If you are a scientist or at least a skeptic, then one of the first associations to the term "astrologer" in your mind would be something like "charlatan". One of the most commonly believed notions about astrology and the rest of the occult or esoteric practices is that people doing it are either con artists, or mentally challenged. That sentiment goes a long way to explain why illusionists, of all people, often try to publicly unmask the trickery behind it and thus debunk it. Leaving the mental challenge aside for now, let's discuss the possibility of doing something like astrology honestly, and how that which illusionists debunk as astrology is mostly illusion and trickery, but of their own making.
To name two, I am mostly referring to the numerous works of The Amazing Randi and of Derren Brown, though I am certain there were many others of lesser fame doing something very similar. I do admit that these people know a lot about illusion and manipulation of audience, just as I do admit that there are dishonest and manipulative (pretend) practitioners of astrology. But let me make one thing clear - I am not going for the so called "no true Scotsman fallacy", arbitrarily defining real astrologers as only the good, decent and honest people doing astrology. Real astrologer can still be a nasty person, but that is because the difference between a real astrologer and a fake one lies in their method, not their values or intent. Just like there is a difference between a real doctor and a fake doctor - either can have good or ill intentions, but only the real one possesses the objective skill and knowledge to perform true medical treatment. Just to be clear, for the purposes of this article, I am not going to defend the accuracy of astrology, only that it is not inherently fraudulent.
Several shady practices have been identified by the illusionists as the "method" of how astrologers operate. Starting from outright scam, the sun sign astrology columns in many newspapers are allegedly being put together just by randomly cycling vague statements that apply to everybody. And that is indeed often true - if the column is run by marketers, but not astrologers. Astrology sells, and they need to sell their newspapers, so they are eager to publish anything that may pass as astrology, which they can create using minimal effort. Sadly, that is fraud. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology, which historically consists predominantly of elaborate readings of whole natal charts made for individual people on the basis of accurate astronomical data. Horoscope that is not truly personalized cannot possibly tell much to a person, even if the statements are derived from astrological lore rather than random nonsense, and that is something any real astrologer would tell you. Even a bad one, even an evil one. Randomizing or averaging of statements is not a part of astrological method, period.
Another alleged essential astrological practice is supposed to be cold reading a person - making stuff up based on the reactions of the person. This can apply to personal readings of whole natal charts, which means it would at least mimic astrology reasonably well, unlike horoscope columns in generic commercial newspapers. While cold reading or even hot reading (outright asking the person for their background or some clarification) can be used to enhance astrological reading, in exactly the same way a psychologist would utilize it, astrology is not that. Astrologists do tend to use the best findings and methods of modern psychology and train their analytic skills, but astrology has lore, which is the source of most of the statements and knowledge behind a reading. Psychology can get you far, but there is a reason why behavioral psychology tends to view people as black boxes - certain aspects of inner, essential human nature, cannot be observed. That is what astrology primarily focuses on. It also blurs lines between personality and seemingly unrelated circumstances - things that have likely happened to the person, of which the astrologer can have no objective knowledge.
What it means in terms of how to spot a person who only fakes astrology? For each statement, a real astrologer would have a clear answer as to how he knows or why he says something about the person in the reading. If you cold read a person to be stubborn and skeptical, you cannot simply attribute it to any astrological symbolism. Only certain signs are supposed to be stubborn, each in a very particular and distinct way (for instance some would be stubborn believers). If the pretender attributed such a trait for instance to a Moon in pisces, it would be astrologically incorrect statement, because Moon rules sentimentality, not anything to do with will, and pisces is an easily yielding personality type. Such non-astrological reading, if well meant and, psychologically speaking, competent, could still help the customer, however, it would be fraud in the sense that it is not astrology. The problem is that astrologists and their societies typically do not enforce qualification tests or regulate the standards of astrological practice in any way. That admittedly makes it a bit of a lottery in terms of how competent or how real astrologer any given customer will get. On this front, it is probably a good idea to seek out astrologers who do not seem to be in it for the money. Yes, they do exist.
Which brings me to another frequently stressed point by the critics - how much of a scam astrology is in terms of the sheer amount of money it steals from poor schmucks all over the world. There is money in scams, generally speaking, in real astrology though, not all that much. One can make a living doing it, but getting rich, not really. People who just seek to get rich easily would make a much bigger fortune in more conventional businesses, such as telemarketing, and that is why it is probably a universally bad idea to seek "astrologer's" counsel over the phone, as well as listening to anything anyone has to offer over the phone. If the great skeptics and scientists truly wanted to make the world a better place, they would focus their energy on the actual big swindlers, such as the corporations that offer financial services. Those seem to offend them less, though they do on occasion truly ruin entire economies and people's lives. Conversely, even a pretend reading can still work as a placebo, actually helping the person in question, while a certified psychologist's prescription of unneeded medication can ruin the patient's health. You may not like the world we live in, but as a scientist, you should prioritize your scorn a bit more objectively.
As for the great skeptical-illusionist personalities mentioned earlier, Randi and Brown, as much as I would like to avoid turning this into an ad hominem fallacy, their character, motivation or methods in dealing with all the "woo" like astrology, are not beyond reproach. As for Randi, firstly I have to refer you to the whole sTARBABY incident with the CSICOP organization in regards to the (in)famous Gauquelin's Mars Effect experiment. If you are interested to see why exactly this high profile skeptical organization has zero moral high ground, read sTARBABY, which is a book written by an insider (skeptical of astrology, btw), freely available on the net. In summary, CSICOP and similar organizations tend to put politics ahead of science, since in their minds, apparently, the conclusion that astrology cannot possibly work comes before evidence. My direct personal experience with the Czech equivalent called Sisyfos only reinforces my belief that it is a widespread phenomenon in the prominent skeptical circles.
What's more, Randi's famous million dollar challenge is an outright mockery of experimental science, setting virtually impossible standards of proof under obstructive conditions in a hostile environment, so that the overblown prize never gets paid, of course. As for Brown, if you track down his Barnum test reading that disproves astrology in his book Tricks of the Mind, you can see for yourselves, by comparing it to an actual natal chart made by any real astrologer, that it is not an astrological reading, thus the "test" proves nothing. But you don't get to see that in the video, of course - there is no detail of the reading apart from a few words, no comparison to an astrological reading, no explanation of how exactly it is astrological. Brown does ask for the date of birth, but he clearly doesn't use any astrological symbolisms in the reading or derive anything from any natal chart. Either he misunderstands the subject severely, simply doesn't care, or deliberately misleads to make a good show to please the crowd, something illusionists are much better at than astrologists.
To top it all off, look at the reactions of these would be champions of science to a test that goes in astrologist's favor in this video and in comments below it. Watch the sheer uncritical denial. It is from the show of Michael Shermer, another prominent skeptic, and it of course isn't done on a large enough sample to be more than just intriguing - but if the test went the other way, I bet these "skeptics" would find it to be proof enough. The only Shermer's reaction? He wished he could re-edit it to make it look more like how it was supposed to go, debunking the astrologer. How charming. My conclusion is that if these skeptics wish to investigate delusions and fraud, they should start with themselves. None of that makes astrology necessarily true, but it justifies a lot of the fears and objections of the esoteric practitioners and it obstructs scientific exploration of the matter, hurting the image of everybody involved and getting nothing done, or even setting the whole thing back. Substituting inquiry with accusation is the job of the inquisition, leaving these modern witch hunters on the wrong side of history.
I would like to conclude by a little horoscope in the astrological style of Discworld:
People pointing pitchforks at you may not have the best intentions.
No comments:
Post a Comment