Critiques of Astrology
Index
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Because astrologers so often argue that astrology is scientific, it is reasonable to submit their specific claims to scientific scrutiny. Science is essentially a process of trial and error for investigating the nature of the world around us. The first step in this process is to observe phenomena in nature - these, in the end, are the only real "truths."
After we collect our observations, we make hypotheses in order to explain the cause of these phenomena and to describe how they are interrelated. When developed enough, such a hypothesis tends to be called a theory and is amenable to testing (in reality, the distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory" is blurred, but there is an important distinction between an early speculation which cannot be tested an a coherent theory which can be tested). To qualify as "scientific," a theory must make predictions and be falsifiable - this means that the predictions can be tested and that there must be some state of affairs which, if true, would indicate that the theory is false.
On the other hand, if the predictions hold to be accurate, these become new observations and new phenomena which are then included into more theorizing. The accumulation of predictions and observations result in stronger and stronger theories, at least until something better and more comprehensive comes along. There are no final answers - testing and theorizing are involved in a constant loop with the tests being used to adjust the theories and explanations while the developing theories are used to devise newer and more interesting predictions and tests.
The important factor of empirical observation runs throughout this process. Thus, for astrology to be counted as scientific to any degree, both its data and predictions must be open to independent, objective and empirical testing. If there are no imaginable phenomena, state of affairs or predictions which can be checked and which, if false, would indicate that astrology is wrong, then it is in principle impossible for astrology to be scientific.
Critiques
-->Mechanism for Astrology
Why can't astrologers explain the mechanism by which objects in space influence our lives? Perhaps it is because there is no influence and, hence, no force to carry it.Constellations
Astrology has traditionally placed importance on the placement of constellations in the night sky - but why? Constellations are created by us and do not exist independently, so how can they influence our lives? This shows that astrology is not science, but magic.New Planets
If astrology is valid and scientific, how did it manage to operate for thousands of years without noticing three of our solar system's nine planets? Why did astronomers, using math and science, discover them first? The answer is that astrology is not scientific.Conception vs. Birth
Why does astrology rely upon the birth of a person rather than the conception? What makes the time of birth so important and time of conception so irrelevant?Twins: Identical, Fraternal and Astral
Can astrology predict the fates and character of identical and fraternal twins as well as genetics? No, and that indicates how astrology is not scientific.Mass Tragedies
If astrology can predict a person's fate, can astrology also predict the occurrence of mass tragedies? The answer is 'no', and this suggests that astrology is not credible.Statistical Correlations
Some astrologers claim that there are statistical correlations between celestial groupings and personality traits - but is that true and, if so, does it mean anything?Miscellaneous Questions
Miscellaneous questions about the validity and science of astrology. Is astrology a form of bigotry? What force carries astrological effects? (and more).
