To Be Confirmed

Posts Tagged ‘Astrology

Yesterday, while travelling back from some serious flat hunting, I happened to tune into Radio Two and was delighted to hear an interview with Richard Wiseman promoting his latest book. Whilst I was trying to decide whether being dubbed the ‘most quoted psychologist’ in the media was a good or bad thing along popped the next segment on Monday’s show; the live astrologer.

During this segment Sara Delphi, the astrologer, goes through the various astrological signs and gives vague predictions apparently based on the position of the planets. People then call in to tell her their star sign’s and their particular problem, since Sara also claims to be a clairvoyant (is there no end to her mystical powers?) one presumes this is a formality for our behalf. Sara proceeds to give people advice according to what the stars/planets are telling her. It was during this particular part of the programme that Sara felt confident enough in her pseudoscience to give someone financial advice and another advice to change her career, during a recession, based purely on the position of the planets. This is horrendous and despicable behaviour, she has absolutely no qualifications that suggest she is in any position to give this sort of advice.

Perhaps some could dismiss this as harmless fun but this is a very delicate time for a lot of families who are struggling to make ends meet and one of the most listened to radio stations in the UK is promoting advice based on nonsense. They should be telling those in financial trouble to seek advice from a FINANCIAL advisor not a crystal healing, psychic astrologer.

I always though that Steve Wright had come across fairly sceptical in the past so I was appalled to not only hear this segment on his show but later find out it is a regular Monday feature. Despite the slightly mocking tone he took with Sara Delphi he still gave her a platform on which to promote astrology as a legitimate means for making life decisions and giving advice on important issues which it quite blatantly is not.

I very much doubt that Sara Delphi will read this but should she and then have any problems with my questioning the validity of her psuedoscientific belief and her ability as a clairvoyant then I would invite her to take up the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge, which is offered to anyone who an show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. I don’t fancy her chances though; since it’s conception in 1964 the challenge is yet to unearth anyone that can even pass the preliminary test.


A recent fun test of Astrology on Richard Wiseman’s website reminded me of the fact that despite being extremely sceptical of this crazy belief/pseudoscience I had never taken more than a passing interest in it so perhaps it was unfair of me to dismiss it out of hand.

The first thing to consider is that astrology is made up of two distinct camps, there is the side of it we all know, this is sun signs, newspaper columns and phone lines. Then there is the more studious side which is more complex and involves charts, journals, and data from astronomers. It is important to note that although astronomy and astrology were perhaps indecipherable in the past the two are now very different and separate disciplines. One is science the other, well, let’s see shall we…

Without going into too much detail the general overlaying principle of astrology is that the movement of celestial bodies, both real and hypothetical, have a direct influence on our personalities. From extrapolating data from the position of celestial bodies and their movements astrologers create birth charts which are used to aid interpretation of past and present events and also make predictions for the future. The very stripped down form of this that we are all familiar with are the twelve signs of the zodiac that we all supposedly fit into depending on the month of our birth. I cannot give a precise example of, say, all Libras are supposedly introvert or all Aquarians are argumentative because as we will see later no two astrologers can agree. It is in this fundamental premise of astrology that lies its biggest problem. As yet there is no known or proposed mechanism or force that is created by celestial bodies that should have a direct effect on our personalities. As far as astrologers are concerned it just effects us, don’t ask why unless you are happy with the nebulous answer of its ‘energy’. Energy is detectable, no such energy that should have a manipulative effect on our personalities has been detected.

As I touched on early another large underlying problem is that you can rarely get two practitioners of astrology to agree. With no coherent standardised method or practice to adhere to it seems that they can just interpret the charts however takes their fancy.   Various studies have been conducted to find out precisely how well astrologers agree on what a given birth chart indicates. To date a total of 28 studies have put this to the test using a total of 559 astrologers and 762 birth charts. Each test looked at how well 5 to 30 astrologers agreed on what a given chart indicated about its owner. Despite some of these studies involving the world’s best astrologers the average agreement among astrologers was 54.9%, or better than chance in barely 1 out of 10 cases.

As if this study alone isn’t bad enough, here is an extract from a review of the meta-analyses from 300 empirical studies on the fantastic website

“When applied to nearly 300 empirical astrological studies, many of them by astrologers, meta-analysis reveals zero support for effect sizes of around r = 0.7 that are representative of astrological claims. Mean effect size and number of studies are: sun sign self-attribution 0.070 (26) and controls -0.020 (9), matching birth charts to owners 0.034 (54), picking own chart 0.020 (11), agreement between astrologers 0.098 (26), Gauquelin’s tests of signs and aspects 0.007 (62) and planets 0.044 (35), lunar effects 0.012 (50), and radio propagation effects 0.010 (10). If you are looking for something where nothing is true and everything is permitted, then astrology seems to be an excellent choice.”

Those numbers in brackets are the numbers of studies by the way not the number of participants. There is no astrologer out there that can reasonably claim that astrology has not been given a fair chance by science.

So a glaring question now presents itself, if there is all this evidence against astrology why do people still believe it? How do people get fooled? The majority just read the newspaper columns and take it as a bit of fun, then there are those that take it further; It is easy to think that these people are naive or foolish but it wouldn’t be fair. People believe this because they are convinced they have seen it work. Much like the cold reading technique that ‘psychics’ use astrologers can be just as adept at picking up clues from looking at their subjects, seeing their posture, fashion sense, age or simply listening to their accent/dialect. These clues combined with a creative use of language and an ability to make blatantly ambiguous statements seem profound can be very convincing, especially when you don’t have all the evidence in front of you to call on. And more importantly, especially in an environment arranged by the astrologers themselves, not test conditions.

For further reading on astrology   

Astronomical Society Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic’s Resource List

A great study was conducted by a researcher at the University of California named Shawn Carlson. A decent review of this study is worth reading here:

Or you could read the full article in Nature here:

Here’s another study in which “participants were unable to identify their own astrological charts at a greater-than-chance level.”

Here’s another one, which states “this test leaves no doubt that astrology does not have any predictive power as far as academic ability is concerned.”