We think readers will understand that a coherent reply is difficult when the original is as full of mistakes as Elwell’s is. Unfortunately Elwell’s second article contains more mistakes, more evasions, and more unsupported assertions, despite our repeated invitation for him to check with us beforehand, so a coherent reply is again difficult. Readers who prefer a concise account of the main issues will find one in our overview, for details see our first comment.

Elwell is blaming us for making too many comments. But since they consisted largely of pointing out his mistakes and unsupported assertions, he should be blaming himself for having made so many. In any case, because he makes the same mistakes and the same unsupported assertions over and over again (and still does, as you will see), our comments were often repetitious. So their supposed number should not be a problem to anyone genuinely interested in debate. Also, notice how he puts “researchers” in quotes, as if we were not really researchers. So what is his definition of a researcher?

No, replies are not apt to become tedious if there is a genuine spirit of co-operation, as existed between us and Garry Phillipson during the interview. Whenever differences arose, they were speedily resolved (usually they were due to simple misunderstandings), thus preventing tedious waffle. That Garry was asking the questions, and would allow no evasion, was another factor in preventing tedious waffle. To be sure, Elwell had once expressed to us the view that “a civilised debate is long overdue.” But a debate running on his somewhat sarcastic talk (his next few paragraphs are an example), while perhaps entertaining, is hardly conducive to focussing on central issues, and a debate in which (as we show) he ignores or evades questions is hardly a debate.

It is begging the question to call astrology a science. All the sciences (natural and social) are characterized by a suspicion of authorities, tradition, and experience, whereas the opposite applies in astrology. Ideas in the sciences are rigorously tested, and scientific journals are filled with debates over theories and central ideas, and not even the fundamentals are spared (witness the debates over quantum mechanics, superstring theory, and the genome project). Where is the same level of testing and debate in The Astrological Journal or The Mountain Astrologer? Further, no scientific theory could survive the quantity and seriousness of the anomalies and disagreements found in astrology.

 

Finally, challenges and evidence-based changes are routine in science, but not in astrology, where claims of infallibility and resistance to evidence are the norm. Whereas disagreement in science leads to clarification of the problems and progress in solving problems, disagreement in astrology leads only to more (usually glossed over) disagreement and stagnation. To be sure, Elwell admits that astrology still has problems. But just as important as the existence of problems is the existence of procedures for investigating and fixing them. Any research text in the social or natural sciences will provide such procedures, but in astrology they are conspicuously absent. For example, what procedures other than speculation would Elwell use to challenge or support American astrologer Zip Dobyns’s ideas that Pluto is the primary ruler of Scorpio and Chiron is a co-ruler of Pisces? So to answer Elwell’s question, yes, it is different elsewhere.

The implication is that examples of this follow below, but even if you can spot them, you will wait in vain for an indication of how (1) and (2) apply. Readers who keep a tally of unsupported assertions and jibes-in-lieu-of-facts will get a clear indication of which side is still in the business of impressionism.

This is not so. Bear with us.

 

The claim was made by Rudolf Tomaschek, who was also an astrologer. Unfortunately the argument depends on Tomaschek not being an astrologer.

Tomaschek carried out a statistical analysis of 134 major earthquakes. He found that the positions of the planets at the time and place of these earthquakes was significantly non-random. In particular Uranus, Pluto and Jupiter tended to be involved in configurations, which typically involved squares and harmonics thereof, which supports those astrologers who have attributed revolutionary or explosive characters to Uranus and Pluto. In 39 cases Uranus was conjunct or opposite the MC orb 15 degrees, which suggested that Uranus in such a position (and as part of a configuration) might sometimes trigger a major earthquake. Elwell, in his previous article, argued that this would mean a major earthquake twice a day, but evidently he overlooked the role of the configuration.

But no observations from Pearce are cited. Elwell says only that Pearce wrote a chapter on earthquakes “but makes only passing references to Uranus.”

The ploy is to take what your opponent says, dress it up a bit, and serve it back as if you had introduced it yourself. And since you are introducing it, then it must support your case, mustn’t it? Highly recommended!

