Mercury retrograde/plane crashes

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/4/00 12:34:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

skinbags writes:

 

<< I for one won't be getting on a plane when Mercury is retrograde as there

always seems to be a plane disaster when Mercury is retrograde. >>

 

You don't have to hold your breath! It already happened...the Singapore

Airlines flight that went down the wrong runway during low visibility and a

typhoon. The plane hit a bunch of cinder blocks and construction equipment.

That's a real Mercury retrograde happening.

 

Here's Michael Wolfstar's wrap-up, "Investigators concluded that pilot error

was responsible for the crash of Singapore Airlines Flight 006 that killed 81

of the 179 people on board. The jumbo jet zoomed down the wrong runway when

cleared for takeoff, struck some equipment, and burst into flames. The crash

occurred last Tuesday, October 31 at 11:17 pm in Taipei, Taiwan."

 

Lalia

[Guest guest]

At 06:18 PM 11/4/00 EST, you wrote:

>In a message dated 11/4/00 12:34:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>skinbags writes:

>

><< I for one won't be getting on a plane when Mercury is retrograde as

there

>always seems to be a plane disaster when Mercury is retrograde. >>

>

>You don't have to hold your breath! It already happened...the Singapore

>Airlines flight that went down the wrong runway during low visibility and a

>typhoon. The plane hit a bunch of cinder blocks and construction

equipment.

>That's a real Mercury retrograde happening.

 

Hi Lalia:

 

Not to sound like a wet blanket or anything, but really the only way to

conclusively prove that Mercury retrograde has these sorts of effects is to

undertake a systematic study of all plane crashes over, say, a ten-year

period, and then compare the rate of crashes that occurred with Mercury Rx

with the rate of crashes that occurred when Mercury was in forward motion.

Anything else, like this recent Singapore Airlines crash, is just

anecdotal and not really noteworthy. I wonder if there is a single site we

could find on the net that would have such accumlated information for us to

peruse. I'm open-minded on the whole question myself. I wouldn't be

surprised if there was no correlation at all, since it's a fairly general

non-specific sort of phenomenon. OTOH, I would expect it to have some find

of correlation over time, since that is one of the alleged effects of

Mercury Rx is supposed to be.

 

Chris

 

 

>

>Here's Michael Wolfstar's wrap-up, "Investigators concluded that pilot error

>was responsible for the crash of Singapore Airlines Flight 006 that killed

81

>of the 179 people on board. The jumbo jet zoomed down the wrong runway when

>cleared for takeoff, struck some equipment, and burst into flames. The crash

>occurred last Tuesday, October 31 at 11:17 pm in Taipei, Taiwan."

>

>Lalia

>

>

>gjlist-

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris--

 

This is an intriguing idea you have! The (US) National Transportional

Safety Board (NTSB) maintains a web site of US plane crashes at

http://nasdac.faa.gov/asp/fw_ntsb.asp. The study you propose could be

implemented with a small team. The first step would be to agree on what

constitutes a "crash". Does a so-called "incident" count? Do we limit the

study to just accidents with fatalities? Whatever. Next, we define what we

expect a crash distribution WOULD look like if there were no Mercurial

influence. We also define at this stage a confidence level criteria which

we'll use in the final state to accept or reject the proposal that there is

no Mercurial influence on plane crashes.

 

Then, a couple of people independently go through the database to

assemble a list of plane crashes over the last several years and then they

cross-match each others' entries to make sure they have everything and

haven't erroneously included something they shouldn't have.

 

When they're finished, they report the NUMBER (but not dates or anything

else) of crashes to another person, who generates a list of bogus crash

dates and times spanning the same timeline. Maybe, this person generates

several lists of bogus crash dates, but does so without regard for the

actual dates of crashes--that is, it's possible that some bogus crash dates

correspond with real crash dates.

 

While they're doing that, others can be preparing a list of dates of

Merc retros during the same timeline and cross-match with each other.

 

Then a dispassionate person or persons does a chi-square analysis on the

frequencies of the crashes within and without Merc retro times as opposed to

the expected frequencies if there were no Mercurial influence. This person

has no knowledge of which dataset is the real crash data and which

dataset(s) are bogus. Minitab can handle this easily (I know, because I use

Minitab to analyze computer network performance instrumentation), but

chi-square is so easy anyone could write the code to do it without the need

for special statistical software.

 

We then write a report and we're done.

 

My guess is that this is a six-month project. Any takers?

 

jpd

 

 

>Hi Lalia:

>

>Not to sound like a wet blanket or anything, but really the only way to

>conclusively prove that Mercury retrograde has these sorts of effects is to

>undertake a systematic study of all plane crashes over, say, a ten-year

>period, and then compare the rate of crashes that occurred with Mercury Rx

>with the rate of crashes that occurred when Mercury was in forward motion.

>Anything else, like this recent Singapore Airlines crash, is just

>anecdotal and not really noteworthy. I wonder if there is a single site we

>could find on the net that would have such accumlated information for us to

>peruse. I'm open-minded on the whole question myself. I wouldn't be

>surprised if there was no correlation at all, since it's a fairly general

>non-specific sort of phenomenon. OTOH, I would expect it to have some find

>of correlation over time, since that is one of the alleged effects of

>Mercury Rx is supposed to be.

>

>Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/5/00 12:51:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ckevill writes:

 

<< Not to sound like a wet blanket or anything, but really the only way to

conclusively prove that Mercury retrograde has these sorts of effects is to

undertake a systematic study of all plane crashes over, say, a ten-year

period, and then compare the rate of crashes that occurred with Mercury Rx

with the rate of crashes that occurred when Mercury was in forward motion. >>

 

I hope no one thinks I am volunteering to undertake a statistical study!

I've been there and done that--on another astrological subject anyway. There

is no paycheck for doing this kind of research and I have too many other

commitments to take the time for this. Maybe some of you independently

wealthy types with time on your hands can do it.

 

Lalia

[Guest guest]

Philip:

 

Count me in -- although I don't think we should go overboard at first.

Maybe a brief exploratory study with a small time frame that could be done

by just one or two people first. If the results are encouraging, then we

could expand it to cover a longer time period, more data points, and

thereby improve its reliability.

 

We could classify crashes into three levels of severity and just follow

them along: 1) for a high profile crash in which many die; 2) for small

engine craft (non-scheduled) with less than 10(?) fatalities and

; 3) for crashes or incidents that were reported but in which there are no

fatalities. Something like that, anyway.

 

I appreciate your concern to overcome bias, to that sounds a bit much for

me. Since the dates are readily verifiable, there shouldn't be much

concern over "selectivity" bias, especially if we are using a neutral

database. In the initial stages of such a study, I don't think extra

precautions are necessary.

 

Wow, you do minitab? I used it once 15 years ago as an undergrad but have

no idea about it now. Something to discuss for sure.

 

Chris

 

At 12:14 PM 11/5/00 -0600, you wrote:

>Chris--

>

> This is an intriguing idea you have! The (US) National Transportional

>Safety Board (NTSB) maintains a web site of US plane crashes at

>http://nasdac.faa.gov/asp/fw_ntsb.asp. The study you propose could be

>implemented with a small team. The first step would be to agree on what

>constitutes a "crash". Does a so-called "incident" count? Do we limit the

>study to just accidents with fatalities? Whatever. Next, we define what we

>expect a crash distribution WOULD look like if there were no Mercurial

>influence. We also define at this stage a confidence level criteria which

>we'll use in the final state to accept or reject the proposal that there is

>no Mercurial influence on plane crashes.

>

> Then, a couple of people independently go through the database to

>assemble a list of plane crashes over the last several years and then they

>cross-match each others' entries to make sure they have everything and

>haven't erroneously included something they shouldn't have.

>

> When they're finished, they report the NUMBER (but not dates or anything

>else) of crashes to another person, who generates a list of bogus crash

>dates and times spanning the same timeline. Maybe, this person generates

>several lists of bogus crash dates, but does so without regard for the

>actual dates of crashes--that is, it's possible that some bogus crash dates

>correspond with real crash dates.

>

> While they're doing that, others can be preparing a list of dates of

>Merc retros during the same timeline and cross-match with each other.

>

> Then a dispassionate person or persons does a chi-square analysis on the

>frequencies of the crashes within and without Merc retro times as opposed to

>the expected frequencies if there were no Mercurial influence. This person

>has no knowledge of which dataset is the real crash data and which

>dataset(s) are bogus. Minitab can handle this easily (I know, because I use

>Minitab to analyze computer network performance instrumentation), but

>chi-square is so easy anyone could write the code to do it without the need

>for special statistical software.

>

> We then write a report and we're done.

>

> My guess is that this is a six-month project. Any takers?

>

> jpd

>

>

>>Hi Lalia:

>>

>>Not to sound like a wet blanket or anything, but really the only way to

>>conclusively prove that Mercury retrograde has these sorts of effects is to

>>undertake a systematic study of all plane crashes over, say, a ten-year

>>period, and then compare the rate of crashes that occurred with Mercury Rx

>>with the rate of crashes that occurred when Mercury was in forward motion.

>>Anything else, like this recent Singapore Airlines crash, is just

>>anecdotal and not really noteworthy. I wonder if there is a single site we

>>could find on the net that would have such accumlated information for us to

>>peruse. I'm open-minded on the whole question myself. I wouldn't be

>>surprised if there was no correlation at all, since it's a fairly general

>>non-specific sort of phenomenon. OTOH, I would expect it to have some find

>>of correlation over time, since that is one of the alleged effects of

>>Mercury Rx is supposed to be.

>>

>>Chris

>

>

>

>

>gjlist-

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Folks--

 

> Christopher Kevill

> Monday, November 06, 2000 8:37 AM

 

> I appreciate your concern to overcome bias, to that sounds a bit much for

> me. Since the dates are readily verifiable, there shouldn't be much

> concern over "selectivity" bias, especially if we are using a neutral

> database. In the initial stages of such a study, I don't think extra

> precautions are necessary.

 

Chris' suggestion to use the traditional approach is better: A much

shorter pilot study without the sophisticated double-blind antibias controls

to determine if there is anything encouraging to go after with a more

comprehensive one. If the conclusions are favorable, then perhaps we can do

a second study with more people and with the double-blind controls.

 

Would anyone else like to get in on this before Chris and I take this

offline? Without the double-blind controls, it's really quite a

straightforward thing.

 

jpd

 

 

> Wow, you do minitab? I used it once 15 years ago as an undergrad but have

> no idea about it now. Something to discuss for sure.

 

P.S. Chris--You and I must be about the same age; mid-1980s was the first

time I used Minitab, too, as an undergrad. Didn't like it then (maybe

because I was under academic time pressure), but I do like it now. It's not

the cold monster running on a Cyber or something that it used to be. Anyone

who can use Excel will find Minitab for Windows quite comfortably easy to

use. You can download a free, 100% working, 30-day trial version to

reacquaint yourself if you want on www.minitab.com.

 

P.P.S. Das--instead of saying, "Don't quote original" (like I had done) how

about "Don't quote anything you're not directly responding to" (like I'm

doing now)? I agree, the mindless quoting of the entire message makes for

annoying, gigantic messages, but let's not go to the opposite extreme.

[Guest guest]

J. Phillip Draughon wrote:

> Chris--

>

The study you propose could be

> implemented with a small team. The first step would be to agree on what

> constitutes a "crash". Does a so-called "incident" count? Do we limit the

> study to just accidents with fatalities? Whatever.

 

JPD and Chris,

 

Above and later mail makes it look as if you are going to make the study. It

would be nice if you discuss the parameters on the list before starting.

 

> Next, we define what we

> expect a crash distribution WOULD look like if there were no Mercurial

> influence.

 

This last item is the most difficult to define. This would pre-suppose a certain

frequency or peak periods, which may not be true. It may be more useful to start

with no expectations but simply say for each day the chances are 50%. Taking a 3

year period we will have about 12 retrograde periods. If one justs marks off

against each day dots to show a crash or * and # etc to say fatal, minor etc. on

a database and also check for clusters as well as mercury for each case the

results can be interesting: retro Mercury alone cannot be the cause,if it plays

a part at all. There must be other factors like tight aspects to mercury.

 

The ideal way would be to cast charts for each case and use a programme like

Jgsaw to find common factors. Six people could work together, each dealing

with 6 months.

 

One would expect that all the people who die in a crash will have this shown for

the period and day. But the general situation as well as the location must play

a part. For the Taipei crash Moon was square Mars, Mercury square Neptune and

ascendant and opposite to MC; sun also square neptune and ascendant: opposite

to MC but about 2° away. Mars is trine Saturn.

 

Perhaps the Mercury square neptune was the basis, mars square moon set it off.

But in such cases one could possibly say: during a period of a few days every

day at times when angles get into aspect with one of the significator a disater

can be expectd. There again the potential is acute perhaps when both angles are

involved, so that is possible only on certain latitudes.

 

The Jupiter opposition Pluto seems to show the floods in England.

 

In both cases the Heliocentric chart is interesting, especially for the floods,

with strong jupiter involvement!

 

Regards

Mani

 

Chris it is nice to see you are alive and very kicking!

[Guest guest]

Phillip and Mani:

 

Good to hear your interest on this one. Mani, I too am glad to hear you're

still alive and kicking. And Phillip, if I may ask, just where have you

come from? (BTW, would I pronounce your last name "drawn"?)

 

 

I'm definitely no expert in statistics although I have been exposed to it

through some university courses in social statistics. And my Minitab

experience is really only a dim memory of coffee-stained printouts, copied

assignments, and a general loathing for all things numerical. If I do this

study on my own, I will happily regress to gate scoring and percentages!

The beauty of this study is that you could really get by with little more

than that. But what would it prove?

 

A lot of people, both pro and con, astrology contend that random studies

are not applicable to astrology because the nature of astrology doesn't

follow a simple linear causal model. Some would even go so far as to

suggest that it doesn't follow a multfactored model. I'm on the fence with

both statements. I would dearly like to think that all *useful*

astrological postulates have statistical significances. To me, that would

be the the primary reason to keep using them. If you think about it, why

would we continue to use postulates/rules that had no explanatory power?

It wouldn't make sense, unless, somehow you could show that maybe these

individual postulates (like Mercury Rx) only become effective *in tandem*

with other factors, as I think Mani, you were suggesting. That's all to the

good and if you want to predict which plane will crash, then obviously one

needs to look into extant aspects and the like at the time of the flight.

But we don't really want to get into that (do we?). It's just too

complicated and too much work at the moment. Maybe we can build up to that

to test a multfactor approach -- which is really how one should do

astrology. Instead, let's take it one piece at a time. I would really

like to satisfy my curiosity about this oft-repeated mantra about

retrograde Mercury being bad for machines breaking down and travel plans

going awry. This is the type of relationship that Gauquelin studied when

he looked at profession and planetary location in the horoscope. As

celebrated as his work his, I think it's important to remember that

although a statistical relationship was established, it really wasn't that

useful to astrologers and their clients: the correlations were so low that

one couldn't realistically predict that a person with Mars rising was

likely to be an athlete. In the same vein, if we did find a statistically

significant relationship between plane crashes and Mercury retrograde (and

why not throw Mars retrograde in there too?) it wouldn't necessarily

justify avoiding air travel during Mercury's retrograde periods. If the

correlation is as low as I suspect it will be (less than 0.10), then it

wouldn't be grounds to warn clients or change habits. Possibly it would be

a different story for people who had Mercury-ruled rising signs, running

Mercury dashas, etc.

 

If we find no relationship, that too is very significant, and I would

gleefully trumpet it to any all who would listen. There's nothing more fun

that popping big balloons!

 

At the outset, I think we ought to target finding about 1000 datapoints.

With Mercury being retrograde about 18% (just a guess), we would expect

about 180 crashes during its retrograde periods if there was no

relationship. Without going into p-values and all that rot, I should think

a number over 200 (ie. greater than 10% more than the expected value) would

make me think that there is something real going on.

 

So Phillip, thanks again for digging up that site address. It's a great

start. Let's do it.

 

Chris

 

At 09:22 AM 11/6/00 -0600, you wrote:

>Folks--

>

>> Christopher Kevill

>> Monday, November 06, 2000 8:37 AM

>

>> I appreciate your concern to overcome bias, to that sounds a bit much for

>> me. Since the dates are readily verifiable, there shouldn't be much

>> concern over "selectivity" bias, especially if we are using a neutral

>> database. In the initial stages of such a study, I don't think extra

>> precautions are necessary.

>

> Chris' suggestion to use the traditional approach is better: A much

>shorter pilot study without the sophisticated double-blind antibias controls

>to determine if there is anything encouraging to go after with a more

>comprehensive one. If the conclusions are favorable, then perhaps we can do

>a second study with more people and with the double-blind controls.

>

> Would anyone else like to get in on this before Chris and I take this

>offline? Without the double-blind controls, it's really quite a

>straightforward thing.

>

> jpd

>

>

>> Wow, you do minitab? I used it once 15 years ago as an undergrad but have

>> no idea about it now. Something to discuss for sure.

>

>P.S. Chris--You and I must be about the same age; mid-1980s was the first

>time I used Minitab, too, as an undergrad. Didn't like it then (maybe

>because I was under academic time pressure), but I do like it now. It's not

>the cold monster running on a Cyber or something that it used to be. Anyone

>who can use Excel will find Minitab for Windows quite comfortably easy to

>use. You can download a free, 100% working, 30-day trial version to

>reacquaint yourself if you want on www.minitab.com.

>

>P.P.S. Das--instead of saying, "Don't quote original" (like I had done) how

>about "Don't quote anything you're not directly responding to" (like I'm

>doing now)? I agree, the mindless quoting of the entire message makes for

>annoying, gigantic messages, but let's not go to the opposite extreme.

>

>

>

>

>gjlist-

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris--

 

> And Phillip, if I may ask, just where have you

>come from? (BTW, would I pronounce your last name "drawn"?)

 

What a coincidence -- that's how I pronounce it too. ;-)

 

Here's a shot at a brief resume. I apologize if it's boring.

 

I've been monitoring the list since March I think ... shortly before it

moved to . I've been a vegetarian since 1992, a Theosophist since

93, a GJ user since 95--which closely corresponds to when I began studying

Gaudiya Vaisnavism (thanks, Das)--and a practicing Vaisnava since 98. I'm

studying Jyotish under Sri Shyamasurdara das.

 

Ah, me ... turning 30 changed a lot of things in my life ;-).

 

I live in Barrington, Illinois, US (northwest suburban Chicago), and am

in the middle of a hectic move to another house close by. I work for a

small but really fantastic information technology consulting firm in a

nearby suburb, where I do research and development, as well as consulting on

a variety of computer network areas.

 

>I'm definitely no expert in statistics although I have been exposed to it

>through some university courses in social statistics. And my Minitab

>experience is really only a dim memory of coffee-stained printouts, copied

>assignments, and a general loathing for all things numerical. If I do this

>study on my own, I will happily regress to gate scoring and percentages!

>The beauty of this study is that you could really get by with little more

>than that. But what would it prove?

 

Social statistics has always fascinated me. It's both a science and an

artform, if you ask me. A good Guttman-coded survey has always struck me as

nothing short of magic. Well, you've clearly got a good eye for guiding

research parameters, and I've got a good handle on the numerical analysis,

so somehow I think we can slug it out.

 

>A lot of people, both pro and con, astrology contend that random studies

>are not applicable to astrology because the nature of astrology doesn't

>follow a simple linear causal model. Some would even go so far as to

>suggest that it doesn't follow a multfactored model. I'm on the fence with

>both statements. I would dearly like to think that all *useful*

>astrological postulates have statistical significances. To me, that would

>be the the primary reason to keep using them. If you think about it, why

>would we continue to use postulates/rules that had no explanatory power?

>It wouldn't make sense, unless, somehow you could show that maybe these

>individual postulates (like Mercury Rx) only become effective *in tandem*

>with other factors, as I think Mani, you were suggesting.

 

And that's where I would really need to rely on the experience of

others. Even though I've been on this list for several months, I've

generally kept my mouth shut because I know so bloody little about Jyotish.

I've been spending my time studying the underlying religious principles,

with a particular emphasis on the Srimad Bhagavatam, Sri

Caitanya-caritamrta, and Bhagavad-gita. In a way, I sort of feel cheated,

because so many people grew up learning this stuff as part of their culture,

and I kind of have to cram to catch up.

 

I think it's pretty foolish to try to analyze Jyotish--which is a

holistic field tightly coupled with the overlying religions--with Western

empirical methods. The paradigms are just incompatible. The Eastern idea

is that everything is interrelated and cannot be functionally decomposed;

the Western model is that everything is atomic and can be analyzed

independently of everything else. Square peg, round hole. I wrote a paper

on this subject for Florida Vedic College if anyone is interested.

 

Having said that, though, I think that certain POSTULATES of Jyotish CAN

be analyzed empirically. I mean, the null hypothesis "the frequency of

plane crashes during Merc retrogrades is the same as the frequency of plane

crashes during Merc directs" IS a straightforward and seemingly-easy

postulate to analyze. Then along comes Mani who admonishes us not to fall

into the same trap I wrote a paper warning people about: Don't try to take

something apart which can't be taken apart. If I understand Mani correctly,

the point is this: Don't take Merc retros as something IN AND OF ITSELF,

but rather in a larger context. I don't know how to do that. I don't know

where to draw the line. Or if we should even be DRAWING a line. But if we

don't, that leaves us nowhere--right back where we started.

 

So, if we want to do an empirical study--and I think we do--we have to

start somewhere. No matter how it ends, we learn something we didn't know

before. If this produces no conclusive evidence to reject the null

hypothesis, then at the very least we have learned that we can't be

overly-simplistic when it comes to Merc retros--that we can't reduce Merc

retrogrades to an empirical, independent, bite-sized anecdote which

Westerners (such as yours truly) so devoutly crave.

 

>That's all to the

>good and if you want to predict which plane will crash, then obviously one

>needs to look into extant aspects and the like at the time of the flight.

>But we don't really want to get into that (do we?). It's just too

>complicated and too much work at the moment. Maybe we can build up to that

>to test a multfactor approach -- which is really how one should do

>astrology. Instead, let's take it one piece at a time. I would really

>like to satisfy my curiosity about this oft-repeated mantra about

>retrograde Mercury being bad for machines breaking down and travel plans

>going awry. This is the type of relationship that Gauquelin studied when

>he looked at profession and planetary location in the horoscope. As

>celebrated as his work his, I think it's important to remember that

>although a statistical relationship was established, it really wasn't that

>useful to astrologers and their clients: the correlations were so low that

>one couldn't realistically predict that a person with Mars rising was

>likely to be an athlete. In the same vein, if we did find a statistically

>significant relationship between plane crashes and Mercury retrograde (and

>why not throw Mars retrograde in there too?) it wouldn't necessarily

>justify avoiding air travel during Mercury's retrograde periods. If the

>correlation is as low as I suspect it will be (less than 0.10), then it

>wouldn't be grounds to warn clients or change habits. Possibly it would be

>a different story for people who had Mercury-ruled rising signs, running

>Mercury dashas, etc.

 

Well, you've got a good point. It seems to me that most of our work is

going to be infrastructure related -- setting stuff up. Once we have

established that infrastructure, it seems like it would be pretty easy to

test for other things as well. Speaking as a statistician, though, I would

worry about the credibility of research conducted by gradually expanding the

study scope until we just happen to hit upon the right combination which

causes the chi-square (or whatever we use) to reject the null hypothesis.

That's a deceptive practice called data mining, and a lot of the time, it's

not done with deception in mind--just an flaw that nobody saw.

 

So, if we were to gradually increase the scope, I think we could defend

ourselves against the suggestion of data mining by ...

 

>If we find no relationship, that too is very significant, and I would

>gleefully trumpet it to any all who would listen. There's nothing more fun

>that popping big balloons!

 

... exactly. Start out by defining IN THE BEGINNING how we will

increase the scope at each stage. Then stick to it. And at the end of each

stage of the research, gleefully trumpet what we found.

 

>At the outset, I think we ought to target finding about 1000 datapoints.

>With Mercury being retrograde about 18% (just a guess), we would expect

>about 180 crashes during its retrograde periods if there was no

>relationship. Without going into p-values and all that rot, I should think

>a number over 200 (ie. greater than 10% more than the expected value) would

>make me think that there is something real going on.

 

I haven't crunched your numbers, but they strike me as reasonable. I'm

curious as to what you think about this: For the pilot study, rather than

establishing a threshhold P-value for H0 acceptance/rejection, maybe we

should just report the P-value by itself, and see how it sits with people.

I know there are some folks on this list who have much more experience with

research than I do, so it would be interesting to hear what they have to say

about that.

 

BTW, some time soon we're gonna have to move this offline. Anyone

reading this far I would assume is interested in at least monitoring the

research. Should I set up a private distribution list for our use for that

purpose?

 

Chris, I'm really psyched about this opportunity. Whoever started this

thread, thanks!

 

jpd

[Guest guest]

JPD:

 

Good to hear you're into it.

>

> I think it's pretty foolish to try to analyze Jyotish--which is a

>holistic field tightly coupled with the overlying religions--with Western

>empirical methods. The paradigms are just incompatible. The Eastern idea

>is that everything is interrelated and cannot be functionally decomposed;

>the Western model is that everything is atomic and can be analyzed

>independently of everything else. Square peg, round hole. I wrote a paper

>on this subject for Florida Vedic College if anyone is interested.

 

I am definitely interested. But despite its emphasis on holistic logic, I

don't agree that jyotish can't be analyzed piece by piece. The best

practitioners of jyotish do think in terms of complex, multifactored

Boolean logic, but that doesn't mean that individual components aren't

amenable to linear analysis. It only means that one can't predict

effectively by taking one factor at a time. The correlations are simply

too low -- I think. And yet, most people, amateurs and pros alike, do talk

and use these single factor postulates in a simple way. After all, that is

how we got into this discussion of Mercury retrograde: because people talk

about it having an explanatory power by itself. And if you've hung around

on this list for a while, you know that people deploy these individuals

factors all the time: so and so has 10th house lord in its own sign so he's

successful, or the 7th lord is in the 6th so that's bad for married life,

etc. I think this single factor thinking is simplistic to the point of

being wrong more than it is right. However, if astrology is to be more

than a Jackson Pollock approach to prediction, I think these postulates

must be examined one at a time. I think you agree with this, although I'll

warn you right now, very few folks out there have much sympathy for this

sort of thing. The best we should hope for is indulgence for our naivete.

Most consider it a waste of time for the reasons you mention. They might

be right, but I'd still like to see for sure, to help me understand how it

"works". It might very well turn out that astrology has no correlations

according to this simple linear model. That is surely what the holistic

naysayers would contend. But then, it might then require adding second and

third factors. That would be fine with me. But the point is, we would be

further along than we were before. If it were true that no correlations

existed, at very least we could get people to stop talking in this

simplistic linear fashion.

 

> Having said that, though, I think that certain POSTULATES of Jyotish CAN

>be analyzed empirically. I mean, the null hypothesis "the frequency of

>plane crashes during Merc retrogrades is the same as the frequency of plane

>crashes during Merc directs" IS a straightforward and seemingly-easy

>postulate to analyze. Then along comes Mani who admonishes us not to fall

>into the same trap I wrote a paper warning people about: Don't try to take

>something apart which can't be taken apart. If I understand Mani correctly,

>the point is this: Don't take Merc retros as something IN AND OF ITSELF,

>but rather in a larger context. I don't know how to do that. I don't know

>where to draw the line. Or if we should even be DRAWING a line. But if we

>don't, that leaves us nowhere--right back where we started.

 

Right. As I stated above, I think this ignores the way most astrologers

think about and actually use things like Mercury retrograde. All of these

recent posts about so-and-so's broken computer than was purchased during

Rx, or lost luggage or whatever, they make no mention of other factors in

the chart. Just Mercury by itself. So really, it begs the question: if

there's nothing to Mercury retrograde by itself, then why do we use it?

 

>

> So, if we want to do an empirical study--and I think we do--we have to

>start somewhere. No matter how it ends, we learn something we didn't know

>before. If this produces no conclusive evidence to reject the null

>hypothesis, then at the very least we have learned that we can't be

>overly-simplistic when it comes to Merc retros--that we can't reduce Merc

>retrogrades to an empirical, independent, bite-sized anecdote which

>Westerners (such as yours truly) so devoutly crave.

 

Agreed. But not just westerners. Lots of Indians fall back on this logic

too, it's just convenient and the way most astrologers -- albeit perhaps

less experienced ones -- think about charts.

 

>>Mercury dashas, etc.

>

> Well, you've got a good point. It seems to me that most of our work is

>going to be infrastructure related -- setting stuff up. Once we have

>established that infrastructure, it seems like it would be pretty easy to

>test for other things as well. Speaking as a statistician, though, I would

>worry about the credibility of research conducted by gradually expanding the

>study scope until we just happen to hit upon the right combination which

>causes the chi-square (or whatever we use) to reject the null hypothesis.

>That's a deceptive practice called data mining, and a lot of the time, it's

>not done with deception in mind--just an flaw that nobody saw.

 

I'm not following your thinking here. The way I see it now is a simple

testing of as many crash dates as we can find against an ephemeris.

Tabulating the results and comparing it with expected frequencies. Why

does it have to get much more elaborate than that?

 

Chris

>

>

>

>

>