1

1

TRUTH

What truth? Which truth? Whose truth?

Science and Scepticism. Bath Spa. Sep. 2006

Investigation of knowledge and truth are not self-contained. They affect the whole of society and the way society sees and conducts itself. 1

Abstract: Comments on Richard Dawkins article “The Real Romance in the Stars” written for The Independent on Sunday, 31 December 1995, amended for the Astrological Journal (May/June 1996, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 133-141), in which Dawkins attacks astrology thus setting himself up as arbiter of truth. Astrological signs describe character. This essay appends quotes from astrological texts to the character traits Dawkins displays in his article and considers which of the two contenders, Dawkins or astrology, present the best case in defence of stated beliefs.

Introduction.

Truth, with a capital T, poses a philosophical conundrum as unfathomable today as it ever

was. There are those who are convinced that they know what it is, those that are convinced

it cannot be known, those that are convinced that they know what it is not, and those who

1 Peter Vardy, What Is Truth? (Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 1999), p. 8 (hereafter, Truth? 1999).

2

2

are convinced that it exists though they cannot tell you exactly what it is. 2 3 4 In the article

he wrote for the Independent on Sunday, Richard Dawkins, holder of the Simonyi chair of

Public Understanding of Science at New College Oxford, was convinced that he knew what

it was not, and it was not astrology, yet he expressed himself, according to astrological

texts, as predicted by his astrological type.

Background

Richard Dawkins’ diatribe against astrology in December 1995 came at a depressing time

for astrologers.5 Previous optimistic attempts to attain scientific credence using

methodological procedures approved by science, while not a complete failure, had

nevertheless fallen on rough ground. 6 7 Innovative definitions, in line with approved

philosophical thought, definitions with the academic authority to extricate astrology from

ridicule, had yet to be proposed.8 The Witchcraft Act of 1736 was repealed in 1951 but

replaced with a prohibitive Fraudulent Mediums Act, an act that refused astrologers a right

to serious media coverage and forced them publicly into the role of light entertainers. In

spite of the lack of satisfactory scientific evidence astrology inspired a healthy following, a

situation that worried those scientists who feared the Enlightenment would succumb to

2 ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me’. King James Bible, John 14:6. 3 From Scott Soames, Understanding Truth (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 20:

i. Truth is indefinable. ii. Truth is unknowable and epistemologically dispensable. iii. Truth is irreducibly metaphysical and hence not scientifically respectable. iv. There is no such property as truth; truth predicates are trivial and lack content. v. The notion of truth, as we ordinarily understand it, is paradoxical and thus must be either abandoned or revised.

4 ‘Truth is something that will not be arrived at easily but only by struggle, by searching and by a willingness to be open to alternatives… In the face of all these factors, I want to put forward a case for truth, perhaps even for “Truth” with a capital “T”.’ Peter Vardy, Truth? 1999, p. 4. 5 Willis, R, and Curry, P, Astrology Science and Culture; Pulling Down the Moon (Oxford/New York, Berg, 2004), ‘Astrology as a Scientific Heresy’, chapter 8, p. 96 (hereafter, A,S,C. 2004). 6 ‘Back in the 1950s John Addey … said explicitly that astrology is not a science, but given that we live in the 20th century we must see what happens if we investigate it scientifically:’ ‘Richard Dawkins’ Attack on Astrology’ by Nick Campion, Astrological Journal May/June, 1996. 7 Geoffrey Cornelius, Chapter 3, ‘Science and the Symbol, 1: Humpty-Dumpty’, Moment of Astrology (England, The Wessex Astrologer Ltd, 2003), pp. 6-57. 8 The divinatory theory of astrology as a cosmic dialogue, see ‘Conversing with the Stars’, A,S,C. p. 147.

3

3

superstition and fantasy. 9 10 John Horgan, science writer for Scientific American, pondering

on the emotionality of the scientist in the person of Dawkins writes: ‘Scientists are rarely so

human …so at the mercy of their fears and desires, as when they are confronting the limits

of science.’11

Seeking impartiality this discussion attempts to avoid perpetuating the division

between science and astrology. Lumping individuals together in labelled collections is

unlikely to serve any purpose other than to encourage polemic exclusivity.12 For this reason

this essay responds to Dawkins in the person of himself.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. In his book The Selfish Gene he coined the

term ‘meme’to represent an invasive ‘idea’ that acts like a virus in the mind. 13 14 Looked at

from Dawkins’ perspective, The War of the Worlds is a takeover, not by aliens, but by

cultural transmissions, analogous to genetic transmission, that propagate insidious ideas

with the power to propel humanity into a new Dark Age.15

Russell Grant, Nicholas Campion, Peter Martin, Pat Kane, Maryann Bird and

Patrick Curry have all responded to Dawkins’ attack.16 This discussion differs in that

9 Justine Picardie, “Astrology has never been so popular, or such big business”. Headline to article ‘Spinning After Patric’s Star’, The Independent on Sunday, obituary to Patrick Walker, born in New Jersey, Sept., 25, 1931, moved to London and wrote for the magazine Queen (Harpers and Queen). 10 Two years later, in 1997, the Humanist published ‘Objections to Astrology’ in which one hundred and eighty six scientists denounced astrology as a belief ‘based on magic and superstition’. ‘Objections to Astrology’, the Humanist, 35, no. 5 (September/October 1975), pp. 4 -6. 11 John Horgan, The End of Science, Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, (herafter, End of Science, 1997) (Great Britain, Little, Brown and Company, 1997), p. 5. 12 Paul Mealing, ‘Immoral Traits’, discussion on two important aspects of the moral equation: ‘One is the identification with a group which treats outsiders as less deserving than those within the group, and the other is conformity … The combination of these two social traits has led to the worst of human atrocities …’ Letter, New Scientist, 17 Dec., 2005, p. 23. 13 ‘Meme’ sounds like ‘gene’, refers to the Greek root of imitation ‘mimeme’, and relates to ‘memory’ and ‘meme’, the French word for ‘self’ or ‘same’. ‘Prophylactics and Brains: 'Beloved' in the Cybernetic Age of AIDS’. Kathryn Bond Stockton, Studies in the Novel, vol., 28: 3, 1996, p. 434. University of North Texas. Gale Group, 1996, 2002. 14 Richard Dawkins writes: "`Memes [ideas; memories; basic units of cultural transmission] should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain ... in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell'". Dawkins’ book, The Selfish Gene (UK, Oxford University Press, 1976) is a bestseller in 13 languages. p. 332. 15 Popular movie, based on a novel by H G Wells, in which Martians attempt to take over planet Earth. 16 Russell Grant, ‘Astrology is Not Mumbo Jumbo; Britain’s Foremost Stargazer Answers the Sceptics’. Sunday Mirror, Jan., 7, 1996. Nick Campion, ‘Richard Dawkins’ Attack on Astrology’, Astrological Journal, May/June 1996, vol., 38, no. 3. Peter Martin, ‘The Truth is Out There; Night and Day’, The Mail on Sunday, Aug., 11, 1996, p.19.

4

4

astrology will be judged on the merits of published astrological descriptive predictions

applied to Dawkins as he presents himself in his article.

Dawkins is an Aries, a sign ruled by the planet Mars. Gauquelin lists Mars traits as

active, ardent, combative, daring, dynamic, energetic, fearless, offensive, reckless,

spontaneous, strong-willed, stormy, tireless, tough, and full of vitality.17

To distinguish between Dawkins’ statements and astrological quotes Dawkins’

article will be printed in arial bold and astrological quotes in italic. The full article is

printed in appendix 1.

Dawkins v Astrological Prognostications.

Rather than take astrological quotes from many books, which might imply a

deliberate search for material that confirms astrology, quotes will be taken from the chapter

‘Aries’ in Fred Getting’s The Book of the Zodiac: an historical anthology of astrology.18

Gettings, quoting Waite (1917), tells us that Arietans are: ‘Pioneering and

reforming leaders of men: frank, candid, intense, intellectual, aspiring; perhaps a little too

‘touchy’, assertive, exaggerative, and venturesome.’19 According to the astrologer Pagan

(1911) an Aries type ‘fights best with his head: that is to say, in the field of thought …’ .20

If astrology has any truth (a word used with trepidation), the following article must present

Dawkins as candid, intense, combative and intellectual. Also on the subject of Aries,

Sephariel (1893) writes:‘The native will desire to shine, to gain honours and prominence’.

21 22 ‘What can an ambitious young biologist do to make his or her mark in the post-

Darwin, post-DNA era?’ … asks Horgan after interviewing Dawkins in 1994. His answer:

Pat Kane, ‘There’s Method in the Magic’, New Statesman vol., 125: 4298, 23 Aug., 1996, p 24. Maryann Bird, ‘Pathway to the Stars’, Time Magazine, June 18 2001, vol., 157, 24. Patrick Curry, chapter 8, ‘Science and Astrology’, A,S,C. 2004. 17 Michel Gauquelin, L'Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Expérimentale (Paris, Le Dauphin, 1955). 18 Fred Gettings, The Book of the Zodiac (London, New York, Sydney, Toronto, Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, 1972), (hereafter, Zodiac, 1972), pp. 16-31. 19 Herbert T. Waite, Compendium of Natal Astrology, (with the permission of the publishers Kegan Paul and Co, 1917), Zodiac, 1972, p. 25. 20 Isabelle M. Pagan, From Pioneer to Poet (The Theosophical Publishing House, 1911), Zodiac, 1972, p. 22. 21 ‘Sandra Harding and Emily Martin aim to … refigure words such as rationality, knowledge and truth that have become ossified and crippled within scientism’. From ‘Fragilities of Scientism: Richard Dawkins and the Paranoid Idealization of Science’. Luke Davidson, Science as Culture, vol.9:2, 2000. 0950-5431 print/1470-1189 online/00/020167-33 © Process Press. (Hereafter, Scientism, 2000). 22 Sephariel (1893), Walter Richard Old, renamed W. Gorn Old, nicknamed by Madam Blavatsky ‘The Astral Tramp’, used the nom de plume Sephariel. See Patrick Curry, A Confusion of Prophets: a Victorian and Edwardian Astrology (G.B, Collins & Brown Ltd, 1992), pp. 125-8, 144-5. Zodiac, 1972, p. 26.

