Let´s say we had a technique that would predict an event with a certainty of 99 %. Fantastic! Now we can be really sure about the prediction, right? Well, it depends on how common the event is...
There is this very contraintuitive thing called Bayes theoem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Here´s an example: Let´s say that you are being tested for a disease that manifests in 1 out of 1000 persons in average. Let´s say that the test for the disease is 99 % accurate. That means that the average person being tested has a ten times higher risk of being wrongfully diagnosed (1% = 10 persons out of 1000), than actually having the disease (0,1 % = 1 out of 1000). (Now, if you show symtoms, have a genetical disposition etc, the risk for having the disease is much higher prior the test, and therefor it´s more probably that you actually have it.)
So, in astrological terms: if we predict a rare event - let´s say twin birth or becoming a world famous movie star - the probabilty of making an accurate prediction is low, unless there are other indications (for example genetical disposition, already playing in a succesful band etc), especially since in our case even a very good technique isn´t more than 70-80 % accurate. Since the probability of a wrongful prediction is so much higher than the event itself.
This reasoning doesn´t take into account the role of intuition.
But it´s clear that an astrological robot is doomed to fail in most cases, trying to predict anything beyond the very normal and general things to happen. ("There will be a career change, you will buy some land etc.)
Only intuition can help us to be right, even with the mathematically best methods of predicting events that we have.
It also means, I guess, that we really have to pay attention to the circumstances. If your father has been a president it´s much more probable that you are going to become one too than if he´s average Joe, if there is a history of twin birth in your family, if you are studying in high school of performing art...
Just a reflection. Any thoughts anyone?
Mattias
If the test is 99% accurate, that means 99 people out of 100 will get the correct diagnosis, only 1 out of 100 won't.
In astrology you want to have accurate d60 and other higher vargas to make mathematics work everytime. Unfortunately we won't have exact time to seconds to get correct d60, d40, d45 etc.. so we want to use all the techniques we know to adjust the chart to look correct but that can also mean a lot of time... so if we are lucky to be guided by intuition, that's really helpful... so developing intuition and knowing lot of techniques will get us closer there for predicting correctly
Yes Amit, in the example, only 1 % of the tested persons will get the wrong diagnosis. But if the probability for having the disease is still only 0,1 %, there will still be 10 times as many people getting the wrong diagnosis (=not having the disease) than actually having it. That´s the paradox of Bayes theorem.
So even if we had much more precise methods and accurate time each time, when it comes to rare events we are still pretty much left with our intuition. And sense for the situation: are there any other signs backing up our prediction?
D40 will say about auspicious or inauspicious results.
If it shows only auspiciousness, then the disease or other bad results shown in other vargas can get negligible.
If it shows lot of inauspiciousness, then even little bad disease could get much worse.
That's how everything will get into perspective
@amit Well Amit, I´ve a hard time to see how that answer relate much to the theme. But yes, I see myself being into the study of the vargas when you describe it that way, and then I feel intuition kicking in and starting to guide me... So it´s a way around the problem, but it doesn´t answer the core question. Which I think is more or less the point: math and statistic alone don´t offer a solution. Only astrological intuition does.
My understanding from Ernst's courses is that an astrologer is not supposed to predict all the events in any case, he is only supposed to predict the most important events - those ones the person won't forget.
Also rarely people will come to astrologer for knowing any negative events and it is better for astrologer not to talk about any negative events on his own.
So what is left as astrologer's major job is to help his clients with life's best positive events and guide them for cultivating positive attitude and discarding negative attitudes which they can find in their charts.
This is a problem not only for astrology, but for science (in the mainstream meaning of that word) as well, even in cases where they have much accurate predicting methods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
The scientists´ problem is that they don´t count on the power of intuition and tend to blindly believe on their results, even when statistics show that they shouldn´t be that sure. So in a way, the problem is worse for (so called...) science.
This insight is positive for astrology: We are much more aware about the limitations of our methods and make up for it in other ways (being humble about the results, using intuition etc). Science tends not to.
Well it may depend on how good the moon of the astrologer is ????However I think that relying on intuition - specially at the beginning of our learning, is risky- although basic common sense is needed. Then, a chart may offer possibilities but that doesn’t mean that the person will take them or that the posibilities will be available at the correct time for them to happen.
Sure, probability is still important. My point is that we can´t rely on it, there is no and will probably never be such as a thing as an astrological robot. Even (what we call) science, who in most cases requires a lot higher statistic accuracy, can´t handle this problem (as shown in the last video I linked to); the uncertainty spills over in each transformation/interpretation of data, and creates such a big amount of noise that much of science becomes meaningless. It¡ not me saying it, it´s scientists... So oftentimes we are left with intuition as the only actually working tool.
... Wich is not the worst, I´d say.