It's in the "stars" (predicting by astrology and other means)

[Eric the Green]

(05-12-2016, 01:07 PM)TnT Wrote: Correlation does not prove causation.  That's almost a cliche contained in most debates today, though a surprising number of people adhere to only their own, experienced, anecdotal evidence as convincing.

However, correlation IS a necessary component of proving causation.  That is, if A causes B, B must necessarily be correlated with A.

The trouble with Astrology is that not only is there NO causation, there is not even any reliable correlation. One has to invoke confirmation bias on steroids to get to correlation - that is, one has to totally discard all instances of non-correlation, and include only instances of correlation.

Thanks for your points. I have some more interesting correlations to give you guys. But first, as a reply; it's true that correlation does not prove causation. It is only a statistical trend, and past is not always prologue. So it's a tool, but far from perfect. But it's better than most psychics, and certainly most pundits, for predicting elections. I would say the record of the pundits for predicting elections is probably worse than chance! Just compare the things I've predicted in recent elections to what they missed. I even beat the guys at Nate Silver's outfit!

Remember, astrology itself is a tool for understanding a different conception of causation. Philosophers and scientists alike have cast strong doubt on the usual notion of efficient, mechanical causation. To think that things are caused because one thing pushes another physically from the past, is completely inadequate to explain anything, especially human behavior. Synchronicity, resonance, intention, and the influence of formal archetypes (as used in generations theory for example) are among the terms for causation that are alternatives to mechanical, efficient causal explanations.

Confirmation bias does not need to inject itself very much in a strict statistical study of which candidates had which astrological aspects. I also very much took account of which aspects correlated to elected presidents, and which ones did not (correlated to losing elections); AND vice-versa. So I covered the bases well on that one! I also included factors such as which presidents never lost elections, and which ones were never nominated, along with which aspects were closer to the exact angle (and thus more significant, according to astrological theory).

(Aspects refers to the angles formed between planets and sun/moon in the course of their mutual cycles; conjunction (alignment), opposition, square (90 degrees), trine (120 degrees), etc.)

---

A major factor relevant to this year's election, are planets rising in the candidates' chart. This is an additional factor that is not included in the raw horoscope score. But when a planet is rising (on the eastern horizon at the time of birth), it imprints itself (by resonance, not mechanical causation) on the individual's personality for life.

It's easy to spot, for example, that I have Uranus rising. This imparts inventiveness, eccentricity, rebelliousness, etc. Many people have no planets rising (Bernie Sanders is one example), and some people have more than one (Bill Clinton had 4).

The main factor for 2016 is which planets are rising in the charts of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary has Jupiter rising, plus Mercury and Venus. The Donald has Mars rising, which almost anyone can spot because it's so obvious.

Jupiter rising imparts optimism, confidence and generosity. The record of candidates in general elections who had Jupiter rising is awesome. Those who won and never lost who had Jupiter rising include:

James K Polk, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, Lyndon Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton.

Those who won once, and then lost only because they ran against each other and split their party's vote: Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft ("smiling Bill" as he was known). 

All of these presidents also had positive scores in the horoscope aspect system, except Teddy Roosevelt whose score was tied.

Only one major party candidate lost who had Jupiter rising. That was Walter Mondale. He also had a negative horoscope score.

Third party candidates rarely win, but it's especially rare (it never happens) when they have dismal scores. John Breckinridge (ran against Lincoln in 1860, representing the slave states) had Jupiter rising, but that was not enough to offset the worst score for any candidate ever-- which he had. George Wallace also had Jupiter (and Mars) rising, and a dismal horoscope score. He also did well in the former slave states.

It is true that I don't know the birth times of all the candidates, especially losing ones from early times, and current ones; so there may have been other losing candidates who had Jupiter rising. I know most of the charts of major party nominees since Lincoln, however; and some earlier ones.

Donald Trump's campaign style is a lot like George Wallace's. They both have Mars in Leo rising. Mars rising represents a personality style that is belligerent and controversial. It's record of success leans slightly negative, at least. Those who lost who had Mars rising, as far as I know, include:

John Adams, Winfield Scott ("old fuss and feathers"), Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, Al Gore, and Adlai Stevenson. Goldwater's Mars rising in the "extremist" sign Scorpio was reflected in his famous phrase that lost him the election: "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!"

Those who won elections who had Mars rising: again, John Adams, plus William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson (he had 5 planets rising showing his larger than life and overwhelming personality), and Bill Clinton.

Ronald Reagan's birth time is uncertain, but he might have had either Jupiter or Mars rising.