fifty percent more often under a subset of the ADB with the label aggressive/ brash (n is 175), one would like to know the risk of getting that value in a random ADB sample of that sample size.

That risk (p-value) was calculated using the binomial distribution. We gave the with any effect size associated p-value a plus sign for high values like P(x> 23 or = 23) = 2,78% for Sun in Aries (23, effect size 1,53) and a minus sign referring to P(x<5 or = 5) =5,10 % for lower than expected values, like the by David Hamblin expected smoothing effect of having Ascendant in Pisces (5 cases found, effect size 0,61).

What was in the ADB perceived in this way? P-values like 47,10 % for Sun in Libra (effect size 1,10) are not significant, as was already indicated by the small effect size. The in the ADB found risk of getting Ascendant in Pisces 5 times or less in a random ADB sample was only 0,17 or 17%. So the result could be due to the sampling error in 17 % of cases. But that p-value would not be significant using formal statistical criteria requiring significant p-values to be at most 2,5 or 0,5 %. Only for the slow planets in sign we see significant effects. But that has obviously to do with the not that random distribution in time of ADB entries. How do we interpret the few significant values in the houses?

When looking at the calculated risks above, statisticians would not be impressed. Most values seem be the result of the sampling error. Only few found value's were significant in the sense that the risk of getting that value just by chance was lower than 2,5 % or more appropriate, lower than 0,5 % because of data mining. But smaller p-values are needed when we do not look for one special case, but look at 144 values per table. As the risk that you just by chance see some unusual outcomes, increases proportionally with the number of observations done. Data-mining will result in on average 144/20 is 7,2 (95% ci 3-12) false positives per table (type 1 error).

On the other hand, it is also an empirical law that sampling errors produce random fluctuations around the mean. Random processes do not follow astrological laws or trends. They only tend to blur the real trends by adding noise. So if we see peaks and valleys that clearly follow astrological or astronomical patterns, this pattern could be a case for astrology. But to interpret them, one should not forget to see them in the light of the whole picture, as it would be methodologically wrong to pick out selectively from large tables single values or patterns that fit your theory and to ignore the not that impressive rest. In that case you practised cherry-picking based on paredolia:

Pareidolia is the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous stimulus, usually visual, so that one sees an object, pattern, or meaning where there is none.

But even when not significant, getting 23 times Sun in Aries would still be a huge statistical effect according to Cohen's d Effect size. And large statistical effects of 0,80 or more, were found quite often doing our data-mining. But we cannot rely on them, as the calculated binomial risks involved with them could too often imply positive as well as negative effects. Astrologers cannot solve this empirical problem just by stating that for them chance does not exist. That would be a blunt denial of the sampling error. And the bad habit of astrologers, who actually practice data-mining when holistically scanning the whole chart looking for astrological indicators, will also not contribute to their credibility.

The same problems exist with aspects. As aspects with small orbs are relatively unique and thus “special”, astrologers attribute value to them. And though a Sun conjunct Saturn (1,06) aspect does not have the protective effect astrologer David Hamblin expected, Moon (0,70) or Mars conjunct Saturn (0,75) seem to do this. As do Sun conjunct Moon (0,70) or Venus (0,80).

But Sun conjunct Mars (1,24) or Moon (1,20) are more often seen among aggressive persons according to ADB editors. Below are the found facts.

Conjunction: Orb Factor: +- 6

But when doing basic statistical tests, we see that none of the seemingly interesting effect size values reached any serious statistical significance. Unlike the rather weak pain killer paracetamol, which has proven value as an alleviator of headache. So, if our message brings you a headache, try paracetamol, instead of worrying about seemingly impressive effect sizes without any predictive value from small scale astrological research.

Conjunction: Orb Factor: +- 6

We wrote about this paradox in 1867 astrologers:

The initial thrill when only having studied small samples, or doing “my own low-key empirical research” as Sue Tomkins named it in Aspects in astrology, is likely to disappear when you study larger samples. Because then you would most often see the by statisticians expected regression towards the mean. Only with the help of a lot of other astrologers (Yes, you can do it!), probably also doing some small scale research, Sue Tomkins could finish her book.