5

5

‘One alternative is to become more Darwinian than Darwin.’ Arietans, says Pagan, ‘really

enjoy facing and overcoming difficulties, and will go out of their way to challenge

opposition rather than forgo the exercise of their faculties.’ 23 Unaware of astrological

portrayals of the Aries type Horgan’s description concurs. ‘He seems to view … anti-

Darwinian ideas as a personal affront’.24

Dawkins, we are to understand, will challenge anything that is un-Dawkins, and that

does not mean merely astrology but includes theology, parapsychology, and practitioners in

his own field.25 He begins his article by throwing down the gauntlet.

We should take astrology seriously. No I don’t mean we should believe in it. I am

talking about fighting it seriously instead of humouring it as a piece of harmless

fun.

‘Arietans will leap forward regardless, being always the first to attack ..’ writes Gettings.26

If Dawkins knew anything about the astrological Aries he would have done better, as far as

proving his case was concerned, to avoid this characteristically Arian overture.

Frivolous tolerance, probably the dominant stance towards astrology among

educated people who don’t actually believe in it, ran right through a recent article in

The Independent on Sunday by Justine Picardie, … “Astrology has never been so

popular, or such big business”.

Memes on the war-path, astrology is, from Dawkins’ perspective, an insidious virus

infecting society, one that our brains must banish at all cost. This is not the open-minded

search for explanations demanded by science27 but perhaps this accusation of ‘frivolous

tolerance’ can be excused when we learn that Aries are notoriously ‘rash’.28

The obituary to Patric Walker, who wrote for the magazine Queen (Harpers and

Queen) arouses Dawkins’ wrath. The word ‘respectable’ and ‘eminent’ applied to an

23 Isabelle, M. Pagan, Zodiac, 1972, p. 23. 24 End of Science, 1997, p. 116. 25 ‘Most religions, hold God responsible for the design and purpose evident in life, ‘Dawkins was determined to stamp out this point of view’’ ‘Dawkins can be equally harsh with his fellow biologists, those who have dared to challenge the basic paradigm of Darwinism’, End of Science, pp 117-18. 26 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 16. 27 Kitty Ferguson, ‘One tenant of science is that while an explanation can be extremely convincing and useful, none should ever be considered “final” or “proved”, or “Truth”.’ Measuring the Universe: The Historical Quest to Quantify Space, (hereafter, Measuring, 1999), (London, Headline Book Publishing, 1999), p 31. 28 The word ‘rash’ is repeatedly applied to Aries on Pages 22, 28 and 31, Zodiac, 1972.

6

6

astrologer calls forth a fit of outrage. ‘… we constantly find that images of Aries insist

upon the violence and impetuosity of the type, ..’

.. but surely something must be going on when even The Independent On Sunday

can devote two pages plus a double picture spread to the question of who would

inherit the mantle of a dead charlatan.

Dawkins use of the term ‘dead charlatan’ is ‘brutal, violent’ and somewhat, ‘intemperate

…’.29 He also casts astrologers in the role of quacks, entrepreneurs and greedy

commercialists, types who, he fails to mention, are also active amongst scientists.30

The popular scientist David Bellamy, who ought to know better and probably does,

contributed to Patric Walker’s astrology page in Radio Times, writing that he had a

“Capricorn caution” over certain things, but mostly he puts his head down and

charges like a real goat.

Aries, ‘It is suggested … is something of a ‘battering ram’ in the way it goes about life ..’ 31

Here Bellamy – the goat - has provoked an Aries battering from Dawkins the ram. But does

Bellamy deserve this treatment? The astrologer Stocker, writing on the nature of the sign

Capricorn (ruled by the planet Saturn), suggests that: ‘Persons who are of the type of

Saturn are by nature… cautious to timidity, yet most independent of interference or

control.’ 32 In relation to Bellamy’s predilection to ‘charge’ I would take into account that

on his birth chart, Mars, the planet that rules Aries, is conjunct Jupiter (expansion), and it is

more likely this exaggerated Mars that provokes the Bellamy goat to use his horns.

Dawkins meanwhile suggests that Bellamy is unscientific. Does it necessarily follow that to

be scientific one must deny experience? Perhaps, up to a point - the point of experimenting

on physical constancies.33 When Galileo set his balls rolling down the ramp34 he might

29 Ebanezer Sibly, A New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences (1795), Zodiac, 1972, p. 20. 30 Tinker Ready. ‘ORI to study why cheaters cheat’. ‘The ORI (Office of Research Integrity) has funded a $65,000 study to examine why scientists cheat and what happens to them after they get caught. Anecdotally, academics say pressure to publish, competition for grants and financial gain can lead scientists to fudge data or cut corners’. Nature Medicine, vol., 6, 946, 2000) http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n9/full/nm0900_946a.html December 7, 2005, 12:41:04 AM. 31 Gettings, Zodiac 1972, p. 21. 32 Richard D. Stocker, ‘Astrological Physiognomy’, from The Modern Astrologer, 1899, p. 161-2, Zodiac, 1972, p. 180. 33 Simon Blackburn, professor of philosophy at Cambridge, writes: ‘How far can science go in the pursuit of truth? There are limits: science only works where there are constancies, such as the physical universe. Where constancies are hard to come by, as with human behaviour, the entitlement of any investigation to be called “scientific” begins to look correspondingly thin.’ Webb, J, Ed., New Scientist, 17 Sept 2005, p. 41.

7

7

have expected the heavier one to reach the bottom first. The actual result is counter-

intuitive.35 Intuition would be wrong about how the balls responded to gravity but right as

to how they acted in relation to the body. Had the balls been thrown at Galileo’s head he

would have been right to fear the heavier ball. Science provides accurate information

within a certain context. Trusting in phenomenological deduction sooner than ontic

induction when the context is personal, would seem a wise decision,36 as character is

extremely complex and the world on which science can experiment still extremely simple

which is evidenced by Darwin VII,37 the most complex robot yet devised, when it failed to

master the aptitudes of an 18 month old infant.

Dawkins compares his own pedantry with the ‘flippant tolerance’ shown by his

peers and sets out to justify his stand.

Such shallow light-heartedness sets a mood in which questioning astrology’s

validity is made to seem pedantic Gradgrindery. To ask whether the astrologers

themselves believe in it also comes over a bit long faced, on the killjoy side.

If understanding humanities’ relationship with life is the aim then the act of questioning is

tactically intelligent and questioning astrology’s validity is reasonable. A problem arises

when the questioning is emotionally biased. Is this passionate Aries-style of self-expression

pricking Dawkins’ conscience? In the film Contact, Segan defines science as ‘the pursuit of

truth’.38 This is not a universal definition39 but Dawkins is clearly seeking truth with

34 Alfinio Flores and Erin E. Turner, ‘Inclined Planes and Motion Detectors: A Study of Acceleration’. Journal; School Science and Mathematics, vol. 101. Issue: 3. 2001, p. 154. 35 Lynn D. Newton, ‘Science is often counter-intuitive. Simple observations of the world and the development of lay theories using common sense are usually inaccurate and unreliable’. Meeting the Standards in Primary Science: A Guide to the ITT NC. (London, Routledge Falmer, 2000), p. 20. 36 Ludwig Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophers consistently see the method of science before their eyes, and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way that science does. This tendency …leads the philosopher into darkness’. The Blue Book, p. 62. 37 ‘The robot Darwin VII is claimed to have "managed to master the abilities of an 18-month-old baby - a pretty impressive feat for a machine” (5 November, 2005, p. 28).This is rather less impressive when you realise that all it does is crawl around finding "tasty blocks" that are prominently striped. An 18-month-old baby typically understands simple speech, has at least a dozen or so words of its own, has all sorts of complex social behaviours such as shyness with strangers and attention-getting strategies, can find hidden objects, identify named objects, imitate gestures...and on and on.’ From issue 2527, New Scientist magazine, 26 November 2005, p. 22. 38 Film, Contact, adapted from a novel by Carl Segan, directed by Robert Zemeckis. 39 A.F. Chalmers, What is this Thing called Science? (Buckingham: OU Press, 1982), p. 166.

8

8

passion. I would suggest that failing to carry out an investigation into the subject with

which he has declared war he is disregarding his own standards.40

On Picardie’s evidence, some (astrologers) are foolish enough to believe anything

(One of them met Patric Walker “just before Mercury went retrograde” and

immediately recognised him from a “past life”).

Dawkins advocates atheism (rather than an agnostic position in line with scientific

principle).41 Here he attacks religious belief, not astrology. The subject, astrology, has

fuzzy areas (as does science) 42 areas where other subjects merge with the astrological

premise. Astrology is concerned with ‘the heavens’. Religion has for centuries placed

angels and gods in heaven,43 it is hardly surprising that many astro-practitioners blend

astrology with religious and/or paranormal beliefs, and these subjects, also passionately

denounced by Dawkins, 44are difficult to verify.45

The roly-poly one sounds a bit more fly and may understand exactly what he is

doing ... Mystic Meg by all accounts could be the best of the bunch, an old

fashioned crystal-ball toter, showing up the pretensions of the others, which is

presumably why they try to disown her.

Picking on Russell Grant (roly-poly) and Mystic Meg - as entertainers, amongst the few

allowed to mention astrology on the media at the time - Dawkins plumps for the most

theatrical, suggesting that the 1951 act has done the work it was designed to do; that of

planting the desired astrology-as-mere-entertainment-meme in Dawkins’ brain.

The serious newspapers seem to be embarking on a self-conscious flirtation with

astrology. (…) This year-end the Guardian commissioned various individuals to

40 In this brief analysis, whole chart astrological prognostications are out of the question, but Luke Davidson’s ‘Fragilities of Scientism: Richard Dawkins and the Paranoiac Idealization of Science’ Science as Culture, vol., 9:2 2000, which presents Dawkins’ position in the light of Melanie Klein’s account of infant paranoia, links to complexities in Dawkins birth chart such as the Mars opposition to Pluto, and Moon in Pisces. 41 Adriaan Van Heerden, quote: (as does Dawkins, Britain’s most prominent advocate of atheism).From ‘Why Atheism is Unscientific’, Contemporary Review, June 2004, vol., 284 issue 1616, (Contemporary Review Company Ltd, Gale Group, 2004.), p. 351+. 42 Psychology, the social sciences, statistics, are all impossible to validate with exactitude. Superstring theory is beyond scientific testing. New Scientist, 3 Dec. 2005, p 23. Also see Simon Blackburn, ref., 33. 43 ‘Our father which art in heaven’. The King Charles Bible, Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2. 44 Victor Zammit, ‘Lawyer Rebuts Prof. Richard Dawkins, Scientist, re the paranormal’. Reply to What’s wrong with the Paranormal’, 10 Oct 2005, http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html 1/2/2006 3:45 PM. 45 J.E. Kennedy, ‘Scientists and skeptics should be careful not to claim that beliefs are false when actually they are untestable.’ From, ‘Exploring the Limits of Science and Beyond: Research Strategy and Status,’ The Journal of Parapsychology, vol., 58:1, p. 59+ (Parapsychology Press, 1994), Gale Group, 2002.

9

9

look ahead to the future. Tucked away among some real scientists, historians and

philosophers is none other than our roly-poly friend. (…) Why does a decent

newspaper hand out free publicity to this phoney? Just a giggle, again? Or is the

Guardian bending over backwards not to be elitist?

Lee Lehman, a scientist and an astrologer explains: ‘real science has certain rules of

engagement, so that everybody suspends disbelief around some critical issues.’46 In this

article Dawkins’ science is idealistic, not real. When it comes to astrology, for Dawkins the

suspension of disbelief is not an option.

In his reply to this abuse Russell Grant writes, 47 ‘scientists are like high priests of

old who claimed exclusive access to knowledge’. This is true of this particular scientist, but

not all.48 Dawkins continues by comparing Picardie’s article on astrology with one on

angelology, which has no relevance to astrology but nevertheless provokes an outburst

against ‘metatwaddle’, by which he means cultural studies, a subject that sets out to

investigate social phenomena without prejudice; a study that Stuart Hall describes as

‘wrestling with angels’49 and which Dawkins accuses of being ‘so open-minded your brains

drop out’.

On a moonless night when the only clouds to be seen are the Magellanic Clouds of

the Milky Way …

According to Gettings, ‘Aries is not always strictly honest in speech …their natural

tendency to exaggeration and their strong imagination often unite in such a way to distort

the truth. Better give the Arietian the benefit of the doubt, and assume not a dishonest heart

or tongue, but an over fertile imagination …’.50 Invited by Nicolas Campion, then Editor of

the Astrological Journal, to publish this article, Dawkins appended a note that agrees with

46 Lee Lehman, ‘On the Limits of Science’ from Garry Phillipson’s interviews with astrologers and scientific researchers, Astrology in the Year Zero (London, Flare Publications, 2000), pp. 171-2. 47 Russell Grant, ‘Astrology is Not mumbo jumbo’; Britain’s Foremost Stargazer answers the Skeptics, Sunday Mirror, Jan., 7, 1996, p. 19. 48 Professor Lord Robert Winston, to whom Dawkins’ has dedicated his latest book, Climbing Mount Improbable, ponders on the unknowable in his series for BBC television, The Story of God: BBC Press Office: He looks at those scientific disciplines (nuclear and astro-physics) where a convergence between faith and science seems possible. ‘…the world we live in has been shaped by the universal human conviction that there is more to life than life itself.’ 49 Stuart Hall, ‘Unless we operate in this tension, we don’t know what cultural studies can do, can’t, can never do; but also what it has to do, what it alone has a privileged capacity to do.’ Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies, originally published in Cultural Studies, ed., Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula Treichler. (New York, London, Routledge, 1992) p. 281. 50 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 25.

10

10

Getting’s prognostication: ‘1. This is carrying poetic license too far in a Northern

Hemisphere paper. The Magellanic Clouds are visible only in the Southern Hemisphere!

R.D.’ Ah! To be ‘not strictly honest in speech’ is in actually ‘poetic license’: Calling all

Aries types - this is a justification worth remembering.

Dawkins continues:

… lie on the grass and gaze out at the stars. What are you seeing? Superficially you

notice constellations, but a constellation is of no more significance than a patch of

curiously shaped damp on the bathroom ceiling. Note, accordingly, how little it

means to say something like "Uranus moves into Aquarius". Aquarius is a

miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no

connection with each other …

A look at the astronomy that lies behind the astrological chart is in order. The tropical

zodiac used by the majority of western astrologers, though few astrologers need to know

this or do,51 is as mathematically specific as is space-time geometry. The tropical zodiac is

aligned according to four cardinal points 00Aries, 00 Cancer, 00 Capricorn, and 00 Libra.

Aries and Libra, the equinoctial points, define an astrophysical situation. Saturn’s rings, the

layout of the solar system, or a spiral galaxy side on, indicate that there is a powerful

quality inherent in an equatorial field. On only two days of the year, two of these fields (the

most significant to life on Earth) those of planet Earth and the Sun, pass through the centers

of both bodies of mass. These are the points used by astrologers to orientate their Zodiac.

One can hypothesise that psychosocial meanings carried by these interpenetrating fields

have been recognised by astrologers with special observational talents. Astrophysically,

when astrologers say, Uranus moved into Aquarius, they are saying that a real planet with a

celestial equator defining an invisible space-time field (visible around Saturn, Neptune and

Uranus) has moved (along with its field), into an area of Earth’s environment where

properties of that field are causing interference patterns of a particular nature. Perhaps

astrology has nothing to do with the fixed stars, only that the stars were used as signposts

by early astrologers. This is the subject of another study.52 Perhaps the space-time field of

the equatorial field of the Galaxy within which the Zodiac is situated is also implied by the

51 A word of mouth survey has prompted this assertion. 52 See Philp, presentation, ‘Astronomy and Astrophysics’, for Science and Scepticism, Bath Spa University.

Autumn semester 2005.

11

11

sidereal zodiac used by Vedic astrology. The questions are myriad yet Dawkins has

presumed there are no questions.

Having waxed lyrical over changes that occur in star formations over time Dawkins

writes:

A far more rapid astronomical shift is the precession of the equinoxes. My birthday

(26 March) is listed in the papers as Aries but this is the sun sign which somebody

with my birthday would have had when Ptolemy codified all that stuff. …my sun

sign is in fact (if you can call it a fact) Pisces. If astrologers were doing something

that had any connection with reality, this presumably ought to make a difference.

Since they aren't, it doesn't.

The precessional shift was known to Hellenistic astrologer/astronomers.53 How can

Dawkins square it with his scientific principles to pick astronomical holes in the very

people to whom the subject astronomy is indebted? Perhaps the following quote from Alan

Leo (1904) provides an explanation. ‘In the unregenerated and lower and less evolved

types of humanity the martial influence arouses the desire to annihilate or destroy foes and

enemies’, 54 which desire appears, at this point, to be over-riding better judgment. Again, in

a note written for the Astrological Journal, he feels a need to admit and justify his

mendacity: ‘Many astrologers are aware of precession but, instead of updating their

methods, they prefer the lazy escape of 'tropical astrology' in which one uses zodiacal

constellations as labels for the patch of sky where they would have appeared years ago.

R.D.’ Having slated astrologers for not understanding the movement of the sidereal zodiac

he discovers western astrologers use the moving tropical zodiac and condemns them for

this too, a turnabout that is, according to Sephariel, also true to type: ‘In religion and

politics subtle, combative, and often bigoted … liable to change his views and object, but at

all times enthusiastic in pursuit of a prevailing idea’. 55

Scorpio could go retrograde up Uranus and it wouldn't make any difference. ‘Eloquence of a declamatory and sometimes violent type is given by this sign.’56

53 See Nicholas Campion, The Great Year, Astrology Millenarianisms and History in the Western Tradition (London, Arkana, Penguin Books, 1994), ‘The Precession of the Equinoxes’, pp. 246-7. 54 Alan Leo’s perspective is Theosophical and therefore psychologically evolutionary. Not all astrologers think in terms of lower and higher expressions of type. Zodiac, 1972, p. 31. 55 Sephariel, 1893, Zodiac, 1972, p. 26. 56 Ibid.

12

12

Another example of Arietan poetic license. Scorpio is a sign, and signs do not go retrograde

which Dawkins knows full well, though he expects less intelligence from astrologers.

Actually, of course, only planets can "go retrograde", and even then it is an illusion.

As they, and we, orbit the sun, planets will on occasion appear to reverse their

direction from our point of view. But these occasions have no significance. From a

third planet they would be seen to "go retrograde" at different times.

Astrologers understand that retrograde motion is an astronomical illusion but it is the

heavens ‘relative’ to Earth that is significant to astrology.

A planet is so far away that its gravitational pull on a new-born baby would be

swamped by the pull of the doctor's paunch. Dawkins falls back on discussing a discredited gravitationally based hypothesis. The

gravitational pull on a new born baby is known to be weaker than the pull of a Doctor’s

paunch.57 If the Big Bang theory is wrong the Universe and the questions it poses awaits

another explanation. If an explanation is incorrect it does not follow the thing explained is

not inherent in the human equation and what is more, that it has no other possible

explanation.58

What else are we seeing when we gaze up at the night sky? One thing we are seeing

is history. When you look at the great galaxy in Andromeda you are seeing it as it

was 2.3 million years ago and Australopithecus stalked the African savannah. You

are looking back in time. Shift your gaze a few degrees to the nearest bright star in

the constellation of Andromeda and you are seeing Mirach, but much more recently,

as it was when Wall Street crashed. John Cornwall writes: ‘The parables – riveting biological narratives, enthralling as the

Arabian Nights Tales – this is vintage Dawkins.’59 The seventeenth century astrologer

Partridge says of Mars types, they ‘make notorious Lyars and Inventors of Fables’.60 …

and this example of Arietan eloquence (cut in the interests of brevity) has a beautiful reality

of its own that would be enchanting were it not for the fact that this article has been

57 Roger B. Culver and Philip A. Ianna, Astrology: True or False? A Scientific Evaluation (New York, Prometheus Books, 1988). 58 See Kitty Ferguson, footnote 27. 59 John Cornwall, in the New Scientist. Back cover of Dawkins book, Climbing Mount Improbable (London, Penguin Books, 1997). 60 John Partridge, An Astrological Vade Mecum, 1679, Zodiac, 1972, p. 25.

13

13

interwoven with assumptions about astrological meanings that are wildly inaccurate and

vicariously insulting.

Name any year in history and there will be a star up there whose light gives you a

glimpse of something happening that very year. Whatever the year of your birth,

somewhere up in the night sky you could find your birth star (or stars, for the

number is proportional to the third power of your age. (…) Your birth star will not

deign to tell anything about your personality, your future or your sexual

compatibilities.

Fable-creation is indeed a talent expressed with genius in Dawkins’ books. He is a ‘Pioneer

among men; going out in sympathy to a new thought rapidly assimilating fresh ideas,

always in the van of progress in whatever work.’61 Exhibiting the same emotionally

uplifting connection with the heavens that astrologers feel when they contemplate their

subject, he could be said to be condoning the astrological mind-set, though not the

astrology.

The stars have larger agendas, in which the preoccupation's of human pettiness do

not figure.

Do the stars have agendas? Is Dawkins implying they have intelligence? The narrative

continues:

Your birth star, of course, is yours for only this year. ..Think of this expanding

bubble as a radius of good news, the news of your birth, broadcast steadily

outwards. In the Einsteinian universe in which most physicists now think we live,

nothing can in principle travel faster than light. So, if you are 50 years old, you have

a personal news sphere of 50 light years radius.

‘the female Arietan is just as exaggerated … just as romantic ..’ 62 writes Gettings. The

romance of the stars is exposed. Dawkins, in love with science and the stars,63 weaves his

enchantment. It is unfortunate that in this case, as Sephariel repines: ‘The powers of an

Aries person are more destructive of existing orders than constructive of new ones.’ 64

The real universe has mystery enough to need no help from obscurantist hucksters.

61 Isabelle M. Pagan, 1911, Zodiac, 1972, p. 22. 62 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 23. 63 Dawkins writes about his book Unweaving the Rainbow; Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder, Dawkins. R. (London, Allen Tate, 1998): ‘.. is it – as I think you will decide – an exultant love letter to both science and poetry?’ ‘Reply to Luke Davidson’s “Fragilities of Scientism: Richard Dawkins and the Paranoiac Idealization of Science” p. 199. 64 Saphariel, Zodiac, 1972, p. 26.

14

14

Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or

money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using

Beethoven for commercial jingles. By existing law neither Beethoven nor nature can

sue, but perhaps existing law could be changed.

In destructive mode Dawkins relies on more eloquent insults in his attempt to destroy the

monster that is corrupting the temple that for him is ‘science’. Dawkins, ‘is a missionary

who writes like an angel. He is to Darwinism what St Paul is to Christianity’. Mike

Maran.65

If the methods of Astrologers were really shown to be valid it would be a fact of

signal importance for science. Under such circumstances astrology should be

taken seriously indeed.

Here is the only statement in this epistle that indicates something of the, so called,

‘evolved’ Aries type that Gettings, influenced by Theosophist Leo, is considering when he

writes: ‘This is why the Arietan of high evolution ... is a very remarkable man indeed, one

with the outer form of a man and the inner spirit of a god’. 66 But Dawkins can’t believe his

own projected possibility and goes on to ‘…magnify everything that engages (his) attention

as well as (his) own powers.’67 .. in this case the powers of his subject.

But if - as all indications agree - there is not a smidgen of validity in any of the

things that astrologers so profitably do, this, too, should be taken seriously and not

indulgently trivialised. We should learn to see the debauching of science for profit

as a crime.

A fine sentiment, but a crime must be thoroughly investigated and he is conveniently

forgetting not only his own ignorance but also the limitations of his discipline,

‘impulsively’, as is the Aries nature, dismissing a subject that science, as yet, does not have

the means to investigate.

I must make the usual defence against a charge of scientific arrogance. How do I

know that there is no truth in astrology? Well, of course I don't know. I can't prove

that there is nothing in horoscopes, … It isn't as though it would be difficult to find

evidence for astrology, if there were any to be had. (…) A statistical tendency,

however slight, for people's personalities to be predictable from their birthdays,

65 Mike Maran, Scotland on Sunday, as reprinted on back cover of Dawkins book, Climbing Mount Improbable (London, Penguin Books, 1997). 66 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p.31. 67 Waite, H. Zodiac, 1972, p. 25.

15

15

over and above the expected difference between winter and summer babies, would

be a promising start. Here Dawkins, while the epitome of Aries, is not being strictly accurate. One result of the

Smithers’ survey (1984) did appear to show some evidence (see appendix 2).

For us to take a hypothesis seriously, it should ideally be supported by at least a

little bit of evidence. If this is too much to ask, there should be some suggestion of

a reason why it might be worth bothering to look for evidence. (Here he suggests that

Graphology has a better chance of success as the brain controls personality and

handwriting.) But astrology has nothing going for it at all, neither evidence or any

inkling of a rationale which might prompt us to look for evidence.

Statistical methods of proving astrology are unlikely to produce positive results. Astrology

models a chaoplexic situation.68A horoscope is a miasma of interrelated details, as sensitive

to conditions of the moment as is a meteorological situation. It also models a phenomenon,

the personality, a thing that shares more components in common with other personalities

than the face shares with other faces, making distinguishing expressions, whether facial or

psychological, difficult for anything not human. Perhaps the only method suitable for

deciding the truth of astrology is to study it, and experience it personally with the

scientifically accredited recognition talents of the human brain.69 Both Kepler and

Feyerabend advise this approach.70

Astrology not only demeans astronomy, shrivelling and cheapening the universe

with its pre-Copernican dabblings. It is also an insult to the science of psychology

and the richness of human personality.

But even sharp minds like Dawkins’ can be mistaken, as Lord Rutherford illustrated when

he said in 1936: ‘Anyone who looks for a source of power in the transformation of the atom

is talking moonshine.’71 Whereas fundamentalists (religious or scientistic) such as

68 See Bütz, Michael R. Psychology’s New Friends? Chaos and Complexity: Implications for psychological Theory and Practice (Washington DC, Taylor and Francis, 1997) p.3. For chaoplexity, and the horoscope, see Hypothesis 1998, Book III, Part 3, chapter 7, The Golden City: Reality Model for a New Age (UK, MC Publishing, 1999) p.153. 69 ‘Humans are extremely good at reading faces in everything from corn tortillas to rock formations on Mars (…) Your gut reaction is a human survival trait and a well known phenomenon that Japanese researchers call the uncanny valley’. From Daniel Wilson, ‘The Robots are Coming,’ New Scientist, 24/31 Dec. 2005, p. 67. 70 See ‘The Blind Spot’, essay for ‘Science and Scepticism’, Bath Spa University, Autumn, 2005, p. 6. 71 David Milsted, The Cassell Dictionary of Regrettable Quotations (UK, Cassell, 1999), p.149.

16

16

Francisco Sizzi (1610) find accepting evidence impossible: ‘Jupiter’s moons are invisible

to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be

useless, and therefore do not exist.’72

I am talking about the facile and potentially damaging way in which astrologers

divide humans into 12 categories. Scorpios are cheerful, outgoing types, Leos with

their methodical personalities go well with Libra's (or whatever it is). Here Dawkins once more falls back on poetic license illuminating his lack of knowledge of

the subject he attacks with such martial energy. Scorpios, according to astrological texts,

are far from cheerful; ‘reserved, thoughtful, subtle, .. intense, secretive.’ 73 It is Virgo’s

who are ‘quiet, retiring, methodical and critical,’74 whereas Leo’s, ‘have skill in delegating

disagreeable duties’75 and while they enjoy organizing others, these ‘ardent’ and

‘dramatic’ 76 types are not particularly known for method; furthermore, whether they go

well with Librans depends on more than a simple sun sign analysis.77 This exposition of the

lack of even a nominal astrological education in someone rooting for science from a

position with great authority and responsibility, is far from conforming to scientific

principles78 while the inadequacies of the scientist,79 let alone his own,80 are conveniently

overlooked.

We love an opportunity to pigeonhole each other but we should resist the

temptation.

72 Ibid, p, 155. 73 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 142. 74 Allen Leo, Complete Dictionary of Astrology, Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 79. 75 Isabelle Pagan, Zodiac, 1972, p. 70. 76 Allen Leo, The Key to your own Nativity, Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 96. 77 For the analysis of complicated relationship issues Robert Hand advises the use of composite charts. He writes, ‘in reading composite charts I have found little or none of the ambiguity that occurs with conventional techniques of synastry.’ Planets in Composite, Analyzing Human Relationships, (USA, Para Research, Inc, 1975), p. 3. A composite chart is a midpoint chart based on the work of the Hamburg School working with Bonatti’s (13th Century) idea of sensitive middle points. 78 Kitty Ferguson, Measuring, 1999, p 31. Sagan, see footnote 37. 79 Brian L. Silverman; ‘In which, among other things, we look at the fallibility of science and scientists, and ask if anyone can be trusted’. The Ascent of Science (New York, Oxford University press, 1998), p. (i). 80 As Dawkins says in this article: ‘ .. we should fight it (astrology) seriously as an enemy of truth.’

17

17

As long as it is done self-reflexively81 if an astrologer is tempted to pigeonhole professor

Dawkins, perhaps she could be forgiven, as Dawkins has felt no compunction against

pigeonholing all astrologers and what is more doing so aggressively, assertively,

pugnaciously, somewhat impetuously, acutely, sharp-wittedly, and even brutally. And how

could said astrologer (particularly if another Aries) resist the temptation when Dawkins

exemplifies one particular sign of the Zodiac to such effect?

Personality is a real phenomenon and psychologists (real, scientific psychologists,

not Freudians or Jungians) have had some success in developing mathematical

models to handle many dimensions of personality variation. (…) It is a far cry from

any mutually exclusive categorisation, certainly far from the preposterous fiction of

astrology's 12 dumpbins. In 1975 Harriot talked of the complexity of human behaviour. This was decades before

Complexity Theory had been proposed and applied to psychology: 82 ‘Psychology is

struggling to do justice to the complexities of its subject matter; it is hardly likely to find

any single analogy to encompass the richness of human behaviour and experience:’83

Complexity indicates that no astrological categorisation is mutually exclusive; a birthchart,

as stated previously, is a complex amalgam of types. Modern psychology is presently

building on past astrology which is, according to Dr Greene (an astrologer/psychologist),

an early form of psychology,84 creating an astro-psychology of great sophistication.85 This

is bracketed and cast aside by Dawkins as not-real86 dismissing Freud and Jung, both

termed ‘fathers of psychology’,87 out of hand.

81 Charlotte Aul Davies, ‘...Total reflexivity requires full and uncompromising self-reference. Thus it is argued no process of knowing is fully reflexive until turned on the knower, who becomes self-conscious even of the reflexive process of knowing-’ Reflexive Ethnography: a Guide to Researching Self and Others (London, Routledge, 1999), p. 7. 82 Richard, A. Heath, ‘Complexity Theory and Psychology’, Nonlinear Dynamics: Techniques and Applications in Psychology (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000) p. 261. 83 Peter Harriot, Essential Psychology, 1975, quoted from Book I, Foundation, The Golden City (UK, M.C. Publishing, 1999) p. 90. 84 Liz Greene, ‘Psychology … has existed for a long time under other names, the earliest of which, perhaps, was astrology.’ Relating: An Astrological Guide to Living with Others on a Small Planet, p. 5. 85 See, The Development of the Personality: Seminars in Psychological Astrology, (GB, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), The Center for Psychological Astrology, co-founded by Dr Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas MA. 86 For discussion on the word ‘real’, see Nick Campion, interview with Dr Greene, The Mountain Astrologer, Feb/Mar 2002. 87 William James, Wilhelm Wundt, Sigmund Freud, and Carl Jung are amongst the many termed ‘father of psychology’.

18

18

Next Dawkins picks up the cudgel on behalf of those members of the public who

find it difficult to make romantic decisions without help. Thus he lives up to astrological

expectations once again: ‘the type is constantly … championing causes, even lost causes.’88

Accusing astrologers of dividing the available number of potential sexual partners by

twelve through their newspaper columns he bewails the fate of …

Lonely people, whose life might be transformed by a longed for compatible

friendship, are deliberately encouraged, by their reading of astrological quacks in

the newspapers, wantonly and pointlessly to throw away 11/12ths of the available

population. This is not just silly, it is damaging, and the quacks concerned deserve

our censure as strongly as their deluded victims deserve our pity.

As Campion wrote in his reply to Dawkins in 1996: ‘I suspect that all of us, from whatever

camp of astrology we come, … would find something in Dawkins article with which we

agree, perhaps the gap between skeptics and astrologers is less than we imagine’.89

Considering Dawkins’ blistering attack on his subject, this is an academic response worthy

of Dawkins’ professed principles and a declaration with which this discourse agrees. That

astrology can predict compatibility on sun signs alone is questionable. It is, perhaps, a

method of earning a living not compatible with serious astrological study but again, is

science so squeaky clean? The attainment of short term profit at the expense of long term

considerations has ever been a human failing. The need to put bread on the table is a

powerful incentive.

There are some stupid people out there, and they should be pitied not exploited. On

a famous occasion a few years ago a newspaper hack, who had drawn the short

straw and been told to make up the day's astrological advice, relieved his boredom

by writing under one star sign the following portentous lines: "All the sorrows of

yesteryear are as nothing compared to what will befall you today." He was fired

after the switchboard was jammed with panic-stricken readers, pathetic testimony

to the simple trust people can place in astrology.

88 Gettings, Zodiac 1972, p. 21. 89 Nick Campion, ‘Richard Dawkins’ Attack on Astrology’, Astrological Journal, May/June 1996, vol. 38, no., 3.

19

19

‘…trumpeter of his own fame and consequence’,90 as is the want of Aries, his own superior

intelligence to the fore, the ‘stupid people out there’, champions of his cause, get a dose of

Dawkins’ warm-hearted frankness. ‘ .. no type is warmer-hearted, or more frank ...’. 91Aries, the sign most noted for instant, or was it impetuous, reckless, and rash, decision

making, has difficulty understanding less decisive beings. But astrology insists that ‘we fail

to understand the type if we do not realize that they really do care for people. Aries for all

his aggressiveness likes people’.92

Now Dawkins tells the James Randi story. Randi wrote a pseudo-astrology column

for a Montreal newspaper posing as Zo-ran, proving, he asserted, that vague generalities

could apply to anyone.

If the astrological text taken from the Gettings’ anthology and printed here apply to

everybody as successfully as they apply to Dawkins, then this accusation must be taken

seriously. If they do not, then newspapers should be more careful who they employ.

My case is that Randi was morally right to hang up his scissors, that serious

newspapers should never give named astrologers the oxygen of publicity, that

astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and that we should fight it seriously as an

enemy of truth. Dawkins wants the law invoked against astrologers. He makes the case that pharmaceutical

manufacturers who con the public are prosecuted. Astrology, as previously explained, has

been associated with chaos theory, a theory that arose out of the study of weather

forecasting. Perhaps Dawkins has a point. Perhaps astrologers should learn from

meteorology to forecast the future with caution.

If astrologers cannot be sued by individuals misadvised, say, into taking disastrous

business decisions, why at least are they not prosecuted for false representation

under the Trade Descriptions Act and driven out of business? Why, actually, are

professional astrologers not jailed for fraud?

The theosophical astrologer Alan Leo writes; In the unregenerated and lower and less

evolved types of humanity the martial influence arouses the desire to annihilate or destroy

foes and enemies …’93 Here it is again. But having demonstrated his eloquence and

90 Ebenezer Sibly, A New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences. (1795), Zodiac, 1972, p. 22. 91 Pagan, Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 23. 92 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p.19. 93 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972 , p. 31.,

20

20

displayed poetic license, Dawkins, ‘hope and enthusiasm’ 94 to the fore, with a ‘happy

knack of forgetting failure, that, helps (him) through times of stress and strain, and anxiety

that would break down the courage of any other type ..’95 makes with the readers of the

Journal the best peace possible for an Aries (‘Many Arietans often believe the lie they tell

and may become quite indignant, quite martially disposed if openly accused of lying …’)96

by appending a final get-out clause. ‘4. It is, of course, sun sign astrology's well-heeled

practitioners in newspapers and on television that I am attacking as exploitative

charlatans.97 If there is good evidence (i.e. better than the often quoted but non-robust

Gauquelin attempt) that some other kinds of astrology work, well and good. I have to say

that I'd be extremely surprised. R.D.’98

Conclusion.

Gettings writes: ‘Aries gives a character almost larger than life, and one which would

appeal to the Victorians who, for all their alleged stuffiness, produced individuals who

pioneered an empire through the Arietan disposition to “make discoveries, and become

noted for his explorations”. People who will go to extremes, do or die, are valuable when

an empire is being built’.99 Dawkins has become noted for his explorations into genetics.

As Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science, the empire that Dawkins

pioneers is science itself. In his self-created role as meme-cleaner, his temple is the mind, a

phenomenon, according to astrology, important to an Aries - the sign that traditionally rules

the head. Nevertheless Dawkins, though he professes scientific values, by articulating such

vehement hostility towards astrology presents a subjective, unscientific posture whereas the

astrological type-casting when appended to Dawkins is strangely pertinent. Indeed, the

narrative of astrologers, while not entirely free of personal judgments, appears to offer

insight into Dawkins’ drives.

94 Pagan, Gettings, Zodiac,1972, p. 23. 95 Ibid, p. 23. 96 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p.25. 97 For a convincing argument in defence of Sun-sign astrology see Garry Phillipson, Interview with Nick Campion, Astrological Journal, Volume 41, July/August 1999. 98 Richard Dawkins ‘The Real Romance in the Stars’ amended for the Astrological Journal, May/June 1996, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 133-141. 99 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p.26.

21

21

An astrologer might point out that not all Aries would demonstrate such strong

Arietan traits, but in Dawkins’ case, not only is he astrologically an Aries but the planet

that rules Aries, Mars, is powerfully placed on his birth chart. It is exalted in the sign of

Capricorn,100 and it has no less than six connections to other powerful points.101

Luke Davidson writes:

Dawkins is rightly associated with a robust and aggressive attitude. His aggressive posture extends to a penchant for describing natural processes utilising metaphors taken from war, such as machine guns (p 260), the atomic bomb, (p. 290) and the arms race (pp. 232 and 249).102

The page numbers refer to Dawkins’ book Unweaving the Rainbow. Astrologers

could happily, probably gleefully, substitute the word Aries for Dawkins in this text.

For the moment, the truth - a phenomenological essence - 103 is removed from the

equation. Considering Dawkins’ self-expression and the quotes taken from the eight pages

of text in Gettings’ anthology, we can ask instead: which of the two contenders, Dawkins,

or astrology, presented the best case in defence of stated belief?

• Dawkins believes astrology is a dangerous lie. While deriding typecasting, ‘subject

to no reason in war or contention:’104 he accuses astrologers, en mass, of heinous

crimes. ‘… acute, keen and sharp-witted’ 105 he ‘boldly’ attempts to run his

antagonists into the pit of oblivion and rub their subject off the map.

• Astrology supplies character descriptions of the Aries type of which Dawkins

appears to be a dazzling example.

While the writer, viewing the evidence from an emic position, is impressed with

astrology’s case, readers are left to decide according to their bias.

100 A planet is in peak condition when it is exalted. Robert Hand, ‘The lore of exaltations and falls emerges full blown in Ptolemy, and beyond this, their origin is obscure.’ Horoscope Symbols (USA, Schiffer Publishing, Ltd, 1981), p. 202. 101 It makes a grand trine with Jupiter/Uranus and Neptune/Moon’s Node, a sextile to Venus – the planet conjunct his Aries Sun– and oppositions to both Chiron and Pluto. 102 Luke Davidson, Scientism, 2000, p. 182. 103 Merleau-Ponty ‘It is before our undivided existence that the world is true or exists; . . . which is to say . . . that we have in [the world] the experience of a truth which shows through and envelops rather than being held and circumscribed by our mind.’ (The Primacy of Perception, trans. James M. Edie ( Evanston: North- western University Press, 1964), 6, Inédit, p 404-5. 104 Ebanezer Silby, Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 22. 105 Allen Leo, The Art of Synthesis, 1904, Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 31.

22

22

‘.. Mars shows the courage, capacity for heroism, endurance, strength and power,

thus Mars can work for good as well as for evil:’106 Dawkins marched against the Iraq war. 107 A man of high ideals he understands his own subject but has no patience with another

when that other seems to him patently crazy. Driven to express his opinions publicly and

with vigour he has coaxed astrologers out of their comfort zone into an arena of debate

where they have been required to self-reflect and discuss where they stand in relation to the

modern world. Perhaps Dawkins’ outspoken naivety has performed astrology a service.

Kepler,108 one of the fathers of Dawkins’ own adulated and fiercely propagated subject,

might well smile if he could watch his brilliant son, unintentionally winkle his other

interest, astrology,109 out of the background into the light. Dawkins is almost obscenely

rude, ‘Arietians go to extremes in all things and this in virtues as much as in vices.’110 An

astrologer might note that a Libra, the opposite sign to Aries, would never dream of

upsetting the apple cart and dishing out insults with such abandon, but Aries carries the

energy of spring, and spring is vigorous, reckless, tough. Astrology speaks through

metaphor. Metaphorically speaking there would be no spring if nature’s priority was

displaying pleasing manners.

Truth.

Truth, Sir, is a cow, that will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull. 111

At this point the temptation is to launch into an erudite philosophical discussion on

truth but this cow has been milked for long enough and the bull, we know, will yield no

milk. Moreover, words in this discussion are limited by the academic requirements of this

essay. Simplicity must suffice.

106 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p.26. 107 Dawkins, ‘On The Eve of War, Free Enquiry, vol., 23:3 Summer 2003, p. 9. 108 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) formulated the three principle laws on the motion and orbits of planetary

bodies. 109 ‘The belief in the effect of the constellations derives in the first place from experience which is so convincing that it can be denied only by people who have not examined it’. Kepler, Johannes, Gesammelte Werke, vol. XIII, p. 247, 19 Feb, 1599. 110 Gettings, Zodiac, 1972, p. 25. 111 The Life of Samuel Johnson, James Boswell, vol. 1, p. 444 (21 July, 1763). On the gratification of vanity at the expense of truth.

23

23

What truth, which truth, whose truth? From an astrologers point of view the truth is

clear. Dawkins is a brilliant example of an Aries. From Dawkins point of view astrology is

bunkum. I leave the reader to decide who speaks truth according to his or her own

experience, but as an astrologer threatened to being jailed for fraud I beg that the word

experience is treated with respect for it is experience itself that renders this subject valid.

Methodological testing has not been able to pinpoint the source of the conscious self yet we

all experience this phenomenon. There are arenas in which the reductionist approach is

inadequate. Astrology is one such. Suffice it to say, that for this writer with more than

thirty years astrological experience, astrology wins.

.

24

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belsey, C. ‘Difference or truth?’ Post Structuralism, A Very Short Introduction (Oxford

University Press), www.oup.co.uk/vsi.

Boswell, J. The Life of Samuel Johnson, vol. 1, p. 444 (21 July, 1763).

Bütz, Michael R. Chaos and Complexity: Implications for Psychological Theory and

Practice (Washington DC, Taylor & Francis, 1997).

Campion, N. Interview with Liz Greene, The Mountain Astrologer, Feb/Mar, 2002.

The Great Year, Astrology Millenarianisms and History in the Western Tradition

(London, Arkana, Penguin Books, 1994).

‘Richard Dawkins’ Attack on Astrology’, Astrological Journal, May/June 1996,

vol. 38: 3.

Cantor, N.F. Twentieth-Century Culture: Modernism to Deconstruction (New York, Peter

Lang, 1988).

Chalmers, A.F. What is this Thing called Science? (Buckingham: OU Press, 1982).

Culver R. B. and Ianna, P. A. Astrology: True or False? A Scientific Evaluation (New

York, Prometheus Books, 1988).

Curry, P. A Confusion of Prophets: a Victorian and Edwardian Astrology (GB, Collins &

Brown Ltd, 1992).

‘Research on the Mars effect’. Zetetic Scholar, (1982), no. 9, pp. 34-52.

Cornelius, G. Moment of Astrology (England, The Wessex Astrologer, 2003).

Davidson, L. “Fragilities of Scientism: Richard Dawkins and the Paranoiac Idealization

of Science”, Science and Culture, vol., 9:2, 2000, online /00/020167-33 © Process

Press.

Davies, C. A. Reflexive Ethnography: a Guide to Researching Self and Others (London,

Routledge, 1999).

Dawkins, R. Climbing Mount Improbable (London, Penguin Books, 1997).

The Selfish Gene (UK, Oxford University Press, 1976).

‘On the Eve of War’, Free Enquiry, vol., 23:3, 2003.

Unweaving the Rainbow; Science Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (London,

Allen Tate, 1998).

25

25

Ferguson, K. Measuring the Universe: The Historical Quest to Quantify Space (London,

Headline Book Publishing, 1999).

Flores A. and Turner, E. ‘Inclined Planes and Motion Detectors: A Study of

Acceleration’. Journal; School Science and Mathematics, vol. 101. Issue: 3. 2001.

Gauquelin, M. L'Influence des Astres; Etude Critique et Experimentale (Paris, Le

Dauphin, 1955).

Greene, L. Relating: An Astrological Guide to Living with Others on a Small Planet,

The Development of the Personality: Seminars in Psychological Astrology, (GB,

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987).

Gettings, F. The Book of the Zodiac: An Historical Anthology of Astrology (London, New

York, Sydney, Toronto, Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, 1972).

Included in the anthology:

Sibly, E. A New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences (1795).

Sephariel, The Astrologer’s Magazine, No., 34 (1893).

Leo, A. W. The Art of Synthesis (1904).

Pagan, I. M. From Pioneer to Poet (1911).

Partridge. J. An Astrological Vade Mecum (1917).

Waite, H. T. Compendium of Natal Astrology (1917).

Grant, R. ‘Astrology is Not mumbo jumbo’; Britain’s Foremost Stargazer answers the

Skeptics, Sunday Mirror, Jan., 7, 1996.

Hall, S. ‘Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies’, originally published in, Cultural

Studies, ed., Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula Treichler. (New York,

London, Routledge, 1992).

Hand, R. Horoscope Symbols (USA, Schiffer Publishing, Ltd, 1981).

Heath, R.A. Nonlinear Dynamics: Techniques and Applications in Psychology (Mahwah,

NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000).

Horgan, J. The End of Science, Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of the

Scientific Age (Great Britain, Little, Brown and Company, 1997).

Kennedy, J. E. ‘Exploring the Limits of Science and Beyond: Research Strategy and

Status,’ The Journal of Parapsychology, vol., 58:1 (Parapsychology Press, 1994),

Gale Group, 2002.

26

26

Milsted, D. The Cassell Dictionary of Regrettable Quotations (UK, Cassell, 1999).

Phillipson, G. Astrology in the Year Zero (London, Flare Publications, 2000).

Interview with Nick Campion, Astrological Journal, Volume 41, July/August 1999.

Philp, C. The Golden City, Reality Model for a New Age (UK, M.C.Publishing, 1999).

Ponty, M. The Primacy of Perception, trans. James M. Edie (Evanston: North-western

University Press, 1964).

Silverman, B. L. The Ascent of Science (New York, Oxford University press, 1998).

Soames, S. Understanding Truth (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999).

Stockton, K.B. ‘Prophylactics and Brains: 'Beloved' in the Cybernetic Age of AIDS’,

Studies in the Novel, vol., 28: 3, 1996, p. 434.

The ORI (Office of Research Integrity) Nature medicine, vol., 6, 946, 2000)

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n9/full/nm0900_946a.html

7 December, 2005, 12:41:04 AM.

Van Heerden, A. ‘Why Atheism is Unscientific’, Contemporary Review, June 2004, vol.,

284: 1616 (Contemporary Review Company Ltd, Gale Group, 2004).

Vardy, P. What Is Truth? (Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 1999).

Willis, R, and Curry, P, Astrology Science and Culture; Pulling Down the Moon

(Oxford/New York, Berg, 2004).

Wittgenstein, L. The Blue Book.

Zammit, V. ‘Lawyer Rebuts Prof. Richard Dawkins, Scientist, re the paranormal’. Reply

to ‘What’s wrong with the Paranormal’, 10 Oct, 2005.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html 1/2/2006 3:45 P

27

27

APPENDIX From, Part 2, Book I, The Golden City: Reality Model for a New Age (UK, MC Publishing, 1999), pp. 95-6. The press themselves certainly do not pretend to take astrology seriously and so it was courageous of the Guardian to run The Zodiac Test, a serious statistical survey on the occurrence of people who fit particular positions or careers being born at certain times of the year. Because the grouping of careers tested were chosen from the Registrar-General's listing and had, from an astrologers point of view, some pretty odd bedfellows (i.e. teachers linked with farmers, architects linked with pharmacists and clergymen), it was not a resounding success but neither was it a failure. Dependent on the massive quantity of data that can be handled successfully by the computer, sponsored by The Koestler Foundation and carried out by Professor Alan Smithers of Manchester University, a 2.3 million sample of the population was tested. The resulting graphs were duly divided into twelve sections and the line jumped, often conspicuously, between one section and the next.

One of Charles Harvey's (the President of the Astrological Association) suggestions was that people in the caring professions, and here he specifically mentioned nursing, could be expected, other things being equal, to be more frequently in alternate signs beginning with Taurus, which to an astrologer are the feminine and supportive signs. Conversely, for alternate signs from Aries, which are masculine signs, he predicted that an above average number of trade union officials would be born. Incredibly, as you can see from the graphs, these predictions turned out to be correct. Although the alternation is not perfect, the patterns are strikingly and statistically significant. Why there should be this switching from sign to sign is hard to see.

The Guardian, March 19, 1984.

The President of the Astrological Association predicted that ‘nurses were frequently born under Taurus and trade union officials under Sagittarius’. Incredibly, he was right

. Graphics by Peter Clarke.

28

28

The allusion to imperfection in alternation concerns the absence of a high percentage of Trades Union Officials born under the sign of Libra and anyone with a smattering of astrological knowledge will be able to explain this anomaly. Libra is a positive sign therefore masculine; it is also cardinal, but the planet that rules Libra is Venus, the goddess who prefers to carry out her cardinal activities behind young Cupid's innocent front. The job of Trades Union Official is unromantic; it offers little opportunity for practising the charm that Libran cardinal energies are comfortable with. Baroness Margaret Thatcher has the Sun, Mars, the planet of assertive action, and Mercury, planet of communication, in Libra. A look back at Mrs Thatcher in verbal (Mercury) action (Mars) offers a good example of Libran positive cardinality.

Appendix

The Real Romance in the Stars

Written for The Independent on Sunday, 31 December 1995, amended for the Astrological Journal (May/June 1996, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 133-141).

By Richard Dawkins

Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should see it as an enemy of truth, says Richard Dawkins, author of 'The Selfish Gene'. Why, he asks, do so many of us indulge in these pre-Copernican dabblings which are nothing short of wicked fraud? We should take astrology seriously. No, I don't mean we should believe in it. I am talking about fighting it seriously instead of humouring it as a piece of harmless fun. Frivolous tolerance, probably the dominant stance towards astrology among educated people who don't actually believe in it, ran right through a recent article in the Independent on Sunday by Justine Picardie, "Spinning after Patric's Star". As the headline writer put it, "Astrology has never been so popular, or such big business. But when the late, great (sic) Patric Walker (Libra) died, it wasn't just his billion readers - or his income - that attracted his aspirant successors; it was his reputation as the Henry James of horoscope writers, as the man who'd made the trade respectable." Hardly respectable, but surely something must be going on when even the Independent on Sunday can devote two pages plus a double picture spread to the question of who would inherit the mantle of a dead charlatan. Picardie's attitude to these well-heeled quacks ranges from affection (the Queen Mother's favourite astrologer is "roly poly") to something perilously near respect (Patric Walker is described without irony as "eminent") Respect might indeed be prompted by the wealth of these glitzy con-artists, which is lovingly dwelt upon (Chauffeurs whisk them in white stretch limos to fashionable restaurants where head waiters fawn over them). The popular scientist David Belamy, who ought to know better and probably does, contributed to Patric Walker's astrology page in Radio Times, writing that he has the "Capricorn caution" over certain things, but mostly he puts his head down and charges like a real goat. Such shallow light-

29

29

heartedness sets a mood in which questioning astrology's validity is made to seem pedantic Gradgrindery. To ask whether the astrologers themselves believe in it also comes over as a bit long-faced, on the killjoy side. On Picardie's evidence, some are foolish enough to believe anything (One of them met Patric Walker "just before Mercury went retrograde" and immediately recognised him "from a past life"). The roly-poly one sounds a bit more fly and may understand exactly what he's doing, but it is hard to penetrate his high-camp posturing. Mystic Meg by all accounts could be the best of the bunch, an old fashioned crystal-ball toter, showing up the pretensions of the others, which is presumably why they try to disown her. The serious newspapers seem to be embarking on a self-conscious flirtation with astrology. Until recently they had nothing to do with such tabloid stuff. Then the Sunday Times succumbed and introduced its own astrology column, presumably with the excuse that it was just a bit of a giggle. The others haven't yet stooped so low, but some are acknowledging the pressure in more subtle ways. For the article by Justine Picardie the ostensible excuse was a story about financial success and succession. The same writer, incidentally, has followed it with an article on angels, again humorously open-minded ("There's this thing called going down in spirit"), teetering on the brink of outright respect for the lucrative profession of "angelologist" - one of them is an "eminent". Sorbonne professor of "philosophy" (which turns out to mean the usual "cultural studies" metatwaddle). There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out. This year-end the Guardian commissioned various individuals to look ahead to the future. Tucked away among some real scientists, historians and philosophers is none other than our roly-poly friend, the "First astrologer to play Nostradamus on TV". Here are his expert views: "On 12 January, Uranus moves into Aquarius and it's the dawning of a new age. It will be altruistic, humanitarian, brotherhood of man. I'm really looking forward to this. The energy (he obviously doesn't understand what this technical term means) will last until November 2008 because Uranus will be eight years in Aquarius and Pluto 13 years in Sagittarius. Thank God I'm Aquarius". And lots more in the same vein, which the Guardian considered fit to print. The Princess of Wales, herself an enthusiast for astrology as one might expect, has "got her Moon in Aquarius" and so has Tony Blair. "Could he do for the country what Di has done for the monarchy?" I have a better question. Why does a decent newspaper hand out free publicity to this phoney? Just a giggle, again? Or is the Guardian bending over backwards not to be elitist? On a moonless night when the only clouds to be seen are the Magellanic Clouds of the Milky Way, go out to a place far from street light pollution, lie on the grass and gaze out at the stars.1 What are you seeing? Superficially you notice constellations, but a constellation is of no more significance than a patch of curiously shaped damp on the bathroom ceiling. Note, accordingly, how little it means to say something like "Uranus moves into Aquarius". Aquarius is a miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no connection with each other except that they constitute a (meaningless) pattern when seen from a certain (not particularly special) place in the galaxy (here). A constellation is not an entity at all, not the kind of thing that Uranus, or anything else, can sensibly be said to "move into". The shape of a constellation, moreover, is ephemeral. A million years ago our Homo erectus ancestors gazed out nightly (no light pollution then, unless it came from that species' brilliant innovation, the camp fire) at a set of very different constellations. A million years hence, our descendants will see yet other shapes in the sky, and their astrologer (if our species has not grown up and sent them packing long since) will be fabricating their oracles on the basis of a different zodiac. A far more rapid astronomical shift is the precession of the equinoxes.2 My birthday (26 March)

30

30

is listed in the papers as Aries but this is the sun sign which somebody with my birthday would have had when Ptolemy codified all that stuff. Because of the precessional shift of approximately one whole zodiacal sign over the AD era, my sun sign is in fact (if you can call it a fact) Pisces. If astrologers were doing something that had any connection with reality, this presumably ought to make a difference. Since they aren't, it doesn't. Scorpio could go retrograde up Uranus and it wouldn't make any difference. Actually, of course, only planets can "go retrograde", and even then it is an illusion. As they, and we, orbit the sun, planets will on occasion appear to reverse their direction from our point of view. But these occasions have no significance. From a third planet they would be seen to "go retrograde" at different times. Planets do not really "wander", and certainly not remotely near any constellation, which are the distant backdrops of our viewpoint. Even if "going retrograde" or "moving into Aquarius" were real phenomena, some thing that planets actually do, what influence could they possibly have on human events? A planet is so far away that its gravitational pull on a new-born baby would be swamped by the pull of the doctor's paunch.3 No, we can forget planets going retrograde, and we can forget constellations except as a convenient way of finding our way around. What else are we seeing when we gaze up at the night sky? One thing we are seeing is history. When you look at the great galaxy in Andromeda you are seeing it as it was 2.3 million years ago and Australopithecus stalked the African savannah. You are looking back in time. Shift your gaze a few degrees to the nearest bright star in the constellation of Andromeda and you are seeing Mirach, but much more recently, as it was when Wall Street crashed. The sun, when you see it, is only eight minutes ago. But look through a large telescope at the sombrero Galaxy and you are seeing a trillion suns as they were when your tailed ancestors peered shyly through the canopy and India collided with Asia to raise the Himalayas. A collision on a larger scale, between two galaxies in Stephan's Quintet, is shown to us at a time when on Earth dinosaurs were dawning and the trilobites fresh dead. Name any year in history and there will be a star up there whose light gives you a glimpse of something happening that very year. Whatever the year of your birth, somewhere up in the night sky you could find your birth star (or stars, for the number is proportional to the third power of your age). Its light enables you to look back and see a thermonuclear glow that heralds your birth. A pleasing conceit, but that is all. Your birth star will not deign to tell anything about your personality, your future or your sexual compatibilities. The stars have larger agendas, in which the preoccupation's of human pettiness do not figure. Your birth star, of course, is yours for only this year. Next year you must look to another shell of stars, one light year more distant. Think of this expanding bubble as a radius of good news, the news of you birth, broadcast steadily outwards. In the Einsteinian universe in which most physicists now think we live, nothing can in principle travel faster than light. So, if you are 50 years old, you have a personal news sphere of 50 light years radius. Within that sphere it is in principle possible (obviously not in practice) for news of your existence to have permeated. Outside that sphere you might as well not exist - in an Einsteinian sense you do not exist. Older people have larger existence spheres than younger people, but nobody's existence sphere extends to more than a tiny fraction of the universe. The birth of Jesus may seem an ancient and momentous event to us. But the news of it is actually so recent that, even in the most theoretically ideal circumstances, it could in principle have been proclaimed to less than one 200-million-millionth of the stars in the universe. Many, if not most, of the stars out there will be orbited by planets. The numbers are so vast that probably some of them have life forms, some have evolved intelligence and technology. Yet the distance and times that separate us are so great that thousands of life forms could independently evolve and go extinct without it being possible for

31

31

any to know of the existence of any other. The real universe has mystery enough to need no help from obscurantist hucksters. Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles. By existing law neither Beethoven nor nature can sue, but perhaps existing law could be changed. If the methods of Astrologers were really shown to be valid it would be a fact of signal importance for science. Under such circumstances astrology should be taken seriously indeed. But if - as all indications agree - there is not a smidgen of validity in any of the things that astrologers so profitably do, this, too, should be taken seriously and not indulgently trivialised. We should learn to see the debauching of science for profit as a crime. I must make the usual defence against a charge of scientific arrogance. How do I know that there is no truth in astrology? Well, of course I don't know. I can't prove that there is nothing in horoscopes, any more than I can prove that there is nothing in the (rather more plausible) theory that chewing gum causes mad cow disease. There just isn't any evidence in favour (of either theory), and no reason why we should expect there to be evidence. It isn't as though it would be difficult to find evidence for astrology, if there were any to be had. It wouldn't take anything like that blissful cartoon in which a newsreader announces: "In a major breakthrough for the science of astrology, all people born under Scorpio were yesterday run over by egg lorries."4 A statistical tendency, however slight, for people's personalities to be predictable from their birthdays, over and above the expected difference between winter and summer babies, would be a promising start. For us to take a hypothesis seriously, it should ideally be supported by at least a little bit of evidence. If this is too much to ask, there should be some suggestion of a reason why it might be worth bothering to look for evidence. Graphology, as a means of reading personalities, is not supported by evidence either, but here the possibility that it might work is not hopelessly implausible a priori. The brain is the seat of the personality and the brain controls handwriting, so it is not in principle unlikely that style of handwriting might betray personality. It seems almost a pity that no good evidence has been forthcoming. But astrology has nothing going for it at all, neither evidence nor any inkling of a rationale which might prompt us to look for evidence. Astrology not only demeans astronomy, shrivelling and cheapening the universe with its pre Copernican dabblings. It is also an insult to the science of psychology and the richness of human personality. I am talking about the facile and potentially damaging way in which astrologers divide humans into 12 categories. Scorpios are cheerful, outgoing types, Leos with their methodical personalities go well with Libra's (or whatever it is). My wife, Lalla Ward, recalls an occasion when a more than usually brainless hanger-on approached the director of the film they were working on with a "Gee, Mr Preminger, what sign are you?" and received the immortal rebuff, "I am a do-not-disturb sign." We love an opportunity to pigeonhole each other but we should resist the temptation. Are you an introvert or an extrovert? Does your body shape betray an endomorphic, a mesomorphic or an ectomorphic personality? "The ectomorph is much more of an introvert and more shrewd and calculating". Personality is a real phenomenon and psychologists (real, scientific psychologists, not Freudians or Jungians) have had some success in developing mathematical models to handle many dimensions of personality variation. The initially large number of dimensions can be mathematically collapsed into fewer dimensions with measurable, and for some purposes conscionable, loss in predictive power. These fewer derived dimensions sometimes correspond to the dimensions that we intuitively think we recognise - aggressiveness, obstinacy, affectionateness and so on. Summarising an individual's personality as a point in

32

32

multidimensional space is a serviceable approximation whose limitations can be measured and are known. It is a far cry from any mutually exclusive categorisation, certainly far from the preposterous fiction of astrology's 12 dumpbins. It is based upon genuinely relevant data about people themselves, not their birthdays. The psychologist's multidimensional scaling can be useful in deciding whether a person is suited to a particular career, or a couple to each other. The astrologer's 12 pigeonholes are, if nothing worse, a costly and irrelevant distraction. Lonely hearts advertisers frequently insert astrological references alongside relevant information such as musical tastes or sporting interests, and may even insist that the partner they are looking for must be, for instance, Taurus. Think of what this means. The whole point of advertising in such columns is to increase the catchment area for meeting sexual partners (and indeed the circle provided by the workplace and by friends of friends is meagre and needs enriching). It is nothing short of ludicrous then to go out of your way to divide the available number of potential partners by twelve. Lonely people, whose life might be transformed by a longed for compatible friendship, are deliberately encouraged, by their reading of astrological quacks in the newspapers, wantonly and pointlessly to throw away 11/12ths of the available population. This is not just silly, it is damaging, and the quacks concerned deserve our censure as strongly as their deluded victims deserve our pity. There are some stupid people out there, and they should be pitied not exploited. On a famous occasion a few years ago a newspaper hack, who had drawn the short straw and been told to make up the day's astrological advice, relieved his boredom by writing under one star sign the following portentous lines: "All the sorrows of yesteryear are as nothing compared to what will befall you today." He was fired after the switchboard was jammed with panic-stricken readers, pathetic testimony to the simple trust people can place in astrology. The American conjuror James Randi recounts in his book Flim Flam how as a young man he briefly got the astrology job on a Montreal newspaper, making up the horoscopes under the name Zo-ran. His method was to cut out the forecasts from old astrology magazines, shuffle them in a hat, distribute them at random among the 12 zodiacal signs and print the results. This was very successful of course (because all astrology works on the "Barnum principle" of saying things so vague and general that all readers think it applies to them.) He describes how he overheard in a cafe a pair of office workers eagerly scanning Zo-ran's column in the paper. "They squealed with delight on seeing their future so well laid out, and in response to my query said that Zo-ran had been 'right smack on' last week. I did not identify myself as Zo-ran... Reaction in the mail to the column had been quite interesting, too, and sufficient for me to decide that many people will accept and rationalise almost any pronouncement made by someone they believe to be an authority with mystic powers. At this point, Zo-ran hung up his scissors, put away the paste pot, and went out of business."" My case is that Randi was morally right to hang up his scissors, that serious newspapers should never give named astrologers the oxygen of publicity, that astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and that we should fight it seriously as an enemy of truth. We have a Trade Descriptions Act which protects us from manufacturers making false claims for their products. The law has not so far been invoked in defence of simple, scientific truth. Why not? Astrologers provide as good a test case as could be desired. They make claims to forecast the future, and they take payment for this, as well as for professional advice to individuals on important decisions. A pharmaceuticals manufacturer who marketed a birth-control pill that had not the slightest demonstrable effect upon fertility would be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act, and sued by trusting customers who found themselves pregnant. If astrologers cannot be sued by individuals misadvised, say, into taking disastrous business decisions, why at least are they not prosecuted for false representation under the Trade Descriptions Act and driven out of business? Why, actually,

33

33

are professional astrologers not jailed for fraud? Notes 1. This is carrying poetic licence too far in a Northern Hemisphere paper. The Magellanic Clouds are visible only in the Southern Hemisphere! R.D. 2. Many astrologers are aware of precession but, instead of updating their methods, they prefer the lazy escape of 'tropical astrology' in which one uses zodiacal constellations as labels for the patch of sky where they would have appeared years ago. R.D. 3. The physics here is more complicated than can be spelled out in a general article. Two influences could theoretically be involved, direct gravitational attraction and tidal effects. In terms of direct gravitational attractions (which obey Newton's Inverse Square Law), an average doctor would be outweighed by all but the most distant members of the solar system. Tidal effects are another matter and they are far more important. They amount to distortions of the earth's gravitational field and obey an inverse cube law, instead of the usual inverse square law. The doctor's body would have greater tidal effects on a new-born baby than any heavenly body (see I.W.Kelly, J.Rotton & R.Culver, 1985, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 10, No.2, pp 129-143. R.D. 4. I am aware that this is a joke against `naive sun sign' astrology which is shunned by other astrologers. It is, of course, sun sign astrology's well-heeled practitioners in newspapers and on television that I am attacking as exploitative charlatans. If there is good evidence (i.e. better than the often quoted but non-robust Gauquelin attempt) that some other kinds of astrology work, well and good. I have to say that I'd be extremely surprised. R.D.