Astrology and Adolf Hitler.

Critically examine the argument that Elsbeth Ebertin's successful prediction of some features of Hitler's life should count as evidence that astrology works.

The following questions may be relevant to your analysis.

1. How many other predictions did this astrologer make? Were any of them successful?

2. Was Hitler just one person out of a large random sample, or did the astrologer have reason to know that Hitler was significant before she cast his horoscope?

3. Was the astrologer provided with sufficiently detailed information to distinguish Hitler from everyone else born around the same time? Did she know the precise minute of his birth, or did she just know the hour of his birth? If she only knew the hour, how many people born the same hour turned out to fit the horoscope of someone born in that hour, as cast by that astrologer based on exactly the same information as provided for Hitler? If she didn't know the hour of his birth, so that her prediction for Hitler was just based on a general prediction for anyone born on that same day, how many people born that day fit this prediction to the same degree as Adolf Hitler?

The following two links contain information on the Hitler prediction. (They are long articles, so I suggest using your browser's search function to find references to Hitler.)

Art of Self-Defense (Most complete treatment.)

The Astrological Association of Great Britain

One way to approach these questions is to assume that they are being asked by someone who thinks that the argument given above is not a logically compelling argument. Therefore, you can assume that an unsatisfactory answer to any one of these questions could potentially refute the argument given above. Your task is to judge whether or not the argument given above stands up under these questions. If you think that satisfactory answers can be given to all the questions, say so and explain those answers. If you think that these questions cannot be adequately answered, say so and explain how this failure undermines the argument.

Another way to approach this problem is to keep the questions in mind as you logically analyze the argument given above.

Remember that your task is to decide whether or not this argument by itself is strong enough to support its conclusion. Finding that this argument is bad does not mean that other arguments for this conclusion are also bad. If you find it bad, say it's bad and explain why it's bad. The one thing you must not do is bring up other, unrelated arguments to support this conclusion. You can do that later. Right now your task is to evaluate just this argument.

Of course, once you've finished evaluating the argument, you can go on and add any comments that occur to you. Did you change your mind about anything? Can you come up with better arguments on each side of the issue? Can you figure out what questions have to be settled before we can decide this issue? Based on the arguments you've seen so far, what is your overall take on the issue at this moment? What reasons do you have for coming to this conclusion? Anything else?

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: