Validity of astrology: Encyclopedia II - Validity of astrology - Arguments against astrology

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.

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