Kenneth McRitchie

Comme il a été façonné par les améliorations de ses outils et méthodes, et par son discours avec les critiques, je décris comment le programme de recherche astrologique a progressé à travers trois étapes de modélisation et de limitations de conception. Les tests à facteur unique (par exemple, les nombreuses expériences de signe solaire uniquement qui ont été publiées) sont généralement sousdéterministes. Les tests multifactoriels, à moins qu'ils ne soient très bien conçus, peuvent facilement devenir surdéterministes. Les tests d'appariement de thèmes ont été vulnérables aux erreurs de biais de confirmation jusqu'au développement d'un protocole d'appariement de thèmes entiers basé sur une machine qui a objectivement produit des preuves avec des tailles d'effet élevées. Une méta-analyse des résultats récents montre les progrès rapides et comment améliorer encore les résultats. La valeur du programme n'est pas seulement de corroborer les contrefactuels taxonomiques des «livres de cuisine» astrologiques, mais d'étendre leur portée explicative par la comparaison des postulats et des inférences astrologiques avec les philosophies d'autres disciplines en termes de processus quantifiables et d'effets émergents.

Modern theories do not agree on the origin of consciousness—whether experiences of “what it is like” emerge from the actions of neural structures or from the combined or de-combined properties of matter or mind. The astrological model deserves closer study as an alternative explanation of consciousness as adaptation. Its unique concept of the native protagonist, its grounding in structural realism, and its analogical taxonomy of properties suggest a falsifiable theory with extraordinary reach into the subjective character of lived experience. We attempt to close epistemic gaps in how to think about consciousness and to also resolve important problems in astrology. As a proof-of-concept, we report on empirical evidence from our companion pilot study (published separately) in which we use AI models as inference engines to autonomously replicate the findings of previous Vernon Clark tests with robust improvements. We find that most of the AI models succeed in the Clark test and that some are hundreds-fold more adept at guessing the consciousness of lived experience than others.

Astrology research has been using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the understanding of astrological properties and processes. Like the large language models of AI, astrology is also a language model with a similar underlying linguistic structure but with a distinctive layer of lifestyle contexts. Recent research in semantic proximities and planetary dominance models have helped to quantify effective astrological information. As AI learning and intelligence grows, a major concern is with maintaining its alignment with human values and intentions. Astrology has an extensive background and theory on how different values and expressions of intelligence are resolved. As AI learns to interact with improved astrological models backed by evidence, the integration could produce a stable and insightful alignment of the two disciplines.

Written in response to the need for a theory of astrology, Environmental Cosmology attempts to find common ground that can realign the discourse between science and astrology. Skeptical views of astrology are critically examined for faulty assumptions and misunderstandings. Theory is developed through axioms and rational concepts based upon the physical structures of cycles. The relevant cosmology refers to the properties of the things and places that come to our conscious awareness of what it is like for each of us to observe something from our own microcosmic center of the universe. This necessarily entails a consideration of astrology and correlative worlds. In contrast to how astrology is typically described as "influences," this approach uses a framework of alternating equality and extremes that relates mind to the cosmological order. For astrological 'natives' environmental interactions and properties are modeled as categories of urges, values, intentions, and skills.

As it has been shaped by improvements in its tools and methods, and by its discourse with critics, I describe how the astrological research program has advanced through three stages of modelling and design limitations. Single-factor tests (for example, the many Sun-sign–only experiments that have been published) are typically underdeterministic. Multi-factor tests, unless they are very well designed, can easily become overdeterministic. Chart-matching tests have been vulnerable to confirmation bias errors until the development of a machine-based, whole-chart matching protocol that has objectively produced evidence of high effect-sizes. A meta-analysis of recent results shows the rapid advancement and how to further improve the results. The value of the program is not only to corroborate the taxonomic counterfactuals of astrological “cookbooks,” but to extend their explanatory reach by the comparison of astrological postulates and inferences with philosophies in other disciplines in terms of quantifiable processes and emergent effects.

Two of the most relentless astrology critics presented their case in an article published in this journal that has since become a standard reference. The authors argue that the astrological experience is more likely to work by 'hidden persuaders' than by either objective or psychic criteria, yet their argument provides no evidence of this. The authors demand careful testing yet their own examples and claims against astrology are not careful. The meta-analysis claim mixes studies with widely disparate data types. The parental tampering argument against Michel Gauquelin's planetary eminence findings lacks supportive evidence. The 'definitive' time twins test fails to define the criteria of resemblance. The test of predicting psychological test profiles does not discriminate between permanent personality dimensions and psychological states as astrology requires. The blind chart matching studies evaluated skills on the wrong parties where they would not be expected by either astrology or psychology. The authors fail to mention the most interesting and promising peer-reviewed astrological research studies that were available to them. Improved discourse with astrological subject matter experts is recommended.