|
|
|
Astrology
is a controversial topic for many scientists.
They often believe that its claims are wrong-headed, dangerous even,
and have been disproved. Unfortunately these arguments are scarcely
ever based on actual research. There has in fact been very little
serious research into astrology and its claims and what work has been
done has produced mixed results.
Some astrologers claim that astrology is
a science because it is based on empirical evidence: experience
and observation. Quite simply, it seems to work. According to traditional
definitions of science, astrology is scientific because it is a
discipline which uses set rules to explain natural phenomena. Also,
the Greek word 'scientia' simply means 'wisdom'. Some astrologers
claim that traditional astrology is a science, while others want
to create a new scientific astrology separate from traditional practices.
However, modern scientific method usually requires that theories
be tested through experiments under controlled conditions.
There have been few real experiments conducted
in astrology and the results are mixed - some are positive, others
negative. Many experiments are badly designed or damaged by bias,
including some which produce negative results and others which produce
positive ones. Some astrologers think it should be possible to 'prove'
astrology experimentally, but others argue that no two people have
the same horoscope and that we are all unique, so it's a mistake
to imagine that we can gather large numbers of horoscopes together
and test astrology's validity statistically. Others say that the
astrological process exists only while the astrologer is reading
a horoscope, and that artificial experimental conditions cannot
hope to capture the magic of the moment.
The position is also confused, however,
by the use of the term 'occult science': such a description is anathema
to most modern scientists, for 'occult' means 'hidden' whereas science
deals with things which we can see and measure. But it is unwise
to take a dogmatic position. The truth is that sometimes astrology
appears to be scientific, based on rules and regulations, while
at others it is clearly an art, dependent on the astrologer's creative
reading of the chart. Some astrologers call astrology 'an art and
a science' but it's probably best to avoid such descriptions: perhaps
it's misleading to try and describe astrology in terms of other
disciplines. In the end each astrologer arrives at a personal understanding
of astrology based entirely upon his or her own experiences. So
is astrology a science or not? Ultimately it's all a matter of definitions!
Realising that this is the case some people, both for and against
astrology, are beginning to argue that the key question is not whether
astrology is provable, but whether it is useful.
The most significant statistical research
into astrology in the twentieth century was conducted by the French
statistician Michel Gauquelin. He came up with a number of results
linking parents' horoscopes to children's charts, and other results
which linked individual planets to outstanding professional success.
The most famous of these is the Mars Effect, which linked the planet
Mars to major sporting achievement. Scientists have spent over forty
years arguing about this - and the jury is still out.
General Interest
Research into astrology is included within the
study of other phenoena for which the scientifically acceptable
evidence is slight or ambiguous.
The
Anomalous Psychology Research Unit (APRU) at London's Goldsmith's
College, operating under the direction of Dr Chris French, takes
the view that, if phenomena such as astrology have no basis in fact,
'belief' in them may be explained according to psychological factors.
The
Society for Scientific Exploration, which publishes the Journal
of Scientific Exploration, hold conferences and publishes material
on a wide range of unexplained subjects, including scientific tests
of astrology.
The main anti-astrology organisation is the Committee
for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(CSICOP). Its origins lie in an attack on astrology published by
186 scientists in 1975 in which it was stated that 'We believe that
the time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious
claims of astrological charlatans'. CSICOP publishes a magazine,
the Skeptical Inquirer, which includes a wide range of articles
with occasional features on astrology. CSICOP's critics accuse its
supporters of being closed-minded debunkers rather than open-minded
sceptics.
Periodicals
The only completely impartial and critical
journal of scientific research into astrology is Correlation,
published twice a year by the
Astrological Association.
Books
Culver, Roger B., and Ianna, Philip A., Astrology: True or False?
A Scientific Evaluation, revised edition, Buffalo, New York, Prometheus
Books 1988.
A survey of astrology from a hostile perspective.
Ertel, Suitbert and Irving, Kenneth, The
Tenacious Mars Effect, London: Urania Trust 1996.
The best and most detailed account of research into Gauquelin's
'Mars Effect'
Eysenck, Hans and Nias, David, Astrology:
Science or Superstition?, London: Pelican 1982.
A study of scientific studies of astrology, including some original
work by the authors.
Gauquelin, Michel, The Cosmic Clocks, Astro
Computing Services, San Diego, 1982 (1st edn. c. 1967)
An excellent survey of some of the information on celestial cycles.
Gauquelin, Michel, Written in the Stars:
The proven link between astrology and destiny, Wellingborough, Aquarian
Press 1988.
Summarises Gauquelin's work on links between planets, heredity and
professional success.
Gauquelin, Michel, Planetary Heredity,
San Diego: Astro-Computing Services 1988.
Summarises Gauquelin's work on astrological links between parents
and children.
Gauquelin, Michel, Neo-Astrology: A Copernican
Revolution, London: Penguin 1991.
Gauquelin's last work, summarising his previous writings.
Other books by Michel Gauquelin include
Dreams and Illusions of Astrology, Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books
1969, Cosmic Influences on Human Behaviour, London: Futura Publications
1976, How Cosmic and Atmospheric Energies Influence Your Health,
New York: Aurora Press 1984,
Seymour, Percy, Astrology: The Evidence
of Science, Lennard Books 1988 (2nd edn., London, Penguin-Arkana
1990).
A sympathetic survey of some of the scientific evidence on astrology.
Seymour is lecturer in astronomy at Plymouth University.
Web
sites
The
Science and Astrology website, run by
Rudolf Smit, is generally critical of astrology. h
Interviews, comments and debate
on astrology
The
Research Group for the Critical Study of Astrology: databases
and abstracts of academic articles.
|
