Fighting at the Level of Your Opponent
 

by Valerie Vaughan
 

Despite my concern for professional standards in astrology, I must occasionally attempt to lower my expectations long enough to get this "product" sold, or at least exposed, to a wider audience. I was recently consulted by a media manipulator who was preparing to include astrology in an NBC series on prophecy. She wanted to find out about famous events correctly predicted by astrologers that could be dramatized in a 5-minute sound bite of unadulterated sensationalism, all according to her preconceived and shallow view of astrology. She didn't want to hear about awareness, she didn't want anything to do with educating the viewers, she just wanted disasters and violence predicted by astrology so that NBC could put on some infotainment, parade it as being non-committal and objective, and then turn to the audience and say,"YOU decide!" (whether there's anything to astrology or not).

Repulsed as I was by all this, I kept naming important predictions, but none of them seemed to satisfy her need for titillation; none were gory or exciting enough for prime time. Charles Jaynes' prediction of the Truman election was "too tame"; the plagues predicted by Renaissance astrologers were "history that the viewers wouldn't be familiar with"; the Star of Bethlehem (merely the prophecy of a world saviour) was "too esoteric." Needless to say, I failed to match the aggressiveness and superficiality of this NBC person and her Fax-paced agenda, so she gave me the brush-off (I won't even say it was a polite one, but like the rest of her approach, pushy). I was inwardly pleased, of course, that it was impossible for me to prostitute astrology, even when I tried. But I still experienced a sense of failure, because NBC will go ahead and produce their trite presentation anyway, astrology will continue to have a superficial, lousy "image," and I'm still left feeling appalled and disgusted by the power and vulgarity of the media.

What can astrologers do about this? It's an age-old problem, for astrologers have been complaining about this same situation for thousands of years: No matter how much we prefer to think of astrology as a tool for awareness (a way to become conscious of reality), much of the world continues to see it as prediction (a way to control reality). Whatever your own particular persuasion is, there is a very real question here about whether astrologers actually have had an impressive track record of correct predictions. Since this is the level at which astrology is often challenged, I believe it is useful for astrologers to be educated about this track record. I have therefore prepared a short list of historically successful predictions which astrologers might want to keep on hand, along with some philosophical arguments, ready to be pulled out in order to fight critics at their level.

Of course, the critics are likely to dismiss these correct predictions as coincidence, or as a result of the power of suggestion, or as circumstances which cannot be tested by replication. The counter-argument to this is to ask why they brought up the supposed poor record of astrological predictions in the first place. You can't have it both ways, claiming that failed astrology predictions are proof that astrology doesn't work, but correct predictions don't "count." If that logic were applied to modern medicine, none of us would dare consult a doctor. Apply the same logic to the scientific predictions of the National Weather Service, and we would have to go back to relying on the Farmer's Almanac (which is evidently based on astrology, though the publishers refuse to admit it).

The fact is, the modern scientific view (or prejudice, which I prefer to call it) demands a double standard. Predictions labelled "scientific" are OK; anything else isn't ... no matter what the track record says. There really is no point in attempting to "prove" astrology along these lines; however, that is where the narrow minds reside, so if you want to play their little game (or are forced to through their attacks), here's some ammunition.

One of the best known examples of prediction is hidden by the revised language of the Bible. The three Magi who sought out the Star of Bethlehem were in fact astrologers. The word magi comes from the Greek magoi (from which we get our word magician), which the authorized version of the Bible translates as "wise men," but the New English Bible translates as "astrologers." Around the time of Christ, the term magus referred to anyone who was wise, which included being knowledgeable about astrology.

One of the theories about the "Star" of Bethlehem explains it as the conjunction of Jupiter-Saturn in Pisces in 7 B.C. (possibly a triple conjunction with Mars).[1] Another theory proposes an eclipse of Jupiter in 6 B.C.[2] While some modern scientists reject the "Star" as legendary, it is difficult to ignore the solid evidence that most contemporary Babylonian and Jewish astrologers interpreted these celestial events as a clear sign of the coming of the Messiah, more specifically as a Jewish King born in Israel. And the astrological prediction was so unambiguous that the Magi followed up on it by performing what was then a very long and difficult journey.

The interpretive value of such conjunctions was recognized by Johannes Kepler, one of the most accomplished astrologers of the 17th century (modern scientific revisionism has defined him as an important astronomer). Kepler was busy observing the triple conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in 1604 when he calculated that similar alignments must have occurred about every 800 years, and he therefore deduced that such a conjunction accounted for the Star of Bethlehem.

One of the most consistently accurate astrologers of all time was Tycho Brahe, who is also now represented in the history books as a great astronomer. Brahe excelled at accurate predictions about the weather, as well as for political leaders and nations. In 1563 he correctly predicted an outbreak of plague which followed soon afterwards. Many of his valid predictions are actually mentioned in science history books, but the value of these prognostications are downplayed.[3]

William Lilly, another great 17th century English astrologer, correctly predicted the defeat of Royalist forces (in 1645 and 1648)[4] as well as the Great Fire of London.[5] So accurate was this latter prediction that Lilly was called into court for questioning because he was suspected of complicity in the matter. Lilly is a perfect example of how it has always been a rather dangerous task for astrologers to predict events that could have volatile political and religious repercussions. It is no wonder that many have recanted or revised their own predictions in order to preserve their livelihood (and in many cases, their lives). Political correctness is not an invention of the 1990s. When you add to this problem the distortions of revisionist historians (especially since the Scientific Revolution), it's a wonder that any records of astrological prediction have survived at all.

There is another prediction story concerning King Henry II of France, who consulted with an astrologer and was told he would die in single combat, a prophecy that made absolutely no sense to the king. Less than a year later, Henry fell in a jousting tournament, mortally wounded in "single combat."[6]

The anonymity of the astrologer in many stories of prediction is representative of another problem in the track record of astrology. Without a specific name attached to predictions, stories have often rejected as legendary or anecdotal. The unverifiable truth of the matter is, that certain celestial signs have been so obvious to so many astrologers, that the predictions were considered general knowledge and thus were never associated with one particular author.

Such has been the case with the numerous plagues which were often correctly predicted by astrologers. The conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in 1345 was thought to cause the great Black Plague of 1348, and this was so generally agreed upon that there is no one named astrologer who claimed to be the sole author. The fact that predictions were "anonymous" shouldn't detract from the recognition of their validity, but the modern mind throws anything like this into the category "mythological, legendary, non-scientific." What we should remember is that glorifying the individual inventor, one who is identifiable by name, date, place is a practice peculiar to modern times. Modern science, as the handmaiden of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic, has bolstered the idolatry of the individual to such a degree that, if there is no evidence of one identified creator, it is assumed there is no "invention."

Similar examples are the great London plagues of 1604, 1625, and 1665 which were all foretold by Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions. So commonly accepted were the accurate plague predictions of Medieval and Renaissance astrologers that one form of plague was called "influenza," an Italian word referring to the "influence" of the stars, and a term that has since passed into medical use.[7]

The anonymity of astrologers is not the fault of their craft, but the result of defects in the historical method. There is so much history of astrology which is buried in obscure primary sources and in untranslated or mistranslated manuscripts, that scholars have agreed it is nearly impossible to untangle the literature. Don Cameron Allen, the author of The Star-Crossed Renaissance, remarked that "no one scholar ... in the course of his life, can read the extant works on the subject, let alone resolve its intricate patterns of thought."[8] An example of such sources is Sir Christopher Heydon, a 17th-century defender of astrology, who offered a long list of successful prognostications in the seventh chapter of his Defence of Iudiciall Astrologie (London, 1603), but the obscurity of this text prevents the average astrologer from making use of it.

If you are getting a little bored with these scholarly footnotes, you can perhaps begin to grasp the complex difficulty involved in defending astrology. Only the most daring and well-read of the historians have even attempted to investigate this problem, and it is not something that can be easily popularized. Very few people (modern astrologers included) have ever heard of Luca Gaurico, a Renaissance astrologer with a long and distinguished career advising Italian kings and popes. He correctly foretold the fall of Giovanni Bentivoglio, a local tyrant. He successfully predicted that Alessandro Farnese and Giovanni de Medici would both become popes. I could go on with the list, but the names and places are likely to mean very little except to serious, Virgo-type historians. Luckily, Gaurico had the foresight to keep a very detailed record (six volumes!) of his horoscopes, complete with an historical appendix which proved his predictions were fulfilled.[9]

But let us turn to more modern times and thus to more familiar topics. One of the favorite debunking techniques of opponents to astrology is the "Hitler ploy," which goes more or less like this: Lots of people were born on the same day as Hitler, so if astrology is destiny, how come they weren't all dictators? It so happens there's a well-documented story about this criticism.

Elsbeth Ebertin was an astrologer whose prophecy concerning Hitler caused much discussion in 1923-24. I quote directly from Ellic Howe's Astrology: A Recent History Including the Untold Story of Its Role in World War II.[10] "Frau Ebertin was just about to compose a series of generalized predictions for persons born with their natal Sun in Aries, when she received a letter from one of Hitler's many enthusiastic woman supporters. Her correspondent sent her Hitler's birth date (but not his birth hour) and asked what she thought of his horoscope. Frau Ebertin published her answer, without revealing Hitler's name, in her year book which was on sale by the end of July 1923:

'A man of action born on April 20, 1889, with Sun in 29 degrees Aries, can expose himself to personal danger by excessively uncautious action and could very likely trigger off an uncontrollable crisis,' she wrote. 'His constellations show that this man is to be taken very seriously indeed; he is destined to play a Fuhrer-role in future battles. It seems that the man I have in mind, with this strong Aries influence, is destined to sacrifice himself for the German nation, also to face up to all circumstances with audacity and courage, even when it is a matter of life and death, and to give an impulse, which will burst forth quite suddenly, to a German Freedom Movement. But I will not anticipate destiny. Time will show ...'"

The prediction was soon fulfilled. On Nov. 8, 1923, Hitler and his followers staged a badly-organized Putsch, and Hitler was wounded, arrested, and sentenced to the prison where he began writing Mein Kampf. Ebertin claimed to have had little prior knowledge of Hitler's political significance and of the latest German politics. This point is debatable, as it always is in any astrological prediction.

I will close this "lesson" with one final example to keep in your astrology-defense-kit: the wealth of scientific evidence supporting the connection of weather patterns with lunar and sunspot cycles. The specific instances are too numerous to mention;[11] suffice it to say that reports of investigation continue to be published in "respectable" science journals. The Foundation for the Study of Cycles has almost completely usurped this aspect of astrology by pursuing their stated purpose of "fostering and conducting scientific research in rhythmic fluctuations in natural and social phenomena." This organization sponsors a great deal of research into the planetary patterns that correlate with weather, earthquakes, human behavior, and the stock market. This is plagiarized astrology, pure and simple, and you should feel free to quote any of their research (published in the journal Cycles) when discussing correct astrological prediction.
 

This article is a revised version of a letter published in the NCGR Memberletter (Aug/Sep 1995).
 
 

Anti-Astrology Update:

Debunking Replaced by Revisionism
 
 

by Valerie Vaughan

This is an update to my letter which appeared in the NCGR Memberletter (Aug/Sept 1995). Written in early 1995, it was a warning to astrologers about the need for acquiring defensive skills against debunking maneuvers, but something much more insidious is currently going on which needs attention.

Just to re-state my position, where I'm coming from: I am an astrologer and a trained science librarian keeping a vigilant watch on the established scientific and academic community. Their strategy during the past centuries and into recent times has been to run the same old debunking number, separating science as superior to any other kind of thinking, and pushing astrology beyond the border of what they have defined as acceptable knowledge. While such overt attacks have been destructive for astrology and its practitioners, we astrologers have at least been confident of where we stood: on the outside (of consensus reality) looking in, and we could thus at least obtain some minimum mileage out being identified as societal outcasts.

Astrology has survived into modern times, not in spite of its rejection, but because of its rejection. This is due to something we could call the James Dean Effect, the attention given to cult heroes or similar Uranian elements that recognize and question the facade of society's norms and conventions. Astrology, like all other disciplines forced into homelessness by Science, has been driven to take up residence in a territory where everything else associated with social ostracism or banishment has gravitated (UFOlogy, alternative healing, etc.). Like many idealists, I would prefer to think that astrology endures because of its innate truth. But I suspect that astrology, like obscenity, has maintained its feeble power because it is taboo.

I am writing to warn that even our meager, scruffy identity as freaks is now being threatened. What I have been observing in the latest scientific literature is a major shift in the tactical approach of these consensus-reality-makers, a change that should cause serious concern among astrologers and anyone involved in so-called New Age pursuits.

