ABSTRACT:  Astrology’s roots can be traced back to prehistoric man.  Astrology was mainstream in our Western Judeo-Christian Culture from then until approximately 300 years ago.  Since the end of the Renaissance, our learned scientists have declared Astrology is nonsense.  Countless millions of people over a span of at least 35,000 years thought it did work and there is compelling evidence that prehistoric man’s very survival depended on his ability to read the relationship between events in the heavens and events on Earth.  Is it reasonable (as in “science and reason”) that all these people actually saw no correspondences between the heavens and identifiable events on Earth, yet considered the planets powerful gods?  Are the present day scientists and academic skeptics right, or is it possible they have not really done their homework/research? 

Astrology should be brought into our mainstream educational system.  Astrology, as a tool for human understanding, has no equal.  The cycles identifiable using astrology have the potential for integrating mankind and his world like no other system.

Nonsense, you say.  How absurd, you say.  Astrology, what a waste of time and energy.  Now ask yourself, what do I really know about astrology?  More importantly, where did I get my information?  Does my knowledge of astrology make sense, or are there a lot of bits and pieces that do not seem to really add up.  Do I care?  I know that scientists and academics say it is no good even though I do like to read my daily horoscope in the paper.  Reading about myself is fun, but astrology, so what?  If I really liked the “star” stuff, astronomy is real science that people will respect me for.

What if you found out that astrology is considerably more complex than the daily paper and that your previous exposure to bits and pieces about astrology was not only superficial, but inaccurate as well?  What if you were made aware that the scientists and academics did not really know about astrology?  What if you found out that many of the dictionary, encyclopedia and textbook editors took their information about astrology from opinionated skeptical rhetoric that contained no substantiated facts?  How would it make you feel if it became apparent that much of the “scientific” anti-astrology information was purposefully distorted by some scientists and academics?   What if you found out that those scientists and academics (skeptics) that claimed they were against astrology for “failed scientific research” reasons were not using proper “scientific” research in the first place?

So you decide you want to see for yourself if astrology has any merit.  You go to the public or university library and manage to find a few books, some describing astrology, and some skeptical of astrology.  The books describing astrological concepts lead you to realize there is some complexity, but they make sense if it really works.  You can even identify with some of what they are saying.  The information has continuity, sounds reasonable and certainly fulfills the dictionary definition of a “science”. 

Now you check out the skeptical information.  “Astrology is a pseudoscience, it can not possibly work”.  Graphs, diagrams, and the word “magic” throughout.  Elaborate scenarios about how you are being ripped off and how this astrologer said this inane thing and another said that inane thing.  Who are you to believe, what are you to do now?  You go to the encyclopedia.  “Astrology has been around for thousands of years, but modern science knows astrology is a pseudoscience and magic.  Astrology can not possibly work.”  Now you guess you know about astrology.  Anyway, encyclopedias know everything there is to know, so we can believe them.

Maybe you are fortunate enough to know someone who seems okay to you who professes to have respect for astrology.  You ask him/her for some feedback about the subject.  He/she says he/she believes in it, and the skeptics are somewhat less than honest with their opinions.   Now, you are confused.  How can this be?  Two sources say yes, and two say no.  Who are you to believe?  This person you thought was all right is sounding like a fruitcake.  How could any intelligent person in his/her right mind try to make you believe encyclopedias and scientists and academics are wrong?   You are intrigued.  How are you going to find out for sure?  The library resource has become of questionable use and you do not want to take the astrologer’s word as final.

You are baffled.  You decide to seriously check it out.  You immediately run into another confusing roadblock.  There are “scientific” articles critical of astrology in the libraries, but little that explains what it is, how its concepts are theoretically supposed to work, what it does, and most of all, why it has been around for thousands of years.  In this day and age, why is there such a shortage of resource material about astrology?  Why is so little mainstream information available about a subject that has been there during hundreds, maybe even thousands of years of Western history?  Because you have an insatiable inquiring mind, you decide to learn about astrology.  How else can you know for sure? 

You find it is fascinating the way things fit together and are so personal.  You learn about yourself and have personal relationships that you can identify with.  After some serious study years, you find the information you develop appears to lead you beyond chance.  It becomes no wonder to you that astrology has had such a long history, so why is astrology not mainstream today?  From all you have been taught about the importance of science in our culture, why is astrology missing?  You see things that conform to common sense, you see a remarkable tool for understanding people, and you see the methodology of a straightforward science.  Notably, you find delineations that go way beyond your concept of coincidence.   You also find that there is no magic involved with astrology, unless the “scientific/academic” definition of magic is not in the same dictionary the rest of us use.   

