Zetetic Scholar - No 03 and 04

Magazine Overview

Title: Zetetic scholar
Issue: DOUBLE ISSUE: NUMBERS 3 & 4
Date: 1979 (April)
Publisher: Marcello Truzzi
Type: An Independent Scientific Review of Claims of Anomalies and the Paranormal

Editorial

The editorial, penned by Editor Marcello Truzzi, addresses the dual nature of scientific error: Type I (false positive) and Type II (false negative). Truzzi states that Zetetic Scholar aims to avoid both, particularly in the context of paranormal claims, emphasizing the 'essential tension' in science between conservatism and openness. The editorial announces a change in publication frequency to two larger issues per year due to increased costs, and highlights the current issue's inclusion of dialogues on Immanuel Velikovsky and the scientific evidence for astrology. Truzzi underscores that Zetetic Scholar is a 'labor of love' serving a niche audience interested in responsible, nonsensationalistic evaluation of paranormal claims. The journal operates at a financial loss, requiring approximately 500 subscribers to break even, and urges readers for support through renewals and advocacy.

Articles

Close Encounters with Canid Communications of the Third Kind

Authored by Thomas A. Sebeok, this article delves into the phenomenon of 'talking dogs.' Sebeok categorizes reports of talking dogs into several types:

1. Folklore and Mythology: Ancient tales from various cultures (American, Arabic, Breton, Jewish, Polynesian, South American Indian) where dogs communicate, sometimes as truth-tellers or harbingers of disaster.
2. Quasi-Literary Settings: Fictional accounts, including Plato's characterization of dogs as 'philosophical animals,' literary works like Jack London's 'The Call of the Wild,' Virginia Woolf's 'Flush,' and Miguel de Cervantes' 'El coloquio de los perros.' It also references Nikolai Gogol's 'The Diary of a Madman' and Franz Kafka's 'Investigations of a Dog.'
3. Fictionalized Accounts: Olaf Stapledon's novel 'Sirius' about a super-sheepdog is mentioned as an example.
4. Special Cases: Includes Dog Toby from the 'Punch and Judy' show, and the use of dogs in 'near' ventriloquist acts.
5. Dogfood Industry Fabrications: Sebeok notes the dogfood industry's use of 'loquacious dogs' in advertising.
6. Real Dogs Reputed to Talk: This category, which Sebeok focuses on, includes cases exemplified by the 'Clever Hans' phenomenon, where animals appear to perform intelligent tasks. Sebeok discusses Bernhard Grzimek's observation of a dog seemingly responding to subtle cues from its master, raising questions about the semiotics of communication, the channels involved (optical, acoustic, kinaesthetic), and the potential for misdirection or self-deception.

Sebeok explores the techniques for training circus dogs, referencing Hachet-Souplet's manual, and discusses historical examples like 'Munito' and 'Don Carlos.' He also touches upon 'Singing Dogs,' explaining the phenomenon as a resonance of vocal cords triggered by the trainer's sounds. The article references studies by Warden and Warner on the dog 'Fellow' and Bronowski's criteria for distinguishing speech from other animal communication systems, highlighting the importance of delayed reactions.

A Dialogue on the Theories of I. Velikovsky

This section features a dialogue on the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, though the content of the dialogue itself is not detailed in the provided pages.

Joseph May: The Heresy of a New Synthesis

This article, along with critical comments by David Morrison, LeRoy Ellenberger, Michael Jones, Malcolm Lowery, R.G.A. Dolby, Robert McAulay, Peter J. Huber, and Donald Goldsmith, and an epilogue by M. Truzzi, appears to discuss a 'New Synthesis' and its potentially controversial nature.

Richard de Mille: Explicating Anomalistic Anthropology with Help from Castaneda

This feature explores 'Anomalistic Anthropology' with references to the works of Carlos Castaneda.

Features

Editorial

(See summary above)

Astrology: A Review Symposium

This symposium includes a prologue by M. Truzzi and reviews by G.O. Abell, Dane Rudhyar, H.J. Eysenck, Michel Gauquelin, and Malcolm Dean. It also features responses from the authors (Geoffrey Dean & Arthur Mather) to the reviewers.

Review-Article by Joseph Agassi: Towards a Rational Theory of Superstition

This section presents a review-article by Joseph Agassi on the theory of superstition, followed by a response from the authors.

Quoteworthy

A collection of notable quotes.

Book Reviews

Reviews of Lawrence E. Jerome's 'Astrology Disproved' (reviewed by Anthony Standen) and A.R. Lieber's 'The Lunar Effect: Biological Tides and Human Emotions' (reviewed by Ivan W. Kelly). A section for 'Books Briefly Noted' is also included.

Bibliographies

Includes bibliographies on Lycanthropy, the Occult, and the Paranormal, as well as supplements to previous bibliographies.

About the Contributors

Information about the contributors to this issue.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical and scientific evaluation of anomalous phenomena, including astrology, purported animal communication (talking dogs), and theories of superstition. The editorial stance, as articulated by Marcello Truzzi, is one of rigorous, nonsensationalistic inquiry, committed to avoiding both confirmation bias (Type II error) and overly skeptical dismissal (Type I error). The journal positions itself as a platform for responsible debate and analysis within the field of anomalies and the paranormal, catering to a specialized audience seeking intellectual engagement rather than sensationalism.

This issue of The American Journal of Semiotics, Volume 1, Number 2, published in 1979, focuses on the intriguing phenomenon of "talking dogs." The cover headline, "The Talking Dog," is accompanied by an illustration of a dog, setting the theme for the articles within. The issue was priced at $5.00.

Articles and Content

The Talking Dog: A Semiotic Perspective

The main article delves into the historical and semiotic aspects of animals, particularly dogs, exhibiting apparent communication skills. It begins by referencing Lord Avebury's early suggestions for two-way communication with animals and his awareness of what later became known as the Clever Hans Fallacy. An anecdote illustrates how a dog could appear to count by barking, but the operator might have unconsciously signaled the correct answer.

The article then discusses the case of Chris, a dog from the 1950s in Warwick, Rhode Island, who was reported to answer questions by pawing symbol cards. Pratt, one of the observers, offered three explanations: the dog's own ESP, unconscious sensory information given by the agent to the handler, or honest mistakes in interpreting the rules. Pratt dismissed the latter two, but the paper suggests that the most obvious explanation—unconscious cueing—was overlooked by the parapsychologist.

Historical accounts of "talking" or "counting" animals are presented, including a reference to Leibniz's correspondence about a German dog named Don in the early 18th century. This dog was reported to speak German, pronounce the alphabet, and even engage in conversations. The article questions how such phenomena were accepted by intellectual figures like Leibniz, especially when the dog's communication was limited to German, a language not widely understood in France at the time.

The case of Rolf, an Airdale terrier from Mannheim in the early 20th century, is also examined. Rolf was reportedly taught to type, producing spontaneous poetry. The author notes that such claims often lack rigorous scientific conditions and can be subject to interpretation, drawing a parallel to the refusal of Uri Geller to undergo tests under certain conditions.

The "Clever Hans affair" is presented as a catalyst for a debate about the uniqueness of human language and cognitive structure. The article traces this debate from Descartes and La Mettrie through to modern discussions involving various animal species, including horses, marine mammals, and chimpanzees.

Further examples of animals exhibiting communicative behaviors are mentioned, such as "educated horses" and birds. The article then focuses on the specific case of Don, a German setter described by Krall, who was said to have conversational abilities. The author notes that Maday, a critic, refocused the problem on whether dogs speak imitatively or can conjoin sounds with objects, with experts generally agreeing that dogs do not speak imitatively but can associate sounds with goals.

The interwar period saw a surge of interest in "educated" dogs, with scientists, writers, and trainers converging on the topic. Henny Jutzler-Kindermann's collection of observations on horses and dogs is mentioned, though described as a "gallimaufry of unreliable lore."

The paper discusses the "talking dog" phenomenon as a popular term for various canid semiosic behaviors, with tapping being a prominent form. It draws analogies to woodpecker drumming, dolphin communication, and silent gestural communication in apes. The article then returns to the case of Don, the dog that barked but was widely claimed to have spoken.

The concept of "presupposition" is introduced in a pragmatic sense, defining it as the speaker taking the truth of something for granted. In the context of "talking dog" cases, four parties are identified: the subject (dog), the mark (human listener), the con (operator), and the optional shill. The con's role is to plant presuppositions in the mark, often using a shill to create an aura of legitimacy.

The article critiques the media's role in creating an atmosphere of confidence, citing the press as a "quasi-metonymic shill" in the case of Don. It notes that even Leibniz was influenced by reports from the Imperial Prince Regent before witnessing the dog himself.

The main act of Don's performance involved speaking, not tapping. Questions were posed, and Don reportedly responded with specific words like "Don," "Hunger," "Haben," "Kuchen," and "Ruhe." He could also answer categorical questions with "Ja" or "Nein." Unlike the horse Hans, Don responded in spoken German.

Oskar Pfungst, who had solved the Clever Hans problem, investigated Don. Pfungst's conclusions, based on phonographic recordings, indicated that the dog's "speech" was a production of vocal sounds that created illusions in the hearer. Pfungst established that Don invariably answered questions in a specific sequence and did not learn by observation or imitation. The explanation for the susceptibility to illusion lies in the tendency of uncritical listeners to associate imagery with perception and to be influenced by suggestion.

The riddle of the talking dog is thus elucidated as either intentional cueing (deception) or unintentional cueing (self-deception).

A section on quantum mechanics notes the influence of observer knowledge on particle states, drawing a parallel to semiotics where the focus in dyadic communication has often been misplaced on the message source rather than the destination. The paper concludes that "the secret is concealed not in the dog, but in the man," emphasizing the decisive influence of the actor and the importance of considering context.

Notes

The notes section provides abbreviations and references for the article. It clarifies that an abbreviated version of the article appears in "Wechselbeziehungen Diachroner und Synchroner Sprachwissenschaft." It also includes a personal communication from Martin Gardner about a "stooge" in a mind-reading dog act and a reference to Heini Hediger's work on a "singing" fox. Another note discusses Gardner's talking dog joke and the Menzel's work on dog-human social relations.

References

The extensive reference list includes works by authors such as Blake, Bouissac, Bronowski, Chauvin-Muckensturm, Collier, Dale-Green, Fox, Gogol, Gould, Greene, Griffin, Grzimek, Hachet-Souplet, Hediger, Jastrow, Johnson, Jutzler-Kindermann, Kafka, Karttunen, Katz, Koestler, Krall, Larguier des Bancels, Leach, Leibniz, and Lorenz. These references span various fields including animal behavior, linguistics, semiotics, psychology, and folklore.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the issue is the critical examination of claims of exceptional animal intelligence and communication, particularly in dogs. The journal adopts a skeptical stance, consistently pointing towards the Clever Hans Fallacy, the role of human suggestion, and the potential for deception or self-deception as explanations for seemingly remarkable animal feats. The editorial stance appears to favor rigorous scientific methodology and a cautious approach to interpreting animal behavior, emphasizing that the "secret" often lies with the human observer or handler rather than the animal itself. The issue highlights the importance of semiotics in understanding communication, advocating for a focus on the entire communicative context, including the human element.

This issue of the magazine, identified by its issue number '21' and a publication year of 1979, is dedicated to the topic of 'Lycanthropy'. The cover features a striking illustration of a mythical creature and the subtitle 'A BASIC BIBLIOGRAPHY ON WEREWOLVES AND THEIR KIN'. The compilation of this extensive bibliography is credited to Marcello Truzzi and J. Richard Greenwell.

Lycanthropy Bibliography

The core of this issue is a meticulously compiled bibliography that spans multiple pages, listing a vast array of books, articles, and other publications related to werewolves and lycanthropy. The entries are organized alphabetically by author and include publication details such as titles, years, publishers, and page numbers. The bibliography covers a wide range of historical periods and geographical locations, reflecting the global and enduring nature of werewolf lore. Entries range from early historical accounts and folklore collections to more modern scientific and psychological analyses.

Notable entries in the bibliography include works by:

• Sir John Lubbock (1886) on dog intelligence.
• William Mackenzie (1913) on the thinking dog.
• Stefan von Maday (1914) on thinking animals.
• Rudolfine and Rudolf Menzel (1948) on speaking dogs.
• David P. Phillips (1978) on airplane accident fatalities and media influence.
• J. Gaither Pratt (1977) on parapsychology.
• James Randi (1978) on the Uri Geller matter.
• Boyce Rensberger (1977) on the cult of the wild.
• Paul Ritter (1911) on a precursor to the speaking dog.
• Maurice Rowdon (1978) on 'Elke & Belam'.
• Bastian Schmid (1938) on encounters with animals.
• John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller (1965) on dog genetics and social behavior.
• Thomas A. Sebeok (1977) on zoosemiotic components of human communication.
• Olaf Stapledon (1944) on 'Sirius: A Fantasy of Love and Discord'.
• Paul Shepard (1978) on animals and human intelligence.
• George M. Stratten (1921) on obscure signs.
• Carl John Warden and Lucian Hynes Warner (1928) on dog sensory capacities and intelligence.
• Forrest G. Wood (1973) on marine mammals.
• Virginia Woolf (1933) on 'Flush: A Biography'.
• Theodore Ziolkowski (1977) on 'Talking Dogs'.

The bibliography also includes numerous historical texts, such as:

• R. Andree (1889) on ethnographic parallels.
• Thomas G. Aylesworth (1971) on werewolves and monsters.
• H. G. B. (1917) on lycanthropy.
• Sabine Baring-Gould (1865) on the book of were-wolves.
• Le Sieur de Beauvoys de Chauvincourt (1599) on lycanthropy.
• George F. Black (1920) on a list of works relating to lycanthropy.
• Cecil Henry Bompass (1909) translator of 'Folklore of the Santal Parganas'.
• M. F. Bouquelot (1849) on lycanthropy.
• Louis Francois Calmeil (1870) on lycanthropy.
• Colin Clair (1967) on unnatural history.
• Daniel Cohen (1971) on a natural history of unnatural things.
• Basil Cooper (1977) on the werewolf in legend, fact, and art.
• Angelo de Gubernatis (1872) on zoological mythology.
• J. de Nynauld (1596) on lycanthropy.
• Dr. Drouet (1911) on the werewolf in Limousin.
• Georges Dumas (1910) on werewolves.
• Robert Man into Wolf (1951) by Eisler, Robert.
• Mircea Eliade (1972) on Zalmoxis.
• Wilhelm Fischer (1906) on demonic beings, vampires, and werewolves.
• John Fiske (1871) on werewolves and swan-maidens.
• Nancy Garden (1973) on werewolves.
• Mary Gerstein (1974) on Germanic warg.
• Grenville Goodwin (1939) on myths and tales of the White Mountain Apache.
• J. Grimm (1882-88) on Teutonic mythology.
• Frank Hamel (1915) on human animals.
• W. Hertz (1862) on the werewolf.
• Bernhardt J. Hurwood (1968) on vampires, werewolves, and ghouls.
• J. H. Hutton (1921) on the Angami Nagas and the Sema Nagas.
• Lee Illis (1963) on porphyria and the aetiology of werewolves.
• Walter Keating Kelly (1963) on Indo-European tradition and folklore.
• Freda Kretschmer (1938) on dog-ancestors and Kerberos.
• Marika Kriss (1942) on werewolves, shapeshifters, and skinwalkers.
• M. Lembay (1892) on the werewolf of the Africans.
• R. Leubushcer (1850) on werewolves and animal transformations in the Middle Ages.
• J. A. MacCulloch (1916) on lycanthropy.
• Daniel P. Mannix (1963) on human wolves.
• J. P. Mills (1926, 1934) on the Ao Nagas and Rengma Nagas.
• John Ferguson M' Lennan (1883) on lycanthropy.
• Jacobus Fridericus Müller (1673) on the transformation of humans into wolves.
• Elliott O'Donnell (1912) on werewolves.
• Harold Osborne (1968) on South American mythology.
• Paul Sebillot (1968) on folklore of France.
• Harry A. Senn (1977) on werewolf legends and Calusari ritual in Romania, and (1978) on werewolf beings and Strigoi legends.
• W. H. Sleeman (1915) on rambles and recollections of an Indian official.
• Kirby Flower Smith (1894) on the werewolf in literature.
• William Carlson Smith (1925) on the Ao Naga tribe of Assam.
• Carolina Taylor Stewart (1909) on the origin of the werewolf superstition.
• Montague Summers (1933) on the werewolf.
• E. B. Tylor (1889) on primitive culture.
• Arnold van Gennep (1935-1955) on French folklore.
• Wolfeshusius (1591) on lycanthropy.

Quoteworthy Section

This section presents a collection of insightful quotes from various prominent figures, focusing on themes of skepticism, evidence, belief, and the nature of knowledge. The quotes include:

• Thomas Jefferson (1808) on the difficulty of accounting for phenomena and the need for proof.
• Albert Einstein on the importance of questioning.
• H.L. Mencken on civilization and the readiness to doubt.
• Mignon McLaughlin on honoring live conformists and dead troublemakers.
• George Santayana on skepticism and chastity.
• Francis Bacon on the superstition of avoiding superstitions.
• A lengthy excerpt from the Report of the Seybert Commission on Modern Spiritualism (1887), which critically examines the evidence for spiritualism and contrasts it with the evidence for profane history, emphasizing the need for rigorous scrutiny.
• Sigmund Freud on the nature of science and the demand for conclusive proof.
• Albert Einstein again, on experimentation and proof.
• Joseph Jastrow (1900) on the hypothesis of telepathy, distinguishing between legitimate scientific inquiry and speculative claims that defy physical laws.
• George Bernard Shaw on the danger of false knowledge.
• Thomas Hardy on the strangeness of reality.

The Heresy of a New Synthesis by Joseph May

This paper, copyrighted in 1978 by Joseph May, addresses the historical tendency of scientific orthodoxy to reject new theories, even those that may eventually prove valid. May argues for a more open-minded approach, proposing preliminary tests for unconventional theories: (1) coherence and (2) a prima facie case. He suggests that if these tests are met, the theories should be treated with respect and investigated, rather than being dismissed outright. May uses the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, which have been widely discussed for nearly thirty years, as a case study to illustrate the potential benefits of such an approach. The paper includes acknowledgements to various individuals who provided suggestions for its improvement.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the study of werewolves and lycanthropy, approached from historical, folkloric, mythological, and even psychological perspectives. The extensive bibliography suggests a deep interest in cataloging and understanding this phenomenon across cultures and time. The 'Quoteworthy' section and Joseph May's paper indicate an editorial stance that values critical thinking, skepticism, and a balanced approach to evaluating unconventional ideas, particularly within the realm of science and belief systems. There is an underlying emphasis on the importance of evidence and rigorous scrutiny, while also acknowledging the potential for groundbreaking ideas to initially face resistance from established norms.

This issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 16, Number 1, dated Fall 1991, features an in-depth examination of Immanuel Velikovsky, his controversial theories, and the significant backlash he received from the scientific community. The article, titled 'Immanuel Velikovsky: The Man, His Work, and His Critics,' explores Velikovsky's background, his major works, and the scientific and historical evidence he presented.

Immanuel Velikovsky: Background and Early Career

Immanuel Velikovsky, born in Russia in 1895, began his medical studies before World War I and received his degree from the University of Moscow in 1921. He later moved to Germany, where he founded and edited the 'Scripta Universitatis' series of monographs, attracting contributions from eminent scientists, including Albert Einstein. Velikovsky settled in Palestine in 1923, practicing medicine and psychoanalysis, and published papers, one of which linked epilepsy to pathological encephalograms. By the late 1920s, he was considered part of the European scientific community.

In 1939, Velikovsky moved to the United States. A discovery in 1940 led him to reinterpret an Egyptian document, shedding new light on the nature and date of the Biblical Exodus. This spurred ten years of intensive investigation, culminating in the 1950 publication of 'Worlds in Collision.' Two years later, he released 'Ages in Chaos,' a supplementary work.

'Worlds in Collision' and Scientific Reaction

Upon its release in 1950, 'Worlds in Collision' provoked a storm of protest from scientists, leading to an attempt to suppress the book. The Macmillan Company terminated sales, but Doubleday Company continued publication. The controversy involved numerous letters to Macmillan, with science professors threatening boycotts of its textbooks. The author notes that this reaction revealed a community prioritizing its perceived needs over the purposes of the community, a response not typically evoked by other radical theories.

Velikovsky's Core Theories

Velikovsky's central thesis posits that Earth has undergone a series of cataclysmic crises throughout pre-human, prehistoric, and historical times, each with enormous effects on the planet and its inhabitants. 'Worlds in Collision' focuses on events since the 15th century BC, while earlier events are reserved for future volumes. He identified the cause of these events as the Earth encountering massive objects, termed filaments, comets, or proto-planets, which approached closely enough to disrupt its rotation, shift its poles, cause tectonic movements, large-scale glaciation, and electrical discharges.

The book details the last two series of such occurrences, beginning around 1450 BC. Velikovsky linked the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt to this period, finding corroboration in Egyptian sources that recount similar natural and narrative events, including the death of a Pharaoh and specific place names. He proposed that the plagues were caused by the approach of a comet or proto-planet, later identified as Venus, which had a long tail of gases and dust that precipitated the drama on Earth. This encounter also led to worldwide volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tidal waves, and a period of darkness.

He also suggested that hydrocarbons from Venus's tail contributed to the world's petroleum supply, and that some were converted into 'manna' and 'ambrosia.' The article clarifies that Velikovsky's use of the term 'comet' is justified for objects with tails and irregular, non-planetary movements, even if their origin differs from conventional explanations.

The 'Sun Stood Still' Incident and Venus

Velikovsky connected the biblical story of Joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still with similar accounts of prolonged nights in global myths. He proposed that Venus's return to Earth's vicinity caused a slowing of Earth's rotation or a tilting of its axis. Venus, after originating from Jupiter and becoming a comet, eventually settled into a near-circular orbit around the sun, returning to Earth's vicinity every fifty-two years.

A climactic series of planetary collisions involving Mars and Venus occurred in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, culminating on March 23, 687 BC. This event shifted Earth's poles, caused electrical discharges between Earth and Mars, and nearly destroyed the Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem. Velikovsky argued that the current solar system order dates back only to the 7th century BC, contrasting with the nebular condensation hypothesis of planetary formation, which suggests billions of years.

Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism

The article positions Velikovsky within the camp of 'catastrophists,' who believe large-scale violent forces shaped the Earth. It contrasts this with 'uniformitarianism,' the dominant view that Earth's evolution occurred through gradual, ongoing forces. Velikovsky's interpretation of Earth's record, including magnetic polarization studies on pottery showing a reversal in the 8th century BC, challenges uniformitarianism.

The rejection of catastrophism in the 19th century is attributed to two reasons: first, the association of catastrophism with religious motives to prove the Bible's accuracy, and second, the lack of a scientifically adequate explanation for the scale of destruction. Velikovsky, however, is presented as a 'secular catastrophist,' approaching historical materials like the Bible, Hindu Vedas, and Icelandic Edda with historical analysis rather than religious bias.

Earth in Upheaval and Geological Evidence

In his 1955 book, 'Earth in Upheaval,' Velikovsky focused on geological evidence to demonstrate that his conclusions were not solely based on written records. He addressed enigmas such as mammoths found frozen with undigested food and the presence of corals in polar regions, suggesting shifts in Earth's axis. He proposed that sudden shifts in the axis, rather than gradual climate fluctuations, explain ice ages, with periods of intense heat followed by cooling and darkness.

Velikovsky also offered an alternative to the theory of continental drift, which he saw as having unresolved issues regarding the force required for continental separation. He viewed his position as 'intermediary,' acknowledging continental movements but questioning the prevailing plate tectonics theory. He argued that shifts in Earth's axis better explain geological enigmas, including ice ages and tidal wave effects.

Evolution and Global Catastrophes

Velikovsky challenged Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, suggesting that global catastrophes produced conditions (chemical, thermal, radioactive, acoustical) that induced mutations in living species. While most mutations were harmful, some led to the appearance of new species, with natural selection then ensuring adaptation to the new environment. This explained the sudden appearance of new species and their survival or elimination.

Electromagnetism in Celestial Mechanics

Velikovsky maintained that the collision of planetary bodies is physically possible and that conventional Newtonian physics, which relies solely on gravitation and inertia, is insufficient. He argued that electromagnetism plays a crucial role in celestial mechanics, citing instances where its effects are hard to distinguish from gravitation. He suggested that planets possess differing electrical charges and that electromagnetism influences cometary tail behavior and potentially the orbits of planets like Neptune and Uranus due to Pluto's charge.

He pointed to Anton Danjon's 1960 discovery that Earth's rotation period increased after a solar flare as evidence for electromagnetic action. Velikovsky believed that if a solar flare could affect Earth's rotation, electromagnetism must play a role in planetary motion, necessitating a re-examination of Newtonian physics, which assumes celestial bodies are electrically and magnetically sterile.

Revision of Ancient Chronology

Velikovsky's research extended to re-evaluating the chronology of the ancient Near East, particularly Egyptian chronology. He found that national histories were out of synchronism, with major distortions in Egyptian timelines. His work suggested that the Nineteenth and Twenty-sixth Dynasties comprised the same individuals appearing under different names centuries apart.

His books 'Ages in Chaos' (1952), 'Peoples of the Sea' (1977), and 'Ramses II and His Time' (1978) presented these chronological revisions. For example, he proposed that the reign of Ramses II was seven centuries later than conventionally believed and that he was contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar. He also suggested that the 'Hittite' Empire records actually belonged to the Chaldean period of Babylonian history, and that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was not Merneptah but likely Ramses II.

Collective Amnesia and Future Hazards

Velikovsky's historical reconstructions have implications for the present and future, leading him to propose a theory of 'collective amnesia.' He suggested that the terrifying events of history, particularly global catastrophes, were deliberately repressed due to severe psychological shock. This repression, he argued, led to the construction of cosmological myths to mediate and transform traumatic memories, explaining why so much of the past is forgotten and why human behavior today is baffling.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around Immanuel Velikovsky's controversial scientific and historical theories, his methodology, the strong opposition he encountered, and his attempts to explain phenomena through cosmic catastrophes and revised chronologies. The editorial stance of The Skeptical Inquirer, as evidenced by the critical yet detailed examination of Velikovsky's work, is to scrutinize extraordinary claims, assess the evidence presented, and evaluate the scientific and logical underpinnings of such theories, often highlighting the challenges they pose to established scientific paradigms.

This issue of *Pensee* (Vol. III, Nr. 2, 1976) is dedicated to exploring the work and reception of Immanuel Velikovsky, particularly his theories on cosmic catastrophes and their impact on history and science. The publication is from the Student Academic Freedom Forum.

Analysis of Velikovsky's Theories and Reception

The issue delves into the psychological underpinnings of humanity's response to trauma, drawing parallels between individual experiences and societal behavior. It discusses Freud's concept of the Oedipus Complex as a potential source of trauma and societal neurosis, leading to aggression and war. Velikovsky, however, posits that natural history itself, through widespread catastrophic events, is the more likely source of this ancestral trauma, suggesting that anxiety is passed on phylogenetically from multiple ancestors who experienced these events.

The articles examine the coherence and internal consistency of Velikovsky's reformulations, noting that while they require re-interpretation of established ideas, they do not necessarily lead to contradictions within the theory's own premises. The importance of checking internal consistency as a starting point for evaluating a hypothesis is emphasized, contrasting this with the tendency to reject ideas simply because they sound strange or challenge unexamined assumptions.

Scientific Progress and Paradigm Shifts

Thomas S. Kuhn's influential work on scientific revolutions is discussed, highlighting his argument that progress occurs not by accretion but through paradigm shifts. The issue questions the resistance to new hypotheses like Velikovsky's, suggesting that conservatism can block scientific progress. It is argued that a dogma, whether it be catastrophism or uniformitarianism, can stifle intellectual inquiry. The resistance to Velikovsky's interdisciplinary thesis is attributed, in part, to the vested interests and ego involvement of scholars who have built their careers on existing assumptions.

Critiques and Anticipations

The issue addresses the criticism that Velikovsky's work is unscientific or based on flawed premises. It notes that critiques often rest on uniformitarian assumptions, amounting to circular reasoning. The argument that Velikovsky's proposals are too radical and violate Occam's razor is also discussed, with the counterpoint that his hypothesis offers a simple solution to many cross-disciplinary problems.

Velikovsky's writings are highlighted for anticipating numerous facts later authenticated by discoveries, including aspects of Venus's heat, Jupiter's radio noises, and the Earth's magnetosphere. The potential for further confirmations, such as hydrocarbons in Venus's atmosphere and argon/neon on Mars, is mentioned.

Specific Critiques and Counterarguments

David Morrison's critique is presented, which argues that Velikovsky's ideas contradict established geological time scales. Morrison dismisses Velikovsky's followers' view of him as a catastrophist struggling against uniformitarianism, stating that Velikovsky opposes all geology due to the short time scales he assigns. The issue of Venus as a comet is also addressed, with Morrison finding analogies to contemporary comets inappropriate.

Carl Sagan's criticism is also mentioned, though with a note of extenuation for the difficulty of objectivity when one is a prominent figure in astronomy. The issue references Donald Goldsmith's edited volume, "Scientists Confront Velikovsky," as a major critical discussion of Velikovsky's work.

The Value of Hypotheses and Future Directions

Even if a theory proves false, it can still be valuable as a guiding principle for investigation. The issue advocates for testing Velikovsky's hypotheses, particularly those suggesting results from laboratory-duplicable processes like excessive radiation or chemical irritants. The importance of using diverse hypotheses to illuminate data is stressed as fundamental to the scientific method.

The authors suggest that scholars should return to the fundamental tenets of scholarship, understanding a proposition before judging it. They argue that many critics have made intuitive judgments without fully grasping Velikovsky's thinking, leading to arguments based on misinterpretations.

The issue concludes by emphasizing the need to face the past to confront the future and appreciating Velikovsky's interdisciplinary synthesis for its ability to explain much and provide a unified perspective on Earth's and humanity's history.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of *Pensee* strongly advocates for a more open and rigorous examination of Immanuel Velikovsky's theories. The editorial stance appears to be one of defending Velikovsky against what it perceives as biased and often misinformed criticism from the scientific establishment. It champions the importance of interdisciplinary thinking, the scientific method's reliance on testing hypotheses, and the potential value of even unorthodox theories in advancing knowledge. The publication seems to position itself as a platform for exploring ideas that challenge mainstream scientific paradigms, emphasizing the need for scholars to engage with new propositions sympathetically and thoroughly before dismissing them.

This issue of The Zetetic Scholar, Volume 1, Issue 1, published in 1980, focuses on a critical examination of Immanuel Velikovsky's theories. The cover headline, "Velikovsky and the Scientific Establishment," and the inclusion of articles by Leroy Ellenberger and Michael Jones set the tone for a detailed critique of Velikovsky's work from scientific and historical perspectives.

Article: Velikovsky's Claims and the Evidence (by Leroy Ellenberger)

Leroy Ellenberger begins by dismissing the notion that electromagnetic forces could account for the effects described by Velikovsky, stating that gravitational forces are well understood and that hypothetical electric charges and magnetic fields cannot generate the required effects. Ellenberger argues that the most effective way to test Velikovsky's ideas is by examining current evidence, rather than hypothetical past events. He asserts that Velikovsky's record of prediction is one of "unmitigated failure." Specifically, Ellenberger points to Velikovsky's 1950 predictions concerning planetary conditions, such as hydrocarbon clouds on Venus, large amounts of argon on Mars, recent lunar surface melting, and internal heat sources on Venus and Mars, all of which have been decisively disproven by subsequent space missions like the Pioneer Venus probes.

Ellenberger criticizes defenders of Velikovsky, such as Dr. May, for refusing to acknowledge these facts. He contends that not only does astronomical evidence fail to support Velikovsky, but it strongly contradicts his theories. The author views the "Velikovsky phenomenon" as a "pathological case of the workings of academic science" and criticizes Dr. May's article for uncritically repeating Velikovsky's arguments and ignoring responsible criticism. Ellenberger is particularly disturbed by the "profound ignorance" of contemporary astronomical and geological evidence displayed by pro-Velikovsky literature, which he finds to be written by individuals not competent in these technical fields. He concludes that the "natural record itself" refutes Velikovsky's hypothesis of recent planetary encounters, not merely scholarly prejudice.

Ellenberger also discusses the concepts of scientific objectivity and the reasons for the hostile reaction to Velikovsky in 1950. He touches upon Michael Polanyi's views on scientific consensus and the importance of correct predictions. Ellenberger suggests that the practice of advocating a single dominant hypothesis, as described by Kuhn, is not necessarily the best way and that T.C. Chamberlin's method of "multiple hypotheses" is more objective. He notes that scientists who adopt a dominant hypothesis become its advocates, seeking evidence to confirm it, and that this bias, as documented by Mitroff among Apollo scientists, can lead to a distorted view of evidence.

He cites instances where objectivity has suffered due to advocacy, referencing a Psychology Today article. Ellenberger explains the hostility towards Velikovsky in 1950 by suggesting that scientists felt their ego and worldview were threatened, leading to a defensive and aggressive reaction. He quotes Talbott and Graff to support the idea that scientists may attack theories that challenge their fundamental beliefs, leading to a failure to distinguish between self and object.

Ellenberger further examines Velikovsky's work concerning celestial dynamics and archaeology. He mentions works by Bass and Juergens that illustrate potential oversights in conventional astronomy and supports the idea that the "tide is turning" in favor of legitimate discussion of Velikovsky's ideas, citing a book by John Dayton on Near Eastern chronology that is generally supportive of Velikovsky's conclusions without mentioning him directly.

Article: Velikovsky's Reconstructed Chronology and Evidence (by Michael Jones)

Michael Jones addresses the suggestion that "vested interests and ego involvement" have prevented scholars from rationally approaching Velikovsky's work, arguing that such statements are counterproductive. He emphasizes that new evidence constantly leads scholars to modify their views and that no closed group of scholars exists with exclusive interests. Jones proposes criteria for assessing Velikovsky's arguments, including how he handles archaeological reports and Egyptian texts, and the implications of his proposals in light of extensive material he does not discuss.

Jones critiques Joseph May's "persuasive" evidence for Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea" scheme, which involves replacing Ramesses III (20th dynasty, c.1175 B.C.) with Nectanebo I (30th dynasty, c.375 B.C.). Jones finds May's arguments superficial. He identifies several points of comparison used by Velikovsky: the similarity of names or titles, Greek letters on tiles from Ramesses III's palace, similarities in headdresses between Persian soldiers and warriors in Medinet Habu reliefs, the meaning of the Egyptian term "Pr(1)s.t," and architectural similarities between temples of Ramesses III and Ptolemaic temples. Jones argues that Velikovsky's source for the titles of Ramesses III, E.A. Wallis Budge's 1908 compilation, is outdated and inaccurate. He states that the correct version of the titles has been available since 1963 and that the mistaken identity of Ramesses III would not have occurred if Velikovsky had been aware of this. The phrase Velikovsky interpreted as Nectanebo I's name is actually an epithet of Ramesses III.

Jones also challenges Velikovsky's interpretation of the "Pr(1)s.t" people. He notes that the Egyptian writing of "Pr(1)s.t" is distinct from the name for Persia and suggests that "Peleset" is a more appropriate reading, aligning with Hebrew and Greek terms for Philistines. He points out that "Pr(1)s.t" used topographically is associated with Canaan, and Ramesses III settled the Peleset in several Canaanite cities. Jones also refutes the comparison of the Peleset's feather headdresses with those of Persian soldiers, noting differences in attire, hair, and beards.

Regarding architectural evidence, Jones states that Velikovsky's claim of contemporaneity between Ramesses III's temples and Ptolemaic temples is not supported by a visual survey. He explains that Egyptian temple construction followed a sacred plan, and while individual elements evolved, the fundamental principles remained consistent. Jones highlights the differences in column capitals, shafts, and lintels between New Kingdom temples (like those of Ramesses III) and Ptolemaic temples, noting the absence of a composite floral column capital in Ramesses III's time, which is present in Ptolemaic temples.

Jones further criticizes Velikovsky's handling of Egyptian texts, particularly concerning Pharaoh Siamun. He argues that Siamun, a well-documented ruler of the 21st dynasty, was not alive in the fourth century B.C. as Velikovsky suggests, and that the tomb at Siwa identified by Velikovsky actually belongs to a different individual. Jones attributes these errors to Velikovsky's lack of understanding of the Egyptian language and his reliance on outdated Egyptological sources.

Jones also examines Velikovsky's claims about Ramesses II and the 26th dynasty. He disputes the assertion that the 26th dynasty is known only from Biblical and Classical sources, stating that numerous Egyptian texts exist. He criticizes Velikovsky's reliance on Schmidt's chronological structure for Ramesses II's reign and his overlooking of evidence that contradicts his reorganized chronology. Jones specifically addresses Velikovsky's argument for a long coregency between Ramesses II and his father, which he claims is based on a misinterpretation of Egyptian dating terms (h3t-sp and rnpt tpyt) and a confusion of regnal years with princely regency.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical evaluation of Immanuel Velikovsky's theories, the examination of scientific methodology and objectivity, and the role of evidence in historical and scientific discourse. The articles strongly suggest that Velikovsky's work is flawed due to inadequate research, misinterpretation of evidence, and a disregard for established scientific and historical consensus. The editorial stance of The Zetetic Scholar appears to be one of rigorous skepticism towards unconventional theories that lack robust empirical support, while also acknowledging the importance of open discussion and the evolution of scientific understanding.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue 13 and published in 1979, focuses on the ongoing controversy surrounding the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. It presents a collection of critical responses and commentaries on a paper by Joseph May, which apparently defended or analyzed Velikovsky's work. The publication engages with various aspects of Velikovsky's ideas, including his revised chronology of ancient Egypt and his theories on celestial dynamics and catastrophism.

Critiques of Velikovsky's Chronology and Evidence

The issue delves into specific challenges to Velikovsky's historical revisions. One article highlights the inscription on the statue of the High Priest of Amun, Bakenkhons, in Munich, which provides an outline of his career and suggests a chronology that may conflict with Velikovsky's scheme. The text questions how certain historical figures and events, such as the reign of Ramesses II and the dating of dynasties, align with Velikovsky's proposed timeline, particularly his separation of the 18th and 19th dynasties by centuries. The author points out apparent anomalies, such as the career progression of individuals spanning across dynasties, which Velikovsky's theory struggles to explain without introducing further complexities.

Another significant point of contention is Velikovsky's proposal regarding the length of the ancient year. While Velikovsky suggests the year was 360 days until the Mars disasters of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, Egyptological authorities and historical records indicate a consistent 365-day year throughout Egyptian history, including "epagomenal days" (extra days). The issue cites scholarly works and encyclopedias to support the established understanding of the Egyptian calendar, challenging Velikovsky's assertion that the 360-day year was a later addition.

Scientific and Methodological Debates

Beyond historical chronology, the issue addresses the scientific basis of Velikovsky's theories. Contributors discuss the challenges Velikovsky's ideas pose to established laws of physics, such as conservation of energy and angular momentum. The debate touches upon the nature of scientific practice, paradigm shifts, and the criteria for accepting unconventional theories. Scholars like Hugo Meynell and Robert McAulay emphasize the importance of attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness, and responsibility in evaluating scientific claims, particularly when dealing with complex and potentially conflicting evidence.

Malcolm Lowery welcomes Dr. May's attempt to promote a rational approach to Velikovsky's ideas, agreeing with his points and commending his ability to summarize salient issues. However, Lowery also notes that while specific theories might be modified, the general theories could still hold. He highlights the challenge of reconciling Velikovsky's proposed 360-day year with the established 365-day Egyptian calendar, suggesting that even if this specific point is incorrect, it might not invalidate the broader theory.

Dr. Robert Bass is mentioned for presenting a proposal on a "Madelung-force dynamic-lattice plasma-theoretical electromagnetic theory of gravity," which could potentially explain non-Newtonian effects predicted by Velikovsky's theory concerning electrically-charged planets.

Responses to Critics and Editorial Stance

Several contributors, including Peter J. Huber and Donald Goldsmith, express skepticism about Velikovsky's work. Huber criticizes followers for misinterpreting sources and repeating incorrect assertions, such as the 360-day year. Goldsmith states that Velikovsky's physics cannot withstand scrutiny and that physicists consistently find his assumptions precluded by known laws. He dismisses the sales of Velikovsky's books as a basis for scientific acceptance.

The "Epilogue" section summarizes feedback received from scientists contacted for the dialogue. It notes that objections came from both sides: some defended Velikovsky by arguing he made no paranormal claims and did not violate fundamental laws, while others criticized him for presenting theories too illegitimate for serious scientific journals, akin to the Flat Earth theory. The editor acknowledges that while many critics believe Velikovsky's theories are discredited, their criticisms are often poorly executed, with critics misreading or not doing adequate homework. The editor also points out that Velikovsky is sometimes opposed not for his conjectures but due to the comfort his ideas might provide to fundamentalist religious groups. The issue concludes by advocating for less authoritarianism from all sides and suggesting that the dialogue is a beginning for understanding the reasons behind the failure of cognitive consensus.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific and historical validity of Immanuel Velikovsky's theories, the methodology of scientific inquiry, and the sociology of scientific debate. The publication appears to adopt a stance that encourages critical examination and open discussion of unconventional ideas, even while acknowledging the significant challenges and criticisms leveled against Velikovsky's work. The editorial stance seems to favor a rigorous, evidence-based approach, urging scholars to be thorough in their research and fair in their assessments, while also recognizing the potential for established paradigms to act as blinders. The publication aims to foster a deeper understanding of why consensus fails in scientific controversies.

This issue of ZETETIC SCHOLAR, dated November 1978, focuses on the intersection of anthropology, science, and the study of paranormal phenomena, with a significant portion dedicated to a review of a book on astrology.

Explicating Anomalistic Anthropology with Help from Castaneda

Richard de Mille's article introduces anomalistic anthropology as the study of infrequent and frequent reports of events that are either discontinuous from the natural order or inexplicable by scientific theory. He uses the context of Carlos Castaneda's work to highlight three crucial requirements for this field:

1. Distinguishing Anomalies from Superstitions: Anomalies are events the anthropologist suspects are naturally discontinuous or scientifically inexplicable. Superstitions are beliefs the anthropologist judges to be imaginary or misinterpreted. De Mille notes that distinguishing between true anomalies and surrounding superstitions is difficult but crucial, likening Castaneda's fictive skeptic/apprentice to an anthropologist frozen in this act.
2. Making Anthropologist's Assumptions Explicit: Every anthropologist holds tacit assumptions about the paranormal. De Mille argues that these assumptions must be made explicit at all stages of work—planning, observing, analyzing, and reporting. This self-interrogation helps recognize the plan's provenance, maximize receptivity, analyze observations clearly, and write unambiguous reports. The author stresses that good work can be done by either a skeptic or a subscriber, but not by someone masquerading as the other.
3. Assessing Authenticity Before Validity: The authenticity of fieldwork and data should be assessed before judging the validity of findings and interpretations. De Mille points out that while Castaneda's books are often deemed inauthentic, they contain elements borrowed from authentic works. He criticizes the confusion between validity and authenticity, and the assertion that dissertations cannot be assessed for authenticity, calling it a 'travesty of science.' He concludes that fraud is a perennial hazard in anomalistics but should not lead to abject submission.

Astrology: A Review Symposium

The magazine then presents a prologue to a review symposium on the book "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976" by Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather. The prologue, likely written by the editor 'M. T.', emphasizes focusing on responsible proponents of paranormal inquiry rather than sensationalistic occult press. It highlights the book as an important work that attempts to strip astrology of its pseudoscientific elements.

The symposium features six experts with diverse perspectives: Prof. George O. Abell (astronomer and critic), Dane Rudhyar (astrologer and psychologist), Prof. Hans J. Eysenck (psychologist), Michel Gauquelin (astrobiologist), Malcolm Dean (science journalist), and Prof. Joseph Agassi (philosopher of science).

The dialogue is structured with five initial reviews, followed by replies from Dean and Mather. Prof. Agassi's review is presented separately due to its length and character.

Review by G.O. Abell

Professor Abell describes "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology" as a monumental compendium and the most comprehensive survey of astrological literature available. The book covers a vast range of subjects related to natal astrology, including signs, houses, planets, aspects, and even nonastrological phenomena that might suggest celestial-terrestrial relations. Abell notes that Geoffrey Dean, an analytical chemist, science writer, and astrologer, did the lion's share of the work. He characterizes the book as technical, not for the layperson, and difficult to read even for those with a technical background, comparing its density to the Astrophysical Journal. Abell found Dean's competence in statistics and astronomy impressive, noting only a minor error regarding the sun's motion. He divides the book into two parts: traditional astrology and the broader questions of relations between celestial aspects and human affairs.

Abell discusses traditional astrology's origins, where planets were seen as gods influencing humans. He explains how the observation of planetary motions led to the belief that an individual's destiny was determined at birth, hence the importance of the natal horoscope. He touches on historical beliefs about planets forming and dissolving and the 'influence' of planets like Mars and the Moon. He notes that traditional astrology is based on magical correspondence and symbolism derived from polytheistic religions.

Abell contrasts this with modern scientific understanding of planets as worlds composed of chemical elements. He states that physicists and astronomers rejected traditional astrology centuries ago, finding it preposterous to believe that Venus influences love lives, for instance. He suspects Dean shares this view regarding traditional symbolism, as Dean's summary of astrological 'discoveries' highlights a lack of properly-controlled objective evidence and a tendency for hypotheses to be recycled as fact.

However, Abell notes that Dean also describes studies suggesting cosmic influences on terrestrial affairs that are unexpected by science, referring to this as "neoastrology." Abell cautions that while new discoveries might be exciting, they would not validate traditional astrology, as ancient beliefs could not have been based on modern statistical studies.

Further Discussion on Astrology and Science

The text continues to explore the scientific perspective on astrology. It acknowledges that while modern science has uncovered cosmic influences (e.g., day/night cycles, seasons, tides), these are explicable by well-understood science and do not require recourse to unknown laws or ancient magic. The author suggests that even if a correlation were found between a planetary position and a human characteristic, it would not validate classical astrology, as such evidence could not have been known in antiquity.

The author expresses concern that modern astrologers claim scientific validation for traditional astrology based on new discoveries like radio radiation from Jupiter or pulsars. This, the author argues, confuses scientific research with superstition and risks diverting attention from valuable objective studies.

The text then addresses the acceptance of "neoastrological" studies, suggesting Dean is less discriminating with these than with traditional astrology. The author emphasizes that new, unexpected scientific results require rigorous scrutiny and replication by other scientists. Examples like the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's theory of relativity are cited to illustrate how even groundbreaking results were not immediately accepted but required extensive evidence and replication.

The author concludes by stating that while many surprising results are reported in scientific literature, further investigation often reveals them to be wrong. Therefore, caution is advised when judging new discoveries, especially unexpected ones.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of paranormal claims, the distinction between scientific inquiry and superstition, and the evaluation of astrology through a scientific lens. The editorial stance appears to be one of rigorous skepticism towards traditional astrology, advocating for evidence-based analysis and caution in accepting extraordinary claims, while remaining open to genuine scientific discoveries about cosmic influences. The use of Castaneda's work and the review of Dean and Mather's book serve as vehicles for exploring these themes.

This document consists of several reviews and excerpts related to the book "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology" by Geoffrey Dean. The content critically examines various studies and claims within the field of astrology, focusing on the scientific validity and empirical evidence behind astrological theories.

Review of Geoffrey Dean's "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology"

The reviews, particularly those by Dane Rudhyar and H.J. Eysenck, and a response from Michel Gauquelin, offer a multi-faceted perspective on Dean's work. Dean's book is described as an "inclusive attempt to make some sense out of the obvious chaos of systems and opinions constituting what we today call astrology." However, it is also characterized as a "biased attempt" that prioritizes "truth" defined as "objective and exact knowledge based on scientific research" over "belief," which is associated with "symbolism, intuition and holistic understanding."

Key Studies and Concepts Discussed

Several significant studies and concepts are brought up in the context of Dean's book:

• John Henry Nelson's Study: This research investigated the relationship between planetary configurations and disturbances in high-frequency radio signals, linking them to solar flares. Nelson believed he found statistical evidence that flares are triggered when planets align at specific angles (0°, 90°, 180°) as seen from the sun. The reviews note that while this might be interesting, it doesn't directly support traditional astrology, which uses geocentric rather than heliocentric measurements. The scientific community's evaluation of Nelson's work is mixed, with some finding his statistical analyses unconvincing and his accuracy claims broad.

• Michel Gauquelin's Work: Gauquelin, a French psychologist, conducted extensive tests to verify astrological predictions. While he rejected traditional astrology, he found statistically significant tendencies for certain planets to be in specific sectors of the sky at the time of birth for successful professionals (e.g., scientists, military men). The "Mars effect," where Mars appears more often in critical sectors for sports champions, is a key focus. The reviews highlight that Gauquelin's work has been critically examined, with some committees refusing to endorse his findings due to methodological criticisms. A study involving a large sample of sports champions yielded negative results, though a later test by Marvin Zelen showed marginal significance, primarily due to athletes born in Paris.

• The "Mars Effect": This refers to Gauquelin's finding that Mars is more frequently found in certain sky sectors at the birth of sports champions. The significance of this effect is debated, with some studies showing negative results or marginal significance that is not consistent across different locations (e.g., Paris vs. Belgium).

• Holism vs. Mechanism: Dane Rudhyar, in his critique, contrasts the book's apparent preference for a mechanistic view of the universe with a holistic approach, which he argues is fundamental to modern physics. He suggests that the book's definition of astrology is too narrow and dismisses approaches that do not fit a strictly scientific, empirical mold.

• Vernon Clark's Experiment: This experiment involved astrologers matching birth charts with descriptions of occupations. Dean suggests the results show strong apparent support for astrology. However, the reviewer (Gauquelin) questions Clark's credentials as an "orthodox scientist" and notes that French astrologers who took the test failed, attributing a "fundamental defect" to the test's lack of psychological insight.

Methodological Criticisms and Scientific Rigor

A recurring theme is the methodological difficulties in astrological research. The reviews emphasize the importance of rigorous statistical analysis, avoiding sampling errors, and applying astronomical and demographic corrections. The "P.T. Barnum Effect" (or Forer effect) is also implicitly referenced, where vague statements can appear to be highly accurate to individuals.

Skepticism is prevalent, with reviewers noting that even when correlations are found, they do not necessarily prove causation or support traditional astrological claims. The distinction between "astrology in the narrow sense" (traditional doctrine) and "astrology in the broad sense" (empirically ascertained relationships) is made, with Gauquelin's work falling into the latter category.

Editorial Stance and Conclusion

The reviews generally acknowledge the immense effort involved in compiling and reviewing such a large body of astrological research. While some reviewers agree with Dean's critical approach and find his book a valuable resource, others find his definition of astrology too restrictive and his dismissal of holistic or symbolic approaches unwarranted. The consensus is that while some studies, like Gauquelin's, remain interesting and warrant further investigation, much of the astrological research discussed lacks the robust scientific validation required for acceptance.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The primary theme is the tension between empirical, scientific investigation and traditional or belief-based astrology. The reviews highlight the challenges of establishing scientific credibility in astrology, the importance of rigorous methodology, and the ongoing debate about what constitutes "astrology" itself. The editorial stance, as reflected in the reviews, leans towards a critical, scientific evaluation of astrological claims, emphasizing the need for evidence and caution against accepting findings at face value, especially when they lack independent replication or clear causal explanations.

This issue of Phenomena, Volume 2, Issue 2.3/2.4, dated May-Aug 1978, features a significant review by Malcolm Dean of the book "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology (R.A.)". The magazine focuses on the ongoing debate surrounding astrology, its scientific validity, and the methodologies used to study it.

Review of 'Recent Advances in Natal Astrology' by Malcolm Dean

Malcolm Dean reviews "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology (R.A.)," a book he describes as brilliant and daring, but one whose publication he regrets due to its timing and presentation. He places the book within the historical context of 1975, a year marked by widespread scientific condemnation of astrology by figures who would later form the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICP). Dean notes that the claims made against astrology at that time were often not supported by scientific studies and have not survived critical analysis.

He highlights that "Recent Advances" was the culmination of a project involving many contributors, aiming to create an extensive bibliography of 20th-century astrology, which he considers a monumental achievement and a valuable feature, especially when contrasted with the lack of bibliographies produced by the CSICP.

Dean distinguishes "Recent Advances" as a product of "serious Astrology," separate from popular astrology. He suggests that while serious astrologers might have joined critics in condemning popular astrology, this book represents a more dedicated approach. However, he points out that the book suffered from a shortage of time and funding, partly due to the scientific community's predisposition to view astrology as unworthy of investigation.

He poses a critical question: given the confidence of skeptics, why did they not fund or instigate a similar comprehensive project to investigate astrology themselves? Dean implies that a neutral observer would find it easier to identify the truly pseudoscientific group.

Dean first encountered "Recent Advances" as a limited edition draft, which he found to be a powerful and much-needed compendium of important sources. He acknowledges that due to extreme difficulties, the author, Dr. Dean (no relation), undertook much of the final draft himself in a short period. This rushed process, he suggests, may have led to a residual tone of negativity in the book's conclusions and style, with one scientist characterizing its style as "repellent." Dean agrees with this assessment, noting a strong element of personal bias, particularly in the rave review of Harmonics despite weak supporting evidence.

He cautions readers against accepting Dr. Dean's conclusions without proper analysis, as the book's broad scope and the reluctance of quoted authors to engage further may lead to misinterpretations and the dismissal of positive research avenues. Dean fears that critics might read "Recent Advances," remain ignorant of contemporary astrological practice, and form a negative opinion.

Several reasons are given for this potential issue:
1. Retrospective Nature: Key evidence supporting astrology, such as studies by Eysenck and the failure of the CSICP to disprove the Mars Effect, emerged as "Recent Advances" was being prepared, making the book retrospectively out of date.
2. Separation of Theory and Symbolism: Dr. Dean deliberately separated theoretical from symbolic elements, glossing over Humanistic Astrology and giving little mention to Jungian and Alchemical symbolism. The book operates within a modern scientific paradigm that may not represent mainstream astrological philosophy.

Dean criticizes the book for divorcing symbolic and intuitional levels of astrology from its content, despite Dr. Dean and his colleagues using horoscopes. He suggests the book is written for scientists attempting to enter astrology rather than for serious astrologers, apart from its bibliography.

He also touches on the political role of "Recent Advances," suggesting it will likely be used by skeptics to support their preconceptions. Dean argues that by alienating mainstream astrologers, the book hastens the potential divorce of New Astrology from Traditional Astrology, which he sees as unfortunate given astrology's deep roots and the potential for new scientific paradigms through its integration with physics, numerology, and art.

Dean believes that the proper response will be for mainstream science to move closer to astrology, not vice versa, citing Buckminster Fuller as an example of integrating astrological theory with other fields. He concludes that "Recent Advances" fails to address the more difficult aspects of astrology, such as its philosophical and spiritual purpose.

Regarding the CSICP's attack on astrology, Dean suggests the authors and sponsors of "Recent Advances" should have considered the tactical implications. He believes the book will have little effect on the scientific community but could have been tremendously important for the astrological community if it had remained a pure compendium of texts and sources. As it is, with limited access to sources and Dr. Dean's bias, the book's negative conclusions may be largely ignored.

Dean posits that if "Recent Advances" had presented a compendium of important literature, it could have opened new ground for scholarship and led to a common possession of a uniform literature of modern astrology, potentially initiating an "information revolution" that is still awaited.

Notes and References

The issue includes a "Notes" section with eight references, citing various publications and authors such as Carl Sagan, Phenomena, O. Neugebauer, and Prof. Truzzi, indicating the scholarly context of the articles.

"The Authors Respond"

This section features responses from Geoffrey Dean, Arthur Mather, and others to critiques of "Recent Advances," particularly from Professor Abell, Mr. Rudhyar, and Professor Eysenck.

Response to Professor Abell (Geoffrey Dean)

Geoffrey Dean agrees with Professor Abell on several points, including that "Recent Advances" neither attacks nor defends astrology and that some astrologers have voiced strong objections, often ignoring the lack of evidence for their beliefs. He notes that while two astrological reviewers condemned the book for errors, a majority (3:1) have voiced approval. Dean acknowledges Abell's point that modern study results could not have formed traditional beliefs due to the lack of ancient techniques. He argues that the empirical relationship between Mars rising and sports achievement, for example, is small and requires modern analysis. He also contends that the claim that tradition stems from millennia of empirical observation is untenable if the meaning of 500 factors cannot be deduced from any 40 present in a chart.

Dean concedes that Abell makes a reasonable case against traditional astrology based on its superstitious fundamentals. However, he disagrees with Abell's implication that traditional astrology is unworthy of study. He also opposes the claim that the validity of traditional astrology is verified by new discoveries of science, calling it "loose talk." Dean defends the book's standards, stating that all references are given for serious readers to check, and that scientific literature generally has higher standards than astrological press. He argues that "Recent Advances" cited relevant work, not just supporting material, and that their own expertise was applied to assess the cited material. He admits that comprehensive survey required including material not normally acceptable, but insists it was treated with equal rigor. The book is intended as a gathering of loose ends for researchers, not a final pronouncement.

Regarding Nelson and Gauquelin, Dean agrees that Nelson's work has a subjective element needing checking but notes his results have not been refuted. He hopes the book has clarified Nelson's techniques. He also agrees with Abell that Gauquelin's results may be statistical artifacts, but suggests a test to verify this by randomly altering years in Gauquelin's data.

Response to Mr. Rudhyar (Geoffrey Dean)

Geoffrey Dean addresses Mr. Rudhyar's points, stating that the book is not biased because it distinguishes truth from belief. He agrees that the book criticizes Rudhyar's symbolic approach, not the symbolism itself. Dean quotes the book stating that symbolism is vague and subjective, requiring objective evidence. He criticizes Rudhyar for consistently failing to present all sides of the story, thus denying holism.

Dean also refutes Rudhyar's view that "Holism does not lead to understanding clocks etc." and that Rudhyar is evading classical physics for "new physics." He asserts that much of "new physics" is verified by classical physics, which retains validity. Dean clarifies that the book does not reject holism but states it is not enough, and that reductionism must precede holism for genuine insight. He explains that citing modern symbolic and holistic approaches would fill many volumes and be full of contradictions, being based on unsupported concepts. He believes both philosophical/spiritual and scientific examination of astrology are important, likening Rudhyar's criticism to condemning a chemistry book for lacking psychology.

Dean argues that objective studies are not futile, countering Rudhyar's claim that statistics can prove anything or nothing. He states that the answer is to learn statistics to avoid being misled. He concludes that Rudhyar rejects science in favor of symbolism, accepting belief in lieu of truth, and is disappointed by the book review.

Response to Professor Eysenck (Geoffrey Dean)

Geoffrey Dean acknowledges Professor Eysenck's point that too much importance is given to work of little value, a point also raised by Mr. Gauquelin. He notes that much of this work is not available in libraries, so dismissing it would be an authoritarian approach. Dean believes that worthless work must be seen as worthless to maintain credibility. He points out that Eysenck rightly notes the limited knowledge of possible causal factors. Dean's team has shown how solar and terrestrial cycles, along with Nelson, Gauquelin, and Addey's findings, provide a plausible model of causation that accommodates cycles and astrology, potentially linking with Eysenck's theory of the biological basis of personality. He admits there are gaps but insists everything is consistent with the facts, and further study could lead to a breakthrough.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific investigation of astrology, the methodologies employed, and the distinction between serious and popular astrological practice. The magazine appears to engage critically with both skeptical viewpoints and the internal debates within the astrological community, aiming to foster a more rigorous and evidence-based approach to the subject. The editorial stance seems to favor a balanced examination, acknowledging the limitations of current astrological research while also critiquing overly dismissive skeptical positions and advocating for continued scientific inquiry into the field.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, Volume 4, Issue 13, published in 1978, features a series of critical responses and analyses concerning astrology and superstition. The primary focus is a detailed response to Mr. Gauquelin, with contributions from G. Dean and A. Mather, and a separate article by Joseph Agassi on the theory of superstition. The magazine adopts a skeptical and scientific approach, examining the validity of astrological claims and the psychological underpinnings of belief.

Response to Mr. Gauquelin

The section begins with a quote from Colombet's article, which Mr. Gauquelin had cited, emphasizing that astrology mirrors internal reality rather than just external phenomena. Dean and Mather then address Mr. Gauquelin's main points:

1. Definition of Astrology: They explain their use of the term 'astrology' due to the lack of widely recognized alternatives and their focus on relevant phenomena regardless of labels. They acknowledge that even astrologers differ on definitions and clarify they defined 'astrology-as-used-in-the-book' for precision.
2. Belief in Astrology: Geoffrey Dean states that astrology should be a matter of demonstration, not belief. He personally believes enough can be demonstrated to warrant further attention and acknowledges how easy it is to believe when a correspondence is seen between a person and their chart. However, he cautions that this could be due to gullibility, universal validity, self-assessment bias, halo effects, coincidence, and other factors. He notes that demonstrating this correspondence unambiguously is challenging but is working on it with promising results.
3. Importance of Work: They state that too much importance is given to work of little value, referencing their response to Professor Eysenck.
4. Vernon Clark's Quote: They confirm Gauquelin's quote about apparent support for astrology but emphasize the word 'apparent.' They clarify their own conclusion (page 554) that the results do not demonstrate astrology works, but rather that astrologers work, suggesting potential psi effects and sharing Gauquelin's skepticism.

Re Mr. Gauquelin's numbered points (Dean & Mather's response):

• (1) Clark's Qualifications: They state that details in Clark's papers provide no grounds for doubting his orthodox qualifications and practice.
• (2) Astrologer Identification: The 50 astrologers are not identified for the same reason participants in blind trials are not identified in psychology or chemistry.
• (3) French Study: They were unaware of the French study sent by Gauquelin, which reportedly repeated Clark's first test. They note the study's deficiencies, including lack of participant numbers, full results, and statistical analysis, making verification of alleged failure and disappointment impossible. They mention that deficiencies noted by Colombet were rectified in Clark's other tests, but these were not repeated by the French group.

Responses to Mr. Dean (from Geoffrey Dean):

Geoffrey Dean responds to Malcolm Dean's review, characterizing it as a typical media journalist's sensationalist approach lacking objectivity. He criticizes Malcolm Dean for condemning the scientific community for dismissing popular astrology without investigating serious astrology, while serious astrologers also dismiss popular astrology and support research. Dean also notes that Malcolm Dean describes astrology as an 'extremely ancient branch of science,' which he disputes, stating the astrology discussed is not even a century old and not a science.

Geoffrey Dean addresses Malcolm Dean's points:

• Final Draft: He confirms he did much of the final draft but refutes the implication that others had no say or that the book was done in a short period. He states RA involved significant hours from multiple collaborators, including Arthur Mather, whose contribution was substantial.
• Negativity: He defends RA's critical stance, comparing it to telling Flat Earthers the world is round. He argues that credibility matters and that their approach is necessary when dealing with a lack of positive evidence. He challenges Malcolm Dean to provide examples of negativity or bias.
• Style: He dismisses a comment about the book's style being 'repellent' without knowing the source, contrasting it with a 'stunningly clear' verdict from a US distributor.
• Harmonics: He acknowledges the prominence of harmonics but defends it based on merit, stating that many claims for harmonics research have been dismissed as spurious. He clarifies that RA is critical of harmonics and not biased in its favor.
• Criticism of Astrologers: He explains that astrologers are criticized for lack of precision, while Erlewine is criticized for being overly precise. He clarifies that astrologers are criticized for being sloppy and ignorant of objective techniques, whereas Erlewine's precision was criticized in a context where the required accuracy was undefined.
• Conclusions: He corrects Malcolm Dean's assertion that RA attempts to conclude on each topic, stating that more often the conclusion is that no conclusion is possible due to lack of evidence. He agrees with the caution against accepting conclusions and emphasizes that RA provides data and references for readers to draw their own.
• Author Reactions: He questions Malcolm Dean's claim about authors feeling misquoted, asking for numbers and reasons. He notes that over 1000 authors are cited and comments are invited, making the claim about authors' reluctance to discuss meaningless.
• Eysenck Reference: He refutes the claim that RA contains no reference to Eysenck's work, pointing to specific pages. He also corrects the assertion that all replications of Eysenck's work were favorable, citing a recent study from the University of Queensland that was not.

From Arthur Mather:

Mather believes Malcolm Dean's review will put the book (RA) into better perspective for the journal's readership. He characterizes Dean's reaction as emotional and critical outside the book's context, which clearly states its purpose is scientific assessment of astrology's information content.

Mather summarizes RA's findings: several areas of traditional astrology appear valid or merit investigation (e.g., planetary characteristics, aspects), while others (signs, rulerships, houses) lack evidence. He notes outrage from some quarters but appreciation from others. He states their 'sin' was not supporting the status quo, contrasting this with how Gauquelin's positive results were hailed as validation, but his negative results were dismissed.

Mather addresses Dean's points:

• Scientific but Negative: He acknowledges Dean's view that RA is scientific but negative due to time pressure and bias. Mather argues that the astrological press shows more bias and that RA's currency is facts, which do not permit bias. He states that if relevant material were omitted, it would be selection, but this charge was not made. The emphasis on facts is for the reader to judge.
• Drafts and Collaboration: He explains that relevant sections of RA's drafts were circulated among 50 collaborators for comment, with authors checking their own work. He suggests reluctance to comment now is because they have no valid counterarguments.
• Attention to Areas: He explains that attention varies due to the amount of material written on different topics, not due to reliability. He refutes the idea of a 'rave review' for harmonics, stating that most claims were dismissed as not significant.
• Tactical Error: He dismisses the idea that RA was a tactical error, arguing that for every avenue not recommended, at least one other is positively recommended. He states that RA cannot be dismissed as disproving astrology without the material being present for a valid rejoinder.
• Out of Date: He rejects the claim that RA is out of date, as no new evidence has emerged since its publication. He notes that Eysenck and Mayo's work on harmonics is included but does not prove signs as traditionally conceived.
• Symbolism: He argues that if symbolism is the essence of astrology, it is a theoretical structure unworthy of study. If astrology has an observational basis, then more concrete concepts are needed for quantitative assessment.
• Impact: He believes Malcolm Dean regrets RA's lack of impact on the scientific world and missed opportunity with the astrological world. He argues that a simple compendium would not have provided the necessary critical thought. He suggests that if astrologers feel strongly about bias, they might cooperate on a compendium, but otherwise, posterity will judge.

Towards a Rational Theory of Superstition

Joseph Agassi's article challenges the scientific status of current astrology, using Sir Karl Popper's demarcation criterion. He agreed to review 'Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review, 1900-1976' by Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather. Agassi finds the book dense and lacking substance, making a full review too time-consuming.

He addresses Paul Feyerabend's challenge that rationalists condemn superstition without understanding it. Agassi regrets all condemnation and states that while he has no wish to condemn astrology or other superstitions, he objects to Feyerabend's aggressiveness.

1. The Current Theory of Superstition:

Agassi notes that superstitions are common. He attributes the current theory of superstition's prevalence to Sir Francis Bacon, who proposed that the mind is lazy and reinforces learned beliefs, creating an incentive for intellectual stubbornness. He explains that people see the world through the 'distorting mirror of their superstition,' confirming their beliefs with evidence, while those who fail to survive or conform are not recorded.

Bacon's rules were: 1) do not select evidence, and 2) begin with facts. Dr. William Whewell modified this, suggesting starting with an explanatory hypothesis and selecting facts to test it. Agassi notes that Einstein superseded Newton, despite Newtonian mechanics' high validation.

He states that Bacon and Whewell's ideas lead to the corollary that religion is superstition for the gullible. He discusses the allure of superstition, citing Einstein's observation that people do not notice their prejudices like fish do not notice water. This led to responses from Sir Karl Popper (who advocated severe tests and admitting metaphysical hypotheses) and Maurice Ginsberg (who suggested attacking prejudices from all sides).

Agassi reports that Ginsberg's strategy often fails, as prejudices adapt. He notes that the authors of 'Recent Advances in Natal Astrology' accept criticism, denounce gullibility, and remain steadfast in their prejudice, making Ginsberg's view false. He suggests that the book attacks prejudice from all sides, but the prejudiced explain away each attack.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of astrology's scientific validity, the nature of belief versus evidence, and the psychological and philosophical underpinnings of superstition. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical and empirical, advocating for scientific rigor and objective assessment of claims, even when those claims are deeply ingrained in popular belief systems. The authors consistently challenge unsubstantiated assertions and emphasize the importance of verifiable data and logical reasoning in understanding phenomena, whether astrological or superstitious.

This issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 11, Number 1, published in Fall 1986, with a cover price of $3.50, addresses the question "Is Astrology Scientific?" The magazine explores the complex relationship between superstition, rationality, and science, examining various philosophical and methodological approaches to understanding belief systems.

Prejudice and Confusion in Academia

The opening section discusses prejudice, particularly in the academic world, and how it can manifest through the use of excuses to dismiss criticism. The author notes that while individual excuses might be true, a pattern of making multiple excuses can lead to contradictions and confusion, obscuring the validity of a particular view.

The Present Volume and Astrology

The issue introduces a volume that "makes no excuses" and invites a new attitude towards astrology. The author suggests two possible responses to this volume: either viewing it as a defense of superstitious opinions, or recognizing its potential to shift the basis of rationality from theory assessment to program assessment, a concept noted by Imre Lakatos. The author posits that sophisticated superstition can be programmatic.

Critiquing Traditional Views of Reason and Unreason

A central error in the traditional view is identified as treating studies of prejudice and superstition as corollaries to studies of science and rationality. This approach, the author argues, leads to defects in the theory of unreason mirroring those in the theory of reason, and it leaves no neutral territory, inverting commendation into condemnation. The text suggests that erroneous theories of reason are less harmful than erroneous theories of unreason due to an inherent asymmetry in how individuals perceive themselves and others.

The Problem of Reasonable Disagreement

The theory of rationality as proof is criticized for excluding reasonable disagreement, making all disagreement unreasonable. This is exemplified by the dispute between field theory and action-at-a-distance theory, which should not imply one party is unreasonable. The text notes that this flawed theory underpins Kraeplin's theory of paranoia and is often used to label individuals as prejudiced or superstitious rather than paranoiac.

Identifying Superstition and Prejudice

The article argues that identifying superstition and prejudice with unreason oversimplifies decision-making into wisdom or folly, neglecting neutrality. It questions why friendship is often considered outside the domain of wisdom or folly, as trust within friendship requires rational assessment, making it a matter of wise or foolish trust.

Impressions About the Volume At Hand

This section provides an overview of the reviewed volume concerning astrology. It touches upon the basic understanding of Zodiac signs and their historical and astronomical basis, noting that the twelve signs are not perfectly equal divisions of the sky and that their origins are complex. The authors of the volume are described as admitting the difficulties in astrological systems but remaining optimistic.

Juggling and Precision in Astrology

The author expresses a lack of concern with the "juggling" involved in astrology but rejects the view that science is solely about precision. Both science and superstition, it is argued, can involve precision mixed with ad hoc adjustments for a good fit. The concept of degrees of precision is discussed, emphasizing that it depends on the purpose at hand, such as calendar calculations or analyzing motion pictures. The text critiques astrological claims, such as Aquarians being likely sailors, as having been refuted.

The Nature of Constellations and Astrology

The article questions the fundamental premise of astrology, stating that "there are no constellations" in the way astrology assumes. It highlights that apparent constellations change and their movement depends on time and place. The text also points out the differing systems used (sidereal vs. tropical) and the historical variations in the number of Zodiac signs, suggesting that modern astrologers face even greater challenges in juggling data.

Fuzzy Theory and Empirical Research

The authors of the reviewed volume are described as taking suggestions seriously, even those made as jokes, and are seen as incredibly gullible when facts are wanting and theory is fuzzy. While they critique the gullible on empirical evidence, they themselves exhibit gullibility in theoretical matters. The text questions whether fuzzy theory can be made precise and suggests that the authors notice the hopelessness of the situation but do not consider aborting the project.

The Problem of Astrology's Persistence

The core problem presented by the volume is "why does astrology persist?" The author suggests that if astrology could be objectively validated, its persistence would be explained and justified. The text acknowledges the difficulty in comparing different astrological traditions and viewing such a long tradition as a single phenomenon.

Concessions to Theory Assessment

Two concessions are made to the current theory of theory assessment: first, that the persistence of a view may be grounded in either gullibility or facts, both of which are complex categories; and second, that from time to time, even seemingly absurd hypotheses may be tested.

Irrationalism

This section explores the moral quandary of tolerating superstitions like astrology, psychoanalysis, or Marxism. The author notes that while some are tolerant of religion but not astrology, others have the reverse attitude. The problem of tolerating the intolerant is discussed, along with the damage caused by miseducation. The author expresses a desire to tackle the problems related to the theory of superstition.

The Rationality of Magic and Coincidence

Referencing Evans-Pritchard's work on the Zande tribe, the article highlights that magic, like other superstitions, centers around coincidence, a phenomenon that science struggles to explain. Magic, it is argued, injects meaning into events rather than explaining them, which is seen as a peculiarity of superstition. The author aligns with sympathizers who view this as a "yearning of the soul" or a "quest for meaning."

Evans-Pritchard's Irrationalism

Evans-Pritchard's second point is that the Zande are not uncritical of magic as a whole because their entire thinking apparatus is occupied by it. This is termed "irrationalism," a trend observed in thinkers like Michael Polanyi and noted by Bertrand Russell. The spread of irrationalism is partly attributed to the "silly attitude" of some rationalists towards it.

Science, Superstition, and Demarcation

The article discusses Popper's demarcation between science and pseudo-science, which relies on the refutability of hypotheses. However, it is argued that language can shift meanings, and hypotheses can be altered to avoid refutation. The author contends that magic, as pre-science, cannot be pseudo-science and that a pre-science can use juggling as a heuristic device. The distinction between innocent, regressive, and parasitic superstitions is emphasized.

The Nature of Scientific Hypotheses

Popper's discussion of hypotheses is said to focus only on those with fixed meanings. If the meaning of a hypothesis changes, it becomes a new hypothesis, potentially unscientific. The text notes that language can shift meanings, sometimes intentionally, leading to a subtle form of cheating, particularly with "magically-minded people" who project meanings into the world.

Refuting Pseudo-Astrology

The author believes the attacks in the reviewed volume are misplaced because they refute "pseudo-astrology" while the authors themselves believe in suggestions rather than clear-cut hypotheses. The text asserts that Popper's claim that astrology is a pseudo-science is false, despite following a rationalist tradition. Magic is described as elusive and essentially pseudo-science, a fusion that Sir James Frazer also noted.

Regressive Superstition

The article distinguishes between regressive and innocent superstition, defining the regressive as infantile and fixational, characterized by clinging, aggression, and fear. It is noted that anxiety can cause confusion, but humans can still focus and be clear.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, the nature of rationality and irrationality, and the philosophical underpinnings of belief systems. The magazine critically examines astrology, questioning its scientific validity and exploring the psychological and sociological reasons for its persistence. The editorial stance appears to be one of skeptical inquiry, advocating for rigorous assessment of claims and a clear understanding of scientific methodology, while also acknowledging the complex human need for meaning and the historical role of superstition.

This issue of The Zetetic Scholar, Volume 4, Number 11, published in Fall 1979, is dedicated to exploring themes of superstition, rationalism, and the scientific investigation of paranormal claims. The magazine features in-depth articles, critical reviews, and extensive bibliographies.

Articles and Discussions

The Nature of Superstition and Irrationalism

The issue opens with a detailed examination of various forms of irrational belief, including superstition, dogmatism, fanaticism, and ambulatory paranoia. The author attempts to characterize these states, noting that while dogmatists cling to their central beliefs, fanatics are confused about them. Ambulatory paranoiacs are described as being clear about their focus but increasingly confused about the periphery, leading to anxiety. Superstitious individuals are either generally confused or act out of anxiety.

The text then discusses the concept of 'frameworks,' as termed by Karl Popper, which are self-imposed intellectual systems. This is illustrated by the identification of systems like Zande magic, Communist dogma, Nuer religion, and even Catholicism as such frameworks, which can be composed, discussed, and replaced.

The relevance of these frameworks to research programs is highlighted, with a discussion on what makes a program 'progressive' or 'regressive,' referencing the ideas of Lakatos and the metaphor of the 'owl of Minerva' flying only at dusk. The question is posed whether astrology's 'dusk' has already passed or is yet to come, prompting a consideration of whether to cast a horoscope for astrology's future.

Response to Professor Agassi

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to a response from Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather to Professor Agassi. They address Agassi's critique of their book, which they state comprises only about 14% of his review. Dean and Mather contend that Agassi's verdict is prejudiced, as he rejects astrology out of hand and fails to provide a balanced opinion, which they find contrary to the journal's policy. They accuse Agassi of not having read the book properly, rendering his comments on its content worthless. Furthermore, they argue that Agassi demonstrates a poor understanding of modern astrology, making erroneous statements about signs, precession, and the ecliptic.

Dean and Mather also point out that Agassi fails to recognize their role as reviewers of astrological literature rather than proponents of its claims. They argue that Agassi's condemnation of them for taking superstitious ideas seriously is misplaced, and that his suggestion to 'abort the whole thing' is meaningless. They clarify that the original editorial request was for a review of astrology's scientific status in light of recent advances, not for a generation of refutable claims. They conclude that the effort spent assessing the underlying assumptions of astrology worldwide is justified, despite Agassi's view that it is a body of superstition.

Future Issues and Content

A section titled "COMING IN FUTURE ISSUES" lists upcoming articles and topics, including "Article on UFO witness reliability," "Bibliography on the Lunar Effect," "Article on the Sasquatch," "ZS Dialogue on Parapsychology," "ZS Dialogue on UFO theories," and more review symposia and book reviews.

Bibliographies

The issue contains extensive bibliographies on "SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF CLASSICAL ASTROLOGY" and "VAMPIRES: STUDIES & ORGANIZATIONS." These bibliographies list numerous academic papers, journal articles, and books, providing a resource for further research on these topics.

Book Reviews

Astrology Disproved by Lawrence E. Jerome

Reviewed by Anthony Standen, this section critiques Lawrence E. Jerome's book, "Astrology Disproved." Standen acknowledges that the book aims to attack astrology but finds it contains several mistakes. The criticisms fall into three main groups: first, Jerome's unclear definition of astrology, confusing it with astronomy; second, his anticlericalism and misrepresentation of historical theological positions on free will; and third, his method of disproving astrology by calling it 'magic' and then dismissing magic as false. Standen concludes that while he agrees with the book's bottom line (that astrology is false), he disagrees with most of Jerome's approach and arguments.

The Lunar Effect: Biological Tides and Human Emotions by A.R. Lieber

Reviewed by Ivan W. Kelly, this section examines Arnold Lieber's book, which proposes a theory of "biological tides" to explain the moon's influence on human behavior. Kelly contends that both Lieber's empirical research and his theory are weak. He notes that Lieber has combed the scientific literature for any remotely relevant information, including hearsay about police and ambulance drivers. Kelly cites reviews by Campbell and Beets, and Cooke and Coles, which conclude that there is no unequivocal support for a lunar effect on human behavior and that positive findings are likely Type 1 statistical errors. Kelly also criticizes Lieber's 'biological tide' theory, which likens the human body to the earth and suggests gravitational forces influence both terrestrial and human biological tides.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of The Zetetic Scholar consistently engages with the critical examination of pseudoscientific claims, particularly astrology and beliefs related to the paranormal. The editorial stance appears to be one of rational inquiry and skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims, while also providing a platform for diverse viewpoints and thorough reviews of relevant literature. The inclusion of extensive bibliographies suggests a commitment to academic rigor and facilitating further research in these complex fields. The magazine aims to dissect claims, evaluate evidence, and foster a critical understanding of topics often relegated to the fringes of scientific discourse.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, Volume 1, Number 2, dated November 1978, primarily consists of a comprehensive "Books Briefly Noted" section, reviewing a wide array of titles relevant to the magazine's focus on anomalies, pseudoscience, and the paranormal. The issue also contains a brief critique of a specific argument concerning human body tides and a review of a book about the moon's influence.

Critique of Analogical Reasoning

The issue begins with a critique of an analogy used to infer tides in the human body from planetary tides. The author argues that the analogy is too weak to warrant the inference, comparing it to saying "Dogs have four legs; cats have four legs; therefore, cats are dogs." The argument also fails because it assumes like causes always have like effects, which is not necessarily true due to the presence of other factors. Furthermore, even if a correlation between terrestrial ocean tides and human activity were established, it would not justify the belief that the same cause is responsible for both.

Book Review: "Ours is a killer moon"

The cover of a book by Lieber, proclaiming "Ours is a killer moon, and it is a lover's moon. As a link between man and the cosmos, the Moon affects everything we do," is mentioned. However, the author of the critique states that Lieber's book does not justify this claim.

Books Briefly Noted

This extensive section reviews 53 books, covering a broad spectrum of topics including ufology, folklore, parapsychology, occultism, astrology, and various pseudoscientific or anomalous phenomena. Each entry provides the author, title, publisher, year, page count, price, and a brief summary of the book's content and the reviewer's opinion.

Notable Reviews:

• The Unexplained: The Unknown World in Which We Live by F. L. Boschke (translated by Jan van Heurck): A remarkable survey of scientific questions and history, concentrating on speculative areas and numerous anomalies of interest to ZS readers. ($1.95 paperback)
• The Vanishing People: A Study of Traditional Fairy Beliefs by Katherine M. Briggs: An outstanding study in folklore, highly recommended and fascinating reading. ($8.95)
• Magic, Science, and Civilization by Jacob Bronowski: An enlightening but eccentric presentation containing nuggets of wisdom, though strung together somewhat oddly. Worth reading but overpriced. ($6.95)
• Realize What You Are: The Dynamics of Jain Meditation by Gurudev Shree Chitrabhanu (edited by Leonard M. Marks): A general introduction to Jain meditation, including "positive thinking." Nicely done and modern. ($7.95)
• Rainbows of Life: The Promise of Kirlian Photography by Mikol Davis and Earl Lane: Described as "Pretty pictures; terrible science." The authors ignore negative evidence and accept fringe concepts. ($6.95 paperback)
• Castaneda's Journey, Second Edition, Revised by Richard de Mille: A highly acclaimed debunking of the ethnographic claims for the don Juan narratives, updated and corrected. Highly recommended. ($4.95 paperback)
• The Signet Handbook of Parapsychology edited by Martin Ebon: A bargain compendium of significant review articles by parapsychologists, considered indispensable for those interested in psi claims. ($1.95 paperback)
• Who Goes There? The Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe by Edward Edelson: A useful survey of the SETI movement. Its coverage of Ufology is fair but uncritical of opponents, distorting the characterization of Ufology. ($8.95)
• D. D. Home: The Man Who Talked to Ghosts by L. G. Edmonds: A new biography of the 19th-century medium, offering normal means for his effects, though missing references to key scholars. ($7.95)
• The Mediumship of the Tape Recorder by David J. Ellis: A detailed examination of the phenomenon of voice extras on tape recordings, with basically negative conclusions. Highly recommended. ($5.00 paperback)
• The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations by Joseph Fontenrose: A historical study that largely debunks mythological impressions of "cold readings" from the oracle at Delphi. An outstanding piece of historical scholarship. ($25.00)
• The Complete Guide to Middle Earth: From the Hobbit to the Silmarillion by Robert Foster: An updated guide to Tolkien's world. ($10.00)
• Faeries by Brian Froud and Alan Lee (edited by David Larkin): A gorgeously illustrated work, though sometimes inaccurate and reliant on Katherine Briggs without credit. ($17.50)
• Dreams and Illusions of Astrology by Michel Gauquelin: A translation of one of Gauquelin's books debunking traditional astrology and outlining his work in astrobiology. Highly recommended. ($14.95)
• Pagan/Occult/New Age Directory edited by Rhuddlwm Gawr: A useful listing of addresses and information on pagan religious and related organizations. ($3.95 paperback)
• Shamanic Voices: A Survey of Visionary Narratives by Joan Halifax: A general survey essay with excellent edited first-person narratives. A very well done and useful collection. ($6.95 paperback)
• The Anatomy of Hallucinations by Fred H. Johnson: An excellent new survey on the psychology and neurophysiology of hallucinations. Highly recommended. ($16.95)
• Spiritual Community Guide #4 edited by Parmatama Singh Khalsa: A massive compilation of names, addresses, and descriptions of spiritual development centers and humanistic psychology organizations. Recommended. ($5.95 paperback)
• Bibliography of Books and Articles on the Relationship between Science and Pseudoscience by Harry Leith: An extremely useful bibliography for the science-pseudoscience demarcation problem. ($3.45 paperback)
• The Reception of Unconventional Science edited by Seymour H. Mauskopf: Papers from a 1977 AAAS panel on unconventional science, including topics like acausal physics, continental drift, acupuncture, and parapsychology. Highly recommended. ($13.25)
• Science of Psi: ESP and PK by Carroll B. Nash: A first-rate survey of parapsychology, though uncritical of "questionable" phenomena. Recommended for courses on parapsychology. ($16.95)
• Ephemeris of Chiron 1890-2000 by James Neely and Eric Tarkington: A computer-generated ephemeris for astrologers. ($10.00 paperback)
• Messages from the Stars:: Communication and Contact with Extraterrestrial Life by Ian Ridpath: Discusses space exploration and contact attempts, with debunking chapters on past and present contact that are useful but not definitive. ($10.00)
• Witchcraft: An Introduction to the Literature of Witchcraft by Rossell Hope Robbins: An introduction to the catalog of the witchcraft collection at Cornell University. Highly important survey. ($7.95 paperback)
• Appalachian Ghosts by Nancy Roberts: A book of ghost stories for young readers. ($5.95)
• Selected Highland Folktales by R. Macdonald Robertson: A welcome reprinting of a classic collection of Scottish folklore. ($9.95)
• Phone Calls from the Dead by D. Scott Rogo and Raymond Bayless: A fascinating book about "OOBE-scene phone calls," presented as fun reading but not a careful scientific case. ($8.95)
• Witchcraft: The Heritage of a Heresy by Hans Sebald: An ethnographic and historical work on witchcraft in Franconian Switzerland, representing excellent scholarship. ($18.95 hardbound, $7.95 paperback)
• Stonehenge: The Indo-European Heritage by Leon E. Stover and Bruce Kraig: An informative and fascinating account of Stonehenge's history and meaning. ($19.95 hardbound, $9.95 paperback)
• Total Meditation: Mind Control Techniques for a Small Planet in Space by Raymond Van Over: A compact and well-done survey of meditation techniques. ($4.95 paperback)
• Reality Revealed: The Theory of Multidimensional Reality by Douglas Vogt and Gary Sultan: An ambitious attempt at a unified field theory, indebted to Nikola Tesla, explaining phenomena like psi and mythological events. ($12.95)
• Spiritual and Demonic Magic: From Ficino to Campanella by D. P. Walker: An important historical work showing the influence of Renaissance Neoplatonism on magical and mystical traditions. ($5.95 paperback)
• Reliving Past Lives: The Evidence Under Hypnosis by Helen Wambach: An unconvincing and scientifically naive but entertaining attempt to validate reincarnation through past-life recall. ($8.95)
• Brothers of Light; Brothers of Blood: The Penitentes of the Southwest by Marta Weigle: A definitive anthropological-historical study of the Brothers of Our Father Jesus. An excellent scholarly work. ($12.95)
• Kundalini, Evolution and Enlightenment edited by John White: A large compendium of essays on Kundalini and related topics, including UFOs and neurochemistry. ($4.50 paperback)
• Dark Dimensions: A Celebration of the Occult edited by Colin Wilson: A collection of essays on figures like Rasputin, Gurdjieff, H. P. Blavatsky, Nikola Tesla, and Uri Geller. Sensationalistic and uncritical but well-written. ($7.95)
• Mysteries by Colin Wilson: A sequel to "The Occult," this book examines T. C. Lethbridge and "Faculty X." Flawed as scholarship but intelligent and enlightening. ($15.00)
• Psychic Pets: The Secret World of Animals by Joseph Wylder: A book claiming to illustrate psi in animals, focusing on human-animal communication. ($9.95)

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme in this issue is the critical review of literature pertaining to paranormal, occult, and pseudoscientific topics. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious skepticism, as evidenced by the critiques of weak analogies, unsubstantiated claims, and books described as "terrible science" or "uncritical." However, the magazine also acknowledges the value of certain works for those interested in these fields, recommending many for further study or as useful resources. The magazine aims to provide readers with informed evaluations of books that explore the boundaries of conventional science and explore anomalous phenomena.