I have been wondering whether there already exists some truly scientific validiation for astrology. I have been reading on this subject and what I have come across so far is failures.
There have been many researches utilizing the scientific method to evaluate astrology, and they have resulted in failure - at least those, which have been made in the western countries.
Are there any significant scientific research projects done on astrology following the scientific method? Are there books on astrology and science? Are there some successful and convincing research papers, which would convince even the hardest skeptic?
Scientific researc on astrology?
Forum rules
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
-
SUNIL DUTT
Sir, May I know from where you have learned this great subject?It is your personal opinion and I respect that, but I have learned a lot from both the volumes. I have read it many times and each time I have learned something new. sunil dutt
-
chess
All,
I think it is important to first classify scientific and then see if vedic astrology results match with what degree of confidence.
What would scientific mean?
---------------------------------
In case of astrology it seems that we interpret everything as "causal" and not "correlation". In some it is embedded in our language, for e.g. we say "Rahu would cause you to travel abroad" or "Mars will cause turmoil" and so forth. For me from a scientific standpoint, these seem more like correlations and not causal relationships. It is just that certain type of things get associated with Mars and certain type of things get associated with Rahu. It does not mean that they cause it. It is possible that the underlying cause might be the same for behavior (that we associate with the planets).
So, having said that it is practically impossible to do a "causal" based study for astrology, the best we can do is "correlation" based studies.
Now, from today's scientific methodologies a statistically significant results of some results that are predicted by astrology would suffice some "validity and acceptance" in the scientific community.
How to setup a simple astrological study?
------------------------------------------------
Needs:
1. A relatively large database, maybe 10000 of birth charts with reliable birth times etc. and event times that we want to predict and so forth.
2. Take the dictums from BPHS and test them
3. If there are enough cases that can prove the results to be strongly statistically significant, voila it would be a good case to make.
I don't know if there are studies like these done and if yes, what kind of tests were run.
Anyways those are my thoughts.
Regards
Chess
I think it is important to first classify scientific and then see if vedic astrology results match with what degree of confidence.
What would scientific mean?
---------------------------------
In case of astrology it seems that we interpret everything as "causal" and not "correlation". In some it is embedded in our language, for e.g. we say "Rahu would cause you to travel abroad" or "Mars will cause turmoil" and so forth. For me from a scientific standpoint, these seem more like correlations and not causal relationships. It is just that certain type of things get associated with Mars and certain type of things get associated with Rahu. It does not mean that they cause it. It is possible that the underlying cause might be the same for behavior (that we associate with the planets).
So, having said that it is practically impossible to do a "causal" based study for astrology, the best we can do is "correlation" based studies.
Now, from today's scientific methodologies a statistically significant results of some results that are predicted by astrology would suffice some "validity and acceptance" in the scientific community.
How to setup a simple astrological study?
------------------------------------------------
Needs:
1. A relatively large database, maybe 10000 of birth charts with reliable birth times etc. and event times that we want to predict and so forth.
2. Take the dictums from BPHS and test them
3. If there are enough cases that can prove the results to be strongly statistically significant, voila it would be a good case to make.
I don't know if there are studies like these done and if yes, what kind of tests were run.
Anyways those are my thoughts.
Regards
Chess
Dear Chess ji,
I don't mean to offend you.
Science by no means is beyond correlations. For e.g, Science uses gravitational force as causative for many events (falling of an Apple for instance). But "Every object with a finite mass exerts gravitational force" is still a correlation.
While scientific investigation have been opening layer after layer of correlations to find out the causes, even the greatest scientists have never said that the mother of all cause will ever be found out
Correlation may not appeal to humna mind as much as cause. But for a common man even the "fact" (assumption?) that a car stops when you press the brake is a correlation than a cause-effect relationship in as much as he has himself never proven that scientifically. He has simply heard that it is proved. The so called science of statistics is entirely based on correlation and we need not feel guilty using it.
CRS
I don't mean to offend you.
Science by no means is beyond correlations. For e.g, Science uses gravitational force as causative for many events (falling of an Apple for instance). But "Every object with a finite mass exerts gravitational force" is still a correlation.
While scientific investigation have been opening layer after layer of correlations to find out the causes, even the greatest scientists have never said that the mother of all cause will ever be found out
Correlation may not appeal to humna mind as much as cause. But for a common man even the "fact" (assumption?) that a car stops when you press the brake is a correlation than a cause-effect relationship in as much as he has himself never proven that scientifically. He has simply heard that it is proved. The so called science of statistics is entirely based on correlation and we need not feel guilty using it.
CRS
-
chess
Hi CRS,
Agreed with the argument about correlation and causal in science. I think the difference between causal in correlation in most cases is that causal is absolute that 100% of the time it will happen it is like add 5 to 6 and it will be 11 (assuming the base is 10).
The thing with astrology is that there are more correlations and maybe there are causals too. We can never know unless we test it rigorously.
Bottom line for me is that it is fine to if there is correlations, I just want to know the likelihood better than saying it is likely. Is it 51% or is it 95% likely.
Regards
Chess
PS: There is no feeling guilty about using correlations
, I for one have been asking the forum for interpretations based on correlations, so in many ways i am a believer.
Agreed with the argument about correlation and causal in science. I think the difference between causal in correlation in most cases is that causal is absolute that 100% of the time it will happen it is like add 5 to 6 and it will be 11 (assuming the base is 10).
The thing with astrology is that there are more correlations and maybe there are causals too. We can never know unless we test it rigorously.
Bottom line for me is that it is fine to if there is correlations, I just want to know the likelihood better than saying it is likely. Is it 51% or is it 95% likely.
Regards
Chess
PS: There is no feeling guilty about using correlations
, I for one have been asking the forum for interpretations based on correlations, so in many ways i am a believer.-
chess
Krishna,
Just to add to what you said. It is possible to cast a study to test for probabilistic results. So what i am saying is that a probabilistic study is a good scientific study that can be used in case of astrology.
The challenge is to selecting what hypothesis to test. To start with take one has an expected measurable result and has the widest belief. I do n't know that much to say which will be a good candidate. Somebody has gotta know. I don't know who though.
Regards
Chess
Just to add to what you said. It is possible to cast a study to test for probabilistic results. So what i am saying is that a probabilistic study is a good scientific study that can be used in case of astrology.
The challenge is to selecting what hypothesis to test. To start with take one has an expected measurable result and has the widest belief. I do n't know that much to say which will be a good candidate. Somebody has gotta know. I don't know who though.
Regards
Chess
Krishna ji,
I agree with you. You hit the nail on the head.
I will go a step further and suggest that even in matters of science, measurement as a concept actually ends up giving us a false sense of proportion. A compelling urge to measure everything that we come across is not very scientific really.
In the Car example assuming 120 mph to be the speed at which the axle gives way, the sense of proportion (of safety) that we derive by the measure the speedometer gives till 119.99 is after all not "right".
CRS
I agree with you. You hit the nail on the head.
I will go a step further and suggest that even in matters of science, measurement as a concept actually ends up giving us a false sense of proportion. A compelling urge to measure everything that we come across is not very scientific really.
In the Car example assuming 120 mph to be the speed at which the axle gives way, the sense of proportion (of safety) that we derive by the measure the speedometer gives till 119.99 is after all not "right".
CRS
