What is astrology? Astrology is the study of the correlation between the positions and movements of celestial bodies and life and physical processes on Earth. Though some astrologers work with stars and constellations, western astrologers work with the Sun, the Moon and the planets (including Pluto) within the Solar System. Astrology goes far beyond the popularised Sun-Sign columns published in ne
wspapers and magazines. Astrology should not be confused with fortune telling, palmistry, psychic or tarot reading. Nor is modern western astrology a belief system like a religion. These are the main arguments put forward as to why astrology is rubbish. It's just plain common sense! The Signs of the Zodiac are wrong! No one knows how astrology works! Scientific tests show astrology doesn't work. Where's the scientific evidence for astrology? Astrology is at odds with scientific knowledge & modern philosophy. Astrologers defend astrology to protect their vested interests. Astrology is not a science. I will address each point. If you disagree, please state your case. If I find it persuasive, I will modify, edit or even delete my points. [Click to discuss this on Facebook]
Proof by assertion:
In response to my post, a great number of sceptics have asserted that astrology is rubbish (or words to that effect). Most were unable to back this up with sound arguments or empirical study or show an understanding of what astrology is. Some declare, why bother as it is common-sense? Maybe this prejudice by self-styled ‘rational sceptics’ is based on feelings or intuition or divine faith as it is not based on reason. Depending on the manner of presentation, these type of arguments without facts or correct facts fail on a number of basic logical fallacies: appeal to emotion, proof by assertion, argument from ignorance and straw man fallacy. Flying spaghetti monster or a straw man fallacy? Some critics argued that it would be non-sensical to do an empirical study simply to prove that the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or another imaginary creature or that a tea-pot orbits the Sun[1] (Russell 1958) is false – so why the fuss about astrology? An argument based around this type of analogy is known as a straw-man fallacy. There are two points to consider why these are prime examples of false analogy. Astrology is not a belief system - the claims can easily be tested in individual cases and even professional sceptics from CSICOP believe that it can be tested objectively. [see (Carlson 1985)]
Astrology is not some arbitrary New Age theory. Astrology has existed for over five thousand years. Thousands of book titles, dissertations and journal articles in major academic libraries, conferences, schools, post-graduate studies, practitioners and businesses are dedicated to astrology.[2] Astrology is considered of value to millions of individuals around the world. Before anyone misunderstands this argument as an appeal to tradition or appeal to popularity, these facts do not make astrology valid. However, this alone makes a compelling case that astrology deserves investigation before being written off. Even if astrology were one of these unfalsifiable myths (which it is not), it is not good science, nor good sense, nor good humanity to ridicule myths or rule out cherished beliefs or deny experiences of others. It is hubris.[3] A Black Swan was once considered a mythical creature and used as a metaphor for something that was ridiculous and impossible. In 1797, black swans (Cygnus Atratus) were first discovered by Europeans in Western Australia.[4]
Some fields that were once dismissed as being unworthy of study by the scientific community are now established within hard science. The belief that rocks could hit the Earth from space was widely ridiculed by eminent scientists of the Enlightenment.[5] Now the study of meteorites is an important scientific field revealing insight into the nature and history of the Earth and Solar System. Opinion without knowledge:
Many who dismiss astrology know nothing of the subject. This is immediately evident when they use terminology such as the word astrologists or argue irrelevant points such as how the constellations have moved or the limits of planetary gravity or the false belief that astrologers claim we are controlled by the stars. At best, this known as Argument By Laziness - the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. Ignorance is no basis for opinion. At worst, it is prejudice and bigotry. Faith in the Heavens?:
Many people have claimed that astrology is a belief. That is largely true for many readers of newspaper horoscopes. It’s also true for those who believe astrology to be false without any knowledge. However, for those who have studied it, astrology is a knowledge and one that can be tested and verified - unlike a belief in a divine creator that cannot be tested. Experience:
