From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page

Phillipson interview of researchers
Index

Numbers are question numbers not page numbers
To find question 7.5 in the interview by word processor, search for QQ7.5
This avoids any non-question 7.5 that might exist

Academic respectab must be deserved 13.10
Accidental death 2.3
Accuracy unaff by experience/personality 18.1
Analogy is suggestive, not decisive 6.7
- reasoning by, examples of 6.6
- reasoning by, is fallacious 6.5, 6.6
Appearance, failure to predict 9.8
Argument, if okay then we follow 11.5, 11.7
Aristotle saying 2.3
Artifacts
- avoided by quantitative checks 3.6
- definition of 2.3
- discovery reduced int in astrol research 9.3
- due to small sample size 9.6
- seem to explain astrology 2.3, 8.1
Artwork, judging similar to reading chart 17.2
Assumptions re world irrelev to testing 18.15
Astrologers
- agreement poor between chart readings 15.1
- approaches, divers due to reasoning err 17.6
- are generally nice people 2.2
- as frauds, misses point 2.3
- believe charts contain genuine info 7.14
- benefits of a warm and sympathetic 15.5
- compared to researchers 3.2, 3.8, 10.6, 12.7
- complexity, researchers cope better 10.6
- credibility, five things harmful to 15.1
- dilemma faced by 14.4-14.5
- disagreement on mostly everything 13.6
- double standard 17.5
- education, need for 15.7, 15.8
- experience and personality, effect of 18.1
- failure to specify acceptable tests 12.5
- forced to focus on subset of factors 17.1
- hard-working not same as being sci 13.11
- have no time for critics 11.2
- main objections against by scientists 3.2
- negative evidence, ignoring of 7.14
- personal challenges to scientists 9.8
- qualities helpful in counselling 18.1
- reasoning errors, ignorance of 15.1
- retreat into obscurity to avoid criticism 8.4
- research, little interest in 11.7
- research results, ignorance of 12.5
- statistical approach, dislike of 3.6
- technique, each has own 17.1
- testability of astrol, change in views of 8.2
- tests preferred by 3.5
- training in science, very few seek 13.11
- types to avoid (Cunningham) 15.6
- what they can learn from researchers 5.1
- who ceased practice 2.3
- wrong charts not noticed 12.6
Astrology
- alternate realities worsen problems 18.18
- and extra-terrestrial influences 16.4
- and open-mindedness 5.4
- and poetry, similarities between 14.1, 14.2
- and quantum mechanics 16.3
- anyone can learn it 12.3
- as focussing device 12.2
- as future science is contradict in terms 11.6
- as language to avoid criticism 8.4
- as religion would lessen non-credibility 15.1
- as sacred science to avoid criticism 8.4
- believers and critics view it differently 4.1
- books, Derek Parker quote on 15.9
- books never hint that problems exist 6.12
- bunk or elusive art or neither 12.2
- claims could not be based on observ 17.3
- claims, value of subjective 18.21
- chess, comparison with 17.3
- contributes nothing to sci or philosophy 13.6
- conversations about at conferences 15.1
- credibility, five things harmful to 15.1
- critical quotes on, examples (Leahey) 19.1
- disinterested approach is possible 11.4
- divination only a minor role in 18.10
- does not need to be true 4.1
- does your kind need to be true 20.3
- effect if entirely subjective 18.21
- evidence for or against, former lack of 2.1
- explanations for, need to consider other 3.1
- factors influencing appeal of 14.3
- grandiose claims outweigh flimsy obs 13.12
- historical importance 13.6
- ideas not supported by modern sci 16.1-16.3
- if entirely subjective 18.21
- is non-threatening therapy 15.5
- is probabilistic 3.6
- Jung's ideas, incompatible with 16.5
- lack of prog not due to lack of resources 13.9
- like psychology or psychotherapy? 15.4
- like religion, myth, poetry, fiction 4.1
- little chance of changing beliefs re world 11.6
- made us genuinely open-minded 5.4
- meta-analysis of studies 9.6 (Figure 2)
- more to it than being true or false 4.1, 18.21
- much is already quantitative 3.5
- needs to be true, yes/no 4.1
- no effects commensurate with claims 8.1
- no longer the mystery it used to be 20.3
- nonfalsifiability of 4.4-4.5
- not a source of productive ideas 13.6-13.9
- not an occult subject 12.3
- not the result of observation 17.3
- now plenty research on 3.4, 13.1, 19.1, 20.3
- objective, claims can be discounted 12.4
- objective, claims for 7.13-7.14
- objective, needs to be true 4.1
- perils of narrow view 15.4
- reasoning errors, need to demo absent 18.2
- said to be both writ large, hard to detect 12.5
- scientists not necess hostile towards 11.3
- seen by people as int and worthwhile 13.8
- simplistic to say all is without foundation 12.4
- stagnation of 15.1
- statistics, does not avoid use of 3.6
- subjective vs objective 4.1
- subjective, claims for 4.3
- subjective, does not need to be true 4.1, 12.4
- synchronicity, incompatible with 16.5
- techniques most likely to work 10.4
- testing not hard when it readily works 12.5
- textbooks, examples of claims in 10.1
- theoretical difficulties, lacks evidence 13.3
- uni courses don't imply respectability 13.10
- what we saw as good or bad 15.5, 15.6
Astrology works (the claim)
- implies non-astrol influences are absent 20.3
- is disarming of criticism 2.1
- what it means 5.2
Astrology world nothing like actual world 12.1
Astronomy, psychic 7.5
Award, AMR Commem Bi-Centennial 2.2

Baby and bathwater 6.12
- first make sure baby exists 6.14, 18.16
Barnum effect 6.10
Base rate, effect on utility of chart interp 10.2
Beeton Mrs 18.16
Being careful, example of not 18.20
- helping astrologers to improve 15.7
- need for 3.6, 4.7, 5.2-5.4
Being led astray, need to avoid 3.6, 5.3
Beliefs, false, examples of 6.2
- how experience can produce 6.5
- test your own 20.3
Believers, how they view astrology 4.1
Biorhythms 6.2
Birth chart see Chart
Birth time errors, cannot have it both ways 10.8
Bohm interconnectedness not clearly relev 16.2
Books, astrol, Derek Parker quote on 15.9
Bottom line (nets reveal nothing) 12.7
Bradley Jupiter Pluvius 9.3
- wrong charts not noticed 12.6

Calculation of chart combinations 17.3
- of superchart combinations 17.1 (Figure 5)
- of time twin incidence 10.6
Carter, Charles 7.13, 12.3, 18.12
Causation, upwards vs down 18.19-18.20
Caution, need for 3.1, 6.14
- in psychotherapy research 15.3
- in science 18.4
Challenges by astrologers to scientists 9.8
Chart factors
- calculation of combinations 17.3
- discovering not same as testing 17.5
- isolated, said to be amazingly accurate 12.3
- juggling to obtain a chart reading 17.1
- multiple, arguments for and against 10.3
Chart readings
- brutal de-mystification of 17.6
- comparison with chess 17.3
- errors explained by appeal to time errors 10.8
- fit even when chart is wrong 2.2-2.3, 12.6
- poor agreement between astrologers 15.1
- similar to judging artworks 17.2
- subjects cannot pick their own 9.5
- techniques of, see Techniques
- utility, what it depends on 10.2
Charts and intrinsic information, views on 7.14
Chess, complexity of vs astrology 17.3
Circular arguments, examples of 16.2, 16.5
Claims
- for which research is irrelevant 3.8
- of astrol could not be based on observ 17.3
- researchers and astrol investigate same 3.2
- what matters is whether they stand up 3.3
Client interest if astrology comes clean 14.4
Clinical situations promote reasoning err 12.6
Cognitive dissonance 6.10
Complexity
- astrology vs chess 17.3
- bypassed by studies of time twins 10.6
- detection of 3.5
- is traditional but we cannot cope 17.1-17.3
- precludes discovery of simple patterns 17.3
- research can cope with it 10.6
- speculations about 10.6
Confirmers and disconfirmers 9.6
Conflict, creating where none exists 4.1
Conversations at astrology conferences 15.1
Convincing case, make, we follow 11.5,11.7
Cornelius, Geoffrey 12.6
Correlation, detection of 17.3
- seeing where none exists 6.8-6.10
Correspondences
- conflicts not resolvable in 6.6
- reasoning by is fallacious 6.5-6.6
- seeing where none exists 6.8-6.10
Cosmic links with mental proc not known 13.7
Cottingley fairies did not disprove sci 18.16
Cornelius, Geoffrey 12.6, 18.10
Counselling, helpful qualities in 18.1
Credibility of astrol, five harmful things 15.1
- is improved by astrol being careful 15.7
Critical thinking skills
- need for 15.8
- should reduce disagreement in astrol 17.2
- what they are 15.9
Critics, how they view astrology 4.1
- astrologers have no time for 11.2
- researchers need them 3.4, 11.1-11.2

Darwin, example of a productive idea 13.8
Davison, Ronald 12.2-12.3
Death, cause of, failure to predict 9.8
Debunkers, hostile, avoid their nonsense 15.8
Delusions (false beliefs), examples of 6.2
Dignity, planetary, influence Mars effect 10.2
Dilemma faced by astrologers 14.4-14.5
Disagreement among astrologers 13.6
- compared to disagreement on art quality 17.2
- explained by reasoning errors 17.6
- indicates no real phenomena exists 13.6
- on fundamentals 15.1
- strategies for reducing 17.2
Disconfirmation, refusal to acknowledge 15.1
Discovering chart factors, not like testing 17.5
- denied by lack of testability 3.8, 8.2, 8.4
Divination
- does not avoid human interference 18.10
- does not deny testability 8.3
- no evidence that it works 18.13
- same testability as normal astrology 18.14
- self-destructs if really unrepeatable 18.11
Double standard of astrologers 17.5
Dr Fox effect 6.10
Draw-A-Person, studies of 6.9

Earthquakes 2.3
- prediction by Naylor 8.2
Education, what is needed to improve 15.8
Effect size
- and utility of chart readings 10.2
- explanation of 9.6 (Figure 2)
- none commensurate with astrol claims 8.1
- of Gauquelin effect too small to be useful 9.1
- said to be both large and hard to detect 12.5
Effects, non-existent, pointless to explain 18.9
Elves might change beliefs about world 11.6
Eminence, incidence in population 9.1
Error detection 6.13
ESP, defined negatively 7.10
- models of 7.11
- tested in psychic readings 7.12
- unlikely in chart readings 7.10-7.11, 7.13
Evidence, examine bef opening mouth 6.13
- need to change views according to 11.4
Experience
- a typical research issue 3.7
- basis for astrological claims 5.2
- does not lead to validity 6.3
- how it can lead to false beliefs 6.5
- no effect on accuracy 18.1
- phrenology vs astrology 6.3
- prior, need in intuition 7.5, 7.7
- value of 7.7
Experts, strategies used by 7.9, 17.2
Extra-terrestrial influences
- do not necessarily support astrology 16.4
Extraverts and appeal of poetry 14.3
- and sun signs 9.4

Flying elephants (analogy with astrology)
- before debating make sure exist 16.3, 18.12
- pointless to seek explanations for 18.9
- possibility does not imply utility 12.1
Fooling ourselves, need to avoid 3.7
Forecasts in WW2, tests of accuracy 8.2
Fred Hoyle changes views acc to evid 11.4
Freudian ideas lasted only until testable 6.4

Gauquelin planetary effects 9.1
- artifacts in 9.2
- correspond to upwards astrology 18.20
- do not necessarily support astrology 12.1
- implications of 9.2
- may have ordinary explanation 9.2
- physical variables have no effect on 10.2
- relevance tends to be overstated 9.1
- too small to be useful 9.1
Gauquelin test of signs 9.4
Golden rule re whole chart broken by intuit 7.1
Graphology, meta-analysis of 9.6 (Figure 4)
Greater Truth, nonfalsifiability of 18.20
- underlying, lost due to complications 18.19
Guidelines for research 3.1
Gullibility not needed for false belief 4.1

Hand, Robert 2.2, 4.2, 10.1
Harmonics 9.3
Harvey, Charles 18.10
Hindsight bias 6.10
- arises by model reintroducing itself 18.4
Holiness of astrologer vs accuracy 18.1
Horary astrology, tests of 9.7
- is part of astrology 15.4
Hostility towards astrology, reasons for 11.3
- does not necessarily involve science 11.3

I Ching not affected by mistrust 18.12
Ideas have free reign only until testable 6.4
Illusory correlation, studies of 6.9
Inclining not compelling
- astrology works only sometimes 3.6
- conversations at astrol conferences 15.1
- error detection 6.13
- nothing is falsifiable 4.4, 17.5
Individual diffs central to psychology 15.3
Information content of chart
- always exceeds our handling abil 17.1-17.3
- views by astrologers of how it got there 7.14
Insight depends on prior experience 7.7
- not necessarily accurate or quick 7.7
Intellect, perception, are sep processes 18.4
Interview, how it happened 1.1
- differences of opinion, how resolved 1.1
- number of questions see cover
- summary of main points 20.3
Intuition
- conflicts not resolvable 7.1
- definition 7.3
- dimensions of (no of clues, correctness) 7.4
- does not avoid reasoning errors 7.1
- features and mechanism of 7.3
- in astrology, research on 7.6
- in readings, test of psychics 7.12
- need for prior experience 7.5, 7.7
- need for rest period 7.3-7.4
- not reliable 7.2-7.4
- priming may explain much 7.3
- unlikely to apply in chart reading 7.4, 7.13
Isolated factors, examples of 10.1
- testing is not meaningless 10.1
- said to be very accurate (Davison book) 12.3
- vs whole chart 10.1

Jung's ideas incompatible with astrology 16.5
Jupiter Pluvius 9.3

Keepin, Dr Will, views on astrol 18.19-18.20
Kepler (baby and bathwater) 6.12
Keywords, astrology vs poetry 14.2
- combinations exceed wt of million suns 17.3
- said to be very accurate (Davison book) 12.3
Knegt, repeat of his positive test 13.3-13.5
Kuhn's ideas also apply to astrology 12.5

Leahey and Leahey, quotes re astrol 19.1
Leap of faith, from Gauquelin to astrol 18.19
Lighting candles 6,14
Literature, ransacking by us 13.2
Longevity of ideas no guide to validity 6.4
Lottery tickets 18.15
Lunar effects on oysters may be illusory 16.4
Lyndoe astrology column 8.2

Mars effect, effect of additional factors 10.3
- effect of testing additional factors 10.2
Matching tests 9.6 (Figure 2)
Material feast and spiritual hunger 4.1
Mayo-Eysenck zodiac zig-zag 9.3-9.4
Medical astrology, tests of 9.7
Meta-analysis 9.6 (Figure 2)
Methodology, schools of thought 3.3
Million dollars for paranormal demo 13.3
Million suns, wt exceeded by combin 17.3
Mind, said to create info from chart 7.14
- nature, what reasoning errors are about 18.2
- not relevant to testing astrology 18.2-18.3
Misses explained by time errors 10.8
Mistakes, preventing 6.14
Modern sci does not boost case 16.1-16.3
Money market astrology, tests of 9.7
Mundane astrology is part of astrology 15.4

Naylor, astrology column 8.2
Negative definition (ESP) 7.10
Negative evidence, astrologers ignore 7.14
Negative results can be useful 13.3
- do not deny astr's historical importance 20.3
- do not deny future cosmic discoveries 20.3
- would be offset by finding white crows 13.3
Nelson radio propagation quality 9.3
Nettles, a time for grasping 10.4-10.5
Newspaper astrology columns 8.2
- research on 9.4
Noetic Sciences Review, article 18.19-18.20
Non-astrol influences, need to rule out 5.2
Nonfalsifiability
- by speculating forever 10.4-10.5
- denies discov in first place 3.8, 8.2-8.4, 18.12
- of astrology 4.4-4.5
- of Greater Truth 18.20

Objective astrology 4.1, 7.13-7.14
Objective-subjective see subjective-objective
Observability common to astrol and sci 3.8
Observation could not lead to astrol 17.3
Open-mindedness and astrology 5.4
- is elusive 11.4
- what it requires 11.1
Other side of the story, finding 19.1
Oysters, lunar effects may be illusory 16.4

Palmistry and intuition 7.2
Parker, Derek, quote re astrol books 15.9
Parker, Julia and Derek 7.13
Patterns, discov precluded by complexity 17.3
Perception is modelling 18.4
- example of error in 6.1
- separate process from intellect 18.4
- skills 5.3
Permutations of meaning, research copes 10.6
Phillipson's ideas for testing astrology 18.17
Philosophy, of research 3.2
- ignores astrol except as pseudosci 13.6-13.7
Phrenology, and intuition 7.2
- beliefs totally without foundation 6.3
- dilemma same as in astrology 14.4
- popularity of 6.3
- revealing parallels with astrology 6.3
- why it seemed to work 6.3
Physiognomy precursor of phrenology 6.4
Piano playing, nature of
- not questioned by wearing boxing glove 18.3
Pitfalls, astrologers unaware of 3.2
Placebo effect 6.10
Planetary effects (Gauquelin) 9.1
Plankton and shark nets, woolly thinking 12.7
Poetry, comparison with astrology 14.1-14.4
- factors influencing appeal of 14.3
Positive evidence, most convincing 9.1
- astrologers overstate 7.14, 9.1
Power cut implausibly expl by end world 18.6
Prediction, tests of 2.3
- of air disaster by Naylor 8.2
- of appearance, negative results 9.8
- of cause of death, negative results 9.8
Prejudice, how to avoid 11.2
- not a reasoning error by astrologers 6.11
Prestige not implied by uni courses 13.10
- cannot be created, must be deserved 13.10
Priming, role in intuition 7.3
Prize competitions by us 13.2
Productive ideas, example of (Darwin) 13.8
- astrology not a source of 13.6-13.9
Prototype scientists, everyone acts like 3.8
Psychic astronomy 7.5
Psychic readings no better than non-psy 7.12
Psychology, comparison with astrology 15.4
- individual differences are central to 15.3
Psychotherapy, comp with astrol 15.2-15.4
- what really matters in 15.3

Qualitative tests 3.5
Quantitative tets 3.5
Quantum mechanics and astrology 16.3
Questions, number of, see cover

Readings see Chart readings
Reality, nature of
- alternate realities are problematic 18.18
- not relevant to testing astrology 18.2-18.6
- not relevant to validity of research 18.16
- same as reasoning errors 18.2
- smokescreens to retreat behind 12.5
Reasoning by analogy is fallacious 6.5-6.6
Reasoning, circular, examples of 16.2, 16.5
Reasoning errors 5.3, details 6.10
- absence necessary for definitive tests 18.16
- apply even more to divination 18.14
- as diverse as human experience 6.1
- astrologers ignorant of 15.1
- avoided by quantitative checks 3.6
- defence against 6.11
- effect on apparent validity 8.1
- examples of 6.2
- examples of predictive failure due to 9.8
- explain disagreement amond astrol 13.6
- explain disagreement between astrol 17.6
- explain why astrol seems to work 18.6-18.9
- ignorance of, can explain everything 13.12
- more plausible than unknown influen 20.3
- more plausible than up/down astrol 18.20
- need controlling bef validity decided 8.1
- need for awareness of 15.8
- need for demo in their absence 18.2
- not avoided by intuition 7.1
- not relevant if astrology really worked 18.8
- relevant to nature of mind, reality 18.2
- thrive in clinical situations 12.6
- types of 6.10
Reasoning skills are poor 5.3
Research into astrology
- areas where not relevant 3.8
- astrology vs poetry 14.1-14.4
- can resolve conflicting world views 11.7
- extent of 3.4
- following where results lead 3.1
- futile if no theory and no evidence 13.3
- guidelines for 3.1
- information, sources of 19.1
- - needs to be up to date 19.1
- little interest shown by astrologers 11.7
- methods 3.3
- most things have been studied 13.1
- motivations for 11.4
- needed to avoid being misled 5.4
- normal approach to 3.4
- not meant to be easy 3.4
- now plenty of 3.4, 13.1, 19.1, 20.3
- philosophy of 3.2
- picture emerging from 8.1
- preventing mistakes in 6.14
- promising areas in 1970s 9.3
- results see Research results
- subjective astrol, requirements of 18.21
- taking up, may disappoint 20.2
- topics, examples of 3.7
- why do it 3.1
Research results
- astrologers ignorant of 15.1
- do not deny astrol's hist importance 20.3
- do not deny future cosmic discoveries 20.3
- example of early promise disconfirmed 8.2
- examples of erroneous 9.3
- Gauquelin effects 9.1, 10.2
- horary astrology 9.7
- incommensurate with astrol claims 13.2
- information, sources of 19.1
- little chance they will improve 13.2
- medical astrology 9.7
- money market astrology 9.7
- most convincing positive 9.1
- need for awareness of 15.8
- negative results are still useful 13.3
- no single result stands alone 3.4
- now plenty of 3.4, 13.1, 19.1, 20.3
- picture emerging from 8.1
- reactions by astrol towards 12.1, 12.5
- subjective astrology 14.1-14.4
- sun signs 9.4
- time twins 10.7
- topics, examples of 3.7
- totality is what matters 3.4, 8.2, 13.2
- white crows would be beacon of hope 13.3
- whole chart 9.6 (Figure 2)
- wrong charts not noticed 12.6
Researchers (in general)
- aims are modest 4.7
- comparison with astrologers 3.2, 5.4, 6.14
- more careful than astrologers 5.2, 10.6
Researchers (interviewees)
- biographies of 1.1 (= see website)
- disagreement between 1.1
- effect of research on their astrology 2.2
- how they got involved in astrology 2.1-2.2
- good/bad features of astrology 15.5-15.6
- individual comments 20.4
- methods used by 3.4, 8.1, 13.2
- not prosecutory but even charitable 13.12
- 25 years of negative results 13.2-13.3
- why still interested in astrology 20.1
Respectability not implied by uni course 13.10
Results of research see Research results
Reversed charts still fit 2.3
Rigour, need for 4.7, 5.2, 5.4
Ronald Davison's book Astrology 12.2-12.3
Ronald Reagan, 30 different birth times 15.1

Sachs's Astrology File contains artifacts 9.3
Sample size, artifacts and small 9.6 (Figs 2-4)
- effect on sensitivity 13.1
- variations due to 9.6 (Figs 2-4), 10.2
Science and astrology 3.8
- does not strengthen case for astrol 16.1-16.3
- ignores astrol except as pseudosci 13.6-13.7
- is a tough business 3.4
- mistaken views in, a matter of degree 6.13
- practical success of 6.13
- relevance to astrology 4.6
- requires only that events be observable 3.8
- self-correcting nature of 6.12, 6.14
Scientists
- as quality controllers 6.14
- attitudes towards astrol cover big range 11.3
- personal challenges to by astrologers 9.8
- we are all proto scientists 3.8
Seeing what we expect to see 6.9
Self-attribution zodiac zig-zag 9.3-9.4
Self-test your belief in astrology 20.3
Sense information overwhelms reason 5.3
Sheldrake morphic ideas not obv relevant 16.2
Show us a better way, we'll follow 11.5, 11.7
Similarity, how to define 10.8
- reasoning is fallacious 6.5-6.6
Simplicity, forbidden but manageable 17.3
Skeptics $1m for paranorm demo 13.3, 18.13
Skinner's pigeons 17.6
Smokecreens, retreating behind 12.5
Sources of information on research 19.1
- annotated list see website
- needs to be up to date 19.1
Sport champs and mult chart factors 10.2-10.3
Stagnation of astrology 15.1
Statistical approach
- descriptive vs inferential 3.6
- disliked by astrologers 3.6
- said to be pointless 12.6
- use of cannot be avoided 3.6
- well-suited to astrology 3.6
Subjective astrology 4.1, 4.3
- example of research (poetry) 14.1-14.4
- if it were the only kind 18.21
- not fraud 4.3
- research requirements 18.21
- value of claims 18.21
Subjective-objective 4.1 (Figure 1)
- and changing our beliefs about world 11.6
- astrologers' usage not same as ours 4.2
- creates dilemma for astrologers 14.4-14.5
- deciding which 7.14
- definition of 4.1
- distinction, need for 4.3
- distinction, uses of 4.6
- distinction sorts out confusion:
- - baby-bathwater 6.12
- - definitive test results 18.17
- - divination claims 18.12
- - nonfalsifiability 4.5
- - status of astrology 12.4
- - whether chart info is intrinsic 7.14
- - world views 8.4
- interaction between 4.2
- need for awareness of 15.8
- resolves relevance of Gauquelin results 9.1
Summary of interview main points 20.3
Sun signs, research on 9.4
- see also articles on website
Superchart 17.1 (Figure 5)
Superstitions avoid hateful uncertainty 11.1
Synchronicity (Jung) incompat with astrol 16.5

Techniques of chart reading
- as many as there are astrologers 17.1
- diversity explained by reasoning errors 17.6
- more powerful than in Babylon, Greece 8.1
- no effect on accuracy 18.1
- ones are most likely to work 10.4
Testability 3.8
- assumptions about world not relevant 18.15
- changes in astrologers views of 8.2
- lack denies discov in first place 3.8, 8.2, 8.4
- not denied by divination approach 8.3
- of divination no different from usual 18.14
Tests see also Research
- astrologers never spell out 6.14
- confirmatory vs exploratory 3.5
- examples of 3.4
- importance of 3.3
- increasing their sensitivity 13.1
- more positive future tests not ruled out 8.1
- no single test stands alone 3.4
- qualitative and quantitative 3.5
- results see Research results
- types of 3.5
- types preferred by astrologers 3.5
Theories of astrol, what is there to explain 16.3
Therapy
- astrological, is non-threatening 15.5
- factors that really matter 15.3
Time quality (Jung) incompatib with astrol 16.5
Time twins
- bypass complexity issues 10.6
- defining similarity between 10.8
- definitive test of astrology 18.17
- examples of 10.7
- occurrence of 10.6
- research on 10.7
Topics for research, examples of 3.7
Truth, retreating behind smokescreens 12.5
Twins, oldest argument against astrology 10.7

Uncertainty is something everyone hates 11.1
Unconscious processes
- as fallible as conscious processes 7.4, 7.8
- example of 7.8
- intuition 7.3, 7.4
- role of 7.8
Uni courses do not imply respectability 13.10
Upwards influences vs down 18.19-18.20
Utility of chart read, what it depends on 10.2

Validity of ideas, longevity no guide to 6.4
- ideas must work if reasoning err absent 8.1
Vernon Clark tests are negative 9.5-9.6
- sample size artifacts 9.6
Viewpoint, believers vs critics 4.1
Vividness heuristic 6.10

Website, parent, references to 19.1
White crows (accurate astrologers)
- ball is in astrologers' court 13.5
- needed else nothing to go on 18.1
- repeat test gave negative results 13.3-13.5
- would be a beacon of hope 13.3
- would improve credibility of astrology 15.1
Whole chart
- definitions differ 17.6
- combinations exceed wt of million suns 17.3
- intuition effectively ignores 7.8
- tests are negative 9.5-9.6
- vs isolated factors 10.1
World views
- and astrology 8.4
- and subjective-objective 8.4
- effect on astrologers attitudes 11.7
- our world views not relevant 11.5, 11.7
- said to be untestable 8.4
- when conflicting, research is needed 11.7
World, do we create it 4.1

Zodiac, sun sign zig-zag 9.4

From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page