Without elemental statistical knowledge the try astrology out yourself and see if it works advise given to most students of astrology, might easily lead to the wrong conclusions based on the confirmation basis: My teachers and books already suggested this and indeed my friends and I found several cases, so the assumption must be correct. That would just be some case of selective attention and confirmation bias, thus seeing what a conditioned person expects to see.

Try astrological statistics out yourself: fact checking

Top

As an alternative to providing more astrological speculations, we would like to offer you - astrologer or not - the tools and the data to do quantitative astrological research on a the large AstroDienst database. What we propose is that students of astrology actually do some unbiased fact checking. Doing statistical astrological research on ADB categories using well-defined control groups and see if astrology still works against odds. If the facts support astrological claims you found online and in books, we have a case for astrology. If not, we probably deal with unproved astrological speculation without any predictive value that deserve a disclaimer and should not be advertised or spread in books and on social media.

Of course you can believe in the rebirth of Golden Age fantasies, like the populist Donald Trump promised to his American audience. But do you have a sound plan, a strategy to deal with the found facts? Or do you prefer to believe in wishful thinking, that everything will go as you wished, as long nobody hampers the Great media Dictator Donald Trump? The only problem would be then to get rid of the Democrats that did not yet understand Trumps grandiose view on the world. And of course all the other enemies of the people. But would that Divide and rule strategy lead to wisdom? Probably not.

Divide and rule (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.

-----------------

As your study material, we present you the found and expected values of ADB categories and much more. Because we think that statistical facts like effect sizes, p-values and confidence intervals do matter a lot. And we simply do not expect that astrology students - nor their teachers - could ever objectively evaluate their findings without use of control groups. Much too often, their implicit control groups existed only in their symbolic astrological book knowledge or imagination of how things should be.

The most recent results of the ADB Research Group are found at: ADB stats (1,45 GB!). The compressed 7 zip files are the most efficient way to retrieve them.

But you will need the Binomial_distribution_for_astrology.xlsx or Binomial_distribution_for_astrology.ods as tools to temper your imagination.

Thanks to computer software, astrology students and astrologers have instant access to the found astronomical events at a certain point of time. But the actual risks involved with fast and slow rising signs, certain aspects, different house systems are seldom discussed in astrology books dealing with astrological symbolism. Nor do astrology programs provide them. We had to calculate them using control groups.

An example of the risks involved with getting 23 out of 175 cases for Sun in Aries in the ADB category aggressive / brash is found on the left.

It is almost statistically significant at the usual alpha level of 0,05 using the normal distribution, but not at the the more strict 0,01 level that would be more appropriate because of data-mining. The calculated effect size of Sun in Aries of 1,53 has a 95% confidence interval of 0,95 - 2,11.

Only the 70 % confidence interval of 1,24 - 1,82 is clearly positive. Thus for the majority of persons with Sun in Aries, some more aggressiveness could be expected. One can speak in terms of Sun in Aries being found more often in the ADB, but not that much more often to be really predictive.

The more exact binomial risk of 2,78 % did not meet the 2,5 % criterion and that surprised the ADB Research Group, as most of the ADB editors were astrologers. So we expected some confirmation bias to happen in this category: An ADB editor seemingly just by chance finding and reporting on an aggressive person with a Sun or Ascendant in Aries, but at the same time seeing more often what an in astrological symbolism believing astrologer was expected to see. So, for Sun in Aries we expected to see less systemic underreporting as was seen in other ADB categories.

The art of synthesis

Top

The expected symbolic interpretations of the found planet positions and aspects are delivered by the interpretation files of modern astrology software. Actually, most astrology programs present by means of their interpretation files the astrological cookbook information in the context of the native. And because most astrology software use or creatively rewrite, the same astrological symbolic rules in their interpretation files, the output of most astrology software suggest that there is at least some consistency and agreement among astrologers.

So some astrology student doubting the usual suspects, could expect some resistance from the side of classically schooled astrologers. And indeed, there is good enough scholarly agreement about how planets should behave in sign and house according to astrological symbolism. The only problem is the art of synthesis. How to combine the often contradictory effects of the individual planets in sign or house and their aspects. This deals with weighing the many individual factors in the horoscope. Early astrologers tried mathematical methods to deal with this complexity, but current astrologers say that they use intuition or some kind of synthetic right-brain thinking to come to their conclusions. Nevertheless, when calculating planets in element, above or below the horizon, simple mathematical techniques are still used to get some grip on the larger picture.

But even if modern astrologers do agree on most planetary effects, they prefer to remain vague in their interpretation files. And that is for a good reason. As even the strongest group tendencies we presented above will have little predictive value at the individual level. Otherwise stated: The on symbolic astrological theory based rules do not work that well in practice, because of their small effect size. So they must be flexible formulated in the interpretation files. Otherwise, even the Barnum effect ( ) would not work.

Because of that vagueness, astrologers still have plenty of room to customise their advise to the needs of their clients. There is only one problem with the symbolic interpretations: They were not based on well documented quantitative empirical research using modern criteria. So, you can not predict with them. You can at most believe that you could explain events afterwards with it. But trying to explain unique events afterwards, without having the knowledge and skills to predict them beforehand, is prone to error. It is nothing more than attributing qualitative significance to coincident events, just by associating them, which lies on the basis of superstitious beliefs a well. It is just system 1 type thinking according to Daniel Kahneman:

The human habit to look for meaningful relations between coincident events in the environment, is not the problem. Qualitative research based on potentially meaningful associations between events could lead to hypothesis formation. But when the attention span was selective and biased, just seeing what the conditioned You or Me had learned to observe (confirmation bias), we cannot expect that the found facts were interpreted in the correct way.

Most astrologers facing the found facts would admit that they could not really predict with astrology. As they only dealt with possibilities or potentialities as Dane Rudhyar called them. And during their consultations, astrologers could hint to the many possibilities they saw in the horoscope of their clients, much more than the problems their clients seem to be stuck in.

The same applies to enneagram coaching. Here the consultant first tries to discover the enneatype the client identifies with. Then the pros and cons of their coping technique are discussed. And after that a process of disidentification starts in which alternative coping strategies are investigated.

Other astrologers could specialise in unexplored niche markets like: How to enhance your life with planet X! They could even do some experiments with newly discovered progressive techniques and other ways of chart distortion. Wow, I found some well fitting cases!

But when you cannot solve any basic astrological problem using basic astrological techniques in a predictive way, how could the introduction of more randomness and complexity with a newly discovered planet ever benefit your client?

Astrologers might deny the value of statistics and probability calculations, being happy with their personal experience and intuition, but all valid explanations and predictions still rely on the quality of earlier done observations and thus counts still do matter. You cannot rely solely on the likes of your being impressed, intimated or just adoring your own public. Only dictators manage to frame themselves in this way. Until their shadow-side pops up.

The ADB Research Group has put all the results of their ADB queries online. So, with this publication all astrology students could have knowledge of the ADB facts that really do matter. We also supply users the statistical tools and basic tables we used to see the unfiltered or raw data of the ADB categories in a more statistical perspective.

Knowing the ADB facts has only one disadvantage. As you cannot anymore claim ADB findings as a proof for any hypothesis, as you predicted something that was already observed, so not a new case for astrology. But you could refer to the tables. And when the ADB grows and matures by doing better fact checking maybe some relevant astrological facts might be confirmed again.

Sjoerd Visser

Post scriptum

Top

When astrologers did more serious research and were not afraid to go beyond the medieval dogmas of their community, a more predictive neo-astrology could become reality as a way of parsing events in astrological time. But without doubt the superstitious belief in so-called astrological symbolism would have a melt-down. See Qualitative versus quantitative approaches in astrology:

The qualitative approach, especially that of astrological symbolism, is easy to learn, flexible to use, amusing and exciting, but has little predictive value. Explanations done with it can look very powerful, but what astrologers call the synthesis of the complex chart to come to the essence of it, too often resembles the process of framing : those who use a frame try to influence the way others look at reality through words and the images and feelings they evoke. The frame becomes a pair of glasses through which we see certain information and not others.

The quantitative approach is a not that easy to learn, amusing and exciting as the qualitative method. But it suffers less from selective attention and can be really predictive if large control groups are used. Using statistical analytical methods, you can even predict that under certain circumstances you could not predict anything! And that great feature could spare you a lot of time. No need to speculate, no need to procrastinate at night.

When astrology books use vague terms as could or might to hint to expected correlation's between the above and below, they could and should be replaced with more predictive effect sizes and confidence intervals. Then the actual found data and effect sizes could be rather comforting when confronted with your supposed to be difficult Pluto transit.

How do astrologers that are also ADB editors deal with it, thus the found empirical ADB facts? They tend to rely on their Uranian peers in the eleventh house. See our statistics on 1867 astrologers:

What would be seen if we combined the effect sizes? If the risks involved with Sun, Moon and Ascendant in sign were independent, we could multiplicate them to get the combined risk or effect size. Below this case we calculate the risk of becoming an astrologer when having sun, moon and ascendant in the same sign.

The product scores are more interesting. The earth signs Taurus (0,75 and Virgo (0,77) score low, except for the Capricorn (1,01). Water signs score somehow higher in Cancer (1,14), but not in Scorpio (0,92) or Pisces (0,98). Fire signs Sagittarius (1,28) and Aries (1,24) score higher than expected, but Leo (0,87) does not. So people having Sun, Moon or Ascendant in Sagittarius or Aquarius are more likely to become an astrologer, whilst people having these planets in Taurus and Virgo are less likely to become an astrologer. But the effect sizes are too small to predict with it. You could only speak of correlation's and tendencies.

But are the found differences in Sun and Moon scores at least statistically significant? Does this picture represents real tendencies? That depends on what you are looking for, thus the selection of the whole and the sample size that you would prefer. See: The wisdom hierarchy.

The initial thrill when only having studied small samples, or doing “my own low-key empirical research” as Sue Tomkins named it in Aspects in astrology, is likely to disappear when you study larger samples. Because then you would most often see the by statisticians expected regression towards the mean. Only with the help of a lot of other astrologers (Yes, you can do it!), probably also doing some small scale research, Sue Tomkins could finish her book.

From AstroWiki: Statistics: Continuing Controversy:

Peter Niehenke came to the conclusion that it is virtually impossible to affirm astrology through statistical studies. To date, the usefulness, value, interpretation, and methods of statistical studies of astrological data remain a topic of debate. For every study that seemingly supports or refutes the objective legitimacy of astrology, both astrologers and sceptics are liable to criticize its methodology. Richard Vetter is strictly opposed to statistical testings and validations of astrology. He states: Because of its quantitative view of numbers statistics are most inadequate to test the truth of astrology. The primary supposition of statistics - that accidental distributions are present everywhere - is fundamentally opposed to the astrological conception. ... In statistics particularities are systematically excluded and eliminated. In statistical testing all the things that are unique and special will fall outside of the table - though, in astrology´s view, individuality is the world´s central building-stone.[7]

Anyway, studies carried out so far have not managed to lessen scientists' scepticism of astrology, nor convince the more humanities- or spiritually-oriented astrologers of the applicability of statistics to their work. Perhaps the problem is that statistical analysis only confirms those things that allow themselves to be confirmed using this method of analysis.

We agree with Peter Niehenke that it is impossible to affirm astrology through statistical studies. But that is not a limitation of statistical testing as is suggested above. The main problem is that astrology is not a normal science that can be tested in a scientific way, as astrologers do not agree on theories and refuse to formulate predictive claims.

Normal science, identified and elaborated on by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is the regular work of scientists theorizing, observing, and experimenting within a settled paradigm or explanatory framework. Regarding science as puzzle-solving, Kuhn explained normal science as slowly accumulating detail in accord with established broad theory, without questioning or challenging the underlying assumptions of that theory.

We do not follow Richard Vetters comment that In statistics particularities are systematically excluded and eliminated. When doing experimental research confounding factors that are suspected to influence the outcome are indeed excluded or controlled for. Would not any reasonable person do the same before jumping to any conclusion? But astrologers tend to focus on the exceptions of the rules, explaining incredible statements with other incredible statements while systematically excluding well-known empirical factors like randomness to show their astrological findings.

Does Vetter refer to the sampling error when stating: The primary supposition of statistics - that accidental distributions are present everywhere - is fundamentally opposed to the astrological conception. The sampling error is not a supposition, but both a mathematically founded and empirically proven fact, unlike the superstitious assumption of astrologers that chance does not exist. Indeed, when we took the sampling error into account, results that seemed to be encouraging at first sight, had such wide confidence intervals that they were unlikely to be predictive. So applying simple statistical rules could spoil most astrology tea parties. But is that a good reason to get rid of the empirical rules of statisticians?

Statisticians just present found facts. They provide the data and calculate the involved risks. And they did so with great success. The on statistical techniques based hypothetic-deductive method boosted research in so many fields, that it became a standard in medicine, psychology, economics, etc .

The category Method of the AstroWiki does not have a category Statistics or Probability calculation, but only mentions implementations or branches of astrology like Horary Astrology, Age Point and Astrocartography. Under Prediction it states:

Pre-diction (literally fore-tell or pro-gnosis = fore-knowing) is one of the most fascinating aspects of astrology while also being responsible for astrology's bad reputation at various times throughout history. For many laypeople astrology is nothing other than prognosis, which is not true. It is mainly concerned with understanding human nature.

Nevertheless, the writers do not deny that astrologers are interested in questions how and what at a certain moment in time might bring about chance. They call it transformation, which could be only a subjective experience, maybe noticed and dealt with, maybe not.

First of all, it is important to understand how astrological prediction works. The natal chart is a graphical representation of the position of the planets at the time of birth. It describes the energies present at birth which then evolve and develop over the course of an individual's life. Triggers such as transits, secondary progressions and eclipses indicate when a particular aspect of the personality is likely to develop or undergo some kind of transformation. The triggered horoscope factor in the natal chart will indicate what themes are involved while the trigger will indicate how these will be affected.

Astrologers thus claims to predict to some extent what, how and when qualitative chances can happen, but not how strong and often they happen in quantitative ways. It is like taking a medicine that can cure some cases, but not all cases of the disease. And part of the cure rate might be due to placebo and nocebo effects or spontaneous healing. How can we then ever say that the medicine worked in an individual case? You cannot, as you can only provide the risks involved with particular outcomes. See The calculation of the effectiveness of medication :

In both groups some people are cured (80 + 40 =120) and some are not (20 + 60 = 80). Most often it works with a cure rate of 80% against 40% found for placebo. That can be said. But at the individual level, predictions can only be given as possibilities. And explanations of established facts also have to take them into account.

So one cannot say to an individual person: Oh, you are cured, so you must have had the medicine (this only applies to 80/120 of them), or conclude that the not cured patients must have had placebo (this only applies to 60/80 of them). The same uncertainty exists when you interpret facts afterwards as it does when you had to predict them before. But the last is typically ignored by people who see something that fits their expectations.

But astrologers claim to be knowledgeable at the individual level, say your ego affairs.

Basically, every horoscope factor (and trigger) is a symbol which can become manifest in many ways, and as long as the relationship to the underlying idea remains, the possible spectrum is virtually limitless (Level of Maturity). The horoscope does not reveal which of these possibilities an individual will experience. The less actively involved a person is in shaping their own life, the easier it is to predict the way in which a particular energy is likely to become manifest. This helps to explain why astrologers were able to make fairly accurate predictions in, for example, the Middle Ages when rigid social structures meant that there was less leeway for personal development in many areas of life. Today individuals are generally able to make more choices about their lives and have more opportunities to go in new directions: For example, it has become increasingly uncommon for a person to stay in the same job till they retire.

The article suggests that the medieval predictive astrologers could predict quite well. But it also gives a simple social explanation for that fact: Medieval social structures were rigid and opportunities to develop your talents were scarce. One could also remark that the possibilities to check the claims of medieval astrologers were scarce. But because they wish to adhere to their tradition, modern astrologers still take medieval basic principles dealing with how, what and when for granted. But today's societies leave much more space for individual development. So astrologers now interpret the once by predictive astrologers seen fatalistic transits in a broader way as new opportunities for spiritual growth and awareness.

