Please note that most of the arguments cited in this odyssey topic are specific to judicial astronomy, which is concerned with individual birth charts and human personality. Although some of the arguments may apply to other forms of astrology, you may take this topic as merely asking you to logically evaluate the arguments presented for and against judicial astronomy.
Imagine that someone writes an "astroguess" computer program in the following manner. First, our programmer collects a large number of recent horoscopes by the most reputable astrologers. Second, she analyzes these horoscopes to see what kinds of descriptions and predictions they make, what range of values is covered by each kind, and with what frequency each particular value is included in a particular horoscope. (For instance, it may turn out that out of 100,000 horoscopes, assertiveness is mentioned 70,000 times, with 30,000 people being described as assertive, 25,000 people being described as easy-going and 15,000 being described as both assertive and easy-going. This yields frequencies of 0.3 for assertive, 0.25 for easy-going and 0.15 for assertive and easy-going. Finding true love with a Virgo is mentioned 10,000 times, with a Virgo or Taurus 1,000 times, and so on.) The programmer then writes a program that will generate "horoscopes" based entirely on random number generation applied to the frequencies derived from the original horoscopes. No matter what astrological information is entered, (or not entered) the program randomly assembles a collection of descriptions and predictions that will, to the non-astrologer, appear exactly similar to the original set of genuinely astrological horoscopes.
Say we have reputable astrologers generate horoscopes based on
astrological principles and accurate birth data for 1,000 people and
we independently generate an astroguess "horoscope" for each person
as well, do we have any reason to expect that the genuine horoscopes
will be more accurate than the randomly-generated astroguesses?
Let me repeat that, as it's an important question.
At least some astrologers claim that astrology is a reliable
method of generating new information about people's personalities and/or
future events. That is, they claim that using appropriate astrological
techniques, a qualified astrologer can generate claims that, A. were
previously unknown to the astrologer, B. were produced by the
application of astrological methods to the client's natal chart, not by
guessing nor cold reading, and C. are true or significantly more likely
to be true than random guesses or demographic information. To put it
another way, they claim that when an astrologer tells you something
based on your chart, that statement . .
A. . . is information that the astrologer didn't know before reading your chart.
B. . . is information based on astrological methods, (not on statistics or tricking you into revealing information about yourself.)
C. . . . is actually true or very likely to be true. (Certainly more likely than a random guess.)
Critics of astrology claim that this never happens, that applying astrological methods to someone's natal chart produces information that is no more likely to be right than a series of random guesses. They claim that in actual fact the positions of the planets at the time of a person's birth has absolutely no relation to that person's personality or future history. They do not rule out the possibility that people enjoy visiting astrologers, or that they may feel better after visiting an astrologer. They just deny that astrology really produces accurate information.
Your initial task for this topic is to answer the following questions the best you can.
Your essay should explain your reasoning clearly and completely. It should not simply give a list of reasons that happen to support your opinion. Instead, it should carefully explain and critique the logic of what you take to be the one or two most important arguments on both sides of the issue.
For more information on how you might structure your paper, see conclusion.htm
Before you start, I would like to mention my debt to Valerie Vaughn, a scholar, writer and a professional astrologer who has kindly taken the time from a very busy schedule to make comments on my astrology related materials. Ms. Vaughn did not have time to make a complete review, and I have not yet have time to make all the appropriate changes, but she did make a very large number of thoughtful and logically specific comments. These comments have been enormously helpful to me in terms of making this web site more balanced in its treatment of astrology. Doubtless, the site is still riddled with errors, but that's my fault.
My preferred method for you to tackle this particular topic is to start with Valerie Vaughan's Debunking the Debunkers and focus on those parts of it which seem to give positive support to the claim that Astrology works. If you can't see how to critique Vaughn's arguments, go on and read "astrology on the attack" by Robert Todd Carroll at Skeptic's Dictionary and Refuge Mass Media Bunk 7 (it's a little ways down the page, so scroll down a little.)
Overviews
Pro Articles
Con Articles
Alternatively, you could read astrology first, and then Debunking the Debunkers, and ask the question of whether Vaughn succeeds in refuting the skeptical arguments.
Vaughn continues the debate in Re-Bunking the Debunkers and writes more generally about astrology in One Reed Publications Articles
More articles can be found at www.astrology-and-science.com, including a response to "Re-Bunking the Debunkers."
Valerie Vaughan again with Art of Self-Defense (for Astrologers.)
An astrologer criticizes some ancient critics of astrology in Arguments Against The Astrologers
Finally, a thoughtful article from a different perspective. Interview with Nick Campion - Part 1
Magi Society http://www.magiastrology.com/
Don't try to cover everything. Just do what you can handle of the stuff that seems important.
If you have time, you can check out Kepler College of Astrological Arts and Sciences
Follow-Up Questions to Astrology
Who has the burden of proof?
So you think astrology works, huh?
So you think astrology doesn't wok, huh?
But astrology is difficult!
Astrology uses mathematics!
Does Johnathon Fraknoi refute astrology?
Does Gauquelin prove astrology?
Astrology and Hitler
Does astrology's failure to predict
Hitler refute astrology?
astromecca
astrometaphysical
astroneverrandom
astrosamechart
astroskepdic
astrouninformed
astrovaughn
astrovaughn2
Copyright © 2012 by Martin C. Young