Source Analysis Outline: Toulmin, Lines of Argument, Fallacies

Organized by Reason

Source Title:   Michael’s Answer 5               Author/Date/Publisher: Michael Star, 1997, personal website: http://www.astrologyzine.com/quest-5.shtml

Claim, the argument's central point:  Astrology is a valid method for predicting human behavior

Reason 1, the argument is true because:  Astrology has been proven by scientific methods.

A) Grounds, the evidence supporting this Reason:   “Astrologers have been observing and carefully recording planetary positions for over 5000 years, and have been observing the correspondences of certain positions to certain events in human lives or certain influences on human characters; we can pretty much rely on any prediction that human decisions and actions, and the events that follow from them, will occur simultaneously when certain alignments of the Planets occur in a given time in space.”  “This is pretty much the way ‘a science’ uses its accumulated observations to form its theories and uses accumulated repeated tests of its theories to predict certain Effects, and uses repeated successful outcomes to validate their faith that the theory will continue to make accurate predictions…always.”  “Originally he [Michel Gauquelin] set out to DISprove the validity of Astrology, but he was a good scientist who did not let his own bias keep him from performing a valid scientific experiment.  Michel Gauquelin was a respected statistician and his methods were precise and scientific enough that no scientist could find a flaw in his methods or question the validity of his experiments.”

B) Warrant, the underlying assumption that connects this reason to the claim:  Being proven by scientific methods makes a discipline a science.

Backing, the evidence supporting the Warrant: a layout of the scientific method; how scientists use logic in an attempt to disprove hypotheses and how this has been applied to Astrology and worked (supposedly)

C) Conditions of Rebuttal, the oppositions view on this reason: One “successful” experiment is not conducive enough evidence to prove the validity of Astrology.  Other experiments (supposedly falsified) have disproved the validity of Astrology.  In science, if a theory does not fit all cases, it must be either revised or cast out.

D) Lines of Argument, Ethos, Pathos, Values used to make the Reason persuasive:  Ethos: The argument presents evidence from a respected scientist and an example of Einstein’s theory of relativity being disregarded for 17 years.  Pathos: The argument questions the belief that scientists understand the cause to a common theory: gravity.  If scientists don’t know the true cause, there could be a larger Cause, etc.  Spark disbelief and distrust in science to make Astrology more credible.  Values: scientists lie to us, therefore they cannot be trusted.

E) Possible Logical Fallacies or empirical errors associated with this line of reasoning:  Prejudicial language in describing Michel Gauquelin.  Anonymous authority:  Argument does not cite any scientist who attempted to disprove Gauquelin, therefore, readers cannot explore the opinion of said scientists.  Equivocation:  Maintains that Astrology can “pretty much” predict, while science depends on consistent, accurate predictions.  “Pretty much” is not the same as always.

Reason 2:  Astrology is a mixture of Astronomy and Psychology, both widely accepted fields.

A) Grounds:  Astrology combines the position of the stars and planets, as determined using Astronomy, with a study of the human psyche to determine behavioral patterns in conjunction to planetary positions. 

B) Warrant:  If Astrology is truly a mixture of accepted/valid fields, then it must be a valid field.

Backing:  Arguments that demonstrate the relationship between Astrology and Astronomy/Psychology.  Arguments explaining why Astronomy is accepted/valid; no evidence to support assumption Psychology is accepted/valid.

C) Conditions of Rebuttal:  Astrologers are not looking into the underlying causes of people’s behavior, as Psychology does.  In fact, the paper remarks that, “I believe that the Cause is still unknown to us, but the Effects are things we can observe and predict” also, “We do not NEED to know the Cause if we can assure ourselves from repeated observations that the one Effect always occurs at the same time as the other Effect.”  Although Astrology utilizes Astronomy to make their planetary position charts, this does not make Astrology and Astronomy equal.

D) Lines of Argument, Ethos, Pathos, Values:  Ethos:  arguments made that scientists are out to destroy the credibility of Astrology, that scientists ignore facts.  Reader does not want to be ignorant and biased, so they tend to side with the author.  Pathos:  Stirs up feelings of anger at unjust attitude of scientists.  Values:  Society accepts Astronomy as science and Psychology as a science; therefore, the author is playing on social acceptability to lend credibility to Astrology.

E) Logical Fallacies or errors:  Equivocation:  the utilization of a science does not make a discipline a science.  Furthermore, the analysis of behavior in relation to planetary positions does not make it equal to analyzing human behavior in the search for the cause of such behavior.  Conflicting conditions:  we don’t need to know the cause if the effect ALWAYS comes with the other effect.  However, the argument also states that we can PRETTY MUCH rely on the predictions made. 

Reason 3:  Scientists have not conclusively proved or disproved Astrology.

A) Grounds:  Astrology deals with the human mind, something science has yet to fully understand.  “How can he [scientist] tell if the Planets and their positions have some effect on his mind and his behavior, if he cannot tell how his own environment…affect[s] his own mind and his own behavior.”  Therefore, it is basically impossible for scientists to design an adequate experiment or study to determine if the position of the planets has an effect on behavior.  People are complex beings—no two act exactly alike.  This leads to the premise that there are no 100% yes or no answers in Astrology (or in any discipline working with human behavior).  There are no “nice neat results like in the other sciences.”  “Yet, ‘scientists’ seem to want Astrology to be proven by experiments that have nice neat results, so they can use statistical analysis to determine what works and what doesn’t.”  “…they like to ignore the whole thing and just assume Astrology must be a lot of bunk, and certainly not a ‘science’.”

B) Warrant:  If scientists cannot prove or disprove why something works, it is valid.

Backing: Scientists cannot prove why gravity occurs, but gravity is considered a valid premise.

C) Conditions of Rebuttal:  If something is to be declared a science, it must be testable.  The inability of scientists to thus far implement an experiment other than the Gauquelin experiment does not disprove the validity of Astrology, however, it does leave it in limbo for now. 

D) Lines of Argument, Ethos, Pathos, Values: Ethos:  making scientists out to be stupid idiots who cannot see their own pathetic failures; unrefined fools who attempt to classify Astrology based on rules it simply cannot conform to.  Don’t be stupid, be intelligent and see the case for Astrology.  Ethos:  fear of being considered ignorant/arrogant.  Values:  appeal to intelligence.  Clearly the reader must be intelligent enough to see how impossible it is to prove Astrology scientifically, yet it has been proven through millennia of use.

E) Logical Fallacies or errors: Contradicting himself again:  first, a valid, scientific experiment has been conducted; now it’s impossible for a scientist to develop a truly representative experiment.  Argument states that scientist cannot know how his environment affects him, how can he understand how the planets effect him.  Yet, earlier the argument stated that the planets have no direct effect on behavior, merely a synchronous position with a behavioral pattern caused by some greater Cause. Prejudiced language:  language in the argument is positive towards viewpoints agreeing with the validity of Astrology, but if someone disagrees they are ignorant, arrogant, or biased.  Appeal to ignorance:  if it can’t be disproved it must be true/valid.

Reason 4:  Astrology is not a true science, but rather has been elevated to an art.

A) Grounds:  Art cannot be explained by rational thought or logical dissemination.  Art is known without one knowing how.  An artist needs not understand the source of inspiration; the artist must only utilize the inspiration.  Just so, the astrologer does not have to know how or why it works to use it and believe in it as a valid tool for self-understanding.  “He does not have to ‘prove’ it to anyone but himself; although many Astrologers seem to need to feel ‘validated’ by scientific theories…” Therefore, just as the artist is free to create without knowing how, just as the artist uses his/her intuition and insight, Astrologers use non-rational ways of thinking to come to conclusions.  “Unfortunately, in our society we have been trained to put more emphasis on rational thinking, logic and reason—and less on intuition and insight and other non-rational ways of knowing.  If we want to maximize our ways of knowing things, we could choose to use BOTH methods and make our final decisions based on which one we feel should be given the greatest consideration in any particular situation.”

B) Warrant:  Art, being rather more subjective than science, means that Astrology is more subjective and thus, easier to validate for individuals.

                        Backing: Art is a matter of opinion, not fact.

C) Conditions of Rebuttal:  Science is not based on what feels right.  Science is based on evidence.  Art is not even considered to be tested as a scientifically valid principle because it presents no argument.  It is a creative outlet, an expression of self.  Therefore, Astrology could not be considered as Art, if it is to present an argument for validity.

D) Lines of Argument, Ethos, Pathos, Values: Ethos:  enlightened people realize that Astrology is too complex to be considered rationally, therefore one must resort to intuition and do what feels right; an appeal to be enlightened and intelligent.  Pathos:  Appeal to fear:  reader is afraid that they are simply seeking validation from people unqualified to give it, afraid that they do not truly know all they think they do.  Appeal to values:  People want to be considered intelligent, good thinkers, and good decision makers. 

E) Logical Fallacies or errors:  False analogy:  Science is inherently different from Art in methods of determination.  Science is based on testable hypotheses, verified facts, and logic.  Whereas Art is a matter of opinion, and although opinion can be considered valid by individuals holding similar opinions, opinion is not a valid method for predicting behavior.  So, if Astrology is truly an Art, then it cannot be a valid method for predicting behavior.  And if Astrology is not a science then the rest of the argument attempting to validate it based on scientific principles is worthless.

Reason 5:  Art is not qualified to be judged by science.

A) Grounds: Art is above rational and logical dissemination thus making scientific validation impossible, forcing one to rely on one’s intuition as to the validity of the subject.  In other words, if you believe Astrology is valid it is.  “If a scientists cannot ‘prove’ that he or she loves his own wife or husband by scientific means, then I think it is pretty arrogant and unrealistic for the scientist to think that an Astrologer has to ‘prove’ that Astrology works according to some scientific evidence before he is allowed to use Astrology to help people understand their motivations and choices better, and to help them predict the LIKELY effects of the choices they make when they are influenced by certain motivations.”

B) Warrant: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just like validity.

Backing: Statement from author, “If it works, use it, even if you can’t prove why it works!”

C) Conditions of Rebuttal:  Since when is it unrealistic to expect proof for a claim requesting scientific validation?  Science has not required that Astrology prove itself to science before being used—otherwise, Astrology would not be in use currently, as it has not been scientifically validated.

D) Lines of Argument, Ethos, Pathos, Values:  Ethos:  dissenting opinions are arrogant and unrealistic.  Two words with negative connotation implying that only by accepting Astrology at face value will the reader be the unassuming, practical person expected from society.  Pathos:  strong language, connecting belief in Astrology to belief in love; makes you feel offended at the presumptuous behavior of dissenting scientists.  Values:  love is something held in high esteem by almost everyone.  People connect with that emotion.  By placing Astrology and love side by side, the author creates a connection the reader otherwise would never have jumped to.  An appeal to belief in Astrology is an appeal to belief in love.

E) Logical Fallacies or errors:  The argument of the paper is that Astrology is a valid method for predicting human behavior; that Astrology can be used to consistently and accurately predict human behavior based on planetary position because the two are interrelated.  Supporting evidence in the form of scientific validation was given; if the author does not wish to imply that Astrology is a science, why does he state that Astrology is a type of science?  If the author does not wish to imply that Astrology requires scientific validation, why does he use it as evidence of the validity of Astrology?  Contradictions:  argument goes from predicting always, to pretty much predicting, to predicting likely effects.  Prejudicial language:  insulting scientists for requiring proof.