Astrology FAQ
Who Cares?
Astrologers often cite the "fact" that astrology has never been scientifically disproven as part of their justification and defense of their "art." Astrology, however, can be a relatively complex system, and as such, no single "disproof" would be appropriate. Instead, a convergence of arguments and evidence is required to demonstrate the invalidity of astrological claims. This necessity is only reinforced by the fact that astrologers are adept at coming up with new claims and rationalizations whenever reasonable doubt is cast upon earlier ideas.
Probably a quarter of the earth's population believes in astrology to some extent, and a 1997 survey for Life magazine shows that about 48 percent of Americans believe that astrology is valid. Upwards of 30 percent believe it to such an extent that they mold their self-image on their astrological sign (which means that if their sign says that they are "aggressive," they view themselves as aggressive). At least three-quarters of the newspapers in the United States carry daily horoscope columns. Upwards of 90 percent of people in the United States have described themselves as "open minded" about the veracity and usefulness of astrology.
Some 20 million books on astrology are sold in this country every year, all of them essentially pro-astrology because only about 6 books critiquing astrology have been written, and one is out of print. And why not? Compare how often favorable reports about astrology appear in the press with how often criticisms also appear.
Astrology can also have an impact upon political events. It has long been known that former President Ronald Reagan regularly consulted astrologers while he held office. According to Donald Regan in his book For the Record:
...the president's schedule is the single most potent tool in the White House, because it determines what the most powerful man in the world is going to do and when he is going to do it. By humoring Mrs. Reagan we gave her this tool - or more accurate, gave it to an unknown woman in San Francisco who believed that the Zodiac controls events and human behavior and that she could read the secrets of the future in the movement of the planets.
Supporters of the ex-president and his wife regularly claim that the astrologer's advice was only limited to issues of scheduling - frightening enough, to be sure - but this is contradicted by the astrologer herself. Revealed as Joan Quigley, she wrote in a 1990 book that she:
...was heavily involved in what happened in the relations between the superpowers, changing Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" attitude, so that he went to Geneva prepared to meet a different kind of Russian leader.
This situation is made even worse when one considers that, according to some reports, the Soviet consulate in San Francisco tapped into the unsecured phone lines used by Nancy Reagan to contact that astrologer, giving them detailed information into the president's schedule and daily plans. What sorts of plans of not only scheduling, but national and international policy, were discussed on that line?
Because of its general popularity, people are often eager to hear scientific information regarding astrology - but not when they find that science simply does not support astrological claims. They are almost invariably disappointed and seem like they would rather not have asked the question in the first place.
Unfortunately, many scientists are loathe to even bother critiquing astrology. To most, that astrology is simply nonsense is as obvious as the fact that the earth orbits the sun, so they move on to more interesting tasks. Only a few realize that it is important to address popular concerns and beliefs, regardless of how absurd they might seem. The fact of the matter is, they don't seem so absurd to many in the general public.
If we are going to do a better job of educating people about science and the scientific method, it is important to deal with what actual people believe and what their real misconceptions are. By doing more to analyze topics like astrology and explaining what is really wrong with them, people will be able to gain a deeper appreciation for what science really is and why it works the way it does.
