Astrology and Astrologers Put to Test

A book I read some years ago, Under One Sky (2004), brainchild of Rafael Nasser, contains the biography of a woman, completely unknown to twelve well-respected astrologers. Each astrologer was tasked to give their "blind" interpretation of the anonymous woman's personality and life history, with only her birth data for guidance. Each used their own specialised system:
DEMETRA GEORGE - Asteroid Focus
EVELYN ROBERTS - Archetypal
GARY CHRISTEN - Uranian
HADLEY FITZGERALD - Psychological
JOHN MARCHESELLA - Modern Western
KEN BOWSER - Western Sidereal
KIM ROGERS-GALLAGHER - Light-hearted
ROBERT HAND - Medieval
ROBERT SCHMIDT - Hellenistic
RONNIE GALE DREYER - Vedic
STEVEN FORREST - Evolutionary
WENDY Z. ASHLEY - Mythological


The astrologers specified how and why they reached the conclusions they did.

The subject's biography is stated in detail, by the woman herself - a little wordy for my taste. I discovered her identity later (see here).

As I read the biography I picked out a few key points which, in my opinion, ought to come through loud and clear in an accurate interpretation. These were: world travel; academic ability; spirituality; health problems/accidents; relationship with her father.

It wasn't as easy as I'd imagined it would be to see clearly which astrologer had come closest to describing the anonymous woman. Some astrologers were overly wordy, somewhat woolly too in places! Finally I concluded that one astrologer who used the sidereal zodiac, and one who used the tropical, delivered the best, clearest, and most accurate reports. I'll refrain from naming names, because my opinion could differ wildly from another reader's.

For astrology-minded readers this is a fascinating book, I learned one or two things from reading it:

1. Both tropical and sidereal zodiacs can work, in the right hands.

2. Too many words muddy the waters, even when the writer obviously has style and flair.

3. A light touch is best.

4. Not everything is shown in a birth chart, even when experts translate.

5. Basic, bog-standard tropical astrology can be as accurate as the most complex specialised methods, or use of a variety of different celestial bodies, or myths.

A discussion about the book at the Skyscript forum dating from 2010 reveals a variety of opinions on the interpretations, and some disappointment on the performance of astrologers involved in the book's experiment.

Whether interpreting birth data in such a "blind" situation is a fair test of either astrology or astrologers is open to question. On the surface, and to any reader with little astrological knowledge, it might seem to be a reasonable test, but I have doubts. Almost everything in astrology is open to more than a single, black/white interpretation. Expecting a "blind" reading to be more than part-accurate at best would be placing an unnatural strait-jacket on the ancient art. We humans do not fit into astrological strait-jackets (though a few out there in Washington DC might benefit from being strapped into a regular one).

Under One Sky & Heading Out

Under One Sky, (2004) brainchild of Rafael Nasser, contains the biography of a woman, completely unknown to 12 different, well-respected astrologers. In its pages each astrologer gives their "blind" interpretation of the woman's personality and life history, with only her birth data for guidance. Each used their own specialised system. Systems include Vedic, Western, Mediaeval, Hellenistic, Mythological, Evolutionary, Archetypal, Uranian, Psychological, Western Sidereal, and Light-hearted. The astrologers specify how and why they reached the concusions they did.

The subject's biography is stated in detail, by the woman herself - a little wordy, lots of detail. I picked out a few key points which, in my opinion, ought to come through loud and clear in an accurate interpretation. These were: world travel; academic ability; spirituality; health problems/accidents; relationship with her father.

It wasn't as easy as I imagined it'd be to see clearly which astrologer had come closest to describing the anonymous woman. Some astrologers were overly wordy, somewhat woolly too in places! Finally I concluded that one astrologer who used the sidereal zodiac, and one who used the tropical, delivered the best, clearest, and most accurate reports. No names, no pack drill (don't want to get into trouble!)

For astrology-minded readers this is a fascinating book, I definitely learned one or two things from reading it:

1. Both tropical and sidereal zodiacs work, in the right hands.

2. Too many words muddy the waters, even when the writer obviously has style and flair.

3. A light touch is best.

4. Not everything is shown in a birth chart, even when experts translate.

5. Basic tropical astrology can be as accurate as the most complicated specialised type, or using a variety of different celestial bodies, or myths.

HEADING OUT

Tomorrow we'll be heading west and to higher, cooler ground for a few days, so the blog will be quiet 'til we return. Where are we going? Clue below but, as John Steinbeck said:

"A journey is like marriage. The certain way to be wrong is to think you control it."

John - still and always sadly missed.