Validity of astrology: Encyclopedia - Validity of astrology

Validity of astrology

The validity of astrology is a controversial subject. The case for and the case against astrology's objective validity are presented here. Astrologers argue that astrology works by a mechanism or mechanisms unknown to conventional science. Professional astrologers state by their experience that when applied to practical real life cases and world events many situations can be explained and forecast. They argue that it does not prove anything that conventional science says it requires, but informs the user of potential celestial influences on the natural world and the subtleties to decisions that would otherwise be missed. Skeptics see astrology as failing to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled conventional studies, and see those who continue to use it as gullible and deluded, or even charlatans. Professionals who practice astrology maintain that skeptics' claims are based on a prejudice against astrological principles and are not qualified themselves to make any claims about the validity of astrology, a position generally known as non-falsifiability.

Validity of astrology - How astrologers view astrology

To those who practice astrology professionally see it as a science that seeks to investigate the influence of celestial bodies relative to the Earth and the influences therein. Through direct observation of the influences of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars; astrology is essentially a study of patterns and cycles in time and space. They reject claims by skeptics and scientific cynics that astrology is "unscientific" or defined as a "pseudo-science" by conventional science, when it was astrologers who invented such mathematics used in modern science such as algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. These techniques are used by astrologers to determine distance, direction, and speed of planets and stars relative to the Earth and are standard mathematical techniques used in all the sciences.

Most astrologers, whether they believe astrology has objective validity or not, consider astrology to be a useful intuitive tool by which people may come to better understand themselves, others, and the relationships between them. Some argue that astrology's objective validity as stated from a Karl Popper based viewpoint is a non-issue, and that astrology's primary value lies in the introspection and self-examination it provokes through investigation of the influences of the Sun, Moon , planets and stars on the Earth. Others, especially most modern astronomers, are quite insistent that astrology has no objective validity.

Astrology's continued appeal may rest on its ability to link an individual's life to the wider cosmos, and so give a feeling of uniqueness, meaning, and connection to the totality of things. Astrology also contains archetypal symbolism, which, according to some schools of thought (such as Jungian psychology), can be found universally throughout humanity.

Although many modern scientists continue to claim that astrology has no scientific validity, historically many of the world's most famous astronomers, mathematicians, physicians and philosophers were also astrologers. Such names as Plato, Hippocrates, Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were astrologers. It is often claimed that Newton was an astrologer, but according to Robert H. van Gent, the historical record shows only that he had four books on astrology in his library and that his frustration with one of them lead to his interests in science and mathematics. Like alchemy's relation to chemistry, astrology's relation to astronomy can be seen as that of a proto-science by historians.

Michael Scott, the personal astrologer of Frederick II of Prussia wrote: "Every astrologer is worthy of praise and honour... since by such a doctrine as astrology he probably knows many secrets of God and things which few know."

Because of the popularization of astrology in the early 20th Century - mostly due to the efforts and controversy surrounding the New York City-based astrologer Evangeline Adams - and the need for publishers to sell more newspapers; "sun-sign" astrology columns spread rapidly throughout the United States. Designed as a publishing gimmick to raise newspaper sales, these columns continue to be printed in nearly every newspaper in the country and subsequently, throughout the world. Thus, the applied science of astrology never rose above this very simplistic form of astrology. Many astrologers scorn sun-sign horoscope predictions as nothing more than a way to entertain readers. ‘Popular’ astrology in which people are labeled on the basis of their sun sign alone is seen by these astrologers as frivolous. The Sun sign is regarded as one of many factors that must be taken into account when interpreting the transits of planets and stars relative to the Earth in forecasting events.

Regarding the mathematical complexity of astrology, however, there is no one standard range of approach. Some astrologers may be members of a society, such as the American Federation of Astrologers, which tries to maintain standards of learning and conduct; others appear to be lone hobbyists.

