I have said before that “astrology today needs to go through the same process of enlightenment, a coming of age, as most other scientific disciplines experienced in the 17th and 18th centuries.” For this to happen, a new foundation needs to be built. A new foundation for astrology is the second layer in a four-layer structure of our discipline. 

The first layer – consisting of accurate astronomical data for past, present and future – has been thoroughly built by astronomers during the past few centuries. While this effort has been going on for several millennia, it only started in earnest with Tycho Brahe’s and Johannes Kepler’s meticulous observations during the turn of the 17th century. Without accurate data there can be no reliable astrology, which is what Brahe realized and acted upon. Kepler assisted Brahe briefly (up to the latter’s untimely death) and continued his mentor’s diligent work for three more decades. These observations eventually lead Kepler to the formulation of his laws of planetary motion and, as a consequence, to the founding of celestial mechanics as a discipline. The astronomical data is converted to an astrological framework (typically the zodiac) for use by astrologers, and also augmented with information and nomenclature specific to astrology (such as aspects, houses, midpoints, etc.). While we create the astrological chart at this layer, the only difference between astronomy and astrology here lies in the coordinate systems each discipline uses (ignoring hypothetical points used by certain schools for the moment).

The second layer is the layer of correlations (interrelationships) between celestial and earthly phenomena without attributing meaning to these correspondences (e.g., how various rhythms relate to lunar cycles, typical events when Mars is rising, etc.). Since astronomy only deals with space, it is this layer where the differentiation between that and astrology starts. The third layer is where we create a system of astrology (a set of hypotheses, theories, models and mechanisms) by attaching meaning to various features of the chart (planets in signs and houses, planets aspecting other points, etc.) and categorize these in relation to earthly affairs. This is what most books on astrology are about. The final synthesis occurs at the top layer, where all information is woven into one meaningful and coherent story. This process is strongly assisted and influenced by the astrologer's personality, experience, skills, intuition and interaction with the client.

The four layers of astrology in summary are: (1) data, (2) correlations, (3) system and (4) story. Looking at it this way, the bottom two layers can be termed the objective or relational data tier, while the top two the subjective or meaning tier of astrology. The bottom tier can be fully subjected to scientific investigation; in fact, the first layer of this tier is already science (i.e. part of current-day astronomy). The top tier is more and more subjective as the astrologer plays an increasingly larger role in attaching meaning to the correspondences and fleshing out a consistent and relevant story: the crowning achievement of the entire effort. The question of whether this top tier can become science has been debated extensively in a slightly different form, and I believe the conclusion is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ but ‘both.’ I am referring to the state of psychology today, which has been classified as a ‘social science’: this field is both ‘science’ in the sense that it is being investigated by the scientific community using the scientific method, and ‘not science’ in the sense that much of its findings are not falsifiable (see, for example, An Essay in the Philosophy of Social Science http://www.hermetic.ch/compsci/pss1.htm by Peter Meyer https://plus.google.com/107644130998885530895/about, for an intelligent and brief treatment of this topic). 

This division of astrology into tiers and layers is useful for two reasons. First of all, it illuminates how astrology is being eroded by modern science as we can explain more and more of our connections to the sky in scientific terms (as discussed at the beginning of the article). Secondly, it clarifies the division between the ‘scientific’ (objective) and ‘artistic’ (subjective) side of astrology. Clearly there is no valid reason why the bottom (objective) tier of astrology could not become a full-fledged scientific discipline. As this happens over time, acceptance of the top (subjective) tier by the scientific community will also grow as a natural consequence. Why is this acceptance important? Because funding of research depends on acceptance by and being part of the scientific community. Without funding, not much research can take place (as we’ve seen). Without research, astrology as a discipline will advance like a slug. And without rapid advance, astrology might slowly decline and degenerate, even dying a painful death in the end.

Plenty of systems and stories have been put in place during astrology’s long and arduous history. Much of these are based on observation but systematic and large-scale evidence (scientific proof) underlying them is missing. This is the primary reason why I am making “correlation bricks” and laying them one by one to contribute to the building of an objective foundation for astrology. The work is immense as we are a few hundred years behind mainstream science. We will need the focused and organized efforts of many dedicated researchers for many years to come. Pioneers, such as Leo, Kolisko, Thun, Bradley, Landscheidt, Addey and Gauquelin, are few and far between, but those that have come before us have shown the way. That is the way I’m traveling. But the way I’m traveling this way might be somewhat different from how others have done it in the past. In the next article, I will attempt to describe my approach to researching astrology.

Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the first full moon past the vernal equinox in the Gregorian calendar. This Christian holiday, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, is based on the Jewish Passover (beginning on the 15th day of Nisan, the first month in the Hebrew calendar), which is a commemoration of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt (thus freeing them from slavery). This year, Passover started at sundown on Monday, March 25th, nearly coinciding with the Holy Week of Christians, which started on Palm Sunday, March 24th, and ended on Holy Saturday, March 30th, one day before Easter Sunday.

The first days of these holidays fall within the month (30-day period) following the vernal equinox every year. The timing within the annual cycle is provided by the sun, while the phase of the moon brings us near or to the beginning of these periods. In the case of the Christian calendar, a third (weekly) cycle marks the exact days (the Hebrew calendar is lunisolar and is therefore synchronized to the motions of the sun and moon).

In astrological terms, both holidays start while the sun is in the tropical sign of Aries. Since in the temperate zones of the northern hemisphere – where the two cultures originate from – it is always springtime during the “month” of Aries, it is no wonder that the holidays’ symbolism of resurrection and freeing from bondage both point to the renewal of nature in spring. In the English language, the term for this season indicates a “bursting forth” or “springing up” of plants. Starting at the end of the 19th century, the verb form of this word took on the meaning of “release” (from imprisonment), closely paralleling Passover symbolism. Other meanings of the same word include “source of a stream” and “elastic coil”, both painting the imagery of coming to life.

It is this time of year when various media outlets proudly announce the start of spring, equating this day (even the exact time) with the timing of the vernal equinox. From a symbolic perspective, there can be no doubt that the two holidays occur during springtime. Does it follow then that the vernal equinox, as one of four “corners” of the year, marks the start of spring? To answer this question, we first need to find out what “spring” means.

And here we come up against a bit of a challenge: there seems to be no precise and unambiguous definition of seasons. Moreover, the definition of spring depends on which reference one checks. There are three main definitions, and the following is an overview of which camp the major references belong to (results are from the first three pages of a web search for “define spring season”):

• Astronomical definition (from the vernal equinox to the summer solstice, March 20/21 – June 21/22): Cambridge Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, The Old Farmer’s Almanac, Collins Dictionary

• Meteorological definition (the three-month period between the coldest and warmest months, typically March, April and May): American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary

• Natural or ecological definition (according to the cycles of nature; timing depends on local conditions and varies from year to year): BBC Nature UK blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/natureuk/2011/02/how-do-you-define-spring.shtml
  

Wikipedia mentions all three definitions (and some more) with the following introduction: “There are various technical definitions of spring, but local usage of the term varies according to local climate, cultures and customs.”

It is clear from the above that only by adopting the astronomical definition could spring possibly start on the day of the vernal equinox. But does it really? The vernal equinox is the moment when the sun crosses the celestial equator in a northerly direction (in the northern hemisphere). This is equivalent to saying that the sun moves into (ingresses) tropical Aries at that time. So what is the relation of this movement to the season of spring? The clue lies in the meaning of the word “equinox.” There are two equinoxes and two solstices each year, marking the four cardinal points of the zodiac. The word “equinox” means “equal night” in Latin: this time of year, day and night are about the same length (but not exactly due to the size of the sun’s disc and the bending – refraction – of light by the atmosphere). “Solstice” on the other hand means “sun coming to a standstill” because on these days the sun reaches its highest and lowest points (altitude) in the sky, making them the longest and shortest days of the year, respectively.

The significance of these four points is that they are markers for the varying amount of sunlight we are receiving during the year. If we graph how the length of the day (amount of daylight) changes throughout the year, we get a familiar sine wave such as the one above (courtesy of ptaff.ca). The blue line depicts this for Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The days are the longest around the summer solstice (June 20/21) and the shortest around the winter solstice (December 21/22). The lengths of day and night are about 12 hours each at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes (March 20/21 and September 22/23).

In terms of daylight (or the sun’s altitude, to be precise), it would then make sense to define astronomical summer as the one and a half months preceding and the one and a half months succeeding the summer solstice since this is the quarter of the year when the days are the longest. Similarly, astronomical winter would be defined as the three months surrounding the winter solstice, coinciding with the shortest days of the year; therefore, winter solstice would mark the middle of winter. To say that (astronomical) winter starts at the winter solstice is just as nonsensical as saying that night starts at midnight (when the sun reaches its lowest points during the daily cycle). Similarly, midday doesn't start at noon (which is the marker for the middle of the day) just as (astronomical) summer cannot start at the summer solstice, the highest point of the sun’s annual cycle.

It is easy to see then that the vernal equinox cannot possibly mark the start of spring, even in the astronomical sense of the term (other definitions have no direct relation to the Aries point). The four cardinal points of the year mark the middle of astronomical seasons and so the vernal equinox coincides with the middle of astronomical spring. It would be more appropriate to say that the start of (astronomical) spring is in early February, which is around Candlemas in the Christian calendar. The symbolism of the presentation of child Jesus at and later his first entry into the temple is analogous with the sun’s presentation at and entry into the new season of (astronomical) spring. The simple reason for having eight significant points within the year, meaning the cardinal points of the annual circle and their midpoints, is exactly to demarcate the sun’s annual path into four seasons. The midpoints (Candlemas, Ascension, Transfiguration and All Soul's Day in the Christian calendar), falling approximately in the middle of fixed signs in the zodiac, signify the starts and ends, while the corners (Christmas, Easter, St. John the Baptist and Michaelmas), positioned close to the beginning of cardinal signs, mark the middle of astronomical seasons. In the pagan wheel of the year, these festivals are exactly aligned with the tropical zodiac and are called Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh (Lammas) and Sanhain for the seasonal boundaries, and Yule (Midwinter), Ostara, Midsummer and Harvest Home (Mabon) for the middle of astronomical seasons.

We are only talking about astronomical seasons of course; nobody in their right mind would actually say that spring arrives in early February in places where the lengths of the four seasons are roughly equal. Heat follows light due to a number of factors, and this is the primary reason why we experience seasons closer to the meteorological and natural definitions. Notional springtime is the three-month period from March to May in the northern hemisphere, but the actual start of spring will vary depending on location and year-to-year variations in nature. While this might be difficult to pin down, one thing is for sure: it will not coincide with the vernal equinox other than by sheer luck.

It is the end of Easter Sunday here but in Greenwich the clock has already turned over to a new day and a new month. But just because it is April 1st there, it doesn’t mean that I’m joking here. And that of course is another topic for another day!

An intriguing checklist is applied to astrology by the Understanding Science project of the University of California at Berkeley at http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist. The title of the article is “Astrology: Is it scientific?”

Well, that is the question, isn’t it? The article proposes to use a so-called “science checklist” in order to evaluate astrology as it is commonly used. As the sidebar explains, “science cannot be absolutely defined; however, scientific endeavors have a set of key characteristics, summarized in the Science Checklist.” A more thorough examination of what science is (and how to test whether a subject is science) starts here: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01.

The checklist consists of the following items:

• Focuses on the natural world
• Aims to explain the natural world
  
• Uses testable ideas
  
• Relies on evidence
  
• Involves the scientific community
  
• Leads to ongoing research
  
• Researchers behave scientifically
  

Before we delve into answering these questions, let us first understand what Understanding Science is. According to their website, “the mission of Understanding Science is to provide a fun, accessible, and free resource that accurately communicates what science is and how it really works” (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/about.php). The project site was produced by the UC Museum of Paleontology and funded by the National Science Foundation. A thorough evaluation in 2010 by BSCS, an independent research and evaluation group with expertise in science education, “indicated that site materials generate a high level of teacher buy-in, meaningful increases in student understanding, and reports of increased student motivation.” In the same year, Understanding Science was recognized by the Science Prize for Online Resources in Education (SPORE) by Science Magazine.

That sounds like a credible source on science to me. Now let’s find out what it is they are evaluating. In other words, what is this “astrology” they are referring to in the title? This can be a very thorny question even among astrologers, let alone to people not focusing on astrology. Let me quote from the introduction to the article:

“In some ways, astrology may seem scientific. It uses scientific knowledge about heavenly bodies, as well as scientific sounding tools, like star charts. Some people use astrology to generate expectations about future events and people's personalities, much as scientific ideas generate expectations. And some claim that astrology is supported by evidence — the experiences of people who feel that astrology has worked for them. But even with these trappings of science, is astrology really a scientific way to answer questions?”

It is apparent that the paragraph refers to natal astrology. We will keep that in mind as we progress down the checklist. So then:

• Focuses on the natural world
  

That’s an easy hurdle to pass for astrology, and there is no argument from the article. Next…

• Aims to explain the natural world
  

No problems here either. The example cited (“some forms of astrology predict that a person born just after the spring equinox is particularly likely to become an entrepreneur”) is veering towards sun-sign astrology. Next…

• Uses testable ideas
  

Here the author concedes that some forms of astrology might actually be testable. The example (“according to astrology, one's zodiac sign impacts one's ability to command respect and authority”) reinforces the article’s direction towards newspaper horoscopes.  The single reference included here (J. McGervey, “Probabilities in Everyday Life”) is cited in support of demonstrating that astrology doesn’t work because one study didn’t find any bias towards particular suns-signs in scientists. Moreover, this book focuses on something entirely different (from the back cover: “Increase your chances of winning in blackjack…” “Get the most for your dollar when buying insurance…” “Judge the risks of such common activities as smoking, using drugs…” “Avoid faulty gambling systems…”), and is cited only by one source appearing as two articles in separate publications according to CiteSeerX: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/index. This book is certainly not a credible reference on this topic, especially considering the large number of sun-sign tests available to cite. Perhaps the author should have ventured into studying Gauquelin’s findings with respect to scientists.

• Relies on evidence
  

The author’s answer here is an unequivocal ‘no’: “Astrology has not changed its ideas in response to contradictory evidence.” Now, for someone familiar with the history of astrology and how its ideas have evolved over time, the answer would be ‘somewhat’. Perhaps not in the rigorous way scientists are used to today, but that is mostly because astrology as a discipline to study gradually fell out of favour starting with the Age of Enlightenment, and therefore a support structure similar to what the scientific community enjoys today could not be built up over time. Whether sun-sign astrology relies on evidence is another question. Although the zodiacal archetypes have changed over the millennia, my impression is that this has more to do with cultural shifts than with evidence.

It is ironic that the only other reference to the article is Carlson’s highly flawed study that was published in the Commentary section of Nature in 1985 (a facsimile of this article is available in our Research section). Unfortunately for the author, Carlson was thoroughly debunked during the past few years, and, as it turns out, his results are actually showing strong support for astrology and astrologers (a good summary of the state of research on this topic appears in a 2011 article by Robert Curry, “U-turn in Carlson's astrology test?”, also available in the Research section).

• Involves the scientific community
  

Here is where things get interesting. It is true that the vast majority of practising astrologers don’t have to publish or attend conferences in order to survive as an astrologer. It is also true that that the vast majority of astrological publications are not subject to critical scrutiny by the scientific community. However, this is due in large part by an institutionally sanctioned censorship and marginalization of astrology by the scientists themselves. It is a priori judgment and condemnation that is preventing researchers of astrology to publish in mainstream scientific publications and to attend mainstream scientific conferences. And because of this, it is next to impossible to receive funding for astrological research. Needless to say, there are no astrological research departments in universities where one could be part of the scientific community.

I also note that to the right of this paragraph there is a picture of a newspaper clipping as an exhibit to prove that astrologers are not participating in the scientific community. Sun-sign astrologers, that is.

• Leads to ongoing research
  

The two sentences under this heading in the article are simply false: “Scientific studies involving astrology have stopped after attempting and failing to establish the validity of astrological ideas. So far, there are no documented cases of astrology contributing to a new scientific discovery.” Astrological research is being continually published in the various astrological journals. While many are not scientific studies, most of them adapt rational methods of inquiry. There are a number of well-documented studies that support basic tenets of astrology, the most notable ones being: Gauquelin’s Mars effect and other findings (summarized by Nick Kollerstrom in his 2005 article titled “How Ertel rescued the Gauquelin effect”, available in the Research section); and the already mentioned Carlson research (see above).

• Researchers behave scientifically
  

The author basically says that scientists are busy doing research to test their ideas while astrologers are content with accepting ideas as they are. While there is some truth to this argument, let us not forget that astrologers do not have the luxury of paid positions in which they could conduct their research studies. In fact, astrologers provide a service that people pay for to make a living. If scientists were not supported by taxpayers’ money, only that handful who could afford to would conduct any scientific research. There wouldn’t be any universities, scientific publications and conferences, either. How soon we forget the state of science not too long ago, before the establishment of academies and universities.

The other argument the author makes is that astrologers ignore contradictory evidence. The only instance I can think of is the peaks of the Gauquelin effect that occur not on the house cusps but well after them (in time). I haven’t seen a wholesale change in the paradigm that assigns peak influence to the cusps as a result. At the same time, research is ongoing on this topic and the jury is still out.

So is astrology science or not? The author’s answer is clear: “Astrology is not a very scientific way to answer questions” because astrologers don’t take a “critical perspective on their own astrological ideas.” When it comes to sun-sign astrology, which the author seems to equate with astrology, I don’t really have much to argue with (even though I’m sure some of the columnists are more self-critical than others). It is harder to pass judgment on astrology as a whole given the wide variety of approaches and practitioners. Perhaps it’s not even possible to paint this figurine of Hermes with such a broad brush.

All in all, this is a disappointing article on a great topic, even though it’s coming from a promising source. In contrast, the series of articles on what constitutes science is a good treatment of the subject (starting here: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01). Astrologers and researchers would be well-advised to familiarize themselves with its content, including the walk-through example on Rutherford and the structure of the atom.

In a follow-up article, I will attempt to gauge whether the work I am doing can be considered scientific in terms outlined above. One of the criteria will be whether I am able to apply the measuring stick in an objective manner to myself and my work. Without that, there is no science to speak of in my view.

"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this."

(Thomas Huxley, 1825-1895)

Astrology today needs to go through the same process of enlightenment, a coming of age, as most other scientific disciplines experienced in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was at that time when reason, inquiry and freedom of thought prevailed over faith, tradition and authority. It is no accident that Uranus was discovered during this period (in 1781). While this revolutionary event shattered the Ptolemaic structure built on the seven sacred planets, more than 230 years later astrology still lacks a rational base that would loosen its medieval shackles. And several thousand years into its history, the astrological framework is still at the mercy of Platonic ideals, with no direct linkage to experiential proof.

My vision is an enlightened, rational and objective astrology, for which suitable models, theories and mechanisms are developed methodically on the basis of scientific evidence. My mission is making this transition happen together with a network of dedicated researchers.

Several projects are in the incubation stages now. A comprehensive encyclopedia of astrology is being assembled to define, demarcate and refine our discipline. A much-overdue literature review is being undertaken to provide the foundation for further research. Scientific research is being conducted to gather the evidence needed for developing enduring models and theories.

In January 2028, some 247 years after the discovery of Uranus, Pluto will return to its original position in the sign of Aquarius, and it is my goal to complete by that time the first phase in the enlightenment of astrology.