The omitted part is “, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars in Taurus.” Had we quoted more it supports our case even more: “They [earthquakes] are usually produced by eclipses, and can be traced by the various rules given for mundane Astrology; we have no record of earthquakes occurring when the planets were not in violent signs.” It is from Leo’s Dictionary of Astrology (1929).

No, it was not to show that astrology falls down, it was to show that astrologers do connect Uranus with earthquakes.

What point? That astrologers do not connect Uranus with earthquakes? Go back six paragraphs to where Elwell complains about ploys that dress up and serve back. You have just seen him do exactly that.

This is misleading. In his first article, Elwell said “Smit’s studies have never been published” when in fact they had been published in a journal, in an anthology, and in a report of a conference that had been attended by Elwell.

Note how Elwell mentions only the conference and not the actual publications, of whose non-existence he had previously been so certain.

The reported findings ought to have been memorable — for example they did not support claims that the aspects at important events are always fitting, that the orbs are always tiny, and that precise birth times are always necessary, all surely worth noting.

But nobody is using them as ammunition against astrology in general, we are talking only about Smit’s results and how they conflicted with Carter’s. Note how Elwell is implying that primary directions cannot work, which is the same kind of ex cathedra dismissal that he complains about in others. More on primary directions later.

But later he argues that the multiplicity of house systems and zodiacs is not a problem. Also, as we note later, very little consensus exists anywhere in astrology. So why is it suddenly a problem here?

Originally all primaries were calculated by hand, an extremely tedious and time-consuming process. Nowadays computers do it all in a twinkling, so testing the various methods to find the best performer is no longer a problem.

Not so. Previous experience is not a pre-requisite for testing X, just as owning a Ford is not a pre-requisite for taking a test drive. So the argument self-destructs. On the other hand it is reasonable to run pilot tests to weed out the worst performers, and this is exactly what a number of astrologers in the Netherlands did in the 1970s. Smit was one of them. They tested various methods and time keys on a small set of verified charts, each with a large number of outstanding events. The results were not shockingly different, but one method seemed to be more promising than the others, which is why they initially stuck to it.

This implies that researchers first make up their minds and then carry on regardless of the results. In this case the Dutch researchers, including Smit, were ardent believers in astrology at the time, but this did not save their results.

Exactly right. But Smit had already told Elwell this, so why is it being brought up?

As if Smit and the other Dutch researchers did not know this, despite having taken it into account with every experiment.

To try to solve the puzzles of primary directions from birth charts is inadvisable, because even if there is confidence in the time on the clock, there may be doubt as to what the moment of “birth” actually is, cosmically speaking. Practically, the stated time might be the first time those attending the birth think to look at the clock. Astrology is not always the first thing on everybody’s mind at such moments.

This is the familiar copout about how nobody knows what the “cosmically-correct” birth time is. Some astrologers take it to extreme lengths and have no qualms about rectifying birth times hours away from the one actually recorded. Doris Greaves, the grand old lady of Australian astrology, routinely asked astrologers to rectify her chart by way of testing their skills, and some managed to shift her birth time back to before her mother had gone into labour. But their faith in their result was undiminished. Smit himself once tested various astrologers, whose techniques were numerous, but there was no agreement on the rectified time, and none approached the recorded time, the differences amounting to hours. Elwell now goes on to promote rectification, but you will not find the slightest hint that it might be suspect.

No wonder experienced astrologers are hesitant to rely on the stated time of birth until they have been able to confirm it by life-events.

The use of the term “experienced” astrologers is typical of astrologers attacking their former peers who for good reasons quit the field. In this regard, during his email exchanges with Elwell, Smit did not tell him, but doing chart rectifications counted for about 30% of Smit’s income while he was still a professional astrologer. Thus he can hardly be denied the experience Elwell apparently demands. Nonetheless, already by that time, Smit did recognise that research projects working towards a pre-determined result hardly qualify as research.

Ironically, Marr was a proponent of primary directions, which Elwell was attacking a few paragraphs back for having “unresolved problems.”