Idealistic astrologers (myself included) have mistakenly interpreted the ingress of Uranus into Aquarius and Pluto into Sagittarius as a sign of some wonderful kind of renaissance and re-union of science and mysticism, the assumption being that astrology would somehow emerge, rise to the surface and be recognized and accepted by the new wave of free-thinking New Age scientists.

Unfortunately, we have underestimated the predatory nature of our opponents. They haven't been able to make astrology go away, so they decided to swallow their prey whole. It isn't debunking that is going on anymore, it's revisionism. And if you thought that the Media had succeeded (with their info-tainment tactics) in confusing the public over what is information versus what is entertainment or advertising, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Scientists and establishment academia are now usurping entire conceptual frameworks originally developed and held by astrologers; they have initiated a massive propaganda campaign to rewrite and regurgitate these ideas, claiming the vomited prey as their own creation. Examples of this blatant plagiarism are cropping up in all areas of knowledge, though I will cite only a few of them here.

Scientists and scholarly academicians are producing a tremendous onslaught of writings claiming their "discovery" of what astrology has always known. They've taken the astrological tenet of As Above, So Below (the unity and reflective principle) and given it names like Grand Unification Theory, Gaia Hypothesis, Symbiosis, Morphic Resonance, or Fractal Geometry. They have established organizations like the Foundation for the Study of Cycles whose stated purpose is "fostering and conducting scientific research in rhythmic fluctuations in natural and social phenomena," and who sponsors the study of planetary patterns that correlate with weather, earthquakes, human behavior, and the stock market. [Yes, you did indeed just read a definition of astrology, revised.]

Among these writings there is no recognition of the astrological basis of these concepts, nor is Astrology given any credit. The naughty A-word is studiously avoided. Archaeo-astronomers don't identify the astrological factors contained in Mayan codices; they call it "calendaring." Academic scholars who study the ancient astrology systems of primitive cultures are calling themselves "ethno-astronomers." Biologists are claiming that biological clocks are more than just an academic curiosity; circadian rhythms are now being seriously studied (with plenty of plush funding) by the National Science Foundation's Center for Biological Timing.

Astrologers should be on the lookout for cheap imitations parading as "New Science." The revisionism is rampant. Books by scientists on their "discovery" of consciousness are being advertised as "offering open-minded scientists fresh explanations to paradoxes that have been baffling them for years." What a publicity stunt! Scientists haven't lost a wink of sleep over being baffled, they've been in denial. A well-known mathematician wrote a book in 1995 called Chaos, Gaia, Eros, which discusses ancient astronomy, world ages, how cycles of time affect people and history, New Year festivals, the celestial order, the gods and goddesses, ancient mythology, even the Zodiac. There is one sentence in this entire book containing the word "astrology."

If this doesn't get your attention, then take a look at the cover of the October 1995 issue of Sky and Telescope, a popular astronomy magazine. Superimposed over a glossy depiction of the astrological Zodiac are the words "The Real Zodiac -Who Fashioned These Starry Patterns and Why." In the cover article itself you will find not one word about the astrological basis of the Zodiac, not one mention of the astrologers who really fashioned these starry patterns.

Don't let yourself be persuaded by modern scientists who propound and exalt the "long history" of astronomy, referring to the great discoveries of "ancient astronomers." What we now call "astronomy" was known for thousands of years as "natural astrology." And it was merely one small field of study contained within the much more comprehensive and complex discipline of astrology. It was not until after the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century that natural astrology was claimed as the intellectual property of science and was renamed astronomy. History is not only written by the victors, it is thoroughly revised by those in power, and science is now the ruling intellectual paradigm. The historical truth is, there never were any "ancient astronomers." There were only astrologers practicing natural astrology.

As an astrologer observing the latest antics of scientists, I am reminded of how Native Americans might have felt about Europeans claiming they "discovered" America. (Watch out, folks, the following information will show that this analogy may not be so far-fetched.)

I don't believe it is coincidence that this Sky & Telescope article appeared about five months (a typical publishing delay time) following an important scientists' convention called "The Flight from Science and Reason." According to the New York Times (June 6, 1995, section C), this meeting was organized as a call to arms where defenders of scientific methods were urged to attack alternative healing, astrology, research into the paranormal (ESP, out-of-body experiences, and UFOs), and (lumped into the same category), religious fundamentalism. To quote one of the leaders of this meeting, "It's time to get nasty, to launch a crusade against quackery."

You've probably heard that similar meetings and organized witch-hunts have occurred in the past, but the voices in this one are particularly desperate and vicious. The participants did not seem to notice a lack of self-awareness and an inherant discrepancy in their message about the loss of reason. While accusing the growth of alternative views like astrology as being a "cognitive disease that could unravel democracy," the organizers themselves did not allow equal time for debate. They said that "enemies of science" would have ample opportunity for expression on TV talk shows and the popular press. While one speaker claimed that science is "being confronted by lunatics and fascists," another criticized ethnic groups for enhancing ethnic identity by teaching about their mystical traditions. I don't know about you, but that sounds like Nazi prejudice to me.

Now, more than ever, there is an impelling need for astrologers to get our professional trip together. We cannot continue our idealistic fantasy existence, deluding ourselves as having some kind of special, mystically-ordained, and separate reality. The territorial grab being driven by science-defined conventional realists can easily absorb such an amorphous "structure" as modern astrology. And if that happens, we aren't going to experience the luxury of being the "free radicals" of a pseudoscience. Astrological language is already being deleted and supplanted by scientific terminology; we are being dispossessed of our astrological principles and we're too far outside the mainstream to even notice.

We must wake up to what's really going on. Astrology is heading towards "endangered" status. Debunking and witch-hunts are no longer our predators' strategy of choice. Instead, Astrology will simply be re-defined right out of existence. It's Darwin time, folks. Time to learn some survival skills, and fast. The very least we can do is to take responsibility for managing our profession and start passing those certification exams.

This article is a revised version of an article published in The Mountain Astrologer (Jan. 1996).
 

The Acceptance of Astrology in the "Real World:"
Revival or Revisionism?
 

by Valerie Vaughan

There ought to be a law preventing the stealing
of your ideas before you have them.

-- Joseph Zubin, psychologist
 
 

Many astrologers interpret the ingress of Uranus into Aquarius and Pluto into Sagittarius as a New Age of Enlightenment where Science and mysticism will be re-united. There is nothing inherently wrong with this ideal concept of reunion; the mistake comes in assuming that Astrology will benefit from this change, and that astrologers will automatically become recognized and accepted as equals by free-thinking New Age scientists.

During the next decade we can expect greater exploration and experimentation with alternative, unorthodox, and "fringe" ways of thinking like Astrology, but such ideas are going to challenge and threaten the scientific establishment. Of course, there's nothing new about the conflict between Science and Astrology. What is different now is that scientists have found a new way to "win."

Until recently, scientists have used the same old approach, debunking and denouncing Astrology, separating Science from any other kind of thinking, and pushing Astrology beyond the border of what Science has defined as acceptable knowledge. While such overt attacks have been destructive for Astrology and its practitioners, we astrologers have at least known where we stood -- on the outside (of consensus reality) looking in, and we have been able to get some minimum mileage out of being societal outcasts.

Astrology has been ostracized by Science and forced to reside in a "homeless camp" where other "pseudo-scientific" disciplines have gravitated (UFOlogy, alternative healing, etc.). Many idealists would like to think that Astrology endures because of its innate truth. It could be said that Astrology has survived into modern times, not in spite of its rejection by Science, but because of its rejection. Astrology, like obscenity, has maintained much of its attraction because it is taboo.

If Astrology is going to continue to survive, however, astrologers have a lot to learn from the way Science operates. Modern thinking has become quite prejudiced by the scientific bias of our times. Being labeled unscientific in our current age of technology means ultimate invalidation, for Science has made itself the measuring rod of our era. What we have inherited is a distorted logic that equates "scientific" with real or true. The fact is, there are many experiences in life that are not scientifically verifiable, but that doesn't mean that those experiences don't exist.

Common sense tells us that the distinction between "exists" and "doesn't exist" is not always so clear. The latest discoveries and theories in modern physics have demonstrated this. Some of the greatest scientific minds have shown that time-travel and other conditions necessary for UFOs or intuitive arts like Astrology are theoretically possible. Yet scientists continue to deny that Astrology has any validity.

Scientists make inaccurate statements about Astrology because they never bother to actually study it. But we astrologers don't generally read the latest Science journals, so we're unaware of how many false statements are being made about Astrology. And unless we've studied our own history, astrologers don't realize that modern attacks by scientists are simply a re-hashing of the same worn-out old arguments which were refuted by the astrologers of ancient times.

There is much evidence that scientists feel threatened by Astrology. Recently, there was an important scientists' convention called "The Flight from Science and Reason." According to the New York Times,¹² this meeting was organized as a call to arms where defenders of scientific methods were urged to attack alternative healing, Astrology, and the paranormal (ESP, out-of-body experiences, and UFOs). As one of the leaders of this meeting said, "It's time to get nasty, to launch a crusade against quackery."

You've probably heard that similar meetings have occurred in the past, but the voices in this one are particularly desperate and vicious. When the participants called people who study mystical arts "lunatics and fascists," they did not seem to be aware of their own "flight from reason." While accusing the growth of alternative views like Astrology as being a "cognitive disease that could unravel democracy," the organizers themselves did not allow equal time for debate. They said that "enemies of Science" would have ample opportunity for expression on TV talk shows and the popular press.

Those of us who study Astrology must not underestimate the predatory nature of our opponents. Scientists have been debunking Astrology for centuries, and since they haven't been able to make Astrology "go away," the predators have now decided to swallow their prey whole. It isn't debunking that is going on anymore, it's revisionism. Scientists are taking entire conceptual frameworks originally developed and held by astrologers, and are claiming that Science has discovered them. They have initiated a massive propaganda campaign to rewrite and regurgitate these ideas, claiming the vomited prey as their own creation.

Until recently, the issue of accepting or rejecting Astrology was pretty simple, it was just us versus them. -- There were two opposing camps: the outright debunking by fundamentalist-religion/establishment-Science on the one side (attacks that were poorly conducted but widely publicized), and the attempts to validate Astrology on the other (successful in themselves but suppressed and censored). Despite the ongoing public interest in Astrology, which is at best superficial dabbling, this issue has now developed into something much more complex and insidious, and it is vitally important for the survival of Astrology that we astrologers understand the history of debunking in order to grasp the threat of our current situation.

Much of the history of debunking and defending Astrology is given in the latest edition of John Anthony West's The Case for Astrology, a book that should be required reading for every astrologer, amateur and professional alike. West addresses the problem that there are very few people -- astrologers, scientists, or the general public -- who are knowledgeable about the experiments that have proven the validity of astrological premises, much less who are informed on how to "test" Astrology and what constitutes an appropriate experiment.

Perhaps the best known proof of Astrology lies in the voluminous files of Michel Gauquelin, the "single, major corpus of unassailable positive scientific evidence supporting Astrology."[13] Gauquelin's story is also proof of the shameful hypocrisy of some scientists. For over thirty years, Gauquelin assembled and studied data which incorporated tens of thousands of charts. He performed his work meticulously according to the strictest and most acceptable scientific methods. Yet his attempts to get this data reviewed, criticized and replicated by scientists was met by evasion, abuse, neglect, deliberate lies, and fraud.[14] The result has been blatant censorship -- no one except a few astrologers and some sniggering scientists know much about this profound work. Then we have the case of Carl Jung, who conducted experiments to look for astrological factors in the horoscopes of married couples. His results were statistically significant, but again, few people have heard of it.[15]

Professional psychology and social science journals have occasionally published the results of experiments testing whether birthdates are correlated with patterns of personality and career. The typical conclusion of these articles is "because this test failed to validate a correlation, Astrology is not true." The lack of evidence in this case is due not so much to direct anti-Astrology bias, but to the inappropriate manner in which Astrology is "tested," usually according to Sun Signs and without any real understanding of the more complex variables. The audacity of scientists performing such experiments is revealed when we invert our perspective: the equivalent situation would be astrologers deciding on the validity of the entire field of psychology by testing whether one of psychology's superficial principles was confirmed according to the total complexity of astrological analysis.

The hubris of Science is to assume that the scientific method can be used to validate everything. A system based on quantitative analysis, like Science, is limited when it attempts to measure "things" (like human personality) which are intrinsically qualitative. An example is music: you can measure physical phenomena like loudness or the number of instruments, but knowing this will not explain why one person likes Mozart and another prefers muzak, much less will it address the question of whether one is qualitatively "better music."

There are several problems involved in finding evidence to prove Astrology. It is difficult to apply statistical analysis to personality correlations because there are just too many factors involved which are not easily isolated (both the human characteristics and the astrological indicators -- planets, signs, aspects, etc.). As one scientist remarked, "Consciousness is so messy." In this regard, it is important to distinguish the principles of Astrology from the practice of Astrology, which is based on interpretation. The closest comparison we can make is with medicine, where certain principles are "absolute" (a cancerous growth can kill someone), but there is room for interpretation (surgery may or may not be the best solution -- why else are you advised to "seek a second opinion?"). Even so, the "principles" of medical science are changing all the time, whereas the astrological premise (that celestial-terrestrial correlations exist) is much more stable and has withstood thousands of years of changes in the practice or interpretation.

There is plenty of evidence for Astrology to be found within our own literature in the form of confirmed predictions. But of course, debunkers dismiss these correct predictions as coincidence, or as a result of the power of suggestion, or as circumstances which cannot be tested by replication (how can it be, when the planetary positions are in constant flux and the celestial portrait is never exactly duplicated?). A counter-argument to this is to ask why the supposed poor record of astrological predictions was brought up in the first place. Debunkers can't have it both ways, claiming that incorrect Astrology predictions are proof that Astrology doesn't work, but correct predictions don't "count." If that logic were applied to modern medicine, none of us would dare consult a doctor. Apply it to the National Weather Service, and we'd all go back to relying on the Farmer's Almanac (which is evidently based on Astrology, though no one will admit it).
 

The fact is, the modern scientific view (or prejudice, which I prefer to call it) demands a double standard. Predictions or testing which are labelled "scientific" are acceptable; anything else isn't ... no matter what the track record says. There really is no point in attempting to "prove" Astrology along these lines; however, that is where the literal minds reside, so if you want to play their little game (or are forced to through their attacks), you must really educate yourself about "proof."

So let us turn to the positive scientific evidence for Astrology, which is found mostly in areas outside of the practice of horoscope-personality interpretation. And here we must put our minds in a scientific uniform and adopt another language. If you want to research the scientific evidence for Astrology, you must search the literature of Science for keywords like chronobiology (biological clocks), circadian (or diurnal) rhythmicity, sunspot cycles, planetary resonance, stock market periodicity, cyclical weather variability, monthly fluctuations, geophysical periodism, biological consequences of soli-lunar geomagnetic variations, or (as John West has quipped) "geocosmic astropsychological stellarbiotics." A great deal of this evidence has been summarized in the following books, any of which should be important additions to the astrologer's library:

Percy Seymour, Astrology: The Evidence of Science

 Percy Seymour, The Scientific Basis of Astrology

 Hans Eysenck, Astrology: Science or Superstition?

 Paul Katzeff, Moon Madness

 Derek Parker, Astrology in the Modern World

 Edward Dewey, Cycles: The Mysterious Forces that Trigger Events

 Edward Dewey, Cycles: The Science of Prediction

 John T. Burns, Cosmic Influences on Humans, Animals and Plants

 any books by Michel Gauquelin,

and, of course, West's The Case for Astrology.
 

Space will not allow us to review all of this evidence, but we can look at a few examples that demonstrate the typical format. We can start with the birds and the bees.[16] It has long been known that homing pigeons and wild birds use the sun as a compass, along with a time sense which allows them to take into account the daily motion of the sun. But some birds, like European warblers, fly mostly at night, and individually (not in flocks), and thus could not be using the sun or the flock to orient themselves. What scientists have come to observe is that some species of migratory birds are guided by the stars in their travels of many thousands of miles.

It was discovered that warblers have a remarkable mechanism for orienting themselves by the stars which is evidently hereditary. A test was performed in which warblers were hatched and raised completely in isolation in chambers where the illusion of eternal summer was maintained. In autumn, these birds became restless, flitting about night after night for many weeks, the time it would have taken them to fly south to their winter home in Africa.

In another experiment, warblers were placed in a glass-topped cage from which the starry night sky was visible, and all of the birds positioned themselves pointing southeast, the direction of their normal migratory path. In further experiments, cages of these warblers were placed inside a planetarium dome that showed images of constellations matching those seen at the season of migration, and still the birds took up their positions aligned with the proper direction for flying south.

What does all this have to do with Astrology? Let's hear what one scientist wrote: "Warblers have a remarkable hereditary mechanism for orienting themselves by the stars -- a detailed image of the starry configuration of the sky coupled with a precise time sense which relates the heavenly canopy to the geography of the earth at every time and season." This italicized statement could easily be a definition of how Astrology "works" -- with humans! Why do scientists consider this an acceptable explanation for birds but not people?

Scientists have "proved" that bees and other insects instinctively orient themselves according to the sun. They have shown that most animals have some kind of sixth sense about finding direction and location in space by a magnetic force and/or by celestial indicators. Many experiments have been performed that demonstrate or at least imply that humans are just as susceptible to natural rhythms and planetary influences as are animals. These tests concern the effect of gravitation, light radiation, biological clocks, lunar changes, solar activity, and the earth's magnetic field. It has been shown that animals have inherited or instinctual responses to such effects. Is it such a grand leap of faith to go from accepting such "hereditary sixth sense" characteristics in animals to acknowledging the identical "astrological" influence on humans?

The late John Addey, who is considered to be one of the greatest astrologers of this century, addressed this issue. He wrote, "Of all the astrological problems which beckon us from the future, there is one which must excite the thoughtful astrologer more than any other ... This is the question of how Astrology and genetics are to be related, and how the genetic code is expressed astrologically ... It therefore follows -- and we must be quite clear about this, it does inevitably follow -- that the astrological code, by which the horoscope is interpreted, must be in agreement with the genetic code by which natural traits are transmitted from one generation to the next."

With recent developments in genetics, we find scientists concerning themselves with issues that have long been discussed among astrologers. The question of fate versus free will, so often used to debunk Astrology, is really quite similar to the scientific debate on nature vs. nurture ... do we inherit characteristics or are they socially induced? There is also the related idea of cloning (replication of individuals), which is analogous to what happens when two (or more) people share the same or similar birthchart. Twins, for example, share similar DNA patterns as well as nearly duplicate horoscopes.

Scientists often use the phenomenon of twins to explain heredity as well as to debunk Astrology. Regarding the question of whether manic-depression is inheritable, scientists cite the strong evidence of twins. Studies show that, if an identical twin has manic-depressive illness, the other twin has a 70-to-100 percent chance of also having the disease. One investigation of twins reared apart from birth, where at least one twin is diagnosed as manic-depressive, found that two-thirds of the pairs shared this same condition. What is interesting is that scientists see this as evidence of heredity, while it can just as easily be seen as proof of Astrology, for twins have obvious similarities in their birthcharts. In an interesting twist, many scientists perform statistical experiments which highlight the differences between twins, which they then claim is proof that Astrology is "wrong." The fact is, the similarities are there, and you can call it heredity or Astrology, as you wish.

Reports of investigation into what we would call astrological correlations continue to be published in "respectable" Science journals, but you must look for the scientific keywords listed above. The Foundation for the Study of Cycles has almost completely usurped this aspect of Astrology by pursuing their stated purpose of "fostering and conducting scientific research in rhythmic fluctuations in natural and social phenomena." This organization sponsors a great deal of research into the planetary patterns that correlate with weather, earthquakes, human behavior, and the stock market.

Up until recently, the borders of knowledge have been very clear cut. Science is here and Astrology is over there, outside. But something's been changing. In 1975, when 186 scientists put their signatures to the infamous Objections to Astrology, few people would have believed that only twenty years later, a scientist would be bothered with writing a book on the history of the occult (Anthony Aveni, Behind the Crystal Ball). Fewer still would have imagined that an astrologer (yours truly) would attempt to write about the history of Science. But this is what we've come to, a borderland that could become a battleground of impass and stalemate, or a point of convergence and merging of opposites.

The transition away from a straightforward dialectic of acceptance-rejection can be observed in the recent history of the publication Cycles (produced by the Foundation for the Study of Cycles). In the 1960s and 70s, articles were published that overtly recognized astrological cycles in weather, stock market, etc., but then there was a shift to publishing the same kind of articles where there was absolutely no mention of the A-word. I have much respect for the originator of this foundation, Edward Dewey, and for the earlier issues where the word "Astrology" was used freely. I don't take issue when Astrology is being acknowledged or even when it is openly rejected. However, having spent several days at the UMass Library looking at every single back issue of Cycles, it became quite obvious that at some point in the 1970s (around the time that Objections to Astrology was published), they stopped using the A-word almost completely, They were practicing Astrology but calling it something else, and this is what's at the crux of recent developments. How can Astrology survive when academic and established Sciences are plagarizing Astrology and taking all the credit (including status and financial rewards)?

So here we are, surrounded by scientific debunkers on one side, revisionists on another, religious fundamentalists on yet another, and meanwhile, half the population is hopping on the bandwagon of the New Age, a vehicle that has been speeding along and leaving Astrology in the dust. Astrologers are trying to stand our ground, and it's shaky ground indeed. How did we get in this situation? Especially considering that all we've been doing is "minding our own business" for the past twenty years, naively traipsing down an introverted garden path, idealizing various signs like the Uranus-Neptune conjunction as enthusiasm for the New Age and the revival of Astrology. It's time to wake up to what is really going on.

Ouright debunking is still going on among the readers of Skeptical Inquirer and aging members of CSICOPS, but the fact is, it has become no longer fashionable. Even the latest rehashing by that ever-popular "Barry Manilow of Science," Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, received a poor reception in the New York Times Book Review.[17]

Fashion is a keyword here. The American public has "discovered" the New Age, but it understands it only as a style (which can be packaged and sold), not a philosophy. Social analysts view the New Age as a fad or a typical expression of American restlessness.[18] So let's not kid ourselves. Just because there is plenty of "integration" of alternative health techniques into mainstream medicine, and more people are eating yogurt, this is no guarantee that Astrology is more "acceptable."

What has been happening is very subtle. During the 1980s and early 1990s, a kind of paradigm shift became apparent: scientists "discovered" consciousness and patterns of cycle, they began creating their own terminology for astrological principles, without giving any acknowledgment whatsoever to Astrology or the work done by astrologers.[19] Scientists are currently claiming their "discovery" of what Astrology has always known. They've taken astrological principles like As Above, So Below, and given it names like Grand Unification Theory, Gaia Hypothesis, Symbiosis, Morphic Resonance, or the Science of Fractal Geometry. Among these writings there is no recognition of the astrological basis of these concepts, nor is Astrology given any credit. Examples of this revisionism are numerous. Archaeo-astronomers don't identify the astrological factors contained in Mayan codices; they call it "calendaring." Academic scholars who study the ancient Astrology systems of primitive cultures are calling themselves "ethno-astronomers."

The scientific cover-up is clear if you just look carefully. One of my "favorites" in the category of ethno-astronomer and "old school" debunker is E. C. Krupp, author of Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost Civilizations and Beyond the Blue Horizon. Krupp writes a regular column in Sky & Telescope, a popular astronomy magazine, and he can be counted on as a dependable source of aggravation. Imagine my surprise, upon reading one of his recent edicts,[20] to find him slipping dangerously close to the edge of that border that scientists have constructed to keep Astrology out.

Krupp was discussing multiple conjunctions of planets, and here are his words, expressed in a totally serious vein: "Together they act like witnesses of high celestial status. They are honorably assembled and seem to stand ready for a wedding, coronation, or some other significant event." He then goes on to describe how the massing of planets was once believed by the Chinese to signal and justify dynastic change. Again, I quote directly from his article: "It's possible these traditions persist, for I recall getting up before sunrise on Tuesday, November 4, 1980, to have a look at the massing of Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, and the Moon in Virgo [he means the constellation, not the zodiacal sign]. That configuration must have had something to do with dynastic succession, because it occurred on Election Day. Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter..."

I was only temporarily shocked, however, for just one paragraph further ahead, Krupp was back on track, bashing Von Daniken's ancient astronaut theory and then the Nostradamus "nonsense." Near the end of the article, he had nearly returned to normal: "In our era pseudoscience more frequently allies conjunctions and planetary alignments with earthquakes and global catastrophes than with the installation of presidents and kings." [Oh, really? -- But wait, there's more to come!]

Krupp concludes his discussion of conjunctions by referring disparagingly to the earthquakes portended by a five-planet line-up in [the constellation] Aries on May 5, 2000. Krupp is adamant about conjunctions never being capable of triggering earthquakes, yet he evidently believes they can influence elections, and to top it off, this scientist even gives an astrological prediction: "Although I think about seismic uncertainty, I don't worry about celestial conspiracies, and I am not losing any sleep over the conjunction to come. Whoever is in office, however, will probably want to keep in mind that A.D. 2000 is an election year. The planets gathered together then may have a message for the administration and Congress."

You can see from Krupp's article that it's a very short step for a scientist to start claiming the "discovery" of (what we know is) Astrology, while never mentioning the word itself but still getting in digs at those who believe in it. You have to wonder what is really going on in the mind of this scientist. I may be totally off the mark, but my take on this is that Krupp is not simply being flippant or sarcastic. Derision is a mask for the unconscious. I think he, like most scientists, is your typical garden-variety rationalist. He has recognized that there is some kind of connecion between "as above" and "so below," but to admit that openly would contradict an entire structure upon which his life is based -- not just his mechanistic, rational "philosophy," but his job, his reputation, his ego. Consequently he must remain in denial about a very deep confusion.

It is a fact of spiritual evolvement that confusion is the state of mind that precedes enlightenment, the breakthrough into growth of consciousness. We have all experienced this kind of awakening. We go along in life, confident in our attitude about how things work according to our beliefs, and then something doesn't fit this pattern. So we push it away and deny it until it just gets so intrusive and obvious that we become very confused. When the belief system is challenged, we must either submit to change (which demands the humility of acknowledging vulnerability), experience the crisis, and reconstruct, or continue to delude ourselves and go crazy.

The same process is occurring on larger cultural levels. The intuitive and non-rational realities are becoming so obvious that Science and consensus reality structures must either change or become schizoid. My prediction is that the hard-core debunkers will go bonkers, while the craftier types will opt for revisionism in order to avoid insanity but still retain their sense of power and righteousness. When you boil it down, it's just an ego game. What is funny is that the term "ego game" is an oxymoron, for the only way you really "win" in life (achieve higher consciousness) is when the ego loses.

This is why scientists must go all the way and even claim to have also "discovered" consciousness. Their books on the subject are being advertised as "offering open-minded scientists fresh explanations to paradoxes that have been baffling them for years." What a publicity stunt! Scientists haven't lost a wink of sleep over being baffled, they've been in denial. A well-known mathematician recently wrote a book[21] which discusses ancient astronomy, world ages, how cycles of time affect people and history, New Year festivals, the celestial order, the gods and goddesses, ancient mythology, even the Zodiac. There is exactly one sentence in the entire book containing the word "Astrology."

If this doesn't get your attention, then take a look at the cover of the October 1995 issue of Sky and Telescope. Superimposed over a flashy depiction of the astrological Zodiac are the words "The Real Zodiac --Who Fashioned These Starry Patterns and Why." In the article itself you will not find any mention of the astrological basis of the Zodiac.

These scientific "discoveries" are simply an intellectual form of land-grabbing. Respectable scientists are now pumping out best-sellers on Atlantis, the Pyramids, God, and meditation. This Manifest Destiny of Science extends beyond Astrology to other fields which have been struggling against prejudice and debunking for decades, notably UFOlogy. An example is the book Cosmic Voyage: A Scientific Discovery of Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth, which has been advertised with the words: "Aliens do exist. Ask the scientist who's met one."[22] The presumption is clear: if a scientist says so, it must be true. And because scientists supposedly worship objectivity, we can trust what they say. Science has placed holy sanction on certain topics, so now we're supposed to bow down and give thanks to them for the New Age of Enlightenment? And praise famous scientists for spreading the gospel of New Science?

The astronomer Anthony Aveni has brought the revisionists' farce full circle by rewriting the entire history of all the occult arts.[23] Here is a scientist claiming to be an authority on the occult -- a man who, in his own words, believes "Astrology is dead" and in an "unresurrectable state." Yet many astrologers think we should be celebrating a revival?

Astrology is not experiencing a revival on its own terms; it has been absorbed by the revisionists. Modern Scientific Revisionism has basically swallowed up the history of Astrology and rewritten it as the history of Science. Until the Scientific Revolution, Astrology was a multipurpose endeavor. Astrologers were also astronomers, meteorologists, and mathematicians; they devised calendars, predicted weather, and understood the physics of the heavens. Because the scientific view has taken over history and downplayed the role of Astrology, many early astrologers have been renamed "astronomers."

Don't let yourself be persuaded by modern scientists who propound and exalt the "long history" of astronomy, referring to the great discoveries of "ancient astronomers." What we now call "astronomy" was known for thousands of years as "natural astrology." And it was merely one small field of study contained within the much more comprehensive and complex discipline of astrology. It was not until after the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century that natural astrology was claimed as the intellectual property of science and was renamed astronomy. The historical truth is, there never were any "ancient astronomers." There were only astrologers practicing natural astrology.

History is not only written by the victors, it is thoroughly revised by those in power, and science is now the ruling intellectual paradigm. Every one of us has been brainwashed by this scientific revisionism. For example, when we think of Ptolemy, Galileo, Kepler, or Tycho Brahe, we have been taught to think "astronomer." Actually, these so-called "early scientists" were well known in their own times for their practice of Astrology. You can look through the entire history of astronomy, and you will find that almost every "astronomer" who lived before the Enlightenment (around 1750) was practicing Astrology. Revisionism explains why we assume there is so little "history of Astrology." If today's astrologers are interested in "claiming their history," they have the right to the intellectual territory of almost all the history of astronomy prior to 1750. After all, that's what the Science revisionists have done, saying that it's all theirs.

Perhaps one of the most flaunting displays of the scientists' takeover of Astrology is contained in a recent article in the British publication, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society,²⁴ entitled "The Magi's Star from the Perspective of Ancient Astrological Practices." The author, Dr. Michael Molnar, makes a convincing argument that the Magi (who were astrologers) anticipated Christ as a "King of the Jews" because his birth corresponded to a lunar occultation of Jupiter on March 20, 6 BC, thus exhibiting astrological attributes found in typical imperial horoscopes of that era. To make his point, Molnar, an astronomer, actually performs astrological interpretation of the birthcharts of Augustus Caesar, Hadrian, Tiberius, and Jesus Christ, based on the principles in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and other contemporary astrological texts.

Prior to reading this article, I had been communicating with Molnar, identifying myself only as a graduate student (which I am) interested in astrological symbols on ancient coins, a subject which is his specialty, and he had been very friendly and sent me many materials. After I read this article, I wrote him again, this time identifying myself as an astrologer, correcting one of his statements (he had said that the Part of Fortune was no longer used by astrologers), and recommending that he contact Project Hindsight about "better" translations of Ptolemy and other ancient writers. He wrote back to thank me and ask me to proofread and review the draft for his book, The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi, which was just published (1999) and includes my name in the list of acknowledgements. Molnar is an exception; the bulk of academic and science professionals don't bother to communicate with astrologers.
 

There is a message in all of this for astrologers to get our professional trip together. We cannot continue our idealistic fantasy existence, deluding ourselves as having some kind of special, mystically-ordained, and separate reality. The territorial grab being driven by Science-defined conventional realists can easily absorb such an amorphous "structure" as modern Astrology. Astrological language is being deleted and supplanted by scientific terminology. We are being dispossessed of our astrological principles, and we're too far outside the mainstream to even notice.

Astrology has research applications in all other fields of knowledge -- weather, psychology, economics, you name it. This is perhaps a clue to what threatens the establishment -- because scientific thinking cannot grasp what Astrology really is, scientists ignore it or reject it outright. What looks to them like inconsistency is actually complexity. They continue to use their fat grants to search for the grand unification theory, but meanwhile astrologers have got the map to what is already unified. Unfortunately, we ourselves are not unified. Astrology may be a comprehensive system, but we don't have enough respect for it to get ourselves organized and devise a teaching system worthy of the subject.

Can astrologers defend themselves? There are ways. Fight fire with fire. Learn about Science and how it operates. Know your enemy. Take a course in scientific reasoning, the philosophy of logic, or comparative religions, and meet the debunkers and revisionists on their own turf. Understand their Achilles Heel: they haven't studied Astrology and their thinking about it is immature and out-of-date. Sound like too big of a challenge? There are more modest options:

Do what you can to improve your own knowledge of Astrology, so that you can answer the debunkers' attacks from a firm and educated foundation. Read the books suggested in this article. Erode the system from within and teach Astrology to your children or grandchildren. Go to libraries and make requests that they purchase specific Astrology books. (Public libraries are required by law to offer free access to whatever information the public demands.) Help support the groups that are collecting and organizing astrological writings so these won't be lost to future generations. (Our modern age has its own version of the Inquisition: it's called legislation against fortunetellers. Modern book-burning? It's called the delete button.) The real issue here is freedom of information.

And the real "meaning" of the New Age of Enlightenment (Uranus in Aquarius and Pluto in Sagittarius) is an invitation to cross the "borders" that we think exist between scientific explanation and mythic-symbolic interpretation such as Astrology. What we will learn during the next decade is that the "border" between reality and fantasy, between objective Science and subjective consciousness, between nature and the supernatural, is an artificial one. As we accept a broader, more inclusive, and wholistic perspective of knowledge (one that encompasses Astrology), such borders dissolve, and we can enjoy greater intellectual freedom. But we should not sacrifice our own identity by allowing Science to define the New Age.

This article was previously published in The Mountain Astrologer (Dec 1996).
 
 

References

[1] For a detailed discussion, see David Hughes, The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomer's Confirmation. N.Y.: Walker (1979).

[2] Regarding the astrological prediction of the birth of Christ, the strongest argument is found in The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi by Michael Molnar, Rutgers University Press (1999).

[3] See J.L.E. Dreyer, Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the 16th Century. Dover (1963); and C. Doris Hellman, The Comet of 1577: Its Place in the History of Astronomy.

[4] Patrick Curry, Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England (Princeton Univ. Press, 1989), p. 28.

[5] Donald Papon (Zolar), The Lure of the Heavens: A History of Astrology (Samuel Weiser, 1972), p. 204.

[6] C.J.S. Thompson, The Mystery and Romance of Astrology (Barnes & Noble, 1993), pp. 188 ff.

[7] Alfred J. Pearce, The Textbook of Astrology (London: Cousins, 1889), Vol. II, p. 241.

[8] Octagon, 1973, page v.

[9] L. Guarico, Tractatus astrologiae iudiciariae de nativitatibus virorum et mulierum (Venice, 1552).

[10] Walker, 1968, pp. 90-91.

[11] A summary of the data may be found in Derek Parker, Astrology in the Modern World (Taplinger, 1970) and in H.J. Eysenck, Astrology: Science or Superstition? (St. Martin's, 1982).

¹²New York Times, June 6, 1995, section C. For coverage of a similar gathering, the 20th anniversary CSICOPS conference entitled Science in the Age of (Mis)Information, see the article "They Shoot Down the Paranormal, UFO's, and Other Flights of Fancy," New York Times, July 7, 1996.

[13]John West, The Case for Astrology, Arkana (1992), p. 233. Gauquelin has published several books, with several translated into English, including Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior, Garnstone (1973), Cosmic Clocks, Paladin (1973), and Birthtimes, Hilland Wang (1983).

[14]With few exceptions: Suitbert Ertel, whose publications are in mainly in German, has tested and confirmed the reality of the Mars Effect. Two articles in English are found in Correlation, Vol. 7, and Journal of Scientific Exploration (Vol. 2, No.1).

[15]Carl Jung, "An Astrological Experiment," which is part of "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle," in The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Volume 8 of The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Princeton Univ. Press, pp. 459 ff. See also "An Astrological Experiment," in The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. 18 of The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Princeton Univ. Press, pp. 494 ff.

[16]For a more complete examination, see R. Robin Baker, Human Navigation and the Sixth Sense, Simon & Schuster (1981).

[17]April 7, 1996, p. 10.

[18]See David Hess, Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture., Univ. of Wisconsin Press (1993).

[19]Some of the examples of this were mentioned in my "Anti-Astrology Update" published in TMA Jan. '96

[20]"Gathered Here Together," Sky & Telescope (Nov. 1995), pp. 60-61.

[21]Ralph Abraham, Chaos, Gaia, Eros, HarperSanFrancisco (1994).

[22]New York Times Book Review, January 21,'96

[23]Behind the Crystal Ball: Magic, Science, and the Occult from Antiquity through the New Age, Random House (1996).

²⁴Vol. 36 (1995), pp. 109-126.