Naturally, because of your education and your environment, (college educated mother and siblings) you believe in science and scientific methodology, so you are going to do it right.  You give the debunking “scientists” their turn.  You reread the debunking books.  You are not an expert in astrology, but you now have some serious knowledge about the concepts and basic criteria needed.  Now you are baffled, the anti-astrology material the debunkers are putting out is not the astrology you have been learning.  You are not sure what it is, but it is not the “astrology” (Appendix, 1-11) you have studied.  These debunking skeptics seem to be making up the criteria for what they are calling astrology as they go along.

You suddenly realize that much of what the debunkers are saying is actually opinion.  Wait a minute, opinion is not science.  He may have a Ph.D. beside his name, but it is still opinion that is being expressed.  Something is wrong here.  These are the scientist/academic people that say over and over that “science and reason” is a must for scientific inquiry.  Why would astrology not count within the context of scientific inquiry?  Why is opinion an okay criterion for astrological debunking?  Now I have some serious questions and serious doubt.  The scientists, with all their Ph.D.s, would not lie, would they?  Something else must be going on, the research itself maybe.

This astrology thing has become a cultural mystery.  I am even more inspired to find out the truth.  In this case, how else does one find out if the research is any good unless one takes a course in Research Methods?  I take the college course in Research Methods.  I am stunned, I can find no astrological debunking research that conforms to college textbook Research Methods.  Outstandingly, the researchers appear to have no knowledge about the subject that they are debunking.  You step back and reevaluate what you are seeing.  You finally come to realize that underlying the whole theme of the debunking opinion and unscientific reasoning is one fact.  This fact is not monumental or unusual in the realm of scientific research, but for astrological research, it appears to be the only thing.  “We scientists can not find a physical reason for astrology to work, so therefore it can not work”.  The skeptics have closed the patent office.  There is nothing more to learn or know.  Science and reason appear to be of no consequence when astrology is concerned.  

From the standpoint of reason, astrology has volumes of empirical evidence, from the present back through the earliest days of Western history.  Does it seem reasonable that thousands of years of information have been arbitrarily dismissed as nonsense by our present-day skeptics?  I emphasize arbitrarily because I can find no proper scientific research that indicates otherwise.  That is what this essay is all about.

EDUCATION:

We have expectations of our school systems.  They teach us about our culture and how it is designed to work.  They prepare children to become adults and how to fit into the culture.  The universities open the doors to most all technical and specialty endeavors beyond that of high school.  Besides preparing the students to make a living, the universities give the students methods of learning for the purpose of expanding mankind’s accumulated knowledge.  These institutions of higher learning are expected to teach the student to become proficient in the proper and ethical manner of expanding the accumulated knowledge in a positive way.  This is a pretty serious responsibility our teachers have.

SCIENCE:

To be considered a scientist, one learns how to do research in the field of ones choice.  Research, properly done, is what expands our accumulated knowledge.  This puts the scientist on top of the educational platform.  The scientists are the ones that can prove to us what our culture is all about.  The school systems then take the information from the scientific research and write new textbooks for the students.  Through the newly informed students, the cycle of learning progresses forward and mankind’s accumulated knowledge continues to grow.

Not only is the scientist on the top of the educational platform, it is apparent that he is also responsible for the foundation of any further accumulation of knowledge.  Literally, for the sake of mankind’s future, the scientist must possess the highest ethics and have character that is beyond reproach.  The scientist has tremendous responsibility for the condition of our culture.  We must arbitrarily support and trust our scientists, because we can be sure, by virtue of their educational degrees, that they are untouched by human frailties such as greed or ego.

When it comes to research, trusting the scientist is easy.  Not only do they have ethics and character; there are textbook guidelines that spell out exactly how research is to be done.  The universities provided this information to them when they were students.  The dedication of the scientist is further evident by understanding that the true scientist has a problem with organized religion.  In his world he needs proof, not faith.  Research that develops hard evidence has been said to actually become the scientist’s religion.  Furthermore, scientific research has no room for bias and opinion.

Unfortunately, when it comes to astrology, science and the “scientist” seem to have failed to live up to the standards that I was brought up to believe in.  Over and over in my endeavor to understand why astrology was not positively included in some context within our educational system, I was confronted with the “appeal to authority” argument.  “Appeal to authority” is a fallacious argument that implies that by virtue of the significant education of the one making the claim, he should be believed.  Please note, science, reason, and the scientific method appear to be of no consequence as the reader becomes acquainted with the documentation of the “scientific position” contained in this essay.

AUTHOR:

As a middle-aged, part time, non-traditional student slowly working my way through the NYS university system, I have made it a point to learn about research and research methods.  I find textbook research methods to be mostly common sense.  For instance, the textbook notes that bias on the part of the researcher must be controlled.  His personal bias must not contaminate and/or mislead the research.  That makes perfect sense to me. 

Another guideline for the researcher, is the need to be at least a minor expert in the subject (Behling, 39).  While struggling through a textbook on Critical Thinking, I found that an outstanding part of the basic critical thinking criteria states very strongly the need for “appropriate experts” for reliable source information.  Again the guideline makes perfect sense.  How can someone do research on a subject they know nothing about? 

Another concept, a most important factor that the scientist must not lose sight of is opinion.  Opinions are good concepts to research (to see if you are right or not), but opinion by itself does not constitute fact.  Opinion is an unproven hypothesis.

When it comes to scientists and academics, we can see how they influence and/or wield considerable cultural control.  They are responsible for our learning about and understanding the world around us.  We have seen in the textbooks how the scientists and academics do not compromise their ethics or integrity for greed or ego.  Furthermore, scientists, and especially scientifically oriented academics are not subject to bias and opinion and avoid being influenced by religion or politics.  These dedicated groups that have so much influence on our culture are the epitome of good, we hope.

It becomes very difficult to make a persuasive argument when the argument goes against the rhetoric of a group of Ph.D.s. It becomes harder still when virtually all of their statements are inaccurate because of what appears to be a lack of knowledge of the subject.  Nonetheless, this is my purpose.  The well-educated skeptic position against astrology appears ego driven rather than fact driven.  Being somewhat knowledgeable of both sides of the astrology issue, I personally believe the biased skeptic influence is harmful to the culture, inappropriate, and reprehensible. 

CSICOP:

Enter CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal).  They have their own publication, Skeptical Inquirer, a scientific journal dedicated to “science and reason”.  CSICOP board members appear to mostly be highly educated scientists that belong to the academic community.  A small core group who adheres to a one-sided policy of “skeptic claims only” leads them.  The “pro-paranormalist” viewpoint is not allowed (SK July/Aug 96-pg 6). 

I have found from experience, that the above statement means that if one has a positive point of view about what CSICOP considers paranormal, it is not represented in the critical review that CSICOP chooses to do on the subject.  It also seems to mean that no dissent is allowed within the membership.  It would appear that this core group of scientists arrogantly feels that they know what is right and best for the rest of us.  As much as they say it, “science and reason” are not always tools they use.  (These discrepancies will be noted and discussed as this essay progresses.)  I find something wrong with the picture when the editors and authors of a scientific journal are inconsistent and/or show bias.

CSICOP was founded in 1977 at a gathering of scientists brought together a year after the anti-astrology manifesto “Objections to Astrology” was signed.  With nothing more than opinion and an ignorance (there was little factual resource information available to them within the academic community while they were being educated) of the subject, 192 “scientists” declared they did not believe in astrology.  (I find it curious that today the number of signatures claimed is only 186.  Did six of the original signers recognize that there was no proper research and have the integrity to withdraw?)  The manifesto, not representative of any scientific research, was based purely on opinion.  “Objections” also contained a considerable amount of “made-up” criteria.  The closest thing to “scientific fact” was that the science of the day claimed that they could find no physical reason for astrology to work. 

Concepts of Quantum theory (relationships, not physical objects, determine the nature of the universe) were becoming known and accepted at this time.  It appears none of the scientists took the time or effort to learn enough about astrology to know whether it would qualify.  I believe that this indicative of the fact that the skeptic scientists did not know enough about astrology to know what it was they were objecting to when they signed the manifesto (Appendix, 1-11).

At this juncture, I believe it is important to point out the theme that is repeatedly seen in the skeptics debunking rhetoric. I will refer to it as “POINT A” for easy future reference.  “ The skeptics simply do not know the principles and concepts of how astrologers arrive at their delineations”.  It becomes painfully obvious to anyone who has taken the time to study astrology that the debunkers too often “make up” and/or twist the context of the material and/or criteria concerning astrology (Appendix, 3,4,7). i.e., skeptic Bob Steiner is quoted as saying “how absurd to presume that a handful of stars governed one’s entire life” (Skeptical Briefs, 3) as if the “handful of stars” had power.  To astrologers, the idea of the stars having power went out with the scientific revolution.  Contemporary astrology does not allude to the stars/planets having power.  Mr. Steiner is twisting out of context what astrology is.  His comments appeared in a recent CISCOP scientific newsletter.

The context of the subject, astrology, is misrepresented in the scientific/academic establishment viewpoint.  The dictionaries, the encyclopedias, the textbooks, the debunkers, the science writers, and virtually all the academic commentators follow a theme that is not representative of astrology (Appendix 3,4,8).  

