Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions - James Randi [93]
Gittelson also uses many of the rationalizations that astrologers use, and in much the same way. For example, it seems that biorhythm does not compel, it only impels, a point astrologers make about their own "science." Thus, any discrepancy between fact and theory is forgivable. But Gittelson is quite aware of this weakness and says so. The author presents his case in such a way that any analysis can be interpreted as consistent with the theory. The following passages in his book are notable for the many qualifications and excuses that may be employed to fit the facts to the theory and vice versa:
Regarding the first requirement—the ability of biorhythm to predict behavior—there is a real problem of interpretation. The three great rhythms are interdependent. None of them is so strong that it overwhelms the other two; they always act in concert to affect us. True, on critical days there is a good chance that the rhythm or rhythms showing temporary instability will dominate, but never completely. On an emotionally critical day, for example, it sometimes happens that the strength of the physical and intellectual rhythms neutralizes any threat. This is even more likely on non-critical, or mixed, days which are the ones which occur most often. If all three rhythms are in the low (or recharging) phase, you are not likely to perform at your peak. But exactly how far below your best you will in fact perform remains an area of controversy and uncertain interpretation.
There are other loopholes in the biorhythm theory as explained in this book. Regarding forecasts of performance in sports, Gittelson writes, "Benthaus [a biorhythm "authority"]... believes that a player's class will always show—that a first class player at a biorhythmic low point will always prevail over a second class player at a biorhythmic peak." This provides an excellent excuse for the failure of an athlete to perform in accordance with a prediction of his chart.
"If biorhythm does not seem to work for you," writes Gittelson, "you may be one of those rare individuals who are arhythmic and do not respond fully to internal cycles." In addition, the reader is informed that people who are "arhythmic" may pop back into rhythm at any time!
The author refers to the claim made by Gunthard, another biorhythm proponent, that
some people are "rhythmists" and some are "non-rhythmists"; or, to put it another way, some people appear to be more sensitive to biorhythms than others... is it simply that some people develop different ways of dealing with biorhythms, and that some of these methods effectively mask biorhythmic effects? Or is it that the strength of biorhythms—the amplitude of the sine-waves used to represent the curves—varies in different individuals, and also for the same individual at different times?
Again: "Wallerstein and Roberts... found that the direction in which a rhythm was moving could be as important—and perhaps more important—than whether the rhythm was above or below the zero line." Refer to the biorhythm chart for the latitude this allows in interpretation! A final example: "Several researchers who have dealt with accidents and biorhythm have suspected that days when two rhythms cross each other while going in opposite directions—regardless of whether they cross in the positive or negative phases