Astrology and Science

Astrology and science

Pseudoscientific concepts

Claims

Measurable correlations can be reliably found between the position of the planets and personality and human events.
Related scientific disciplines
Astronomy, Psychology
Year proposed
antiquity
Original proponents
ancient priests and astrologers
Subsequent proponents
Philip Berg, Michel Gauquelin, Linda Goodman, Liz Greene, Alan Leo, Sydney Omarr, Joan Quigley, Jackie Stallone, Athena Starwoman, Shelley von Strunckel, Richard Tarnas
By the time of Francis Bacon and the scientific revolution, newly emerging scientific disciplines acquired a method of systematic empirical induction based upon experimental observations.

At this point, astrology and astronomy began to diverge; astronomy became one of the central sciences while astrology was increasingly viewed as an occult science or superstition by natural scientists.


For example, Christiaan Huygens wrote in his Cosmotheoros: "And as for the Judicial Astrology, that pretends to foretel what is to come, it is such a ridiculous, and oftentimes mischievous Folly, that I do not think it fit to be so much as named."


This separation accelerated through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

ontemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking regard astrology as unscientific, and those such as Andrew Fraknoi of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific have labeled it a pseudoscience.[48] In 1975, the American Humanist Association characterized those who have faith in astrology as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary".

Astronomer Carl Sagan was unwilling to sign the statement, not because he felt astrology was valid, but because he found the statement's tone authoritarian.


Sagan stated that he would instead have been willing to sign a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief, which he believed would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy than the circulated statement.


Although astrology has not been considered a science for some time, it has been the subject of considerable research by astrologers since the beginning of the twentieth century. In their study of twentieth-century research into natal astrology, former astrologer turned astrology critic Geoffrey Dean, and coauthors, documented this burgeoning research activity performed primarily within the astrological community.

Research

The Mars effect: relative frequency of the diurnal position of Mars in the birth chart of eminent athletes.
Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally-defined outcomes.[7][54] Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance. For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics.[55] It has been suggested that other statistical research is often wrongly seen as evidence for astrology due to uncontrolled artifacts.


Experimental psychologists have suggested that several different effects can contribute to perception of astrological accuracy. One observed tendency is known as the confirmation bias, whereby people who are given a set of multiple predictions tend to remember more of the accurate predictions ("hits") than the inaccurate ones ("misses").


Consequently, people tend to recall the set of predictions as being more accurate than it actually was. A second psychological phenomenon is known as the Forer effect, which refers to a tendency for individuals to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that are presented to them as tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.


When astrological predictions turn out to correspond with some phenomena but not with others, the recollected integrity of these predictions may stem in part from confirmation bias. When predictions use vague language, their individualized appearance may be partially attributable to the Forer effect


The French psychologist and statistician who devoted his life to the attempt to demonstrate the validity of certain fundamentals of astrology, Michel Gauquelin, wrote that he had found correlations between some planetary positions and certain human traits such as vocations.

Gauquelin's most widely known concept is the Mars effect, which denotes a correlation between the planet Mars occupying certain positions in the sky more often at the birth of eminent sports champions than at the birth of ordinary people.

A similar idea is explored by Richard Tarnas in his work Cosmos and Psyche, in which he examines correspondences between planetary alignments and historically significant events and individuals. Since its original publication in 1955, the Mars effect has been the subject of critical studies and skeptical publications which aim to refute it,and of studies in fringe journals used to support or expand the original ideas.Gauquelin's research has not received mainstream scientific notice.


Obstacles to research

The Ptolemaic system depicted by Andreas Cellarius, 1660/61

Astrologers have argued that there are significant obstacles in carrying out scientific research into astrology today, including lack of funding, lack of background in science and statistics by astrologers,and insufficient expertise in astrology by research scientists and skeptics.


Some astrologers have argued that few practitioners today pursue scientific testing of astrology because they feel that working with clients on a daily basis provides personal validation for their clients.


Another argument made by astrologers is that most studies of astrology do not reflect the nature of astrological practice and that the scientific method does not apply to astrology.

Some astrology proponents argue that the prevailing attitudes and motives of many opponents of astrology introduce conscious or unconscious bias in the formulation of hypotheses to be tested, the conduct of the tests, and the reporting of results.

Mechanism

Early geometry was connected to the divine for most medieval scholars. The compass in this 13th century manuscript is a symbol of God's act of creation via the divine or perfect circle.
Astrologers have not presented consistent explanations of physical mechanisms underlying astrological beliefs, and few modern astrologers believe in a direct causal relationship between heavenly bodies and earthly events.

An editorial published by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific reports no evidence for a scientifically defined mechanism by which celestial objects can influence terrestrial affairs.

Researchers have posited acausal, purely correlative, relationships between astrological observations and events, such as the theory of synchronicity proposed by Carl Jung. Others have posited a basis in divination.

Others have argued that empirical correlations stand on their own epistemologically, and do not need the support of any theory or mechanism.

To some observers, these non-mechanistic concepts raise serious questions about the feasibility of validating astrology through scientific testing, and some have gone so far as to reject the applicability of the scientific method to astrology entirely.

Some astrologers, on the other hand, believe that astrology is amenable to the scientific method, given sufficiently sophisticated analytical methods, and they cite pilot studies to support this view.

Consequently, several astrologers have called for or advocated continuing studies of astrology based on statistical validation.