Astrological theory, beliefs, research, criticism, cosmology, and relationship to science. Astrology reverse engineered. Postulation, evidence, and discourse on three key problems that astrological theory needs to answer:

1. What is the physical correspondence between the individual and the celestial environment that surrounds the individual? This theory would develop mathematical structures based on natural symmetries that account for astrological data and observations.


2. What are the essential operations of the signs, houses, aspects, and planets when reduced to definitive meanings? This theory would develop a scientific inquiry of astrology and a taxonomy that would account for empirical evidence and significance.


3. What is the psychological mechanism of astrological interpretation? This theory would develop the assessment of astrological patterns, projection, and dynamics. It would draw upon the multi-valenced logic of astrological wisdom and divination as well as the limits of determinism.

To answer these questions, we'll immediately need to take a more informed perspective by first considering three assumptions, which are the products of unexamined scientific beliefs regarding the astrological premise. These are the assumptions of causal mechanisms, celestial influences, and credulity effects.

Causal mechanisms — Many people today believe that science rejects astrology because it does not present a causal mechanism, such as those modeled on the classical effects of gravity and electromagnetism, which would operate between the celestial system and the individual. The problem with this belief is not simply that for many scientific applications today such mechanistic models are inadequate, but that astrology has never relied on causal mechanisms. Instead, astrology uses a model that is based on natural symmetries.

In standard physics today, the universe is regarded to have no center and there is no concept of symmetry based on a universal center. This belief contributes to a limited view of nature whereby effects are understood as being only the result of causal mechanisms. In astrology, the individual (whether it is a person, thing, event, or condition) is considered to be a point at the center of the universe and there are as many universes as there are individuals. Astrological effects are normally understood as being symmetrical processes centered on these individual universes.

The ancient Hermetic maxim states: "As above, so below." Astrology applies this maxim to the effect that the inner world of the individual is symmetrically related to the outer world of the celestial environment. These two worlds, the inner and outer, are unified by their shared correspondences to the natural symmetries of the tropical signs, diurnal houses, and synodic aspects, which are the mathematical frames of reference used in Western astrology. These reference frames comprise a space-time world view that enables the evaluation of empirical observations and the postulation of falsifiable hypotheses, the same as for causal mechanisms.

Examples of this type of "inner-outer" symmetry can be seen in holographic images that are broken into smaller fragments. Each small fragment contains an image of the complete whole. Another example is the so-called "self-similarity" found in fractal geometries, in which the same shapes, such as Mandelbrot or Julia sets, are repeated at different scales within the fractal environment. In quantum mechanics, the non-local, non-causal behavior of quantum entanglement can be interpreted as a type of inner-outer symmetry in which the macroscopic observer effect in the outer world associates with the observed simultaneous effects within the microscopic inner world of quantum behavior.

These interesting observations and behaviors have not emerged in any unified way into the paradigms of normal science, even though together, in light of the Hermetic maxim, they conceptually suggest a type of universal symmetry. Given the erosion of scientific cause and effect that stems from the quantum world view, these observations and behaviors seem to suggest a necessary category of process and effect that might be described as cosmological symmetry. Simply stated, the behaviors of microcosms reflect the behaviors of their macrocosms and vice versa, though in different ways. Within an environment, behaviors at individual boundaries implement cosmic symmetry.

The experience of cosmic symmetry is not always obvious as it is in holographic or many fractal images, nor is it always easy to find the boundaries that separate the inner from the outer. Within an environment that contains microcosms, changes at one boundary must be observed to accompany symmetrically related changes at another boundary. The operational effects of these changes can be understood through observation, evaluation, and inference. Although relatively inconspicuous compared to other symmetries, cosmic symmetry seems to be present throughout nature, and this natural feature seems to have gone unrecognized as a type of symmetry in normal science.

Celestial influences — While it can be said that individuals (whether they are people, societies, or events) influence one another through their interactions, and that planets and stars have properties because they are things, it cannot not be said that planets and stars directly influence individuals, because there is no effective physical interaction between them. However, if individuals reflect celestial behaviors by a type of symmetry as astrology purports (i.e. as above, so below), then the planetary or stellar "influences" are indirect. The individuals directly influence one another through their behaviors while diachronically reflecting astrological properties.

This is why it is proper to think of celestial objects as having astrological properties rather than astrological influence. Being ambiguous, the latter can be construed to mean direct physical influence, animism, determinism, and other extraordinary associations beyond normal social and causal influences among individuals. Thinking in terms of properties instead of influences relieves researchers of the semantic assumption of direct celestial interactions where none should be suggested. Free of the burden of this assumption, researchers can carry on with their work, which is based on mapping and measuring procedures, which everyone, in principle, can agree to.

It is not so important to know how celestial objects come to have astrological properties or how symmetries operate. These are simply things that are empirically observed, like any other properties or behaviors in nature. Researchers should be circumspect in their language to infer astrological properties and behavior through symmetrically diachronic observations of influences among individuals.

In astrology there are many universes. Each individual is a universe that contains all other universes. A conscious individual is a point of consciousness at the center of its universe. In this view, there are no physical influences acting on an individual because there is nothing physically external to a universe that can act on it. Astrology eliminates physical influences in order to study a different type of influence of considerable interest, which is how the universes of different individuals affect one another. How does anyone influence and affect anyone else? This is an epistemological question that is the astrological equivalent of asking how any material thing can physically influence any other material thing.

To study this type of influence, the boundaries of a common environment that is shared by the individual universes needs to be specified. This cannot be the microcosmic physical boundary of the individual. Although two individuals can become physically close, this boundary cannot be completely shared by individuals. The boundary described by the individual's planets (the celestial bodies that surround the individual), however, is a suitable macrocosm because it is shared by other individuals. Every individual is born or begins with its own configuration of natal planets whereas the transiting planets, which align with the natal positions during the courses of their orbits, are shared by everyone. The boundary of the planets is relatively simple, stable, and predictable. Thus the planets provide astrology with Occam's razor, which is to say, a means of the simplest objective explanations.

Astrology studies what happens, or could happen, when one individual, referred to as the native, identifies and interacts with another individual. Astrologers have characterized this action in various ways, which I'll suggest in general is a process whereby the native projects subjective urges, characterized by the astrological properties of transited natal planets, onto other individuals, which I'll refer to as hosts. These hosts are the persons, things, events, or circumstances that most accurately embody the projected planetary characterizations reflected by the native. Through interactions with the hosts, the native becomes imprinted with planetary properties interpreted from the hosts.

The influences that occur between the native and the hosts are experienced within three defined environments that consist of the signs, aspects, and houses, which are the astrological frames of reference. This experience, I'll suggest, involves the intelligence of sharing values (in the signs), testing beliefs (in the aspects), and finally, developing skills (in the houses), according to the motions of the planets. Both the native and the hosts, I'll further suggest, aspire to objectively adapt to the properties and environments of the transiting planets.

This astrological model is more of a psychological mechanism than a physical mechanism. It offers an illustration of how individuals adapt their innate urges to respond to the changing environments of the shared world. It would explain how individuals influence one another as they develop and evolve.

Credulity effects — Because it is based on the natal chart, astrology is highly individualized, yet some people argue that chart interpretations appear to work only because they contain general wisdom that is subjectively evaluated by credulous people. Two psychological tendencies are cited. Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to remember accurate interpretations more than inaccurate interpretations and to judge the integrity of the interpretations by what they remember. Additionally, the Forer effect is the tendency for people to regard an interpretation as accurate when it appears to be personally tailored for them, even though the interpretation is so vague that it could apply to a wide range of people.

This credulity view of astrology stems from the fact that normal supportive conversation contains bits of wisdom and helpful warnings that are generally positive, true, and apply to nearly everyone. People desire to hear such hopeful talk often in their daily lives because it fulfills a need. It helps them to visualize how their lives fit into the larger social fabric. People tend to remember these friendly words and let themselves be affected by them.

There is no doubt that by its supportive role, astrological consultation contains some of the same bits of non-astrological wisdom, warnings, and help that by necessity are found in normal supportive conversations. Numerous replicated studies have selected some of these general bits of wisdom from horoscope readings to demonstrate a Forer effect with test participants. The interesting result is that there is now a widely held impression that such tests have repeatedly falsified astrology, but is this a valid test of astrology?

