Oh, I do hope that you are about to challenge Gillian's knowledge of astrology :-)

*grabs popcorn*

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Gillian has given up that argument, thank you. It's clear we have different interpretations of astrology.

However, I'd like a clear, concise paragraph, with references cited, about true evidence that DNA is at all affected by astrology before I'll give up that little argument.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Sorry, I must have missed that.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Astrological effects are small but real. Hence they are largely swamped by terrestrial factors, and are resistant to demonstration. Consider if human psychology is 99% due to terrestrial factors and 1% due to astrological factors. Much of the 99% involves some level of pathology, for example where people believe falsehoods, are affected by trauma, or try to be something for which they lack natural talent. Such pathology can completely swamp the weak 1% from planetary influence. However, where the astrological 1% is clearly expressed, a person acts in accordance with an observed and predicted cosmic rhythm. This is precisely what statistical researcher Michel Gauquelin proved.

In an article Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, called “a wonderful paper, a very thoroughly researched, well-documented, and referenced paper,” Gauquelin’s finding of relation between planetary positions and birth times of eminent people is described as “tiny but consistent.” Does Phil think this consistent astrological finding is “wonderful, etc”?

Why would these consistent planetary relations show up only among the eminent? I surmise it is because the eminent are more in touch with their underlying identity, and this self-awareness is a key factor in their professional success. Rather than struggling to be some one else, the eminent, in Socrates’ term, know themselves. Many are called but few are chosen, and those few often rely on natural advantages. Gauquelin’s work proves that one of those natural advantages is planetary alignment: Saturn rising for scientists, Jupiter for politicians, Mars for soldiers.

Where is the explanation for this demonstrated fact? The point I have emphasized here is that the science of astrology has nothing to do with the stars, and the contrary traditional view (eg #29, Gillianren: “astrology is still divided into star signs, no matter which version”) is a major element in its ill-repute. Gauquelin’s findings are a function of the solar system alone. It is absurd to imagine that cosmic rays from a distant constellation such as Leo are focussed by the sun to structure the personality of everyone born from 23 July to 23 August, especially since precession of the equinox means the constellation of Cancer is now behind the sun during the Leo period. However, it is logically possible that the regular rhythms of the solstices and equinoxes, and of planetary cycles, are imbedded in all life on earth, providing a weak but real structure of terrestrial/biological time. The model Richard Dawkins presents in The Blind Watchmaker for evolution of sight could apply equally well to evolution of adaptation to planetary rhythms. I think this is simple, elegant, consistent and coherent.

A further point on the scientific tests in which astrologers have failed to match birth charts to individuals. If the astrological effect is so weak, succeeding in these tests is rather like asking people to crack safes by feeling the tumblers fall into position – very difficult. However, when the combination is known, we open the safe first time. A birth chart is like the combination lock to a person’s underlying identity and potential. Knowing it provides amazing deep insights into who they really are. But given that so many people are lacking in self-awareness, and cover their real identity with an invented persona, guessing their birth chart is bound to be tough even for an expert. Planetary effects will emerge in subtle statistical variance, but scientific hostility to such research makes this hypothesis impossible to test.

In what?? article.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

None of those are examples of pathology.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

As discussed at #118, Science and Astrology, Phil Plait’s quoted statement is at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ml#intro#intro. Phil says: I read a wonderful paper, a very thoroughly researched, well-documented, and referenced paper…titled Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?".”

This paper is hostile to astrology, which of course is why Phil likes it. However, it describes Gauquelin’s astrological findings as “tiny but consistent.” See http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf (page 186). My post 118 linked above discusses further.

Gillian: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathology for broader definitions of pathology (ie not just disease but suffering) which cover my use of the term. Believing falsehoods, suffering trauma and lack of self knowledge can legitimately be included under this broader use. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormality is relevant.

I'm afraid your cite doesn't support that use. It's the etymology of the word, to be sure, but it's not the meaning. Still, I'd like to see that evidence, with cites, that astrology alters DNA.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

...and he goes on to say..."The paper demolishes, utterly, any notion that astrology has any effect at all."

But you know that already.

Be very careful about ascribing motive subjectively. It makes you appear biased.

I'd love to look at page 186...problem is, there are only 24 pages to the pdf.

I don't know how I missed reading that post, but having done so, I realize that there is absolutely no evidence that would convince you that you are wrong...you are a "true believer".

...and as such, I can't think of any reason to continue in this discussion.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

If you read the PDF, you will see the journal page numbers. I take your point about being careful, but am not sure what you mean by bias when the aim of my critique of Phil Plait’s essay was to explore how mainstream science is biased against investigation of real planetary effects. Apologies if an informal conversational tone is inappropriate.

We are all guilty of selective quotation – as I noted, Phil uses the Dean and Kelly material that supports his case, but ignores their comments such as “the possibility that astrology might be relevant to consciousness and psi is not denied.”

I reject the ‘true believer’ tag, as precisely what I have been trying to do here is show that there is real evidence, accepted by hostile critics as ‘tiny but consistent’, and tease out the scientific and philosophical implications. If you can show something I have said that is a ‘true belief’ which you can demonstrate is false, please go right ahead. I am trying to be scientific here.

Science and Astrology provides my understanding of the scientific status of the relation between DNA and planetary rhythms, including reference to work by Frank Brown. Gauquelin has proved inheritance of planetary positions in birth charts – ie that people are more likely to have the same planetary positions at birth as their parents (eg Mars on horizon) than predicted by chance. http://cura.free.fr/xv/14doug1.html has a list of references and good explanation. http://cura.free.fr/xxx/30doug3.html discusses efforts “to solve the problem of how the Gauquelin Effect might have come to confer survival value, using the concept in evolution theory of inclusive fitness, and some ideas on birth order and family ecology”
http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstrTXT.htm is a summary of Gauquelin material as is http://www.planetos.info/mmf.html. http://www.astrologywww.com/autor/comentng.htm is another source, with useful links. http://www.astrodatabank.com/ is a good research source.

Gillian, re my description of false belief as a pathology, I don’t get your point – are you saying that false belief etc is not pathological in any way? My point was that the scientific tests which have tried to match people with birth charts have a basic methodological error, that pathology (broadly understood as dysfunction) resulting from terrestrial factors can completely hide planetary effects from view, but that does not mean the planetary effects are not there.

Absolutely right, except for certain highly limited circumstances, such as paranoid delusions. Merely believing something that isn't true doesn't count as a paranoid delusion in every case, and therefore it is not reliably designated "pathology."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It is actually quite common to see comments that false belief is a pathology - eg Alister McGrath on Freud “it was once fashionable to suggest that religion was some kind of pathology” http://www.scienceandchristianbelief...icle%20172.pdf, from a Karen Armstrong interview, “hating religion is a pathology” http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/f...ng_beyond_god/, and at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2005/PSCF6-05Carter.pdf “For Dawkins and Dennett … religious beliefs are examples of pathological memes. Religious people are victims of these pathological memes in the same way that people with influenza are victims of a pathological virus.”

I would like to summarise my disagreement with Phil Plait’s essay, discussed above at Science and Astrology. Phil provides an important service in drawing attention to the wide acceptance of false belief, but, sadly, he seems to have allowed prejudice to blind him to the accurate point of demarcation between sense and nonsense. The scientific mainstream may well consider it acceptable and amusing to pour scorn on a widely accepted non-mainstream belief, and to do so without regard for logic or accuracy, but there should at least be some comeback to correct the record.

Phil rightly points out that electromagnetic force cannot be the basis of astrology. But his claim that gravity cannot account for astrology has a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Apart from his unsourced and incorrect claim that astrology argues distance does not matter, he provides a table of planetary gravitational effects on earth at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planets.html which leaves out the sun, the single biggest source. The skewing of his results is so severe that of course he gets rubbish results. Phil strangely says “astrologers claim that all the planets have equal (or at least comparable) effects.” This unsourced statement is simply false. Maybe the problem here is that research to source it would require the reading of repugnant material. Gauquelin has proven planetary effects, so saying "but they seem improbable" is simply not scientific.

Maybe the reality is that astrology is so beneath contempt that normal criteria are blithely disregarded. It creates the suspicion the agenda is as much cultural war as rational inquiry.

Note that one of those is past tense and none of them are from doctors. What's more, Dawkins and Dennett are clearly using it as a metaphor.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I mentioned false belief, self delusion and trauma as pathologies of the psyche to illustrate that even if planetary effects provide a tiny but real contribution to human psychology, these effects are swamped by terrestrial factors. The planetary effects, however, have a consistency which makes them worth studying.

