Regarding the recent discussions, I must say that it's invalid to compare
only two of twelve categories in the manner presented. From my cursory
following of the discussion, I believe this is the point that Hermes is
trying to make.
Ray is on to something in one regard: instead of going in with a specific
hypothesis and testing to see whether it's null or not, go ahead and test
for with a more general hypothesis (e.g. there is no difference between
astrological function A and cateogory X). This lets the data speak
unimpeded
by astrological theory and practice. Testing only for things sanctioned by
astrological tradition could lead to overlooking what works best. And
probably would, in my estimation . . .
However in any statistical analysis, instead of cherry picking the two
extreme distributions, the entire range must be evaluated in order to
determine any real significance: e.g. there are twelve signs, so a
twelve-category test is the only honest methodology for analyzing by
signs.
Anything less can produce misleading results. IFF the twelve-category test
comes up significant, then a separate test for the extreme category can be
performed; or categories where logically sup****ted, e.g. positive signs,
fire signs, cardinal signs, etc.
AFA still has my introductory book on statistical methodology for
astrological studies, if anyone's interested: see CRITICAL ASTROLOGY.
A point worth remembering in any case is that statistical research deals
with samples of populations, whereas astrology as traditionally practiced
deals with individuals. Statistics yields only probabilities for
populations, which may or may not be personally relevant for any one
individual - and it's the individual who comes to the astrologer. In
short,
as useful as properly applied statistical astrology may be for sharpening
our thought and understanding, it remains existentially irrelevant. (Sort
of
a Heisenberg thing . . .)
--Richard
http://www.astropro.com/
phone/fax = 480-753-6261
consultations/orders = 800-527-8761
"Astrology is about time . . . what else is there?"
|
