There is no doubt about the popularity of astrology. According to various opinion polls roughly a third of the population of Western countries believes in it and another third is interested enough to read astrological predictions, at least occasionally. The last third remains unconcerned or skeptical. As the New York Times said (13 August 1977): `In the cyclical way of the world, we have been passing through a period of resurgent mysticism. Educated people ask each other what signs they were born under; witchcraft is discussed seriously on college campuses, occult bookshops flourish, and cults of all kinds contend with pornography for the side-walks of our cities.'
In reaction to this surge of credulity, other people hurry in to denounce everything to do with astrology as an absurd fraud, and among these opponents a number of scientists have been prominent. The American Humanist (a magazine devoted to discussions of social problems and irrationality), in its September 1975 issue, carried the following statement, entitled `Objections to Astrology'. It was endorsed by 186 leading scientists, including 18 Nobel Prizewinners.
Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world. We, the undersigned - astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other fields - wish to caution the public against the unquestioning acceptance of the predictions and advice given privately and publicly by astrologers. Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets.
In ancient times people believed in the predictions and advice of astrologers because astrology was part and parcel of their magical world view. They looked upon celestial objects as abodes or omens of the Gods and, thus, intimately connected with events here on earth; they had no concept of the vast distances from the earth to the planets and stars. Now that these distances can and have been calculated, we can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars.
It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures. Neither is it true that the positions of distant heavenly bodies make certain days or periods more favorable to particular kinds of action, or that the sign under which one was born determines one’s compatibility or incompatibility with other people.
Why do we believe in astrology? In these uncertain times many long for the comfort of having guidance in making decisions. They would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces beyond their control. However, we must all face the world, and we must realize that our futures lie in ourselves, and not in the stars. One would imagine, in this day of widespread enlightenment and education, that it would be unnecessary to debunk beliefs based on magic and superstition. Yet, acceptance of astrology pervades modern society. We are especially disturbed by the continued uncritical dissemination of astrological charts, forecasts, and horoscopes by the media and by otherwise reputable newspapers, magazines, and book publishers. This can only contribute to the growth of irrationalism and obscurantism. We believe that the time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans. It should be apparent that those individuals who continue to have faith in astrology do so in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary.
In the editorial it was explained that both the American Ethical Union and the American Humanist Association - the co-publishers of The Humanist - had long been opposed to cults of unreason and irrationalism (under which they also classify religion, of course). The editor went on to ask: `What better way to demonstrate this in this anniversary issue than by a major critique of astrology?' Professor Bart J. Bok, a former president of the American Astronomical Society, was invited to draft a brief statement listing some scientific objections to astrology. This was subsequently revised and expanded to the statement quoted above, and then sent to a selected list of distinguished members of the American Astronomical Society and the National Academy of Sciences for endorsement.
The signed statement was subsequently sent to thousands of newspaper editors in the United States and abroad, with the suggestion that they print it, especially if they carried a daily or weekly horoscope column. The intention, of course, was to counter the ever-increasing trend for astrology to be foisted on an unsuspecting public which is rarely exposed to scientific criticisms of it. This was an honorable intention, but as we shall show it is questionable whether the statement is true. It is also unscientific in its approach. This point was well made by Carl Sagan, a scientist who declined to sign, in the following letter to The Humanist:
I find myself unable to endorse the `Objections to Astrology' statement (September/October, 1975) - not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology seems to be quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
Statements contradicting borderline, folk, or pseudoscience that appear to have an authoritarian tone can do more damage than good. They never convince those who are flirting with pseudoscience but merely seem to confirm their impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded. . . .What I would have signed is a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief. My belief is that such a statement would have been far more persuasive and would have produced vastly less controversy than the one that was actually circulated.
Authority or evidence?
The scientists who signed the Humanist statement agreed that astrology was folklore and superstition and that there was no scientific basis for it. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have investigated any evidence that would have supported or disproved their claim, and so their response seems to have been largely emotional. Rather than appealing to their authority, it would have been better if they had simply presented evidence. This point was well made by Einstein in response to criticisms of his work. In 1920, a racist German group tried to refute the theory of relativity by holding an emotional meeting in the Berlin Philharmonic Hall, and then by persuading a hundred professors to condemn Einstein's theory in a book. Einstein commented: Were I wrong, one professor would have been quite enough.' In addition to the `appeal to authority', other weaknesses occur in the statement. Feyerabend (1978) points out that the 186 scientists made the mistake of criticizing the basic assumptions of astrology rather than the way in which it is practiced. He observed that `it is interesting to see how closely both parties approach each other in ignorance, conceit and the wish for easy power over minds.' He also notes that, following the statement, many of the scientists declined interviews because they had not studied astrology. It appears they had signed merely on the basis of a `religiously' felt conviction.
Feyerabend claims that this conviction led the astronomers to overlook even evidence they were familiar with. For example, in an article accompanying the statement, Bok (1975) had stated that because of their distance from us, the planets could not influence human affairs; he similarly assumed that the walls of the delivery room would shield the newborn child from radiation emitted by the planets. He made these statements even though, as an astronomer, he should have known that the planets might influence solar activity which in, turn has various effects on us; it is also known that certain types of radiation can penetrate very thick walls to which a delivery room would not be an exception.
The scientists' statement prompted a contrary statement published in I976 by the astrological journal Aquarian Agent. This statement claimed that astrology is at least a valid area of research, and that it is important to distinguish `sun sign frauds' from genuine astrologers, who take far more factors into account than the sign of the zodiac under which one is born.
Signatures for this statement were obtained from 187 (!) people with academic degrees. This, while also appealing to authority, does seem to take a less prejudiced view. Of course, simply to state that you are in favour of further research is to say little more than being against sin and for motherhood, but even this is an advance on the simple, prejudiced refusal to examine the evidence.
It is of course possible that there is no truth in any part of astrology. The point is that the 186 scientists have not demonstrated this. To do so would involve systematically examining all the available evidence in favour of astrology and then showing how it is invalid.
The attitude of more moderate scientists is illustrated by J. Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University. As a member of another of Professor Bok's committees, the Harvard Committee on Astrology, he cast twenty thousand horoscopes from entries in the American Men of Science directory and found no association with sun signs or with aspects of the planet Mercury, which is claimed to be the `planet of the mind'. The director of the observatory where he did this work refused permission to publish even this negative result lest it be thought that his staff spent any time on matters of this sort! Similarly, Hynek wrote in his foreword to a book of Gauquelin's published in 1978:
`It is with considerable hesitancy ... that I write this foreword, because for an astronomer to have anything to do with anything remotely related to astrology seems enough to rule him out of the scientific fraternity.'
It is against this background of undisguised hostility, rather than of receptiveness to new ideas and experiments, that open-minded scientists have had to fight in their attempts to establish whether or not there is any truth in astrology. They have even had to defend their right to do research in this field. As a result, established scientists have often found it best to say nothing, rather than incur derision; only a few have had the courage to admit that `there might be something in it'.
H.J. Eysenck and D. K. B. Nias, "Astrology, Science or Superstition?” 1988, Penguin Books
"Let the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur of the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind.” -SIR FRANCIS BACON
Related article: Experimental Guidelines for Testing Astrology.
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. 12/27/2010
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment