STATISTICS VERSUS ASTROLOGY?

V.Gorbatsevich (Russia)

In the second half of 2003 in newspapers in many countries all over the world a lot of information has appeared that (at last!) the inconsistency of astrology has finally been proven. Such newspaper coverage has almost entirely been based on an article written by two authors:

G.Dean, I.Kelly “Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?” Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 10, No. 6-7, June-July 2003.

G. Dean is a former astrologer and well-known astrological researcher, now turned active critic. I. Kelly is a professor of the Department of Educational Psychology from Canada.

The aim of this article is an attempt to discredit astrology on a basis of “empirical researches”. The article is written with the pathos of accusation which is wide spread during recent years among a group of people called "skeptics". Therefore as a typical sample of their approach to astrology, this article deserves a detailed discussion. I am going to show, that its concrete results actually are, at the best, inexact, and most likely - erroneous.

The beginning of this article gives a review of astrology in our day, quoting the viewpoints of some Western astrologers. Also it is discusses the similarities of astrology and shamanism, and about the role of mental (parapsychological) abilities.

Then the principle of analogy is discussed. This principle, I am sure, is the basis of any serious approach to astrology. But the authors of this article display a very simplified understanding of this principle. For them it is on the level of the primitive analogies understood literally. Their examples of disproving this principle is of the type: John Smith's height will tell nothing about John Braun's height. They use an analogy of names and try to declare their connection with physical characteristic of a body. Yes, it is possible to get a lot of information about a person from his name, but not about his physical conditions, it is an absolutely different level of information.

Further on in the article a history of empirical researches in astrology is looked into. Then it discusses measurements in astrology. Usually measurements in astrology are carried out in terms of the criteria chi-square or of the correlation coefficient (two terms from mathematical statistics). Instead, the authors prefer to use a more easily understood (for non-mathematicians) measure - an "effect size".

Now let’s talk about the basic contents of that article. Initially, it describes a standard method used when attempting to refute astrology – using researches of twins.

By the way, the authors do not at all mention the psychogenetic research which is also based on the study twins. This type of research shows many results that the authors of this article has unsuccessfully looked for. See below for more details.

The basic idea of “proofs of inconsistency in astrology” here are the following. The astrological parameters of twins who have been born with just a lapse of a few minutes are almost identical. Meaning, they ought to have an almost similar life. Research checking the similarities of the lives of twins have been carried out.

And here I would like to make some remarks.

First of all, a birth time difference of just 4 minutes can lead to the disappearance or appearance of aspects from one or more planets to the angular points of the horoscope. Therefore there is typically a real astrological difference between the charts of twins.

Secondly – Psychology is not yet an exact science, and you cannot yet measure the precise characteristics of a person using tests or interviews. And there is actually no good reason for using the results oof standard psychological tests to judge any other areas of knowledge, such as for instance astrology.

Let's return to the article. Some preliminary results are now summarized, continuing with D.Dean's results (which have not yet been officially published) concerning the research of 2101 twins (who were born in London from March 5 till March, 9, 1958). The average difference between these birth times is approximately 5 minutes (for 73% these differences are less than 5 minutes, and for 4% - more than 15 minutes). About 95% of the data times are known to be within 5 minutes (a rounding off), the others - to be within 1 minute.

And here I have another remark. How was the birth time defined? The first cry, cutting of a umbilical cord or something else? Unless you have such a definition, to flaunt such accuracy as 1 or 5 minutes is unworthy of any serious researcher.

Back to the article again. At the ages 11, 16 and 25 years all pairs of twins were MEASURED (but it is not explained how the so-called measurements were performed, or whether it is even possible or valid to talk about measurements in these areas!) in the areas of approximately 130 characteristics, among which:

· IQ (factor of intelligence)

· Tests for reading and arithmetic

· Teachers and parents ratings of behaviour such as

· anxiety

· aggressiveness

· sociability

My comment:

On the factor of intelligence in terms of IQ: all serious researchers have ceased using this characteristic a long time ago. It has been proven that there is no direct correspondence of the IQ characteristic either with thinking or with intelligence in general.

Aggressiveness (or anxiety and so on) – can this be defined as an objective characteristic? No, this is only an artificial parameter. It can be ranked, but to measure it is a mistake. Teachers and parents ratings – I can only describe these as very erroneous data.

The article again. Physical characteristics were also measured:

· Height and weight,

· Vision and hearing.

Also self-ratings of ability were "measured" in such areas as

· art,

· music,

· sports.

My comment:

Musical abilities – there are no adequate criteria mentioned here. For example, there are composers without feeling of a rhythm and so on. How can this be objectively "measured'?

The article continues with further information:

· Occupations

· Marital status

Correlation (in terms of the size of effect) for the found characteristics for pairs of twins was calculated. The problem is stated – to find out, whether it is true that there is no connection (correlation) between the characteristics of twins.

The result is zero, 0.00 +/-0.03 (for the size of effect - i.e. for a deviation from casual). In other words – there is practically no correlation between all these parameters practically. But there should be (from the point of view of authors on astrology) – if these parameters are connected to an astrological map.

The conclusions of the authors are: the results of their research is not in accordance with an idea of solar signs and with the K. Jung idea of synchronism. Thus the authors consider that they have finally exposed astrology as, at the best, a pseudo science, although astrologers are frequently considered to simply be frauds.

My comment to this conclusion is the following. The authors used mainly artificial parameters for their research. What is IQ? It is not a measure of intelligence, it is something else. That means you cannot used it for unequivocal judgement of a persons characteristics. “Solar signs astrology” is not astrology; it is just a primitive kind of popular astrology.

Another remark. Psychogenetic research reliably reveals a number of factors (including some which are connected with intelligence), which are significantly correlated for twins. For example, for twins there are extremely similar encephalograms (especially in infantile and at senile age), and also features of a facial mimicry. At these researches it was taken into account, whether or not the twins lived together, and, if they lived separately, when the separation took place, as well as taking into account a number of other important factors. But our two authors have chosen not to bother with such details. If we compare the accuracy of twins research in psychogenetic research and the valiant "measurements" of our critics of astrology, then we see a great difference between real scientific and modern “skeptical” approaches.

This article further on discusses another theme, which has been very popular among the "skeptics" of the recent years – tests for astrologers. The authors tell about the results of more of their “research”: about astrologers using an astrological chart to try to predict such parameters, as N (neuroticism) and E (extraversion). The “obtained result”: astrologers do not hit absolutely, there are only casual coincidences.

My comments:

In fact is no such universal characteristic as extraversion. There is Mercury in Aries (or in Gemini or in Leo and so on), Venus in Aries, Mars in Aries, the Moon or the Sun in Aries – all this gives us various KINDS of extraversion. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure extraversion as it is done in psychology. It is a methodological mistake. On the basis of an erroneous method, it is possible to refute almost everything. As it is done the by authors of this article to astrology. Alas, for the role of serious critics of astrology they do not aspire adequately. Using mathematical methods is no help, it the data used is artificial.