Case and point, the skeptics, whether CISCOPS writers or college professors, persistently bring up the fact that astrology can only work if the Earth were the center of the solar system.  This academic view is totally false.  At this point I wish to interject some reason.  From prehistoric man to the untold millions that found astrology to work for them before Copernicus, astrology wasand always has been based on what was seen from Earth.  For man to make the revelation that the Sun was in the center of the solar system does nothing to change the fact that astrological concepts are still based on what can be seen from Earth. 

It was the Roman Catholic Church that had a problem with finding out the Earth was not the center of the universe.  The Church’s political reputation was at stake.  Historical inquiry shows us that Copernicus’ revelation coming to light at the time of the Reformation was the outstanding reason why the Church removed astrology from the learning establishments (Tarnas, 254).  Newton, following Copernicus’ and Galileo’s lead was able to convince the Renaissance thinkers that the planets were material objects moved by inertia and gravity, not archetypal symbols moved by a cosmic intelligence (Tarnas, 296). 

It had become clear that astrology was not a manifestation of a divine structure for a chosen people as the Church had previously maintained.  It is also clear that the Newtonian scientific concepts deleted any metaphysical properties previously given to the planets.  This new science changed the way man viewed his world, but it did not change the fact that the planets were the same “rocks” that traveled through the same heavens in the same manner they always had.  Man had the same view from Earth and the planetary movement continually made the same physical planetary relationships to one another that they had always made.  Astrological concepts did not change; the new science allowed them to become more precise.

For thousands of years, astrology had not only worked for the architects of our western culture; it was literally the foundation of scientific inquiry.  The astrological concepts and delineations on which Plato and Aristotle developed much of their philosophical work have not changed.  Much of the medical knowledge that Hippocrates and Galen developed from astrological principles is still valid today.  This information is all there in the history books along with much, much more. 

“In the course of the Hellenistic era, astrology became one belief system that cut across the boundaries of science, philosophy, and religion, forming a unifying element in the otherwise fragmented outlook of the age” (Tarnas, 83).  We know more precisely what the planets are physically and how they are situated in the heavens, but that information does not change the astrological concepts that were developed over some 35,000 years from when man first recognized a heavenly relationship to his life here on Earth.  This relationship was not magic, although it may have seemed so for our early ancestors.

Getting back to scientific opinion versus real scientific research, how can a scientist possibly do proper research about a subject if he does not have the most rudimentary knowledge about what he is researching?  The last three paragraphs point up the fact that today’s scientists do not recognized astrology (Appendix, 1,5,11) when they see it.  If the scientists fail to recognize the phenomenon they are seeing, how can they possibly find the reason for that same phenomenon to work?

The idea that we are all “one with the universe” is basic to quantum physics as well as basic to astrology.  Astrology is nothing more than the delineation of the relationship between the movements of the planets/universe and events on Earth as seen from Earth.  Astrology is likely the most developed study of a concept of the new physics yet done (Appendix, 3 & 4).  It is unfortunate that there is not room for a course in astrology as well as a course in quantum physics within this paper.

CHAPTER I

The manifesto “Objections” was a smear job against astrology perpetrated by a small group of well-educated scientists.  There was no scientifically correct research to back up their anti-astrology claims, and at the time, a substantial amount of research supporting astrology did exist (i.e. Anthony West, The Case for Astrology, 1991, and Mark Pottenger, Astrological Research Methods, 1995, details astrological research, old and new).  “Science and reason” was not part of the equation when “Objections” was signed.  “Objections” is composed almost completely of unsubstantiated opinion.  It contains no properly researched facts within the context of the material and guidelines used by professional astrologers.  None.  It is appropriate to reiterate that textbook research guidelines insist that the researcher be knowledgeable of the subject that is being researched.

The skeptics say, who cares what criteria, material and guidelines the astrologers use?  If astrology does not work within the framework of what an astrophysicist does, it obviously can not work at all.  I sincerely believe astrology does work within the framework of what an astrophysicist does.  Do the astrophysicists have all the answers?  Maybe they could tell us what causes sunspots.  Do the skeptics not really believe sunspots exist?  The skeptics claim not to have determined a physical reason for astrology to work.  From the standpoint of “science and reason”, is this an adequate excuse for the CSICOP people to be so negative about astrology?  It hardly takes a course in ethics to determine the CSICOP’s position is inappropriate.  Astrology is being condemned by the CSICOP skeptics without their ever producing research within the context of mainstream professional astrology’s point of view (Appendix, 1-11). 

Taking another step, when you further analyze CSICOP’s position about astrology, it would appear that a personal problem was involved in the original small group.  They tout “science and reason” and they repeatedly expound on the necessity of proper scientific research.  Then, knowingly, faulty research in replicating a positive body of astrological research was done.  Not only did they conduct flawed research, but Paul Kurtz (founding member) used his position as editor of Humanist magazine to have the faulty study printed, implying it was properly researched debunking evidence (Rawlins, 68).  This behavior was in no way representative of “science and reason”; this was a breech of scientific ethics.  

Paul Kurtz’s involvement in astrological debunking is especially difficult to fathom.  He claims his Ph.D. is in Philosophy.  Historically, Greek philosopher/scientists were all students of astrology.  The majority of their truisms were of astrological origin.  From the fourth century C.E., virtually all the historically significant figures in western history, especially the philosopher/scientists, routinely used astrology.  Kurtz is debunking the historical heart of his profession.      

Paul Kurtz, Ph.D., knowingly used his position as editor to print fraudulent research as fact.  Worse, it was printed in a scientific journal that his readers rely upon for accurate scientific (properly researched) information.  Following is a quote from my Critical Thinking textbook, page 17:  “A reputable scientist does not announce his or her results until the experiment has been repeated several times and reliability of the observations and the experimental setup has been carefully assessed”.  Why would a man of Kurtz’s stature, education and position, stoop to this level of inappropriate scientific reporting? 

At the time, many of the members of CSICOP were aware of their colleague’s unscientific behavior.  Personally, I find their indifference to this incident very unscientific as well as appalling.  These are the people that have control of our education system, which in turn has control of our children and ultimately our culture?   Unfortunately, it appears “science and reason” and ethics were absent in CSICOP’s very foundation.   

For one individual, such as Paul Kurtz, to be in a position to influence a generation with either scientific ignorance or purposeful scientific misinformation is incredible.  The ethics of CISCOP and the Skeptical Inquirer is, for all intents and purposes, outstandingly hypocritical if one considers “science and reason” important.   

Yes, CISCOP is my target because of their non-scientific attacks on astrology.  Paul Kurtz is the most salient anti-astrology member, and I use his behavior as an example of what is wrong with the organization.  In the June 1998 Skeptical Briefs, Kurtz rehashes his phony basis for birth of CSICOP.  “Astrology is a good case in point, for it was refuted by astronomers, physicists, statisticians, psychologists and other scientists.”  The fact is that this group had not a shred of evidence for their position.  Not one iota of properly researched evidence was ever on the table. 

Kurtz further states “there is no empirical basis for horoscopes or sun-sign astrology.”  It would appear the only reason Kurtz had no empirical basis for horoscopes is that he never tried to find any, because it was readily available, although admittedly outside the academic community.  I also find it very interesting that Kurtz threw in the term “sun-sign” astrology, because sun sign astrology has superficial relevance to the overall concept of astrology.  It is like implying simple addition is the whole of mathematics.  It is a necessary ingredient but could hardly be used on its own to develop and prove a calculus problem. 

Now the questions are, does Kurtz know about sun-sign astrology or not?  Does he know “sun-sign” astrology is superficial and does not reflect the serious study of astrology?   Does he know that the sun being in the center of the Solar System is not significantly relevant to astrological concepts?  Does he have any idea at all the criteria astrologers use?  His statements indicate he has little working knowledge of astrological concepts.

Kurtz continues in the Skeptical Briefs article with the statement that “astrology is based on the discredited Ptolemaic system.”  The Ptolemaic system was from an astrology textbook that was written when the scientists of the day thought the earth was the center of the universe.  We now know differently, and we still see the same planets doing the same things today as they did back then.  This “Sun in the center" revelation does nothing to change age-old astrological concepts.  The truth is that astronomy used this same textbook, and if it was the demise of astrology, it had to be the demise of astronomy as well.  Does Kurtz actually know so little about astrology or is he purposefully being misleading toward the scientific/academic community?  Either way, Kurtz is hardly being a model of scientific integrity.

Due to my interest and the nature of my subsequent studies about astrology, I have long been convinced that astrology is not receiving an honest evaluation within our scientific/academic community.  The more I investigate, the more I find contradictions in scientific/academic standards for astrology compared to standards for other subjects.  More specifics will be discussed further on. 

Before discussing any more of the opinionated debunking information, I wish to cover “Point B”.  Professional astrology/astrologers consider the daily newspaper horoscopes superficial nonsense.  Newspaper horoscopes are the part of astrology that is for entertainment only.  The scientific debunkers seem oblivious to that fact (never took the time to research it: “Point A”) and seem to like using the newspaper horoscopes as “the” astrological model to negatively impress the ignorant.

