Validity of astrology
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
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 that is unknown to science. They believe that it is validated by their personal experience when applied in real life cases. They argue that it does not make the hard predictions that science would require but informs the user of subtleties to decisions that would otherwise be missed. Skeptics see astrology as repeatedly failing to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies and see those who continue to use it as gullible and deluded, or even as charlatans.
| Contents |
How astrologers view astrology
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 would argue that astrology's objective validity is a non-issue, and that astrology's primary value lies in the introspection and self-examination it may provoke. Others are quite insistent that astrology has 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 of 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.
Anyone can set themselves up as an astrologer, so there is a wide range of practitioners in ability and approach. Some serious astrologers may be members of a society, such as the American Federation of Astrologers, which tries to maintain standards of learning and conduct; others may be lone hobbyists.
Many astrologers scorn horoscope predictions supplied by newspapers as nothing but a way to entertain readers. All popular astrology in which people are labelled on the basis of their sun sign alone is seen by serious astrologers as frivolous and not worthy of defence. The Sun sign is regarded as but one of many factors that must be taken into account when interpreting one's horoscope.
An individual astrological reading by a skilled astrologer - or by the individual himself or herself if he or she is well-versed enough in astrology - is thought 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 be barriers to possible futures, and so change their actions in the present to bring about a desired future. In this respect it is more closely linked to Tarot, I Ching and modern psychotherapy than to astronomy.
An individual is always seen as the ultimate master of his destiny, and given sufficient will and purpose, as being able to overcome the most adverse astrological indications. However, the degree of struggle necessary will depend on the astrological circumstances in which they enact their project.
Most astrologers make no claim to be practicing a science and see their skill as an art or spiritual discipline, which gives a structure to a dialogue with their client. An astrologer's success would need to be measured in terms of the happiness and well-being of his or her subjects, rather than the mechanical prediction of events. Astrology has, however, taken on new astronomical concepts as they have been discovered and added its own symbolism to them. Thus the outer planets discovered since 1781, because of their slow movement across the zodiac, sit in the same position in the 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.
Many people use the fact 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. In astrology, the size of the actual astronomical constellations is a non-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). The beginning of the astrological year is the beginning of Spring in the Northern Hemisphere (the vernal equinox - usually around March 21), and not when the Sun crosses an arbitrary dividing line drawn up in modern times to denote where the constellation of Aries begins. The time of the vernal equinox, therefore, is the definition of the start of the astrological sign of Aries, even though the Sun is well within the astronomical constellation of Pisces at that time of year. See also the First Point of Aries. Jyotish and western sidereal astrologers avoid this criticism by using a closer approximation of the true astronomical positions of the stars.
Of the 13 modern signs of the zodiac (constellations of the ecliptic), Ophiuchus is the only one that is not counted as an astrological sign because the area of Ophiuchus intersected by the ecliptic previously belonged to more than one constellation. The constellations were defined in by the International Astronomical Union in 1930 and include a portion of Ophiuchus(Serpent-Bearer) on the ecliptic, to get 88 constellations. Before 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 selected to resolve this problem, so that every part of the sky now belongs to exactly one clearly defined constellation.
How skeptics view astrology
Skeptics think that astrology, like other forms of pseudoscience, tries to lay claim to the prestige of science without submitting itself to the discipline of the scientific method. Skeptics consider astrology to lack falsifiability.
Newspapers often publish horoscope columns with the title "Astrological Forecast," perhaps implying that they should be considered on the same footing with weather forecasts. However, astrology has failed carefully designed empirical tests of its predictive claims,[1] (http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html) unlike meteorology, which, although not always correct, has been proved to be significantly more statistically accurate than random guessing.
Skeptics argue that, as is often the case with pseudoscience, the proponents of astrology respond to such disproof either by changing their claims, or by refusing to accept the scientific method as a valid test of their claims.
If, on the other hand, the scientific method is to be rejected entirely, many skeptics believe the problem is that astrologers do not agree on any alternative method of determining whether a particular astrological method is any more or less objectively correct than any other.
The generally established belief of the scientific community is that astrology is either mere superstition or absolute imposture, and that its vogue is due either to willful deception or to fatuous, unscientific gullibility.
The case for astrology
Many astrologers do not believe that gravitational or tidal forces are the mechanism behind astrology, but the idea that tidal forces affect biological organisms in some way has some scientific support.
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 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 unanimous rhythm - opening and closing in correlation with the tidal forces of Evanston, despite the fact that there was no physical motion of the water to prompt their action. Clearly, some mechanism in the oyster was "detecting" the tidal force.
One explanation which biologists have for this phenomenon 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 actual practice of astrology, it is strong evidence that tidal forces do indeed have an effect (albeit indirect) on living organisms.
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 more often at the birth of sports champions than at the birth of ordinary people. Specifically, the claim is that sports champions are more likely to be born when Mars is in the quadrant of the celestial sphere bounded by the eastern horizon and the upper meridian, known as the fourth quadrant to astrologers.
Age among peer groups
Many western societies use September as a cut-off to determine the year a student will begin their education. Because of this, the average student born in September will spend his or her life with peers that are on average a half-year more mature than him or her, and similarly a student born in August will spend most of his or her life with less mature peers. Therefore, even assuming that traditional justifications for astrology are entirely false, horoscope signs may still correlate with assertivness. (According to tradition, Virgos are born in September and are very meek, and Leos are born in August and are very agressive.)
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.
The case against astrology
Given that astrology claims to be able to make predictions about future events, it should be possible to construct an experiment that measures its accuracy. No such experiment has ever been able to clearly demonstrate the objective validity of astrology. In addition, scientific double blind tests (example) (http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm) have shown that even the best astrologers fare no better than random chance when matching astrological charts to personalities.
There is no viable scientific case for astrology, and there are currently no credible scientists who support the idea. Here are some common arguments used by astrology skeptics:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- It is not clear how distance to a stellar object affects its astrological impact. If distance does matter, astrological charts are faulty for failing to take it into account. On the other hand, if distance is irrelevant, then they are equally flawed for failing to consider all stellar objects, including planets, moons, and distant stars.
- It should be noted here that some fixed stars are included in some astrological systems.
- No zodiac system ever used by astrologers has ever perfectly 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 which is said to be in one astrological sign will, if you actually go out and look at the sky, usually be found to be 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, as mentioned before, the constellations are of inequal sizes, rather than each being 30 degrees across.
- Many astrologers simply ignore this, but some argue (see [2] (http://www.astropro.com/features/articles/zodiacs/precessA.html)) that the discrepancy between the astrological signs and the constellations is irrelevant, because the astrological signs and constellations are considered to be two distinctly different, non-equivalent things. The actual stars and constellations are seldom used by astrologers, except for those who use sidereal astrology.
- 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. Most modern astologers seem unwilling to adapt to a modern astronomical understanding of the heavens.
- The constellation Ophiuchus, the serpent holder, was recognised by the ancient Greeks, and is in the path of the ecliptic. It contains the sun once a year (in early December), and the planets at various other times. Even Ptolemy - one of the great astrologers of antiquity - recognised it.
- One supporter of astrology, Dr. Percy Seymour, has been criticized for ignoring the many surveys and experiments that show that there is no connection between planetary positions at the time of birth, and focusing on the one that provides highly suspect 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).
- Critics claim that the apparently good fit many see between their horoscope and their self-image is simply due to the Forer effect.
- 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 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.
- 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 judgement that a world is possible in which people, albeit half ironically, peruse the "stars" for clues.
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 chemistry's. Most scientists dismiss astrology as pseudoscience. 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: Encyclopędia Britannica). Some astrologers may attempt to draw conclusions from this phenomenon, but it is more likely these correlations are not completely understood.
References
- Adorno, Theodor W. The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture Stephen Crook (Editor) Routledge. (1995) ISBN: 0415105684
External links
- Astrofaces Research Project (http://www.astrofaces.com) The Astrofaces project seeks to verify astrology with photographs grouped by the sun, moon and ascendant signs. Do people who share the three most prominent factors in the chart resemble each other?
- Astrology and Science (http://www.astrology-and-science.com/) - A series of articles in which believers and skeptics debate the merits of astrology.
- The Astrotest (http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html) - An account of a test of the predictive power of astrology, with references to other experiments.
- The True Disbelievers (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html) by Richard Kamann and Marcello Truzzi is a report of alleged internal events at CSICOP regarding their own claimed confirmation of M. Gauquelin's 'Mars Effect'
- The Skeptic's Dictionary on astrology (http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html)
- The Skeptic's Dictionary on the Mars effect (http://skepdic.com/mars.html)
- An Astrophysicist's Sympathetic and Critical View of Astrology (http://www.lightlink.com/vic/astrol.html) - by Victor Mansfield.
- Proof of Astrology? (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=59) - A critical look at Percy Seymour's books.
- Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html) - an "attempt to show that astrology has no basis in reality whatsoever", by Philip Plait
