Astrology vs. Random Premise

Critically analyze the argument that astrology performs better than random guessing because "astrology is based on the premise that conditions are never random."

1. In your own words, explain what random guessing is (with at least one example), and explain what astrologers would have to achieve in order for astrology to actually perform better than random guessing.

2. In your own words, explain what is meant by the statement "conditions are never random." (If it means anything at all.) Explain what the world would be like if conditions were random.

3. If it was true that astrology did not perform any better than random guessing, would that mean that conditions are sometimes random? If you think it would, explain how.

4. Do we have any reason to think that the statement "conditions are never random" is true.

5. Overally, does the claim that conditions are never random adequately explain the fact that Astrology has never succeeded in performing better than chance in any properly randomized study? (If you're not sure what a randomized study is, click random.htm.) Explain.

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?

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: