Astrology and Probablility

So, I don't want to appear to be a person who thinks highly of Astrology. I don't.

Let me clear about that.

Okay, I have found it odd, in the past, just how accurate it can be, on occasion... and yes I am aware of how general remarks can feel like they apply to anyone. And am - can I call it - ultra-sensitive to this effect, but, you know, there have been occasions, just now and then, when I've read somebodys' birth chart and thought - "crikey, old bean, that's a close shot!" - that kind of thing.

Equally, I have seen them where I thought "huh?"

Let's put it this way then, I am happy to think of Astrology as a pseudo-science. Let's agree on that. Sorry to those, my sister among them, who aren't as happy, but, you know, those people wouldn't really want it to be 'scientific' anyway, would they? - and that leads down another rabbit hole - one I am not exploring today, as I don't have the time or the lamp...

Anyway, yes, Astrology is a pseudo-science. Good. We've sort of agreed.

So, let me ask you, what would have been the basis of this pseudo science?

I'd guess it might have been observation. You know, "please answer the following questions :- Name, DOB, Personality" or a verbal equivalent, maybe less rigorous, but probably something like that.

Now. Here's the rub. It's sort of the same basic scientific process that drives a LOT of science we see in the press. You know, people who eat a full cooked breakfast are no more likely to develop heart disease whilst people who eat an extra portion of red meat each day for lunch are 13% more likely to die each year.

Now, apologies to 'More or Less' for the latter case, but these studies are common, right? Even rife. Statistical science. A survey, a selected group of people. Observation. Outcome. Report.

Same kind of thing as Astrology, when you think about it - right? Well, not a million miles away.

In fact, both have more in common with techniques honed in what we call "The Social Sciences" - you know, Sociology, Psychology etc - than they do to, say. Chemistry.

And, what's more, they look about as reliable. You know, slightly better than chance but about as helpful as the probabilities you read in the small print for your Meds.

And here's an example, I had a procedure recently, and when I read the glossy leaflet the hospital gave me, it said: "side effects". And one of these was  - and really, I am not making this up - one was "death".

Yes, death was a possible side effect. The surgeon's hand may slip, and they gave the probability of that happening. Really. They actually quoted a probability of around 1 in 1000

Not that small actually, but what struck me is: this wasn't really what I would class as a probability. It really isn't one, when you examine it. It's more of a result of a statistical analysis of procedures so far. And of course, I know that If I lived in Middlesborough (sorry to pick on you guys!), I might have a higher probability than if I lived in Guildford, but actually, actually.... it is still not a probability. It's just a possibility with a particular record of occurrence so far.

I say this in full awareness that Doctor David Spiegelhalter, like many others, claims the is "there’s actually no such thing as probability" (Daily Telegraph 5/6/13)

But, even in my op-prep-docs, it gave this as a probability.

All of which leads me back to Astrology and the notion I would like people to entertain, that actually, when you look at it closely, it's about as useful as the documentation you get with your Meds. If you are a Scorpio, you may be a bit intense. You may not, but there's a good probability you will be more intense than any Pisces hanging about the yard. The fact that a lot of Scorpios are just .. erm... you know, ordinary, doesn't mean it isn't true.

So yes, I think we've nailed it. Astrology is a pseudo science, a bit like Sociology, Psychology, a LOT of Medical Science, and (to an extent) the National Lottery.

Can we agree on that?