An Astounding Proof of Astrology
|
This post was written by Donald Michael Kraig
on October 13, 2009 | Comments (5)
|
Magick and astrology have been deeply intertwined for thousands of years. In the past, astronomical and astrological influences were often more involved with magick, and even today, magicians often look at such things as the astrological signs and houses certain planets are in, the planetary hour of the day, whether the moon is waxing or waning, etc., in the design of their rituals and spells. Of course, this all falls apart if one thing is demonstrated: the failure of astrology.
The Debunkers Debunked
Indeed, so-called skeptics (I’d call them pseudo-skeptics) and debunkers often bring out flimsy logic, misunderstandings and misrepresentations about astrology, as well as bad science or bad scientific technique, to desperately disprove the effectiveness of astrology. In 1981, FATE magazine published an article entitled “sTARBABY,” where they revealed deception and intimidation among the debunking community, forever changing that community.
Recently, while browsing the internet, I came upon a video I want to discuss. First, however, some background.
The Debunker and the Astrologer
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University.
The astrologer being tested in the video I saw is Jeffrey Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong uses Vedic astrology rather than Western astrology. One of the main differences is that Vedic (ancient Indian) astrology uses a sidereal zodiac (with the actual positions of the planets and constellations) rather than the Western Tropical zodiac which fixes the beginning of Aries with March 21.
Even with his many credentials and degrees, Dr. Shermer’s statement at the beginning of the video (originally shown in 2000 on the show, Exploring the Unknown), that according to ancient astrologers, “the movement of the Sun, Moon, and planets directly controls our lives and our destinies” is false. As astrologers will tell you, “The stars impel, they don’t compel.”
Armstrong is Tested
Shermer challenged Armstrong to give nine readings. Armstrong would only be given the dates, time, and location of birth, plus the gender of the subjects. After he analyzed the charts, Shermer videotaped Armstrong giving three-minute readings. He could not see or talk to the subjects. Then he watched from another room as the videos were played to the subjects.
I have no doubt that Shermer expected that Armstrong would be correct 50% of the time or less. In other words, he expected to prove the horoscope interpretations were just chance. This would show that astrology was a fraud. He could then gloat and ask questions like, “What do you think now that we’ve shown you that astrology is a fraud and nothing more than coincidence?” What he got, however, was shocking. Armstrong’s success rate for seven of the nine people was 69%, 63%, 89%, 71%, 74%, 75% and 66%. This was far above chance or coincidence.
A Debunker Trap!
But with the last two subjects Armstrong only scored 38% and 21% correct. How could he have been so correct on seven people and so wrong on two others? Well, Shermer—kudos to him for being honest—admitted that they played a trick on the subjects and Armstrong. Shermer had reversed their readings without letting anybody know it. When the subjects were shown their actual readings, Armstrong’s success rate jumped to an amazing 92% and 94% accuracy for these two people. Armstrong correctly hit 105 out of 137 comments for the nine subjects, an accuracy rate of 77%.
This was nothing less than an astounding proof of astrology.
Excuses, Excuses
Dr. Shermer, when asked about this by a supportive poster in an on-line forum, responded:
“The short story is this: we ran out of time at the end of the filming day to conduct any more experiments with Armstrong. I protested that it was going to make it look like he was successful, but to no avail as I did not have final authority over what was produced for the show, Exploring the Unknown, and so I just hoped that in the editing process it would be cut in a way that dealt with that problem, but it wasn’t and I couldn’t do anything about it, so it aired and no one noticed back then (in 2000), but someone posted the clip you reference and now we’re dealing with the fallout from it. It is an unfortunate reality of the series that I didn’t have enough control over the production and filming process.
“You can post this explanation if you like.”
Dr. Shermer further added,
“My memory on what we were trying to do that day of filming is a little vague, but if I recall correctly there was to be another stage of the experiment where Armstrong had to match his astrological readings with the profiles of a group of new subjects, and then have them do the same, picking out their reading from a batch he produced, and then compare them. But we ran out of time. Here’s how it works in the film/television industry: camera crews are unionized and have strict rules about working only so many hours in a day, after which they get paid double time and even triple time, need a certain number of breaks in the day, etc. Our budget for that show required that we were done by 5pm, and we simply ran out of time and the producer called the shoot over, and there was nothing I could do about it. Very frustrating.
“You can post this as well. In fact, maybe you can post it on the YouTube video of it, and anywhere else you find it playing.”
Those are Dr. Shermer’s quotes in full and in context. I’ll just bet he’s “dealing with the fallout!” Â In fact, I’ll bet he and his supporters are doing everything they can to come up with all sorts of excuses. We were going to do more. We ran out of time. Other tests would have shown him to be a failure. We couldn’t edit it our way. It’s the fault of the camera crews. Our budget ran out. Yada, yada, yada.
In the sTARBABY incident, the main form of cheating by the skeptics was to change the number of people analyzed until the results showed what they wanted rather than the truth. Here, Mr. Shermer is saying they wanted to add more and more tests until they could get the results they wanted. If they couldn’t do that, maybe they could have it edited so it would appear like they were getting the results they wanted.
A Horrible Thing…For the Debunkers!
Instead, to the skeptics, a horrible thing happened. In a show that was designed to make astrology look like it was a fraud, even though it was being monitored by one of the leading lights of the skeptic/debunker movement, one dedicated astrologer proved that in this test, astrology was valid.
What do you think?
[Note: Our new website is still going through growing pains. I was unable to post a copy of the video. It is available on You Tube. When the kinks are worked out I’ll embed it in this blog post.












Reader Comments
on October 15th, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Great video! Now that I’ve had my first “real” astrology reading this past summer, I agree that your chart can definitely reveal things about you to a person who has no prior knowledge of you. I mean, anyone can google me and find out what I do for a living, but for someone to know how I approach problems mentally, what road blocks I put up in my path, and other teeny-tiny details like that – I really think there’s something to it. Of course our lives are not set in stone and astrology just focuses on influences and proclivities, but it can shed a lot of light when trying to balance out any energies that are harder to deal with. Thanks for posting this video.
on December 1st, 2009 @ 1:43 am
Dear sir,
On the basis of empirical research , we have formulated Life Script Astrology.
our article http://jyotishratna.com/accidents.htm is first ever clear cut proof of astrology.
it is verifiable.
we challenge any skeptic/debunker to disprove this article.
I hope , with the clear diagnosis of accidents, we should be able to reduce the accidents.
best wishes,
rakesh singhal
on December 3rd, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
I first got interested in astrology because back in the day,when everyone from Sybil Leek to Israel Regardie considered it mandatory for a budding occultist,witch or magician to know astrology in order to be proficient in “magick”, and I wanted to study magick. Indeed, it was a requirement for one of the grade qualifications of original the Golden Dawn Order to be able to cast a horoscope and interpet it. One book I read, suggested testing the validity of astrology by keeping a yearly diary of all important events,(and the date and time that they occurred) that occurred to you that year and later get an ephemeris and see if there are any repeating planetary combinations or configerations that coincide with occurence of certain events in your life. I did one better than that. I had suffered from an assault and robbery at a certain time.I went to an occult book store.I had the store owner do a computer transit for me on my natal chart, without telling him about the incident that occurred to me. I wanted to see if the transit would pick up on it.This would be my personal test for the validity of astrology and whether I should waste my time studying it.When I got the computerized transit back, I was amazed! It read,”Beware of the criminal activity in your environment”for the week the incident occurred to me. Right on target! It was too close to me to be a coincident! I also observed physical events that evidenced moon void off course and mercury retrograde activity to further validate the practice of astrology for me! Any onw else out there tested the validity of astrology for themselves???
on September 5th, 2011 @ 8:21 am
I think it is interesting that in the case of the two that were switched Armstrong had such a relatively week result. However the success rates that he received are attributable to a well know effect where people tend to agree with personality profiles whether they are random or not.
If there was a larger sample of “switched” profiles then that would be a much more convincing proof. This is very exciting but without a larger control group there just isn’t sufficient proof.
on September 5th, 2011 @ 10:54 am
Respectfully, Chuck, the two that were switched did not agree with the switched descriptions, but then did agree when the descriptions were appropriate. That’s hardly a “week result.”
Further, since we are only given the resulting hits vs. misses and total correct hits, I have to point out that we were not given the raw data and it is not possible to attribute Armstrong’s success rate to your assumption that “people tend to agree with personality profiles whether they are random or not.” There is not data to support your claim.
Finally, the test, including the cheating, was designed by Dr. Shermer, not by Mr. Armstrong. You are now doing what is called “moving the goalposts.” You didn’t like the results that were obtained so you want to change the parameters of the test. This was exactly what happened during the infamous sTARBABY incident (albeit after the test began).
I have a friend who, years ago, would give herself Tarot readings on a question repeatedly until she received an answer she liked. I disagree with this technique. I’m sure you can see the fallacy in it, too. But it’s exactly what you want to do–repeat the test until you get results you like.
Sorry. That’s not science.