For the scientist and educator, the absence of reliable resource material about astrology makes it difficult for them to make an informed comment.  The problem is a serious “catch 22”.  Where are they to learn about astrology?  It would appear that no one within the academic system is qualified because they have never been exposed to astrology within an academic framework. 

The preceding paragraph explains why “Point A” is so predominate within the scientific/academic community, but it does not explain why it continues to exist.  What has become of free thinking and academic freedom?  Although she presented no evidence, a college professor told me that “academia” had already determined that astrology was “no good”.  Although I made a formal request for evidence of such a policy, she never did answer the request (Exhibit E).  To me, this is a shameful response to academic inquiry.  Let’s face it, it is censorship.  Academic censorship. 

Moving on to another point, the debunkers like to distort and present as negatively as possible the astrologer’s income.  I would be surprised to find a Ph.D. that spent the hours of learning and producing for his income earned compared to that of a certified astrologer.  In the late 90’s an informal survey shows, it is a rare professional astrologer that has a yearly income of as much as $30,000 a year.  The debunkers inappropriately exaggerate about all the “millions” that are spent on astrology.  In their defense, when it comes to the 1-900 astrology, they have a point.  Reputable professional astrologers would be very happy to see the 1-900 “rip-off” numbers out of business.  Reputable professional astrologers see the 1-900 astrology as being as superficial as the daily newspaper horoscopes, but the entertainment cost to the user is outrageous. 

Lawrence E. Jerome, science writer, and Bart J. Bok, Ph.D. astrophysicist, both of whom would have, or one would think  should have, been aware of the theories of quantum physics, co-authored the book Objections to Astrology.  They were also part of the small group of what appears to be the “anti-astrology at any cost” leaders of CSICOP.  Both of these people appear highly qualified within their fields.  Neither has any astrological training, yet it seems, they were the spokesmen for the skeptic debunking of astrology.  Virtually every debunking statement/ point in “Objections” reflects the previously discussed “Point A.”  Without the authors bothering to learn the basic astrological concepts, it stands to reason that they would need a decidedly unscientific label.  “Magic” seems to be the debunkers favorite term.  Unfortunately, the term magic covers a wide variety of unexplained phenomena, and can be especially misleading without any definitive explanation of the term within the context of how it is being used.  

Even more insidious, Bart J. Bok, apparently by virtue of his Ph.D., definitely not by properly researched evidence, was able to convince the FCC that astrology was “not fit” to be broadcast over the airwaves.  When you hear the astrologers insist that there is a conspiracy against them in the USA by the “establishment”, they have a legitimate gripe.  Trampled 1^st Amendment rights, scientific opinion and bias, shameful educator ignorance and censorship are all there together against them.

If and when one takes the time to check the anti-astrology rhetoric of the CSICOP gang, they should keep in mind that most often, their comments are projected as negatively as possible.  The words “occult” and “new age” are used by some of the authors almost as much as the term magic.  “Occult” means hidden knowledge such as one might think of if describing the practice of devil worship or necromancy or some other anti-Christian abomination.  Astrology contains no “hidden knowledge” unless, like most subjects, you have not read the books.  The so-called “new age” movement appears to have a fascination for the ancient science of astrology.  If this “new age” is a bad thing, it is in the eyes of the beholder.

Culver and Ianna’s Astrology: True or False?  A Scientific Evaluation is another book by associates of CSICOP.  As with Jerome and Bok, they appear highly qualified in their field, but “Point A” shows up on virtually every page.  The criteria that they use for testing astrology uses words astrologers use, but the concepts are made-up to fit their opinion.  Again, none of their research would earn a passing grade in a college level research project.  They certainly appear to have no “expert” knowledge of astrology and/or the professional astrologer criteria.  And, I might add, none of the above named ever made public any effort to relate astrology to the new science of quantum physics.

Lawrence E. Jerome’s book Astrology Disproved is another disappointment if you are looking for “science and reason”.  Again, “Point A” is at the forefront of his long-winded, made-up criteria.  Interestingly enough, in the early pages, he refers to Harvard Anthropologist Alexander Marshack’s book, The Roots of Civilization.  He takes Marshack’s decidedly pro-astrology information and ends up calling his conclusions magic.  Of course, this falls in line with “Point A.”  Jerome does not recognize astrology when he sees it.  I suspect his problem is that he has too many wrong, preconceived notions about it.  I will be discussing Marshack’s findings further on.

I.W. Kelly is another CSICOP associate with a knack for rehashing the CSICOP rhetoric.  He appears to have the “Point A” syndrome for making up the astrological criteria to debunk.  He is also guilty of using the most unscientific source material.  An article Kelly authored in Psychological Reports, MODERN ASTROLOGY: A CRITIQUE, uses Ankerberg & Weldon’s Astrology: Do the Heavens Rule Our Destiny?  If one wishes to check this source, one will find, when they are not quoting the CSICOP debunkers, the most out of context, religious conservative oriented unscientific trash imaginable.  I.e. “In astrology, man is a god unto himself and decides for himself what is right or wrong.  Because the heavens are impersonal, moral considerations are subjective and totally optional”(42).  That statement, like so many others in their book, is inflammatory and reflects no research.  Kelly also leans heavily on the earlier mentioned, improperly researched titles for his anti-astrology writings.  Kelly, a psychologist, writes as if he personally has little real knowledge of astrology.

It would be appropriate at this juncture to bring up one of Kelly’s favorite sources, Geoffrey Dean.  Mr. Dean is a self-proclaimed astrological researcher.  Within the confines of this paper, he would be an anomaly.  In March of 1997, I wrote to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer questioning the ethics of Mr. Dean as well as the editor’s motivation for including his commentary in a scientific journal (See Exhibit F).  Apparently my letter was forwarded to Mr. Dean.  The SI editor never responded but Mr. Dean did, feigning ignorance of the content of my letter that contained references to what I believe was questionable research on his part.  Then I erred by assuming he would acknowledge information in articles he had written.  I.e. using the term “probabilities” in place of “potentials” (See Exhibit G).  For the record, astrology is about potentials, not probabilities.

When I tried to be as straightforward as possible, (See Exhibit H) and made a point to clarify my position and indicated I expected a straightforward response, he followed with a disappointing non-response (See Exhibit I).  Please note that in Exhibit F, I suggested that SI/Dean check into the “new physics” for a possible direction of inquiry about how astrology might conform to scientific principles.

I have been assured by individuals within the astrological community that Mr. Dean does know about astrology, but he apparently chooses to do “single-link” research which is easy to disprove.  If he knows about astrology and research methods, he no doubt also knows his “single-link” research is going to fail.  In my mind, this behavior is worse than those that do research without the basic knowledge of what it is they are researching.  For Mr. Kelly to use Mr. Dean as a research source makes Mr. Kelly’s anti-astrology rhetoric even more questionable. 

Mr. Kelly has got to be aware of what he is asking us to believe in the name of  “science and reason.”  He is saying that literally hundreds of generations, spanning thousands of years, from a variety of widely separated cultures did not see some type of correlation between events in the heavens and events on earth.  I am talking about events that invoked such powerful responses as to raise similar myths of godlike heroes and villains in the various cultures.  People do not have a history of or the physiological make-up to follow witchdoctors, priests, chiefs, etc., that do not produce.  Maybe for a generation someone could get away with it, but not the years involved plus the numbers involved as well as the diverse cultures involved.  I find Mr. Kelly’s overall premise is not the least bit reasonable, especially from one who appears to have no realistic background in the subject.  Science and reason indeed.

While reviewing for this paper, I became amazed at how much of the debunking material travels from book to article to book to book to article and back to book again.  The CSICOP authors come up with a new title and use the same worn out opinions and improper research, year after year.  Mr. Kelly’s latest endeavor in the Nov/Dec 1999 SI, “Debunking the Debunkers” is the same thing over again.  Kelly is still afflicted by Point A, still making up the criteria as he goes along.  I.e. “An examination of the astrologer’s arguments shows that astrology has almost no resources with which to respond to critics” (Kelly, 37).  Of course there is no response from astrologers when the criticism is not astrology, but something made-up that Kelly calls astrology.  In this article Kelly does make a statement that I have not seen before.  “Some of astrology’s strongest critics are or have been successful (italics mine) astrologers themselves, and are or have been seen as turncoats.”  I have never heard of anyone that would fit this criterion, let alone more than one.  This appears to be one of those “less than factual” statements I expect to see traveling from article to book to article to book etc. 

I also find it very interesting that frequently, in these debunking books, if one substituted the word weather/meteorology for astrology, they make a strong argument against the “pseudoscience” of meteorology (i.e., accusations of no consensus between practitioners, inaccurate predictions).

What is their purpose?  It is baffling to me that dedicated scientists, at least some of the above claim to be, would disregard all the rules of scientific inquiry to trash a subject they have no working knowledge of.  This is scientifically irrational and very disturbing, again because of their ultimate cultural control.

It is important to acknowledge that much of astrology and/or astrological concepts do not conform to concepts of Newtonian physics  (i.e. gravity is not necessarily a cause for astrology to work with the possible exceptions of the Sun and Moon, but unlikely when dealing with the outer planets).   Concepts of quantum physics or what one author considers “the five axioms of a new reality emerging from recent discoveries in physics” are as follows: 1. Pattern is ubiquitous.  2. These patterns have infinite possibilities.  3. Creation is open, free and evolving.  4. Relationship, not matter, is fundamental to the structure of the universe.  5. Interdependence is the universal dynamic  (Wichelns, 2).  These axioms leave room for astrology to work, but the actual physical vehicle has not been scientifically determined.  There is a growing body of evidence indicating that greater or lesser disruptions in the Earth’s magnetic fields may potentially be that vehicle.  I will explain more about this further on.

CHAPTER II

I grew up having respect for science and the scientific method.  I do not believe in “metaphysical” concepts unless you count my belief in a singular Supreme Being.  I became interested in astrology because of its projected moral concepts (of which some of the debunking authors insist it has none.  “Point A” again).  I found that astrological concepts very closely parallel Christian morality (which makes perfect sense because many Christian concepts come from the Biblical Hebrews who had great respect for astrology).  While I have no time for the Christian hierarchy of the various churches, I sincerely believe in and personally work to follow Christian moral concepts.  i.e. Thou shall not bear false witness.

While not an accredited professional astrology expert, I soon came to realize that the scientific rhetoric against astrology did not fit with what I was learning.  Not only were the scientists and academics saying things about astrology that were not related to astrology, when I started checking source material, I found encyclopedia and dictionary definitions were unbelievably distorted.  Statements describing astrology as “an assumed theoretical system”, “supposed effects” and “generalized celestial influence” are hardly definitive of anything.  Comments in college textbooks about astrology are distorted and not factually correct. i.e. McGraw-Hill, Social Psychology, Fourth Edition, 1992, pages 153-154 the “Barnum Effect”.  When I brought the discrepancies in the “Barnum Effect” to the attention of the editor, Dr. David G. Myers, he justified his position by referencing Shawn Carlson’s improper research “a double blind test of astrology,” which appeared in Nature, 1985, Vol. 318, pgs. 419-425 and “past issues of Skeptical Inquirer” (See Exhibits A and B).

I had the opportunity to do a historical research paper concerning astrology’s place in our Western Judeo-Christian Culture.  I found that from the days of the early Biblical Hebrews (Abraham) until the late Renaissance, astrology was a major player in our culture.  Astrology was the first science.  The first studies of math, medicine, physics, chemistry and music were all related to the heavens and the movements of the planets.  Astrology was the backbone of the earliest educational system.  Historian Keith Thomas has documented that, “During the Renaissance… astrology pervaded all aspects of the intellectual framework in which men were educated” (Thomas, 285).  The condition of kings and kingdoms were read in the stars, not how far it was between them or what they were made of. 

The Roman Catholic Church espoused astrology and during the late Middle Ages brought it to the highest level of respect it had ever known.  Astrology was integrated into Christian theology. This was the Reformation era as well as the time of the Scientific Revolution.   Church creditability was clearly at risk when it was determined that the Earth was not the center of the universe (Tarnas, 195-196).  With all these factors coming together, it became politically expedient for the Church to separate astronomy from astrology.  Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church also ran the educational institutions.  The knowledge about astrology, within academia, was lost.  This debacle was not because astrology did not work, or because it was considered sinful; it was dropped for political considerations.     

For the past 350 years or so, astrological knowledge has been absent from academia.  The leveling of the term pseudoscience at astrology is inappropriate by today’s academic standards, but what educator has the background to know any better?  Where does the educator get his information about astrology today?  When writing inquires to the textbook and encyclopedia editors concerning the misinformation they were putting out, too often the phony skeptical research was their source.

 There has been an absence of scientific/academic effort to do proper astrological research.  Over the years the astrologers themselves have done little with “scientific” research, but consider their reality.  Professional astrologers, contrary to skeptic claims, are not particularly well paid and have little spare time for research.  Furthermore, learning about research methods is a scientific/academic endeavor.  Again, the astrological community does not have the time or money to follow through on this level, and more to the point, who is qualified to give them guidance?  Astrology, not being recognized within our academic institutions, has no acceptable academic format.  Now ask yourself, with today’s academic climate, what astrologer or astrological organization could ever get a government grant to do research?  The less-than-honest skeptics have made sure that astrology has less than good credentials for applying for any grants within the academic community.

While earning my college degree I have frequently been accused of studying nonsense.  I get comments such as “ how can you believe astrology works when everyone now knows the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the solar system?  Everyone knows astrology can not be real aft