An individual astrological reading by an astrologer — or by the individual himself or herself if he or she is well-versed enough in astrology — claims to provide a way for the individual to divine his or her own feelings about the present, and to better understand his or her own personality. This can give the individual the opportunity to understand those feelings and patterns of behavior which may affect their future, and subsequently change their actions in the present to bring about a desired future. In this respect astrology shares more with Tarot, I Ching and modern psychotherapy than astronomy.

Some forms of astrology have taken on new astronomical concepts as more of the solar system and galaxy at large has been discovered by scientists. Many astrologers have added their own symbolism to the new discoveries, or even symbolism drawn from the mythology associated with names assigned newly discovered bodies by astronomers, as in the case of Pluto, for example. Thus the outer planets discovered since 1781, because of their slow movement along the zodiac occupy very small areas of astrological charts for entire generations. They have been assigned a role in interpreting the processes of large groups of nations, institutions, ideas, beliefs and the generations themselves.

Validity of astrology - How skeptics view astrology

Skeptics believe that astrology is a form of pseudoscience, which attempts to lay claim to the prestige of science without submitting itself to the discipline of scientific method. Skeptics consider astrology to lack falsifiability. That is, it is not possible to construct a test for astrology that it could demonstrably fail.

Given that most astrologers claim to make predictions about future events, it should be possible to construct an experiment that at least measures its accuracy. No such experiment has ever demonstrated the objective validity of astrology. In addition, scientific double blind tests (example) have shown that even the best astrologers fare no better than random chance when matching astrological charts to personalities.

Astrology critics point out that its proponents respond to such lack of evidence, either by changing their claims, or by refusing to accept the scientific method as a valid test of their claims and relying instead on subjective and anecdotal evidence. If scientific method is to be rejected entirely, then astrology has to abandon all claim to being a science and of offering anything consistently of use. By declining to attempt any experiments that might show astrology to be false, astrologers show themselves not to be scientists but rather holders of a faith or doctrine.

The unquestioning use of horoscope columns in newspapers and mass-market magazines without an "amusement only" warning leads to "Astrological Forecasts", being considered on the same footing in the minds of some with weather forecasts. Astrology has failed carefully designed empirical tests of its predictive claims [1], unlike meteorology, which, although not always correct, has been proved to be significantly more accurate than random guessing.

The established scientific view is that astrology is either mere superstition or imposture, and that its popularity is due either to New Age magical thinking, wilful deception or to unscientific gullibility on the part of the uneducated.

Validity of astrology - Arguments for astrology

Some astrologers maintain that gravitational or tidal forces are the mechanism behind astrology, but the idea that tidal forces from the gravitational influence of the Moon affect biological organisms is only recently gaining some scientific support after years of resistance and debunking from the conventional scientific commuity. Moreover, some modern astrologers state that the solar wind emanating from the Sun regulates weather on Earth and fuels the solar system with powerful magnetic energy that planets orbit through - thus modulating the geomagnetic forces that directly affect the Earth as well.

A number of hypotheses have been put forward concerning the mechanism behind astrology:

Fractals - Some astrologers suspect fractal associations between the geometry of events in the sky and those on Earth.

Chaos theory - It could be argued that the mechanism behind astrology might operate less in terms of Newtonian laws, and more in terms of chaos (e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil leads to a tornado in Texas).

Synchronicity - The vast majority of western astrologers in the world today believe that astrology is a purely correlative study which reflects the underlying patterns in various systems, without any mechanism for a causal planetary influence needed at all. Proponents of this theory usually point to the work of the German psychiatrist Carl Jung, and his theory of synchronicity.

Validity of astrology - Frank Brown's Experiment

In 1954, a biologist named Frank Brown transported a shipment of oysters from New Haven, Connecticut several hundred miles away to Evanston, Illinois. Oysters open and close their shells in synchronization with the tide, and up until this time the accepted explanation for this phenomenon was simple: the physical force of the water gave the oysters some cue as to when to open and close their shells.

Dr. Brown placed his oysters in a controlled environment, and at first they responded as expected, opening and closing their shells in accord with the tide in New Haven. However, within a week, they began to get out of sync. Within two weeks, they had once again settled on a single rhythm, opening and closing in correlation with the tidal forces of Evanston, despite the fact that there was no physical motion of water to prompt their action. Clearly, some mechanism in the oyster was detecting the tidal force.

One explanation advanced by biologists is that the Earth's magnetic fields are affected by tidal forces, and nearly all biological organisms (including humans) are affected by the Earth's magnetic field. While this has little bearing on the practice of astrology, it is evidence that tidal forces do indeed have an effect (albeit indirect) on living organisms.

Validity of astrology - The Mars effect

The Mars effect is based on some of the statistical analyses of French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin published in the late 1960s. It claims that Mars occupies certain positions in the sky slightly more often (21%) at the birth of sports champions than at the birth of ordinary people (18%). Specifically, the claim is that sports champions are more likely to be born when Mars is rising in the eastern horizon or culminating in the upper meridian, known to astrologers as the ascendant and midheaven. Among hundreds of possible correlations Gauquelin tested, this was one of the most striking results that he found to be statistically significant, but it was not the only one.

However, there is a problem with ambiguity (who qualifies as a "sports champion"?) known as the eminence factor, where the Mars effect only shows up in the most prominent athletes in their fields of prowess. Also, significant correlation does not prove that two variables are related or connected. This is a common logical fallacy known as correlation implying causation.

In a more recent study by several French scientists [2][3], a sample of over 1,000 French athletes was compared with thousands of others for birth times, dates and location of Mars at birth. The comparison did not show any Mars effect.

Validity of astrology - Age among peer groups

Many Western societies use a child's age in September to determine the year in which he or she will begin formal education. Because of this, the average student born in September will spend his or her childhood and adolescence with peers who are mostly younger, while a student born in August will spend this time with peers who are mostly older. Therefore, even assuming that traditional justifications for astrology are entirely false, horoscope signs may still correlate with assertiveness but this is an artifact of the educational system.

Validity of astrology - Percy Seymour

Dr. Percy Seymour, an astronomer/astrophysicist at Plymouth University, UK, has published several books in which he tries to find scientific explanations for astrology. For more information, see the External links section below.

• Astrology: The Evidence of Science (1988), revised edition (1990)
• The Scientific Basis of Astrology (1997)
• The Scientific Proof of Astrology (2004)

He focuses on the electromagnetic changes induced by tidal forces and the so-called Mars effect.

In 1997, Seymour was Principal Lecturer in Astronomy at the University of Plymouth, where he taught astronomy and astrophysics to undergraduates and carried out research on magnetic fields in astronomy.

Validity of astrology - The thirteenth zodiacal constellation

Many people note that there are 13 constellations of unequal size along the astronomical ecliptic, and not twelve equally-sized constellations, to try to discredit or otherwise disprove astrology. To astrologers, the size of the actual astronomical constellations is a not an issue because most Western astrologers use the tropical zodiac, where the ecliptic is divided into 12 equal portions exactly 30 degrees each to get the 12 astrological signs. (12 signs x 30 degrees each sign = the 360 degrees of the ecliptic).

Of the 13 modern signs of the zodiac (constellations of the ecliptic), Ophiuchus is the only one not counted as an astrological sign. Some astrologers argue that this is because the area of Ophiuchus intersected by the ecliptic previously belonged to more than one constellation. The constellations were redefined by the International Astronomical Union in 1930 and include a portion of Ophiuchus (Serpent-Bearer) on the ecliptic, to get 88 constellations. Prior to 1930 some areas of the sky did not belong to a constellation, forcing astronomers to refer to "the area between constellation X and constellation Y". Some areas, like the foot of Ophiuchus, belonged to more than one constellation. The modern constellation boundaries were defined to resolve this problem, so that every part of the sky belongs to one clearly defined constellation. However, Ptolemy recognised in ancient times that the sun passes through Opiuchus. Therefore, even by the ancient defintion, Opiuchus is a sign of the zodiac, and the arguments about the IAU 20th century redefinition of the constellations are specious. According to this view, the use by modern astrologers of only 12 signs is erroneous. Some argue that the choice of 12 signs was driven more by numerological than astronomical considerations.

Validity of astrology - Arguments against astrology

There is no viable conventional scientific case for astrology, and there are currently no credible scientists who support the idea. Here are some common arguments used by astrology skeptics.

Validity of astrology - Gravitational forces aspect

There are various claims by astrologers that distant planets affect us through either gravitation, electromagnetism, or some other as yet undetected force. However, scientifically we know of no force whatsoever that is caused by distant stars and planets that is capable or affecting our lives and personalities here on earth. Consider the following scenarios:

• Astrologers sometimes claim to have scientific explanations for their practices. For example, it is pointed out that the moon causes tides on earth, and it is reasoned that the gravitational pull of other heavenly bodies affect us. This is flawed for the following reasons:
  1. The gravitational pull from e.g. Saturn, when calculated for its effect over an area the size of the human body, is equal to the gravitational pull from a car 1.7 meters away. Yet astrologers do not seem to be interested in the positions of cars at the time of birth, or indeed whether one was born in a car park. As a matter of fact, the gravitational pull of Earth itself varies more from place to place than the pull of even the largest planets.
  2. If direction and strength of the gravitational field is important, then surely nearby massive objects (cars, mountains, houses) and the birthing position would play a far greater role than distant planets. If electromagnetic fields and radiation play a role, then certainly the relatively weak (at least indoors) solar radiation and weak magnetic field of the earth would be drowned out by artificial lighting, TV screens, medical equipment or even refrigerator magnets.
  3. Astrology also does not offer any explanation of how this minuscule gravitational pull from other planets comes to affect personality, why we are especially susceptible to gravitation during birth nor how the gravitational influences at one point in the past affects our outlook for the future.

Validity of astrology - Magnetic influence

Another attempt at scientific explanation is that heavenly bodies affect the Earth's magnetic field, and that the magnetic field at the time of birth affects the person. To what extent this is true is largely irrelevant: The Earth's magnetic field is quite weak, and varies from 0.3 to 0.6 Gauss according to location. One would get a considerably stronger exposure to a magnetic field from an ordinary refrigerator magnet.

Validity of astrology - The question of distance

Astrology does not address how distance to a stellar object affects its astrological impact. If distance is relevant, astrological charts do not take it into account.

Validity of astrology - Extra heavenly bodies

Astrological charts do not consider all stellar objects, including planets, moons, and distant stars, although some fixed stars are included in some astrological systems.

Validity of astrology - Inconsistency of effect

Astrology shows an inconsistency on its terms. Assuming a theoretical force emanated by any celestial body, it is unclear how such a force could influence so differently two people located on Earth only hundreds of miles apart. Only the angle of incidence is left as a parameter. If this force exists, it shows a very singular behavior, unique in the physical laws, yet to be observed.

Validity of astrology - Astrological and astronomical zodiac differences

• The zodiac system used by astrologers has never aligned with the constellations. The tropical zodiac and the sidereal zodiac both divide the ecliptic into 12 equal portions of 30 degrees, but the constellations of the zodiac all vary in size, from 44 degrees across for Virgo to 20 degrees across for Cancer.
• The tropical zodiac used by most western astrologers begins at the vernal point, which gradually changes its position due to the precession of Earth's axis, known as the precession of the equinoxes. Over the course of 2000 years, the tropical zodiac has shifted about 24 degrees, so any celestial object said to be in one astrological sign will, upon observation of the present night sky, usually be found occupying the next zodiacal constellation.
• The sidereal zodiac, used by many eastern astrologers, deducts about 24 degrees to account for the precession of the equinoxes, but it still does not align perfectly with the constellations because the constellations are of unequal sizes, rather than each being 30 degrees across, as the sidereal zodiac requires.
• Many who are skeptical using this claim continue to ignore that the only difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs is due to the precession of the equinoxes. Each system - tropical and sidereal - is used as an astrological "technique" - and so the argument maintained by skeptics concerning the constellations and the seasons continues to be used to debunk astrology without admitting understanding of the tropical and sidereal systems and the techniques versus an actual philosophy concerning the "seasons" and the "constellations" themselves as seen from a earth-based vantage point.

Validity of astrology - Arbitrary nature of modern and old zodiac mismatch

Critics of astrology say that astrologers who use the tropical zodiac, as almost all in the west do, take an arbitrary point 2000 years ago in the past as the basis for their interpretation of the heavens. The zodiac of 2000 years ago holds no special place in astronomy. If we go back 4000 years we find Taurus was the constellation of the Vernal equinox, if we go back 6000, we find Gemini. Critics of astrology say that astronomers understand that the view of the heavens continually changes over long periods of time, while most astrologers use a fixed and inaccurate version of reality. Critics also point out that most modern astrologers are unwilling to adapt to a modern astronomical model of the heavens.

Validity of astrology - Time of birth

• One supporter of astrology, Dr. Percy Seymour, has been criticized for ignoring the many surveys and experiments that show no connection between planetary positions at the time of birth, and focusing on the one that provides questionable data to support his idea, see the Mars effect. See the External links section below for articles discussing his books.
• No one has yet come up with a credible theory of why the time of birth is so crucial (and not, for instance, the moment of conception or some time during the pregnancy).
• Twins. By the logic of astrology, twins should almost always have nearly the same life outcomes. Common sense observation disproves this.

Validity of astrology - Forer effect

One scientific explanation for the widespread belief in astrology is the so-called Forer effect (also called personal validation fallacy or the Barnum effect after P.T. Barnum). In 1948, Forer observed that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, which are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.

Validity of astrology - Modern solar system bodies discoveries

Adherents of Astrology have claimed that its techniques have been accurate for many centuries. However, three planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), were only discovered within the last 250 years. Many astrologers have now integrated these planets into their systems. If these planets (or any, for that matter) affected life on earth in an astrological sense, there should have been measurable discrepancies between reality and prediction before these planets were discovered.

Validity of astrology - Psychological points

In The Stars Down To Earth, Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School, continued his consideration of the role of the culture industry by examining the astrological columns of the daily papers in 1951. He accused them of false consciousness, demonstrating how the columns encouraged the low-level clerical or office workers to identify with the social rungs above them. But "false" consciousness is by definition multiple consciousness and ambivalence, and narrative and psychological theory allow consciousness to follow its own dialectical laws in which the astrological reader engages in a quite respectable suspension of disbelief (cf. the psychology of the lottery ticket buyer, who probably knows how slim the chances are) and never decouples from the judgment that a world is possible in which people, albeit half ironically, peruse the "stars" for clues.

Validity of astrology - Knowing about things which can not be changed. A paradox?

Astrology does not claim immutability. Nonetheless a thought-provoking question can be raised: Future prediction necessarily implies a degree of immutability: it is the very reason which makes any prediction possible. But if the future is immutable, there is no point in knowing what can not be changed.

Validity of astrology - Relationship to various sciences

The distinction between astrology and astronomy was not made until relatively recently (see History of astrology and History of astronomy). Today, astrology is viewed as astronomy's predecessor in the same way that alchemy is viewed as the predecessor of chemistry. While most scientists dismiss modern astrology as a pseudoscience, they will admit to its historical status as a proto-science. See astrology and astronomy for more detail about the relationship between these two subjects.

There are biological phenomena that coordinate with celestial movements (e.g. circadian rhythms, see Chronobiology). It has been demonstrated that some amphibians are able to use celestial bodies for orientation (source: Encyclopædia Britannica). Some astrologers may attempt to draw conclusions from this, even though these correlations are not completely understood.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Validity of astrology", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki