For anyone thinking of testing astrology;
It would be very instructive in this regard to know just what you believe astrology to be first. Also..
Since theories determine what we observe;
1) What is your motive for the test?
2) What are your qualifications to do research?
3) What are your astrological qualifications?
4) Where will the results be published?
Here are some considerations we would need to consider to create a strong experiment in astrology;
First in ANY test or scientific research it is assumed that understanding is
TENTATIVE. Skeptical is the perspective that perfect knowledge is not possible.
Observational studies have the ability to be more generalizable and natural but have little control over lurking variables. Sample surveys is one kind.
Experiments deliberately impose treatment or change in order to observe effects, are more controlled and allow for causal statements (if met by conditions outlined below). But experiments are more clinical, not natural, isolated, and may lessen real world application.
Here are other rules and considerations;
1) The use of an unbiased sampling method. In this case because we may be measuring categorical variables they would need to be SRS.
2) Minimizing the variables that differ between groups EXCEPT the explanatory variable. Astrology has 5.393707075 x 10 58th factors to measure (minimum). Not counting psychology and free will factors-thats a lot of lurking variables. If you are measuring astrology and not sunsign
3) Maximizing the difference between groups on explanatory variable.
4) How will you impose random assignments, produce replication, block for sex differences and deal with an unbelievable variety of categorical variables?
5) Did we control for demand characteristics? (that individuals are unable to figure out the meaning of the test).
6) What are the limits of veridicality?
7) Is the causation internal and subjective or external and objective?
8) what are the prevailing factors at time of testing that may determine locus of causation?
9) Is there a functional attribution error probability on the part of the experimenter? Observational bias?
In order to make causal statements with regard to correlations one must have;
1) Cause must precede effect.
2) Cause and effect must co-vary.
3) All other possible explanations between cause and effect must be ruled out.
Correlations do not imply explanation. A correlation is a QUANTITATIVE description of the strength and direction of the two variables. Most astrological interpretations are QUALITATIVE. Most behavioral studies are observational and more natural. Correlations are greatly affected by outliers (anomaly). Outliers makes predictions less accurate. Inferential statistic=based on PROBABILITY, which is all one will get-not "proof." It compares what would happen by chance if only done once as compared to what would be results over many or time. We simply get statements of the HO (the null hypothesis) being false in degrees of probability. Hence we disproved in degrees that the Earth was flat-never PROVED it was round. A statistic=is any number which describes a sample. A Parameter=any number which describes a population. Variability-the greater the spread (measured on a histogram). The acceptable cutoff for alpha is .05 in tests of significance. Which aspects of astrology can be tested as categorical variables and which as quantitative?
Is there Simpson's paradox at work? As in the case of quantitative variables, the effects of lurking variables can change or even reverse relationships between two categorical variables. (The Basic Practice of Statistics, 1995,
David S. Moore, page 157).
The scientific method involves and incorporates;
1) Empirical verification.
2) Operational definition.
3) Controlled observation.
4) Statistical generalization and empirical confirmation.
Unless you have operationally defined astrology properly through application, you are wasting time with all of the above.
"A physician without a knowledge of astrology has no right to call himself a physician." Hippocrates
"Nothing exists or happens in the visible sky that is not sensed in some hidden moment by the faculties of earth and nature." Johannes Kepler
"Astrology, bar sinister in the escutcheon of astronomy, maintains a unique and lonely position in human thought. It is "believed in" by a lot of people who know practically nothing about it; and it is "disbelieved in" by even more who know ABSOLUTELY nothing about it. Of no other art or science can this be said." Grant Lewi- "Why I believe in Astrology"
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. © 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting
http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks
http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
