A while back, I went to an astrology seminar conducted by a self-proclaimed “historian” with a doctorate degree in psychology. He showed an awful lot of birth charts of many famous people, and made some interesting comparisons between their personalities and their impact on our history, etc. Well, these were all Western figures-except with the obligatory inclusion of birth charts of people like Ghandi and the Dali Lama. So, mostly I saw Western white men’s charts.
Then he showed a chart showing a triple conjunction (I forget which planets) at the end of the 19th century. He claimed that empirical evidence shows that the entire planet went through a tremendous revolutionary period. This was of course the beginning of many important and new revolutionary changes (in the West), the industrial revolution, the invention of cinema, the emergence of science, etc.
So, I asked him a question. I asked about the Eastern Hemisphere. I asked if he could explicate the reasons why the Eastern Hemisphere did not have any new inventions and so on? He gave me a short answer, “they did. Next question.” Could it be that 500 years of imperialism and colonialism had something to do with the lack of privileges for the Easterners? The triple conjunction could not help the colonial subjects, could it?
Someone else asked, “Is astrology science?” to which he replied, “yes.” Yes?
What is science? For me science is a living entity, and one that is always in state of flux.
So, you may ask, “What exactly is science?” How about we start by looking at what science does? Science is interplay between theory and experiment. And if this interplay holds its own then that synthesis can be called a science, I think.
Is astrology a science? Does astrology hold its’ own?
Let us examine astrology. Astrology is no science, at best it can be an art form, and to some it is a belief system– much like a religion. They use it to make sense out of the world by assigning subjective meanings to the varying alignments of the planets and so on.
Astrology has been around for quite some time. That is a given applied to East as well as the West. Most astrologers in the West use the Greek model, however, the Easterners have a variety to choose from (e.g., the Chinese model, the Indian model, and the Persian model).
Given the scientific domination of the West in the past three hundred years, let me focus on the West. It was after the 17th century where the modern man (and woman) was invented by Descartes and a century later we had the enlightenment, a century after that, the industrial revolution, all of which combined to give us the tools to advance medicine and remove the non-scientific methods (e.g., astrology, shamanism, alchemy, blood letting, and purging).
But what about Galileo, and his practice of astrology? It is indeed true that Galileo cast horoscopes (as he was obliged to do by the rulers of his time). Incidentally, he cast a famous one (not discussed by proponents of Western astrology) on January 16, 1609, predicting long life for Ferdinand I de Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Well, it is a matter of historical record that Ferdinand died just 22 days later.
Indeed the scientists of the time looked into astrology, and in many cases had to make predictions to save their own skins. But let us not take matters out of context and imply that men like Carl Jung were into astrology as a “legitimate science.” For example, it is a matter of common knowledge that Newton spent years working on alchemy (a progenitor of chemistry) to no avail. But no one should claim that Newton was an alchemist.
What exactly does the “theory” of astrology consist of?
Astrology’s basic claim is that the positions of the planets within the constellations at the time of one’s birth determine-or strongly affect-one’s nature and personality, as well as the events of one’s future life. Moreover, for each planet, each constellation, and each possible relationship between them, there is a different “law.” As far as I know, no other “laws” in the universe work this way. For example, Chaos theory easily refutes astrology.
What are the problematics of astrology?
There is a serious conflict with empirical history of science in astrology. Long ago it was believed that there were only five planets in the universe, namely, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Three more planets have since been discovered: Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. How do contemporary astrologers reconcile this new condition with the old? Do they discard the horoscopes that were designed prior to this discovery? Well, it seems as though each astrologer (academic and otherwise) has his/her own strategy of a new negotiated reading of old horoscopes and new ones that include “all” the relevant planets.
Then there is the serious issue with the hundreds of thousands of asteroids? Why don’t the asteroids play a role in this “science?” Why should the big 8 have all the influence on our lives? Who decided the rules? And when? Why? Who wants to control whom?
The third major problem with astrology as a science is the way the constellations fit into the grand picture. Any astronomer would tell you that a constellation is simply a two-dimensional projection of a subset of the bright stars in a three-dimensional sector of the sky. Furthermore, the number of constellations and their boundaries is totally arbitrary. For example the Eastern astrologers observed a different number of constellations than the Greeks and consequently gave them different forms and meanings. It is noteworthy to mention that in Persian astrology-and other mythical systems-the Sun is feminine, and the moon is masculine. This is indeed in opposition to the Greek model, thereby synthesizing entirely different horoscopes. This is not scientific, I am afraid. Astrologers should perhaps explain what makes Aquarius, Gemini, Leo, and Taurus so special? Why not other star formations? Is it because the unaided eye easily saw these (for Greeks & Babylonians)? So meanings and “laws” were assigned to them? That simple fact does not seem to enter the discourse. Astrology cannot be a science because it lacks the dynamics of a science. There are no theoretical proposals? And there are no empirical results leading to a consensus of the “known” and the “unknown” in the field?
It seems to me that each astrologer creates his/her own techniques and assumptions to use. So, astrology is not a science.
The proponents of Astrology claim that the stodgy positivist scientific power structure always laughs at the pioneers of new epistemologies. Well, I have read Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Kuhn reminds us that scientific discoveries happen by accidents and sheer transgression by those who want to break boundaries, hence the occurrence of shift of paradigms. Kuhn also explains-correctly-that although great scientific discoveries are not necessarily immediately accepted, the actual transition period from disbelief to acceptance is relatively short. I am alluding to a few decades at most. If astrology were the real deal it would have had its day in the sun by now. Wouldn’t you think?
To privilege a pseudoscience like astrology over other meaningful “epistemologies” is a folly.
I will close with a quote from David Hume,
“The Knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature.”