Mike Harding (36(1) p.81) says “Dr Dean claims that astrology was invented. In the same way the so-called laws of gravity, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc. were all invented. One day they ‘did not exist’, and then they did”.
If by “Dr Dean” he means Understanding Astrology: A critical review of a thousand empirical studies 1900-2020 by Dean et al 2022, published by my company, I can tell you it claims nothing of the sort.
Instead, in Chapter 3, it cites the findings of astro-historians such as Dr Nick Campion “The available evidence indicates that astrology owes its origins to early religion and magic” and Dr Rob Hand “was a system of personal omens”. It concludes that modern western astrology “is mainly due to a few 20th century astrologers like Alan Leo who corrupted ancient ideas with their own spiritual speculations”.
This is nothing like the way modern scientific laws and theories are determined, which is essentially by asking questions of nature and acting on the answers.
Harding concludes “It would be a pity if astrology’s contribution [as a language] to the manner in which we make sense of ourselves and the world continues to be overlooked by those whose research has the potential to further extend it”. Again I can tell you that anyone who bothers to check Chapters 7.7 and 8 will find that it is not overlooked by Dean et al 2022.
Similar misleading statements about Dean et al 2022 appear in “Understanding Astrology: A Question of Belief” by Garry Phillipson (pp.75-79). He claims that “in developing an approach whereby they might test astrology through scientific means, [the authors] have unwittingly imposed their beliefs on the subject matter and that this undermines the value of their contribution” [to the understanding of astrology].
To start with, Phillipson makes much of a dated quote about ‘astrology world’ to support his claim that “their recurrent message is that astrology can and should be tested”. But the quote does not appear in Dean et al 2022! It comes from an essay by FK Donnelly, “The Perfect World of Astrology”, Humanist in Canada 69(17), 20-22, Summer 1984, to indicate how different the world might be if astrological claims were not only valid but perfect. It was originally cited in the collaborative discourse (15 contributors) “Some Philosophical Problems of Astrology” Correlation 14(2), 32-44, 1995/96, as part of a discussion about “claims that genuine astrological phenomena exist”. It was an example of a response to the question (paraphrasing Hume) “what is the more probable – astrological miracles or the knavery and fallibility of astrologers? Astrological nonexistence or the knavery and fallibility of scientists?”. Or, to put it another way, “if astrology was true to the extent claimed by astrologers, what should we expect to observe?”. Concerns about tests or human fallibility were not part of the collaborative discussion.
To further support his claim Phillipson points out that “the frontispiece of Understanding Astrology asks, ‘Why have arguments when you can have tests?’” (which he objects to, as if beliefs, no matter how absurd, should never be questioned). He does not tell you that the authors introduce that frontispiece quote by “In fact half the studies were made by astrologers”. In other words many astrologers felt it necessary to make the kinds of tests he objects to. Why they should feel this way is clearly of interest, but he leaves it unexplored. Which leads to another thing:
In Autumn 1968 John Addey, one of the founders of the AA (its aims included “to enlarge the knowledge of Astrology in a scientific spirit”) and editor of its Journal, announced in an editorial that the AA was producing a new scientific supplement. It was called Correlation and would “fearlessly meet scientists on their own ground and show them that even by their own criteria astrology is magnificently true”. Later, in 1981, when the supplement was reborn as today’s Correlation, its first editorial announced: “For some time there has been a need for a journal in which to publish experimental results, discuss theoretical issues and permit communication between researchers of all persuasions” (Volume 1, Number 1, June 1981, page 1). Today, nearly 60 years later, the AA is showing no signs of turning its back on the kinds of tests that Phillipson objects to.
Also problematic is Phillipson’s claim that “the subjective experiences of meaning cannot be included in tests of the kind intended” ie objective tests that anyone can make. But so what? Objective statements about an objective astrology can be tested objectively. The authors do not deal with subjective meaning (“to me astrology is useful”) because one contrary view (“to me astrology is not useful”) is enough to kill progress. Philosophical asides (“it depends on what is meant by useful”) are unhelpful because rejecting tests leaves us at the mercy of speculation. Nobody relies on speculation to decide whether a town water supply is safe to drink. But to the extent that people can express their experiences with astrology in words that can be compared between subjects or with observable behaviour, where is the problem?
Even worse is Phillipson’s claim that astrology-as-divination is “(more or less) dismissed for not conforming to the hard science model epitomised in ‘astrology world’”. But anyone who bothers to check this will find that the authors examine astrology-as-divination (including how it evolved over the ages, its benefits and liabilities, and the extent to which it can deliver meaning) in a scattered total of more than two dozen closely-argued pages (see index), none of which dismiss it.
For example in Chapter 11 they conclude “the extent to which astrology [as divination] can really deliver meaning depends ultimately on whether it has advantages over close friends or tea leaves or self-help books, and on whether you can be interested in the first place. Obviously only you can decide”. How is this dismissing it?
Phillipson also claims that Dean et al 2022 insists “on a model which effectively precludes both astrologers and their clients”, which “when analyzed, seems to rest on beliefs such as materialism and a faith in science’s omnicompetence which is sometimes known as scientism”. There is a problem here that is easy to miss. Let me explain.
Dean et al 2022 is a review of studies, not a review of astrology like Recent Advances 1977 was. It frequently reports study opinions that neither critics nor authors might agree with. So it is easy to find views that you love (or hate). But for the authors’ own views you have to listen to what they actually say, not to what they are said to say. In other words to report their views accurately you have to read all of Dean et al 2022 – well over half a million words – and attend to its 1800 tables and visuals. Evidently most people don’t bother. Because it shows.
As when AA President Roy Gillett dismisses the authors because they “misunderstand astrology and what astrologers do” (Astrological Journal Jul/Aug 2023 p.28). In fact two of its authors were former astrologers and understand very well what astrologers do. This is spelled out opposite the title page, so there is no excuse for getting it wrong. Rejecting informed criticism in favour of satisfying untruths is arguably not the best way to understand astrology.
Here is why Phillipson’s claims about Dean et al 2022 are misleading:
In Chapter 11 the authors conclude “What works [in a chart reading] is not astrology but astrologers”, and “It is not for us to say whether you should prefer meaning or truth. Or whether you should test ideas before accepting them”. How does this preclude both astrologers and their clients, or impose beliefs that undermines the value of the authors’ contribution? There is more:
In Chapter 1 the authors’ philosophy is stated near the start: “whatever your views on astrology, ignorance is not an option”. Their aim is to help readers understand astrology, not to develop an approach for scientifically testing it. This means that much of their text, especially Chapter 4 Disagreement in Astrology, is largely a trip through documented but conflicting opinions.
For example they point out that “anti-materialist arguments will not convince anyone … who refuses to see why comparing a person’s chart with a control should involve materialism when all it needs is curiosity about chart readings”. Isn’t this how most astrologers started?
Wout Heukelom is the publisher of Understanding Astrology (2022) available in hardback and online.