This Site is Proudly Hosted By:
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 good 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?