Yes, see our previous comment on rectification. If astrologers cannot even agree on the rectified time, what price rectification? In any case, working towards a desired result is completely against the spirit of research. A study that rigs the deck in favour of desired results hardly qualifies as genuine inquiry.

Later Elwell himself undermines the whole idea: “Charles Carter once retorted that he could not subscribe to the logic that for something to work somewhere it had to work everywhere.” Also, Recent Advances looked at Marr’s system and found that his results were close to those expected by chance alone. Twelve years ago Marr contacted Dean for a more up-to-date check based upon his more refined rules, but the outcome was even closer to chance. In other words an astrologer using Marr’s methiod has a choice — rectification or tossing a coin. In any case astrologers should know that authenticating a chart requires a sufficient number of verified and relevant events, which number is seldom available, so even if the method worked the result would still be unreliable.

Not so. The data were reliable enough. A birth time such as 15:23 is sufficiently precise for control variations (of say 4, 8, or 12 minutes either side) to allow relevant aspects to be picked up. If the aspects showed a definite trend in one direction, they were then tested to see if other methods and other time keys improved the results. If there was anything in these astrological prediction techniques then the various charts should tend to converge on a particular method and time key. But there was no such convergence. The results were all over the place, and remained all over the place.

It means only that this journal has an international readership. And four (or more) A4 pages a month for 20 years comes to over 1000 pages.

No, you are not being careful. The conference presentation involved 72 accidental deaths in Holland and 62 suicides in New York. All have one thing in common: the deaths were violent. No inconsistencies here.

Smit stands by his decision. Anyone can have these data, provided they first submit a proper research design and indicate their willingness to have their results re-analysed. Before Smit (and other researchers) commit themselves to helping others, they want a return commitment that the research will be done properly. Many times in the past have Smit and other CORA members replied at length to a request for information, only to find there is no follow-up. Smit sees this as a reasonable safeguard against having time wasted. (CORA stands for Committee for Objective Research into Astrology and is discussed later.)

Why should it be explained? The criteria for good research design are simple enough.

Carter includes an analysis of 168 cases of accidents but gives the birth data for 160, some of which are only in the form of a reference to Leo’s Notable Nativities, none with more than local time, date and place (ie no latitude, longitude, and GMT), and all inconveniently scattered throughout the book rather than placed in a single table.

No, we merely point out that Carter’s approach did not use controls.  That is, it did not rule out alternative explanations (such as artifacts) and other non-astrological contributions to the results.

Allow us to note that Elwell’s style is a little offensive here, implying (wrongly) that we had motives other than getting the facts right before debating them.

But Elwell did keep quiet. Note also how “multiplicity” is in quotes, as if to imply (wrongly) that it was not really a problem.

This misses the point. Carter’s Zodiac and the Soul, in which he promotes his multiple symbolic directions, appeared in 1928, four years before The Astrology of Accidents, so it seems reasonable to assume that the latter is based on whatever subset of the former gave the best results. The problem is that such selection puts the results in a very different light. No wonder they were positive. There is another problem. Primary Directions have the advantage of being based on true diurnal motion of the heavens after birth, so they are not entirely imaginary. The same does not apply to symbolic directions.

Elwell had been told a lot more than that. In his emails Smit had told Elwell how he had tested the most popular predictive techniques, including Carter’s symbolic directions, but the results were all over the place. Which may be why Elwell prefers to ignore them. We call this misrepresentation. As for the “amazement”, judge for yourself: When the results were published, astrologers showed no willingness to learn from them. For example one astrologer explained the results by claiming that death was not shown in the chart. Others insisted that everything is shown in the chart, including the losing of one’s car keys, so death is certainly shown, even though Smit’s thorough tests had revealed nothing. At which point Smit abandoned further study.

Does see-astrology-everywhere Elwell qualify here?

Those searching for gold are just as interested in where not to look as in where to look, especially when (as in this case) there is no evidence of gold anywhere. In fact having to “wade through libraries filled with details of where you failed to find it” prevents people from following unproductive paths or reinventing the wheel, and is an important part of a literature review in any area (ask any graduate student writing a thesis). Furthermore negative evidence has far more than a marginal value in any science. Because of negative findings, educated people do not promote cold fusion, but negative findings have no effect on the promotion of astrology by astrologers. In any case the impartial investigator must attend to all the evidence, not just to the bits that support a particular view. To do otherwise would be like picking parsley out of the pizza and declaring it to be parsley pie. Note how Elwell condemns critics for looking at isolated factors instead of the whole chart, but not himself for doing exactly the same with the evidence.

This is a good example of how one can imply that X is crucial, then fail to elaborate, so readers have no clear idea of what X is about and no way of deciding whether X is a reasonable point. Not only does Elwell not explain the difference between negative and contrary, he does not even give examples of where we are supposed to have confused the two. So let us look more closely. Negative evidence does not support an idea whereas contrary evidence contradicts it. An empty box does not support the idea that boxes in general contain cats, and it contradicts the idea that there are cats in this particular box. Failure to show that sign X is different from other signs contradicts the idea that sign X is different, and does not support the idea that signs in general are different. So, depending on how we describe the idea, negative evidence can also be contrary evidence. Indeed, if we run out of boxes and none contain cats, then the negative evidence becomes contrary evidence. In astrology we are running out of boxes, so the predominantly negative evidence (if it continues) may well become contrary evidence. Elwell implies we are claiming it is already there, but in our interview we are careful to point out that this is not the case. There may well be filled boxes out there (which we called white crows) that will save the day, but the onus is on astrologers to produce them.

Again, negative evidence is often contrary evidence, as when astronauts found the moon was not covered by layers of thick dust. Elwell seems to be saying that astrologers should not get upset because their patient but unrewarded efforts to prove astrology have been ignored, which is contrary to his claim that such efforts are never unrewarded. But, using Elwell’s example, what would be contrary evidence for alien contact? Searching all the planets thoroughly for alien life and finding none? The implication is that the negative studies in astrology (but not the positive studies even when they use the same procedures and questions) are somehow of no consequence. So what would be contrary evidence for astrological claims? We are not told. Furthermore his statement (about demolishing radio telescopes if you don’t find aliens) is bizarre — telescopes have many uses and were not developed just for spotting alien life.

No, all data remain securely on file.

Isn’t this the very kind of reductionist analytic stuff that Elwell is complaining about? In any case the reply above misses the point. What matters is not that the charts are different but that their owners are different. In this case the difference was maximised, ie the owners were deliberately very unalike, so if the astrologer was describing the true owner, however briefly, the mismatch with Dean would be instantly evident. Just because the chart was a control does not mean it had to be unfair, as would be the case if the owners were actually alike.

In which case why is Elwell’s first article so full of distortions? Just look at the mistakes it contains.

Here is just such an example of distortions and mistakes. To start with, Elwell is saying that, while controls may be necessary in those few areas susceptible to placebo effects, they are not necessary in astrology. But the need for controls is far wider than he says (read any text in experimental science), and is not limited to placebo effects. Contrary to what Elwell says, you do not rule out placebo effects by witholding information. Next, note how the reader is supposed to equate “the ethics of the placebo” with “the ethics of controls” so that the associated unease of some scientists can be seen as applying to controls. Wrong again. Their unease applies only to using placebos instead of genuine medication and has absolutely nothing to do with the use of controls. Indeed, the insistence on controls (they can involve many different procedures) is general throughout science, and what makes scientists uneasy is their absence, not their presence.

Dean’s experiment is easily replicated. There is no need for snide remarks.

Of course not. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

This is the nearest we get to having our question answered, and we are left none the wiser.

Elwell implies that only experience is an appropriate test. Experience is of course important in everyday situations, but it can be misleading in complex situations such as astrology, which from start to finish involves the kind of judgements we are not very good at. Worse, the way we make these judgements tends to ensure that errors go undetected, so we are unlikely to learn from experience. Which is why people make scientific studies — to check claims and to avoid being misled by experience. All this is fully explained in our interview and in books such as Gambrill E, Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Improving the Accuracy of Judgments and Decisions about Clients, Jossey-Bass 1990.