Many people feel that they have a right to dismiss astrology as rubbish without any experience or observation of how it works in practice. This evasion of empirical study is reminiscent of Cremonini and Libri’s refusal to look through Galileo’s telescope. Unnecessary for impossible or harmful practices:
Some have rightly argued that you don’t have to smoke to***co or experience slavery or even commit su***de to be able to make strong comments about the practice. True! However, studying an analysis of your character (like reviewing the results of a psychological test) is not a risk to health or life. Would you rank the opinion of a travel writer who has never left home over someone who has? A doctor should, where possible, examine his or her patient to help reach a diagnosis (even if it’s Dr House in the TV series). How can you experience astrology? Since some of the free horoscopes on the web are not ideal examples, you would need to select a professional service which would range from £20/$30 for a computer generated report to £150/$125 for a live reading of your birth chart from a top astrologer. [Please do not use my services as I don't want you to think this is a sales pitch.] Yes, it is a cost, but this is a small price to add to your experience. You can also study astrology through library books. Why should I pay to have an opinion? Unfortunately, to enjoy the luxury of dismissing an entire field of study, you have to invest in personal research. Experiencing astrology first hand, will be good value and you might even learn something. Astrologers have to pay to download data or subscribe to Journals or purchase books so they can review flawed research papers that claim to debunk astrology. Objective Data:
Your personal horoscope is totally subjective. But why rely on the evidence of personal experience when you can also obtain objective data? It is possible to analyze the charts of other people and compare it to your knowledge of their lives. Though this is best done professionally, it is possible to do some basic interpretations by referring to astrology books. Is the twelve sign Zodiac a viable model? Some critics claim that the signs of the zodiac are wrong as they have shifted and some signs are missing. This article shows how there are three zodiacs - the Western Tropical Zodiac (based on seasons), the Indian Sidereal Zodiac (based on stars) and the Astronomical Zodiac (based on constellations). The key point is that all three systems are viable models of the solar system and that the Signs of the Zodiac are not the same as the Constellations of the Zodiac. [Explanation of Precession]
Mechanism:
One of the core objections to astrology is that there is no known scientific mechanism to account for how it all works. [Mechanism]
Is the lack of a mechanism justification for dismissing a phenomenon? Several examples make the point that a lack of known mechanism is never a reason to dismiss evidence [see point 4.]
The lodestone (compass) was used successfully for two millennia. Yet, no one understood the Earth’s magnetic field until the 20th century. Semmelweis (1818-1865) introduced hygienic practices like hand washing in obstetric clinics. He was ridiculed by other scientists as he could not provide a mechanism, even though he reduced the mortality rate. Yet, it became accepted practice years after he died when Pasteur confirmed germ theory. "That we can now 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.”
Carl Sagan, astronomer, astrophysicist, author, cosmologist, broadcaster and sceptical of astrology. So to use a lack of known mechanism to reject a demonstrable effect [see point 4.] is to abuse science in an obstructive rather than use science in a constructive way. Possible Mechanisms:
Astrology may work by several mechanisms. Here are some hypotheses:
Gravitational Resonance:
Many critics of astrology have repeated the story that the gravity of the midwife has more effect on the newborn baby than the planets. However, astrologers don’t claim that gravity is the basis for natal astrology. However, it is universally accepted that gravity and orbital resonance of the Sun and the Moon affects the Earth’s oceanic tides and the Earth tide (body tide). Studies have proposed that the tidal forces also affect the Earth's plate tectonics (Continental drift). (Moore 1973) (Scoppola 2006) The tidal force is part of what some astrologers call natural astrology which also includes the study of the coincidence of seismic activity with celestial positions, harvests and weather. I believe it is premature to set limits on the effect of gravity and orbital resonance on Earth as there is much we don’t understand. For example, gravity is the one known force that does not yet fit into a Unified Field Theory. Correlation precedes possible Causation:
Dr Percy Seymour, former principal lecturer in astronomy and astrophysics at Plymouth University and previously a researcher at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, has developed a model to describe the mechanism behind astrology. It is outlined in his title “Astrology: The evidence of Science”. This interview from 1989 may not include his more recent research. In outline, his model is based on the tidal tugs of all the planets in addition to the Sun and Moon which disrupt the Earth’s magnetosphere (magnetic field) which affects the human neural network. It works through the gravitational effects of the planets which are magnified by what Seymour calls ‘magneto tidal resonance’ to affect the sunspot cycle. [more]
Planetary alignments correlate with Sunspot cycles which impact the Earth:
In separate studies, there are peaks within the Sun spot cycle coinciding with the Jupiter/Saturn [helio] conjunction 11.86 years, Jupiter’s perihelion 9.93 years and what astrologer’s call a Sun/Venus conjunction 11.08 years. Solar output (including heat, light, radio, x-rays, neutrinos, solar wind and possibly more) is extremely important as regards all life on Earth (not just climate). Some of these outputs directly affect human behaviour through interactions with the Earth’s electromagnetic field. For example, there are studies showing significant correlations between events such as wars on Earth and the 11 and 22 year sunspot cycle. Chin Cheh Hung Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity & Solar Tides caused by Planetary Activity [2007 NASA]
Glyn Wainright Jupiter's Influence [2004 New Scientist]
Ian Wilson Planetary Tidal Forces [University of Southern Queensland, Aus 2008]
Four proposals that attempt to account for this planetary/sunspot correlation. Causal or acausal relationship:
Many astrologers believe that the observed (terrestrial/extra-terrestrial) correlation reflects an acausal connecting principle or ‘synchronicity’ as proposed by Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychology, Dr Carl Gustav Jung. Jung refined his concept with the help of one of the pioneers of quantum physics, inventor of the neutrino and Nobel prize-winner, Wolfgang Pauli Synchronicity is a belief, but not an article of faith. Frontiers of Science. As I wrote above, I believe it is unwise and premature to use the current model of the four fundamental interactions (fundamental forces) as a basis to rule out possibilities for several reasons. First, within this model, quantum mechanics and gravity are not yet reconciled. Scientists are still struggling to develop a theory of Quantum Gravity and as a result a Grand Unified Field Theory. In addition, several discoveries within quantum physics suggests that this could in the future become a fertile area for research into a possible mechanism. [more]
Flawed Tests:
In the field of astrology, there are many more fatally flawed tests than real evidence. There are many reasons for this. There is no budget for testing astrology and most astrologers are more motivated by the study and application of astrology than in addressing the challenge of providing and defending scientific proof. So most tests are run by sceptics with budgets in fields like psychology who design quantitative tests when the data requires qualitative analysis that would be better addressed by those who understand astrology. There are also real procedural hurdles to jump. Problems testing astrological practice under strict scientific methods:
It is extremely difficult to obtain sufficient fresh accurate objective data
Isolating the huge number of variables involving human behaviour and astrology is an immense challenge. Replicating the unique conditions is almost impossible. For example, each human being is unique and identical planetary positions are never repeated within recorded human history. The Experimenter Effect is potentially stronger than in a chemistry experiment as the human experimenter is part of an experiment involving human behaviour. So the criteria used, the data selected, the format and the results are particularly open to reflecting the conscious and unconscious bias of the experimenter rather than providing objective data. Statistics perform well in physics, chemistry or molecular biology. However, when you work with more varied and complex data, results can be skewed, misrepresented and manipulated. You’d think with all the objective climate data and vast resources, we would have less controversy about the projections for climate change. How a test might be improved. [more ...]
Profesor Hans Eysenck states that ‘testing astrology is a complex and difficult field, as indeed all fields relating to psychological variables’. Myth of Flawed Experiments being passed off as Failed Experiments. Yet, many sceptics claim that astrology has consistently failed over many years in ‘thousands of scientific tests’. This is a very popular myth that has been duplicated in many websites. I have asked numerous critics of astrology to cite their best single test. This is the list of the 'best'. I invite anyone reading this to produce or even devise a test of astrological practice that is not fundamentally flawed. [I don’t have the time and resources to evaluate more than one test at a time]. The Carlson Double Blind Astrology test
has been cited many times by sceptics. The study, published in Nature in 1985 claimed to show that qualified astrologers could not match test subjects charts with the results of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) any better than chance. (Carlson 1985) It received much Press attention and is still published extensively on the web as the strongest evidence that natal astrology is no better than chance. However, at the time, Carlson's conclusions received criticism from a number of authoritative sources including Professor Hans Eysenck of London University. (Eysenck 1985) Recent analysis of the data have revealed that this test actually shows support for astrology (see scientific evidence). [more...]
Geoffrey Dean's Analyses
Many sceptical websites cite the work of Dr Geoffrey Dean, a one-time astrologer, and now astrology's most ardent critic. Dean is very charming, diligent and persuasive. He accepts that astrology works and that it can even be helpful, but in his opinion the reason it works is more down to illusion and artifacts than astrology. However, his attempts to prove his belief through tests leave much to be desired: [More]
Unpublished Study of Unaspected Planets (1975)
A two-year study at a time when Dean was an astrologer involving over 200 cases initially showed strong support for astrology with independent replicated results, still remains unpublished. Dean's Phantom Time-Twin Study (2003)
A study of 2,101 people born in London between 3-9 May 1958 also sounds promising. Though he announced his provisional results in a paper in 2003 and it is widely cited by skeptical websites, Dr Dean is yet to publish over a decade later. Test of Reported Intuition (1985-6) Why testing only outliers can be misleading:
By testing only the extreme results (1/15th) in a large sample of self-completed personality questionnaires instead of the standard 1/3rd, many problems occurred resulting in exclusion bias and misleading data. Dean's Meta Analyses (1986-2001)
A meta-analysis enables a quantitative review and synthesis of the multiple studies. However Dean's meta-analysis flouts all the guidelines for this type of study. (Glass 1983) First, by mixing western astrology with fundamentally different techniques (Chinese Divination and Vedic Astrology), the study compares 'apples with oranges'. Though the hypothesis (and conclusion) is to test the claims of typical practicing astrologers, the analysis includes studies of disability, su***de, inclination to murder and accidental death. This is exploratory research. Such extremes are simply not part of typical practice or typical claims. There is a large amount of duplication - 36% of the 69 results are from the same studies (mostly at least 30 years old). Many of the tests listed are known even by Dean to be flawed resulting in GIGO. Some of the data (such as the Carlson test) are misreported to favour the null hypothesis. Many of the test results are based on personal communication or anecdotal evidence. Dean discounts the positive trend in favour of astrology as down to sampling error and bias. Yet, given the history of scientific misconduct by CSICOP and Dean's withheld tests, publication bias may work against astrology. In spite of all the data corruption, Dean concludes that astrologers are unable to match birth charts to owners in blind tests. This ia a classic demonstration how what starts out as healthy scepticism can easily decline into confirmation bias.[5]
Why does Dr Dean need to abandon scientific rigour and objectivity in order to debunk what sceptics consider to be flimsy evidence? Magic Tricks
When a sceptic has to cite a magic trick to support his or her argument, they are getting desperate. The are good reasons why these 'performances' cannot be replicated under scientific conditions. Test of Astrology by illusionist Derren Brown:
One sceptic was disillusioned with astrology largely as a result of a ‘test’ by magician Derren Brown. The illusionist presented the same horoscope to a group of carefully selected individuals. They all claimed it was accurate and personal to them. Though this appeared to be very damning for astrology, it was a trick designed to create this illusion. I hope that I am not breaking any magician’s secrets by revealing the techniques. [more ...]
Why I distrust magician, James Randi. Another sceptic suggested that I attempt to claim the million dollar prize offered by James Randi ‘Educational’ Foundation for showing evidence of powers that cannot be explained by known scientific laws. Though I had had an encounter with James Randi that left me with the impression that he could not be trusted to be impartial, I did look into his challenge. However, it's not an option for astrologers as according to Randi the statistical evidence required creates 'procedural problems' with his performance-oriented testing. It's also impossible as the odds required were unintentionally 'upgraded' to 1 in 10 million (p < 0.0000001)! But what mystifies me is that if the paranormal is such obvious bunkum as Randi claims, why has he gone to such extraordinary lengths to make it so difficult to present evidence that supposedly does not exist? [Why Randi's challenge is a charade ...]
Dawkins Sun-Sign Test & throwing stones from a glass house. One sceptic cited Richard Dawkins’ test on Sun Sign astrology in his TV series “Enemies of Reason” (Dawkins 2007). As stated earlier, I am not here to defend this popular media-friendly adaptation of astrology. Why did Dawkins choose to criticise astrology as a field and then only present and caricature newspaper astrology in his TV series? Was he so ignorant that he confused a recent off-shoot with a four thousand year old practice? Or was he attempting to misrepresent the case for astrology to make it easier to attack? Rather like his rants about soft targets like militant fundamentalism or religious abuse in his God Delusion book, Dawkins, like a proselytizing preacher, is only effective when pushing a straw man fallacy from his pulpit. Before moralising about the evils of astrology, Dawkins needs to keep his own avid disciples in order. Former Enron CEO, Jeffrey Skilling convicted of multiple federal felony charges relating to the Texan energy giant's financial collapse claimed to have been inspired by Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene. (Dawkins 2007) His selfish policy caused great harm. Every year he fired the bottom 5% of his team in a humiliating way. Twenty thousand staff were impacted by the bankruptcy which included at least one su***de. Millions in California were affected by Enron's forced rolling black-outs which lead to exponential price rises for energy and contributed to the state's energy crisis. (Egan 2005) So ironically when Dawkins' social darwinism was applied in the real world it resulted in 'mass extinction' - damage of a different magnitude to that of the worst example of an astrologer! Scientific Evidence:
There are many sceptics who insist on 'scientific proof' before they can accept astrology and a few researchers who believe they can 'prove astrology'. While in mathematics, you can deduce a proof to show that proposition is always true, this is not how science works. You cannot 'prove physics'. Science works by the accumulation of empirical evidence to build up a theory. With each replication, the theory becomes more persuasive and established, but since it can also be disproved at any time, it remains a theory and can never become proof or a law.[6]
Over the past fifty years, scientists and astrological researchers are discovering a growing body of objective evidence of correlations between celestial positions and terrestrial life. These statistically significant results have been published in peer reviewed journals (including Correlation, a specialist astrological journal). Ironically, some of the strongest evidence has come from experiments backed by sceptical groups including CSICOP. French psychologist and statistician, Michel Gauquelin (1955-1991)
Supported by his wife Francois, Michel Gauquelin conducted the most famous research into astrology. Though he was interested in astrology, he did not consider himself an astrologer and dismissed much of it including zodiac signs. His tests focussed on the correlation between the positions of the planets at an individual’s birth, his or her psychological nature and how this manifested in measurable ways such as choice of profession or independent biographical descriptions. Gauquelin's Data
Gauquelin collected data from over 20,000 professional celebrities from various European countries and the United States. Gauquelin’s research detected statistically abnormal diurnal positions of the planet Mars at birth in athletes, Jupiter in actors, Saturn in scientists and the Moon in writers. His tests confirmed an ancient claim of astrologers that planets posited around the four angles are stronger and the characteristics associated with the planet manifests prominently in the individual. Naturally Gauquelin’s tests attracted much controversy. He allowed independent sceptical researchers to scrutinize his original data. Three committees of rationalist scientists Belgian (LERRCP), American (CSICOP), and French (CFEPP), reviewed and independently replicated Gauquelin's results. CSICOP published their results in The Humanist. The Belgian group refused to publish their study for eight years, in the vain hope of finding a logical explanation for their positive result. The French took a full 14 years. In the end the group dissolved and the work was completed by Jan Willem Nienhuys from the Netherlands. All groups made their data available, but the CFEPP was the only one to publish the full data. The book outlining the study (The "Mars Effect", A French Test of Over 1,000 Sports Champions) [Review].(Gauquelin 1988) (Ertel 1988) (Müller 1990) (Ertel 1990) (Ertel 1992) (Müller 1992) (Ertel 1993)
‘The Tenacious Mars Effect’ (1996)
by Suitbert Ertel and Kenneth Irving (Urania Trust) "describes the Gauquelin’s pioneering work and analyses in detail the attempts by sceptic committees in Belgium, the USA and France to disprove their results. The book highlights the often dubious methods by which hostile sceptics have sought to discredit the Gauquelin’s uncomfortable findings and shows that, in fact, much of the evidence is even stronger than previously claimed." (Ertel & Irving 1997) (Ertel & Irving 2000)
New York Su***de Test Press (1977)
Not all valid astrology tests have demonstrated evidence for astrology, but astrologers have been willing to publish these results. Nona Press and two other astrologers gathered 311 records of birth data of subjects who committed su***de in New York between 1969-73 who were also born in the five boroughs of New York City. Despite statistical comparison with a multitude of astrological conventional and unconventional techniques such as asteroids and minor aspects, they were unable to find significant results that related to su***de. However, their results (Press 1977) were duly published in an Astrological Journal. Some astrologers have argued that there may not be an astrological signature for su***de (since this is not part of normal astrological practice) or that astrology is divination and cannot be objectively demonstrated by empirical studies.(Cornelius 2003)
Gauquelin & Eysenck (1979-1981)
An empirical study of personality and the position of the planets at birth. (Gauquelin 1979)
The birth data and personality descriptions of several thousand famous French scientists, sportsmen, and actors were obtained from biographies. The rising and culminating positions of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were calculated and the personality measured according to Hans Eysenck's scales. It was predicted and found that introverts are very significantly more frequently born when Saturn had just risen or just passed its upper culmination; extraverts when Mars and Jupiter had just risen, or just passed their upper culminations. Eysenck's personality analysis and position of the planets at birth: A replication on American subjects. (Gauquelin 1981)
Personality descriptions of 500 successful American professionals were compiled from their biographies and birth data collected. The precise positions of the planets Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn at birth correlated with H. Eysenck's (1967) personality dimensions. Extraverts were significantly more frequently born when Mars and Jupiter had just risen or just passed their upper culmination; introverts when Saturn had just risen or had just passed their upper culmination. Professor Müller's Studies (1986)
A study by Arno Müller, Profesor of Psychology at the University of Saarland, Germany of the lives of 1,145 German nobility over five centuries where records were kept meticulously, showed a significantly higher frequency in infant mortality within the first 15 months (p=0.0004) of birth when Saturn was rising or culminating (Gauquelin sectors) at birth. (Muller & Menzer 1986) [This fits with a traditional interpretation of Saturn rising as difficulties early on in life.] This study might be applied to help understand the mysteries of present day cot-death syndrome. Timm & Köberl: A re-analysis of a study by Hans Bender (1986)
A re-analysis of a study in 1952-55 on 178 German Astrologers showed that astrologers were able to match descriptions of 3 people to 3 natal charts to a significant level. (p=0.026). (Timm & Köberl 1986) However, researchers could not rule out the results being attributed to ESP. Sara Ridgley: Astrologically Predictable Patterns In Work Related Injuries. (1993)
In her Phd. study of 1023 workers in California who were disabled for at least 3 months as a result of accidents at work between 1987-1991, Dr Ridgley found a correlation (p