An increasing number of astrologers agree that the purpose and aim of predictive methods is to help individuals to become aware of the timing of likely developments and processes and to offer advice on finding the most creative and constructive ways of coping with these.

The more an astrologer is able to make a client aware of what possibilities are open, the more able the latter will be to take responsibility for their own actions. On the other hand, the more an astrologer stresses the unavoidability of fate - whether positive or negative - the more likely it will be that a person takes a passive stance.

The article also explains the use of the vague (neutral) terms when predicting the effects of transits.

A deeper understanding of the processes involved can only be achieved by using descriptions which are as neutral as possible. For example, a possible description of Saturn transiting the Sun might be: The core / centre of the personality (Sun) goes through a process of concentrating on what is essential (Saturn in transit). So much is clear. What is not clear is whether this will manifest as a particular experience. It is also not possible to say if the individual concerned will suffer because of any possible restrictions or experience this as a time in which they can harvest the fruits of their labour.

This is only one of the reasons why an increasing number of astrologers reject the idea of event predictions because there is a danger that they will become self-fulfilling prophecies.

The last argument is strange. If a medical doctor warns you for an imminent heart attack, he expects you to take measures. But this apparently does not apply to a Pluto transit. Here the message might bring an unwanted nocebo-effect.

Triggers show inner developments but are not their causes. Psychological Astrology believes that if an individual remains unaware of inner developments they attract external events which force them to confront these. However, it should be remembered that every individual is occasionally confronted with an event whose significance goes beyond their own personality - after all they are part of a community or society. It is quite possible for certain triggers to reflect this fact. As with triggers of a more personal nature, they do not predict concrete events but indicate how a person will react to them and what significance they are likely to attach to them.

Astrological triggers always interested me. As an ADB editor I always tried to find significant life events in the native's life. And I am still interested in working rectifying techniques that could proof the values of some astrological symbolism. But then astrologers would have to provide a near to correct birth-time, not a time that fitted best the astrological speculations afterwards.

References

Top

What are the levels of evidence? Center for Evidence Based Management

Moment Supreme. Why astrologers keep believing in astrology. One of the major themes of this writing.

Is ignorance a sin?

Defence mechanisms - Wikipedia: A defence mechanism is an unconscious psychological mechanism that reduces anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful stimuli. The problem is that the defences deal with the misplaced fears of our ego, having only a deformed and limited view on reality.

Verification and Falsification by Benjamin Fretwurst (The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods): “Falsification” is to be understood as the refutation of statements, and in contrast, “verification” refers to statements that are shown to be true. The goal of science is to create knowledge by identifying true statements as true (verified) and false statements as false (falsified). Popper showed that hypothesis cannot be empirically verified but only falsified. In the social sciences, with their probabilistic statements about large quantities of individual objects, empirical tests are performed using samples. The statistical analyses of random samples are the protocol sentences of social science and therefore the basis of falsification and verification in empirical communication science too.

The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy - Jennifer Rowley, 2007

Viktor E. Frankl: Man's Search for Meaning.

One Jew, Two Opinions | My Jewish Learning

Frans H. Van Eemeren ,Rob Grootendorst et al : Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory.

Dennis Howitt, Duncan Cramer: Statistiek in de sociale wetenschappen / druk 3.

Ann Bowling: Research methods in health, second edition.

John B. West, Jan Gerhard Toonder :The Case for Astrology.

Skyscript.co.uk :: View topic - Evidence that chart rectification works

Ivan Kelly: The Concepts of Modern Astrology: a Critique.

Dane Rudhyar - Statistical Astrology and Individuality - Rudhyar Archival Project (First Published in Horoscope Magazine May 1971): Rudhyar is correct that statisticians only deal with groups. But astrologers do the same when they assign particular properties to particular sun or moon signs. Only, for a more selected (or could it be more biased) audience. See: The pot calling the kettle black.

Top