Normal science takes pains to exclude unrelated artifacts from the test data, but in the case of these Forer tests, the opposite has occurred. It is the generally positive and true artifacts selected from astrological readings that are tested. These non-astrological artifacts amount to straw man data and should not be allowed to overshadow and obscure the actual astrological content of the interpretations, which, as can be seen in any astrology text, is different for different astrological features.

To separate and use the astrological factors and exclude the non-astrological artifacts found in horoscope readings requires a conscientious test design. An especially good test design would measure how astrological factors might associate with effects of different magnitudes, known in astrology research as "eminence." For researchers who wish to study the credulity argument, there is no getting around these necessary evaluations and the normal scientific requirements to adjust for obscuring and misleading artifacts.

Because of the great attention given to them with regard to astrological consultations, it has been indirectly implied that confirmation bias and the Forer effect are insurmountable obstacles to astrological research, but this is simply not true. These psychological tendencies, as well as selection bias and other non-astrological artifacts, can be objectively overcome by simple ranking methods.

In double-blind studies, the level of confidence in genuine versus non-genuine evaluations of distinctively different individuals can be ranked. This can be done for example in studies where astrologers rank several pairs of self-assessment inventories of divergent individuals, one of which is genuine, against the corresponding natal chart. Another approach might be to have test participants rank the written astrological profiles of two divergent individuals, one of which is their own, against themselves. This latter test would further require the sample profiles to have the same Sun sign, because Sun sign descriptions are widely known.

In statistical tests, ranking should reflect the relative magnitudes of measurable outcomes in studies of specific astrological features, which would point to an eminence effect. An example of this method would be to study the rank of individuals by eminence in sports, compared to Mars placement. Another example of this sort would be to rank the eminence of individuals by reddishness of their hair color, compared to Mars placement.

The use of ranking methods to detect an eminence effect greatly elevates the sensitivity of astrological testing, even for small effect sizes. Although small effect sizes might be due to chance fluctuations or unknown artifacts, these possibilities rapidly diminish with each successive rank in eminence that goes in the predicted direction. Refereed studies such as the examples just mentioned for sports champions and reddishness of hair color, which have been properly designed with ranking controls, have demonstrated a positive eminence effect in replicated studies. These published findings have now been discussed for over two decades without refutation. Currently, in the absence of reasonable alternatives, there are no better explanations for these positive results than those that have been advanced by them in astrology.¹

The potential for confirmation bias and the Forer effect is a criticism that strongly argues in favor of imposing objective ranking controls that would exclude them in all astrological research. Yet, despite the continuing emphasis placed on these known psychological tendencies by legions of astrology critics, the demonstrated controls that exclude them have not been documented in the widely bruited but informal Forer-type tests and they have been conspicuous by their absence in the most notable refereed research studies that have produced claims against astrology.² The criticism and the argument for controls are good and should not be ignored. Good science needs to replace bad science.

1. For example, see: Suitbert Ertel and Kenneth Irving (1996), The Tenacious Mars Effect, ISBN 1-871-989-15-9.

2. For an example where an established test protocol with objective ranking controls [demonstrated by Suitbert Ertel "Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-varies with Eminence", Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2(1), 1988.] is ignored to avoid a positive result, see Suitbert Ertel and Kenneth Irving The Mars Effect in Prospect: Dissenting from J. W. Nienhuys' "Retrospect", commentary on Claude Benski et al. (1996), The "Mars Effect": A French Test of 1,000 Sports Champions, ISBN 0-87975-988-7. An example where objective ranking controls were part of the test design but obscured to avoid a positive result is demonstrated by Suitbert Ertel, “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests” Journal of Scientific Exploration. 23(2), 2009, and Joseph Vidmar (2008), A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments, and also my blog article Reappraisal of 1985 Carlson study finds support for astrology, which are commentaries on Shawn Carlson, "A double-blind test of astrology", Nature, 318, 419-425 (05 December 1985).