• Home
  • The Lunar Effect Bibliography
  • Research
  • Contact
  • Resources
  • Astropedia
  • Blog
  • CORA
  • About
  • Members >
    • Discussion
    • Sandbox
Objective Astrology.net

Is astrology scientific?

27/3/2013

10 Comments

 
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.
10 Comments
Ken McRitchie link
29/3/2013 03:58:40

Actually, I think this article is somewhat encouraging. It's a slightly better reasoned argument than Andrew Fraknoi's "Ten Embarrassing Questions to Ask Astrologers". According to the author, astrology actually passes some of the criteria and that is new and unusual in an anti-astrology article.

One has to wonder what the "contrary evidence" might be that the article claims astrologers ignore. The article doesn't say, but you can be certain it's not the Gauquelin results, for which there is no clear assessment on what astrologers think. The implication is that if some bit of astrological theory is thought by critics to be wrong, then it's all wrong. Science, of course, doesn't work like that.

Regarding peer review, all of my published astrological articles have been vigorously peer reviewed and I can tell you that astrologers can be as critical and exacting as any scientist. I know because I do peer reviews with computer scientists and engineers in my everyday work as a tech author and editor. Meanwhile, I see awful blunders in published articles and "research" against astrology.

The Carlson experiment is a good example of demonstrably incompetent research and faulty peer review that reflects badly on science and the journal Nature where it was published. I helped edit Professor Suitbert Ertel's assessment of that study and I published my own critical review, "Support for astrology from the Carlson double-blind experiment," which you can find at:
http://www.theoryofastrology.com/carlson/carlson.htm

Reply
Aquila
30/3/2013 00:43:53

Ken, It was interesting for me to read your overall assessment of the Understanding Science article. I guess everything is relative. My impression was that it started out well but then degenerated into the usual uninformed astrology-bashing that we have come to get used to from authors posting on behalf of the "scientific community." It's too bad that these authors tend to be ill-informed about what astrology is, its paradigms and techniques, and how approaches to astrology have changed over the millennia.

I would also be interested in finding out what this contradictory evidence might be. My suspicion, based on the article, is that the author is referring to a few tests that didn't produce positive results: "In the few cases where astrology has been used to generate testable expectations and the results were examined in a careful study, the evidence did not support the validity of astrological ideas." The implication for the author it seems is that some lack of evidence is evidence for overall lack, which we know to be false reasoning. And, as you well know, the Carlson article cited has actually become a source of evidence for the validity of astrological ideas and the proficiency of astrologers tested.

As with everything, diligence comes down to individuals and cannot be replaced by systems or processes. There is no doubt that mainstream scientific articles are reviewed more thoroughly than astrological publications on the whole due to the systemic processes embedded within. As you also note, it doesn't follow from this that all mainstream science publications are rigorously reviewed and none of that happens for astrology articles.

The general perception of scientists is that astrologers are not scientists, research in astrology is not scientific and astrological publications do not meet scientific standards. There is truth to this, of course, but, like all generalizations, it doesn't cover the entire truth. Because of these blinders, astrology and astrologers are not being admitted to the echelons of science regardless of the merit of work being done. There are notable exceptions within the scientific community, which is encouraging but not yet sufficient for a scientific revolution.

With your permission, I would like to post your Carlson article in the Research section. Thank you once again for your thoughtful comment.

Reply
Ken McRitchie link
30/3/2013 03:29:38

Aquila, Please feel free to post the Carlson article. You can download the PDF from my website, www.theoryofastrology.com.

Aquila link
30/3/2013 05:01:37

Thanks Ken, I have downloaded the article from your website and uploaded it to the Research section under Carlson.

Bruce Scofield
29/3/2013 15:00:52

The problem, as I see it, is that the practice of astrology is isolated and examined in these attempts to compare it to science. Everybody should know by now that a practice, like psychotherapy or pediatrics, is not a science, it is a skill set based on data and real life experiences. These practices might pass this guy's test a bit better than astrology did because they are backed up by decades of scientific research, which is then applied. Of course astrology could be a science as well as a practice. I can think of dozens of neat experiments that could be done to tease out its secrets and provide a solid framework for the practitioners, but nobody will pay for this. It's just that simple, no money, no science.

Reply
Aquila
30/3/2013 00:56:56

Good point, Bruce. It is hard to break out of this isolation since the now-established scientific community guards its gates vigorously against anything that is perceived as non-science. This is a different situation from what existed when modern science was born. With the economic imperative in operation for most people (including astrologers and researchers), it is mighty difficult to do significant research in astrology as you also note. I am attempting to overcome this limitation by spending several hours every day on astrological research (unpaid) in addition to a full-time job that provides for the family. The evidence is strong, and the time is near for bringing it all to light.

Reply
Ken McRitchie link
30/3/2013 03:38:12

I agree, Bruce, about the "no money, no research." I too can think of experiments that I would love to do. I've described them on my website an in my book, but without the funds and collaboration, they are well beyond my resources as an amateur. Aquila, it's amazing to me that you are actually able to do it.

Aquila link
30/3/2013 05:10:33

Ken, it's amazing to me, as well! :) In terms of workload, it's like a second job... What allows me to proceed with it is the combination of focusing on a small slice of astrology, relatively easy access to mass amounts of data, objectively assessable outcomes, access to statistical methodologies (already worked out by the scientific community), having the right tools (computer & applications) and the time that I make available. It is still taking longer than I originally thought but progress is inevitable.

Robert Currey link
8/4/2013 10:47:30

As you state, this checklist applies to newspaper Sun Sign astrology which is not scientific. Astrology as a study of the correlations between the celestial and terrestrial was once a science and could again become a science.

So the “science checklist” fails on two counts. First, defining science as “involving the scientific community” is a circular fallacy. It is true that the scientific community could be defined as a group participating in science, but not all those who participate in science are part of the scientific community. Many great scientists including Edison, Einstein and even Darwin, who graduated with a BA, practised science before they were accepted as part of the scientific community.

Second, it is not research by astrologers that is lacking but it is research into the practice of astrology by the author that is lacking. A search on the web would reveal peer reviewed journals such as Correlation and ISAR which publishes ongoing scientific research into astrology by astrologers and critics of astrology and research conferences. Within this part of the community, there is a high level of critical thinking. Rather than astrologers accepting each other’s hypotheses, the field is often criticized for the high level of disagreement.

The author comments that “there are no documented cases of astrology contributing to a new scientific discovery.” This is another circular argument. If astrology is science, then the contributions of Michel Gauquelin, Professor Suitbert Ertel, Dr Percy Seymour, Dr Bruce Schofield, Professor Richard Tarnas and Jim Lewis provide examples of documented cases. If not, by extension the author is arguing as follows: if physics is not a science, physics has not contributed to scientific discovery! - plainly nonsense.

However, for astrology to be transformed into a science, more astrologers need to be involved in research involving astrology and other scientific fields that connect with astrology. This could lead to further discoveries of the mechanisms behind the growing evidence. But while this may give astrology a scientific basis, the practice of astrology will remain an art.

Reply
Aquila link
22/4/2013 00:47:41

Robert, I agree with you that 'science' can be practiced outside of the 'scientific community.' However, neither of these terms can be defined with absolute precision and some ambiguity will always remain. Moreover, I don't believe that the activities of everyone in the scientific community are scientific at all times. One of the most glaring examples in recent history is Bok et al's attack on astrology in The Humanist (1975), a copy of which is available here for those not familiar with it: http://www.psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc2.htm. Ken McRitchie characterizes the reasoning underlying this article as fallacious since it appeals to authority rather than presenting rational arguments or evidence (http://www.theoryofastrology.com/evaluation/evaluation.htm).

Clearly, some evidence for selected tenets of astrology have been published in various forms. That evidence will not be visible to those who constrain themselves to sun-sign columns in their definition of astrology, which the author seems to have done. Relying on the fact that this evidence was never published in a mainstream scientific journal comes back to the same argument of "I am the king of the castle, and you're the dirty rascal." In other words, astrologers are not part of the scientific community, therefore they cannot possibly practice science, and so they can never become part of the scientific community, which leads us to conclude that astrology is not and cannot ever become science.

The biggest challenge I see with astrology is that astrologers carrying out scientific research and scientists interested in learning astrology are both extremely rare. There needs to be a cross-pollination for the discipline to advance and survive. Yes, this is difficult with practically no funding for research and the ridicule astrology attracts within scientific circles. However, this difficulty should act not as a deterrent but as motivation for overcoming the challenge.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    As a research astrologist, my goal is to contribute to building a new, objective foundation for astrology. You can follow my progress here on the various projects I am undertaking with this goal in mind. ~Aquila

    Archives

    April 2013
    March 2013

    Categories

    All
    Calendar
    Research
    Science
    Theory

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Network for Objective Research in Astrology (NORA)
Picture