User:Ak7/Validity of Astrology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In astrology, the belief that the alignment of the cosmos correlate with human actions or circumstances on earth, the claim is made that by observing the stars and the locations of various constellations, it is possible to predict what will happen from daily life all the way to geopolitlcal movements, depending on the astrologer. However, their claims have long been disputed by skeptics. 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. 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, however, this position leads to the problem of non-falsifiability.
Contents |
[edit] How astrologers view astrology
To those who practice astrology professionally, it is a science that seeks to investigate the influence of celestial bodies on to the Earth. They claim to be able to predict events on earth, even within the personal lives of individuals, by observation of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars. There is not wide consensus amont astrologers as to whether the arrangements of the planets cause the events or merely predict them.
Some astrologers, rather than make take a clear stand saying astrology has objective validity or it does 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 the question of astrology's objective validity is a non-issue, and that astrology's primary value lies in the introspection and self-examination it provokes. In this respect astrology shares more with Tarot, I Ching and modern psychotherapy than astronomy. Perhaps for this reason, astrology remains popular even in cultures where scientific critical thinking is major part of secondary and higher level education.
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.
Althoug the consensus among modern scientists is that astrology has no scientific validity, historically many of the world's most famous astronomers, mathematicians, physicians and philosophers were also astrologers, or consulted alstrologers. Like alchemy's relation to chemistry, astrology's relation to astronomy can be seen as that of a proto-science by historians.
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.
In the 20th century, many apologists in favor of astrology have come to use modern science as the reasoning behind their explanations. 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 has only recently found some support among scientists in limited cases, and most of the conventional scientific community still believe its effects to be minimal; by implication, the effect from other celetial bodies would be so small as to be imperceptible. Some modern astrologers state that the solar wind emanating from the Sun regulates weather on Earth, despite a lack of supporting empirical evidence in metereology.
[edit] 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 may consider astrology to lack falsifiability; that is, they may consider it impossible to construct a test for astrology that it could demonstrably fail. Other skeptics hold that not only is astrology falsifiable, it has been disproven
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, skeptics hold that 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 consensus 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.
[edit] Tests of astrology
A few times in history, scientists or astrologers have attempted to test the predictions of astrology.
[edit] 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.
However, pheromones have almost the exact same effect, even in humans. Knowledge of pheromones was largely discovered after 1954, and biologists today, when given the information, would likely conclude that pheromones from the living things in the environment triggered the synchronization.
[edit] 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.
[edit] Age among peer groups
It is sometimes said(with dubious authenticity) that statistically, people born in a certain time of year will become outgoing or docile, supposedly due to Astrological forces. Howvever, 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.
[edit] Arguments about Astrology's basis
For astrology to be true at all, celestial bodies must somehow affect earth. This is not controversial; both the Sun and the Moon have huge effects on the earth. Howver, the efects of any other celestrial bodies- many of which are central to astrology- on the Earth is minimal.
[edit] Validity based on physics
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.
- 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.
If, on the other hand, it is the electromagnetic force rather than gravity that plays a role in our daily lives, 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. There is no evidence of even the strongest man-made magnet affects either the weather or biology of the human body; MRIs induce thousdands of times the natural magnetic field on the patient with no detectable physiologic effect.
All of the 4 known forces decay with distance (exponentially, no less), while astrology does not appear to compensate for this.
Assuming a theoretical (and as yet completely undetected) 5th 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.
[edit] Inconsistencies in heavenly bodies and the zodiac
Astrological charts do not consider all stellar objects, including planets, moons, and distant stars, although some fixed stars are included in some astrological systems.
- 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.
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.
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.
[edit] 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.
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. In this way, the supposed traits given to people born under various signs may seem to the individual to be amazingly accurate, but are in reality extremely general.
[edit] 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.
[edit] References
- Adorno, Theodor W. The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture Stephen Crook (Editor) Routledge. (1995) ISBN 0415105684
- Gauquelin, Michel , The Cosmic Clocks, San Diego, CA: ACS Publications, (1967). Paperback version: Grafton Books, (1998) ISBN 0586081585
- Seymour, Percy The Scientific Basis of Astrology, W. Foulsham, Slough, U.K.: Quantum, (November 1997). ISBN 0-572-02181-X
[edit] External links
- Astrofaces Research Project 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 - A series of articles in which believers and skeptics debate the merits of astrology.
- The Magus of Magnetism BBC TV interview transcript in which scientist Dr. Percy Seymour defends his suport of astrology]
- The Astrotest - An account of a test of the predictive power of astrology, with references to other experiments.
- The True Disbelievers 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
- The Skeptic's Dictionary on the Mars effect
- An Astrophysicist's Sympathetic and Critical View of Astrology - by Victor Mansfield.
- Proof of Astrology? - A critical look at Percy Seymour's books.
- Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology - an "attempt to show that astrology has no basis in reality whatsoever", by Philip Plait
- RGCSA Research Group for the Critical Study of Astrology (UK). Has an extensive citation list of astrology validity research.
- The real romance in the stars - A critical view of astrology by Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins.
- Astrology theory and tests
- The Time Twin Study Refutation of astrology's claims.
- Season of Birth and Human Longevity Test for the month-of-birth effects
