articles
The reality behind astrology.
(excerpt from posts at SciForums " the North Texas Skeptics Fact Sheet)
posted on 6th April, 2005
Astrology is certainly the oldest and the most widespread of all pseudosciences* claiming successful predictions by the positions of the planets, the stars, the sun and the moon.
It's origins can be traced back to around 3,500 years ago which is apparently quite a long time. In it's modern form astrology states that the positions of the planets at the time an individual is born are somehow correlated with his/her personality, activities, preferences, and even major life events such as accidents, marriages, divorces, etc. However, there is no general agreement among astrologers as to how or why this can be " nor is there any agreement as to precisely which planetary positions lead to which specific traits or experiences. It is almost certain that no two astrologers will "cast" an individual's horoscope with precisely the same result.
The paradoxical result is that the heyday of astrology was not during the Middle Ages, when the average person was sunk deep in ignorance and superstition, but rather in the 20th Century, when most citizens already know the basic facts of astronomy and are aware that the planets are worlds similar to the earth rather than god-fires in the sky.
Moreover, there is no supporting evidence that the positions of visible bodies have any effect on the personalities of people. One thing about astrology that is never understood is why it only included visible astrological bodies. The non-visible ones, like asteroids, are much closer and have more gravitational effect than do stars or galaxies that are millions/billions of light years away. Yet their positions are not considered. This alone is a good indication that it is fake. And it probably won't surprise you to know that none of the astronomers believe in astrology.
One would think that astrologers began noticing similar behaviors between people born in the same months and began testing food and water, climatic changes, etc. and eventually concluded the patterns of the stars and planets were consistent with their observations. Well, they did no such thing. Instead they began with a theory and since then have been trying to find evidence to support their theory.
Astrology is not simply doubtful just because it doesn't fit in, but because it doesn't make any sense. The ancients happened to call the second planet from the sun Venus and the fifth planet from the sun Jupiter. If they had done it the other way, then astrology would have been totally different; because astrology depends entirely on the characteristics associated with the name, not the actual planet. Changing the names would leave reality unaffected but astrology, horoscopes, etc., would become totally different.
Have you ever wondered why astrology is never taught along with other sciences and why astrologers usually have no credentials of any kind? Astrologers only predict the future and they know nothing about an individual's past, why? Just because the future holds expected events which could result as a coincidence proving them to be true or their predictions could as well be too obvious?
No astronomers believe in astrology. It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. There is also no mechanism by which distant planets could possibly influence personalities.
Astrologers are not scientists; they do not subject their work to the intense scrutiny required of a scientific discipline. Also, because astrologers are making the positive claim that astrology works, the burden of proof is on them to prove that it does. This they have not done.
The question of why people believe in astrology is more interesting than the details of the horoscope. Psychologists have shown that customers are satisfied with astrological predictions as long as the procedures are individualized in some rather vague way. For example, if the astrologer asks for a great deal of personal information before providing the prediction, the individual is much more satisfied with it than if the astrologer asks few questions (and provides the same prediction). The predictions themselves are nearly always very vague and universal in applicability; they might accurately describe nearly anyone.
Modern science has undercut the basis for astrology at every turn.
- The individual is formed at conception; not at birth.
- The gravitational force exerted on a newborn baby by the earth is more than a million times greater than that of any celestial object.
- The electromagnetic radiation falling on the baby from the sun or room lights is a million times more intense than that from any other celestial object.
- Changes in environment and social life during early development have much greater effects upon the developing person than the events at the time of birth.
Anyway, What are the astrological implications of a caesarean section or forced delivery? There is nothing whatsoever in all of nature as we have explored it to date, or in any of our other experience that gives any credibility to any astrological idea.
In science, one does not need a reason not to believe in something. Instead, one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something's existence.
* pseudoscience - an activity resembling science but based on false assumptions.
leave a comment
Have an opinion on Yank's philosophical aspects? Click the button below to post a comment.