I don’t accept that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett regard their use of pathology as a description of religion as ‘metaphor’. They genuinely consider religion a disorder of society which can be treated by scientific reason. I don’t agree with their diagnosis of the structure of social pathology, but agree that pathology is a useful term to map social analysis. Use in mathematics (see below) is instructive. It is also a helpful term to analyse the factors of personality – environmental, hereditary, cultural and planetary.

Claiming planetary factors in personality (as proved by Gauquelin) extends the scope of environmental factors by postulating the solar system as a cosmic framework for human ecology. For astrophysics, this requires analysis of rhythmic cycles as a primary phenomenon. Responding to BAUT questions about quantizable force, we can observe that the energy inherent in cycles is not entirely described by any of the four forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_force) but is a product of their interaction. For example, the ecology of terrestrial response to lunar tides picks up on a gravitational relationship between earth and moon, but the way organisms adapt to tidal effects is complex, with physics providing the material substrate for biology. Fractal geometry can be used to map the rhythms of the inter-tidal zone against lunar and solar rhythms.

Following previous comments on Phil Plait’s discussion of astrology, I also note his comments on the zodiac at www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/zodiac.html properly address the misconception that astrological signs could be linked to stars. My concern is that his criticisms of this simple error do not engage with the question of whether a physics of the signs exists. I sought to describe such a physics in my opening post. (Science and Astrology) and in subsequent explanations of the difference between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. The tropical zodiac (a function of the seasons) entirely explains the mathematics of astrological signs.

Phil asks: “the dates the Sun is in a given constellation do not line up with the astrological dates of the constellation. For example, my birthday is in September, but I am a Libra, not a Virgo. This is because the astrological zodiacal signs were invented about 2000 years ago, and since then, the precession of the Earth's axis (the change in the direction that the Earth's axis points) has shifted the constellations over. How come astrologers don't take that into account?”

Use of the tropical zodiac fully answers this question. Looking at a picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:North_season.jpg of the seasonal framework, the four images of earth around the ecliptic are taken at the equinoctial and solsticial points. For astrology, these physical points are the cusps of Capricorn, Aries, Cancer and Libra. I argue the seasonal fourfold rhythm caused by the interaction of earth and sun naturally divides in a further triple rhythm entrained by the lunar cycle of three months in each quarter, producing the twelve signs. This natural physical rhythm explains why sharp cusps are observed between each sign.

I should note, beyond the medical context Gillian advocates, pathology has interesting use in mathematics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patholo...mathematics%29 states:
“three important historical examples of this are the following:
1. The discovery of irrational numbers by the school of Pythagoras in ancient Greece - the first example of an irrational number they found was the length of the diagonal of a unit square;
2. The discovery of number fields whose rings of integers do not admit unique factorisation;
3. The discovery of fractals and other "rough" geometric objects (see Hausdorff dimension).
At the time of their discovery, each of these were considered highly pathological; today, each has been assimilated, which is to say, explained by an extensive general theory.”

I would hope the same can occur for planetary rhythms.

Just a final note before this thread is closed to thank BAUT for allowing me to present ideas freely, gauge scientific reaction, identify areas needing further work, and clarify the logic of my argument. BAUT members have been generous with time, interest and web resources, if not always with sympathy, and your hard questions have spurred me to do a lot of research.

I do think the new thirty day ATM rule makes good sense, although perhaps a bit longer will prove to be justified. In my thread here, once I received a set of questions and went away to think about them for a few weeks, the next phase of the discussion, which I found very helpful, could have been on a new thread. A known time limit presents a discipline which makes clear the need for preparation, seriousness and focus before taking up people's valuable time.

In trying to apply scientific method to a subject generally viewed as unrigorous, the material here still faces big challenges to pass scientific peer review. An interesting dimension of this debate is its sociological and philosophical implications, notably around TS Kuhn's theory of incommensurability of rival paradigms, and the problem of extracting any objective truth out of the confused mish mash of astrology. In this regard I believe there remains fruitful work to be done in critiquing the tradition of mechanistic causality from a perspective of dynamic system theory. Astronomy guards its objectivity with zeal, and the socio-political importance of astronomy as a ground of objectivity is immense. The ability to test the boundaries of objectivity in linking astronomy to other disciplines is one of the main underlying reasons why I have posted on BAUT. I hope this theme will provide material for further ATM discussion.

With best regards

Robert Tulip

I can't say I've agreed with your hypotheses at any point, Mr. Tulip, but that was indeed very well said. My hat's off to you, sir.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher