Astrology, science and skeptics

‘There is no scientific proof that scientific proof is real.’ – attributed to Ken Wilbur

‘How many black swans do you need to see in order to know that black swans exist?’ – Black Swan Theory

There are people who will proudly trumpet that astrology is ‘superstitious nonsense’, a ‘pseudoscience.’ Or worse. Yet underneath those blanket statements there is often nothing more than profound ignorance.

Some of these dismissers of astrology are scientists. Or people who believe that science somehow defines our reality; that science is the ultimate authority about what is real and what is not real, what to believe in and what not to believe in. And furthermore that what science says is ‘real’ is all that really matters, and all that ever will matter. And that it is science that should be seen as some sort of secular final authority in our lives.

This view — at its extreme — assumes that if science can’t measure or validate something, then that something is not worthy of further enquiry and can be largely dismissed or ignored as meaningless, irrelevant and untrue. At worst, this is beginning to sound like a kind of arrogance, a dogma.

This worldview promotes its own view of reality, one based on ‘reason’ and measurement. It denigrates (or at worst ‘hates’) anything that falls outside that particular viewpoint. This has the hallmarks of fundamentalism. And sadly, this fundamentalist urge is one that humans seem to gravitate to in many spheres of life, particularly in religion and politics. At worst, this fundamentalism suppresses ‘other’, be it natives of a colonised land, or women, or ethnic minorities.

On the other hand, I’m certainly not against scientific enquiry and the careful analysis and sifting-out of poor data and findings that don’t add up. Or impartially ending a line of enquiry for lack of sustainable evidence. These are fairly neutral and unemotional positions. And I’m not anti-science. Far from it. There’s a lot about science and critical equiry to love and be grateful for, so long as it’s aware of it’s limitations. And its prejudices are put aside in the interests of genuine understanding and the seeking of knowledge.

One would hope that a reasonable and learned scientist or skeptic is ultimately the kind of person who will look at something they don’t fully understand and say, ‘I wonder how that works?’ And doing so in a spirit of genuine curiosity and enquiry. I am sure many scientists operate in this way. But there are others who take a different tack. They firmly believe certain anomalies, such as astrology, alchemy, mysticism and even spirituality and the paranormal, should be disregarded and even actively suppressed because it is essentially ‘meaningless’ and a delusion, nothing more.

One would have thought that since astrology has been practiced for thousands of years across many cultures, that many in science would have a profound interest in the subject. Yet they generally don’t. Science generally seems to actively dislike astrology. And would like nothing more than for it to go away, a relic of a time when people were supposedly gullible and ignorant of the ‘truth’ – which is of course the the version of truth these scientists promote. And nothing else. Perhaps the saying is indeed true, that ‘History is re-written by the winners.’

Despite science having little or no genuine interest in astrology, most astrologers don’t care. They know from years of consistent personal experience that astrology ‘works’ and they are not interested in any kind of validation by an authority which is largely ignorant and dismissive of what astrology actually is. Skeptics (scientist and non-scientist) rarely indicate that they have even the slightest understanding of astrology. And they shoot themselves in the foot again and again with their ill-informed bombast; their mocking makes a hypocrisy of their claimed spirit of genuine and impartial enquiry, the scientific process, which is supposedly has at its core genuine investigative principles.

They wonder, for instance, how distant planets’ light or energy could possibly affect our lives on Earth. Well, they can’t.
Astrology doesn’t work by means of some electromagnetic ‘force’ or ‘light waves’, or a mundane cause-and-effect relationship. And it never has. A few conversations with a genuine astrologer would quickly dismiss that bizarre suggestion. The stars and planets, to an astrologer, are more akin to unfolding ‘signs’ or ‘sign posts.’

Some skeptics mention ‘studies’ that ‘disprove’ astrology. Yet the studies I’ve read are laughable. And Richard Dawkins? His television documentary on astrology was biased and mocking in tone, far from the standards one would expect from someone well versed in scientific principles. The programme claimed that Ptolemy (2nd century AD) ‘invented the signs of the zodiac.’ Which is simply untrue. They are much older than that. Most academic studies of astrology take one small fragment of it and then try to look for a pattern or repeatable results. And they fail. Of course they would, because astrology is a comprehensive and cohesive body of knowledge. And to separate out one small element is pointless and meaningless.

Some people also believe that astrology should provide it’s own background academic research, so that it can be ‘validated’ by science in a rigorous and controlled way. Isn’t it a case of ‘innocent until proven guilty?’ And astrology trying to ‘prove’ its merit or otherwise with studies (funded by whom, I wonder?) is just trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. I’m not against it, but the foundation of any study must include even a modest understanding of what is being studied.

Astrology is simply not a science, at least not in the way that contemporary scientists view it. If it can be labelled as anything, it’s more of a social science, one that is concerned with tendencies, possibilities and potentials. Rather like economics, weather forecasting, and historical analysis. No one dismisses the weather forecaster if they say it’s going to be sunny tomorrow, and it isn’t. And if an economist describes the near-term current financial climate in terms of possibilities and potentials, few people will dismiss their views.

Another superficial view of astrology is that it’s somehow fixated on prediction. It isn’t.
Many hundreds of years ago it certainly was. And astrologers such as William Lilly (1602-1681) made a very good living out of accurate predictions for all ranks of society, using the astrological technique called Horary. His 1648 textbook on the topic, Christian Astrology, is still in print. But contemporary astrology is mostly about human potentials, and learning about our personal makeup, what motivates us, and how best to work with the qualities we were born with.

In summary, in terms of astrology, science and skeptics … I long for a day when the true spirit of enquiry predominates, rather than a dogmatic white-wash of misunderstanding. Science has done wonderful things, and certainly open scepticism has it’s place. And astrology isn’t the be-all and end-all either. Yet perhaps it’s fortunate that it’s still something of a mystery. Perhaps it’s better that way, when all is said and done.