Astrology is a Science (Astrology- Science or Not)

[Guest guest]

Dear All, The following is a beautiful blog entry I found on net, written by our group member Sarajit Poddar. URL: http://varahamihira.blogspot.com/2008/02/astrology-science-or-not.html Love and regards,Sreenadh======================================

Monday, February 04, 2008

 

Astrology- Science or Not

 

 

Written in vedic astrology/message/8146Date: Jun 23, 2001* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Before going into the debate of whether Astrology is a Science or not, we must understand what is science? How science is defined....

I have picked up the article from a website http://www.csicop.org/youngskeptics/education/resources/sciencedef.html which defines science asA Brief Definition of ScienceScience is a process of searching for fundamental and universal principles that govern causes and effects in the universe. The process itself is a method of building, testing, and connecting falsifiable models to describe, explain and predict a shared reality. The method includes hypothesis, repeatable experiments and observations, and new hypothesis. The prime criterion in determining the usefulness of a model is the ease with which the model correctly makes predictions or explains phenomena in the shared reality.A short explanation of the term "shared reality" is in order. In the film "Harvey" Jimmy Stewart's six foot white rabbit, Harvey, is a reality for Mr. Stewart, and perhaps just as much "truth" as a lighted match, but Harvey is not shared by most of the rest of us, whereas the match can burn us all. Shared reality is a reality that is verifiable by independent observers and whose causes and effects do not change in time or space. Shared reality is a term that helps avoid conflict with some deep seated beliefs outside of science. Everyone may keep his or her non-science truths; these truths will simply not be part of the shared reality, and not part of science.In addition, it is an important aspect of shared reality that the principle of cause and effect exists and does not change over time and space. If forces cause accelerations today, we must assume that this was so a thousand years ago. The fundamental causes and effects that exist today existed in the past and will exist in the future, allowing us to understand and agree upon past events. If we do not share consistency of cause and effect, then all theories explaining past events will be non-falsifiable, and not a part of the science process.Science as a process:Science is not a collection of facts and theories. The process by which we develop theories is science, not the theories themselves. The fact that objects accelerate on earth at 9.8m/s2 is not science. The theory from Newton that predicts objects accelerate at this rate is also not science. The PROCESS used to develop the theory is science.Theories must be falsifiable:There must be a way to prove the theory wrong. If we can't prove it wrong, it is not a scientific theory. This idea of a theory being falsifiable is one of the most important aspects of science. The theory, "beyond Earth there is intelligent life in the universe," may be true, but it is not a scientific theory since there is no way to prove it false.Theories must be able to predict:All science theories must have some predictive nature. Even if a theory does not in and of itself make predictions, it does have consequences and can be used to make some sort of predictions. Einstein's theory of relativity, which he developed in the early 1900s, predicted changes in the passage of time for objects traveling at extremely high speeds. It was not until much later that some of these "predictions" could be tested. Very accurate clocks were put in airplanes and flown at extremely high speeds. When the planes landed, clocks in the planes were compared with ground clocks. The difference in the times on the clocks were just what was predicted by the theory.It inspires more confidence when two independent theories confirm one another. Cosmic rays create new particles high in the upper atmosphere. It was noted that according to a theory of radioactive decay, particles should not be observed to hit the surface of the earth because the "half life" was too short. Observations showed that the particles did hit the earth. By using one of Einstein's equations in relativity theory it was shown that time slowed down for the particles traveling toward earth. The theory matched experimental results and both the theory of relativity and the theory of radioactive decay were supported.Experiments must be repeatable:It is not acceptable that only one person, or only one group can obtain results that support the theory. Anyone using proper procedures must be able to achieve the same results. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries a number of different "rays" were discovered, including X-rays and Beta rays. A well respected scientist named Blondlot announced he had discovered a new ray, which he called an N-ray. Among other things, people who had been subjected to N-rays could read text that normally could not be read in dim light. The effects were very small and could not be measured with an instrument. In the next few years other scientists reported seeing the same effect, confirming Blondlot's claims. More and more sources of N-rays were found and more effects as well. Most of the positive reports came from France, but some physicists, especially outside France, were skeptical because they could not reproduce the same results.An American physicist named Wood visited Blondlot's laboratory. One of Blondlot's claims was that lead could stop N-rays. Wood, in assisting Blondlot, moved a piece of lead back and forth across a beam of N-rays while Blondlot reported the results. Blondlot then reported results when he believed the lead was in front of the beam, and not when the lead was actually in front of the beam. Wood reported these results in the journal Nature. Other, more critical experiments followed. Non-reproducible results ended the theory of N-rays as far as the scientific community was concerned, although Blondlot continued his research until his death.Confidence in Theories:We have degrees of confidence in theories, sometimes very strong, but none is absolute. The more a theory has been used successfully in the past, and the more it seems to fit in with other theories, the more confidence scientists have in it. There are occasions when evidence seems to indicate a theory is false, but scientists do not abandon the theory immediately. However, if the negative data remain unexplained, the theory must be replaced. For example, scientists had a high degree of confidence in Newton's theory ("law") of gravitation. When Uranus' orbit was seen to be different than predicted by Newton, the theory was abandoned right away. Scientists looked for other explanations for the orbit which would be consistent with Newton's theory. They succeeded in finding the planet Neptune which meant Newton's theory was still viable. If the new planet had not been found scientists would have had to discard or modify Newton's theory. This did happen in the early 1900s when the orbit of Mercury could not be explained in terms of Newton's theory. Newton's theory was then replaced by Einstein's theory of gravitation.In a like manner, many theories in science have been replaced or modified, such as ones dealing with the structure of the atom.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *My CommentsFrom the above article we might infer that No Theory is a "absolute theory". All the so called scientific theories are the outcome of series of observations. From these observations when they found some kind of high correlation of occurance of two subsequent events, they tried to infer causation from them i.e., the preceeding event causing the succeeding event. However, can these coorelation can prove with certainity whether the theory about the causation is correct. No, unless they are mathematically verified. But, we must acknowledge that there are some limilations here. While we are subjecting some hypothesis to mathematical rigour, there might be instances when the mathematical proofs are not possible as it might require further advancement of the mathematical principles (something more to be discovered).But this is something about what we call exact science such as Physics. However, if we take some science such as Biology or physiology, do we subject the theories to similar mathematical rigour....The answer is No. There we try to explain or cause of some disease merely on the basis of statistical probablity. For illustration, when all the doctors found the same germ Plasmodium Vivax in the blood of all the pateints suffering from Malaria, they concluded that Malaria is caused by Plasmodium Vivax. This is an instance of nothing but high coorelation between occurance of two events viz., occurance of malaria and finding of Plasmodium Vivax in the blood of such patients.Leaving the non-exact science such as Biology and Psychology which are emperical, even the so called exact sciece are vulnarable. Stephen Hawkins, in his book "a brief history of time" mentioned that No theory is absolute. No matter how many times numerous observations proove a theory, a single observation which disproves it, make the theory invalid (The quote of Stephen Hawkins is a bit different. I don't have the book with me now to check it). This happens many times in the physical world. Some past theories couldn't explain some events and henceforth the theory is modified. For illustration Einstein said that nothing in this universe could travel faster than light but, now it is discovered that it does. Again, Einstein's theory of quantum mechanics came into being only beause Newton's theory of mechanics failed to explain some events of time and space. Thus it is only a matter of time. Any theory which seems absolute for the timebeing might get modified with new discoveries and until an unified theory is discovered which could explain all events in the universe.The only thing which gives some credibility to any theory is the objectivity of the experiments, its reapeatibilty and the most important one, the predictibilty. With objectivity, I mean that the observer is not biased in devising the experiment, with repeatability, I mean that the experiments should give the same results irrespective of who is conducting it. And by experiments, I donot mean, laboratory experiments but collecting samples according statistical principles and analysing them.What is the use of such theory which doesn't have the predictive validity, i.e., the theory can't predict. There is no use of that theory which could only explain some past events and can't foretell what would happen next, if some event occur under some specific circumstances.Now the question comes, whether Jyotish is a Science. Leaving aside the hypothesis that planets influence the events in the lifes of Human, which can't be verified, we might see that Jyotish passes all the test of validity of Scientific Theory, namely repeatability and predeictabilty. No matter, who sees the horoscope of an Individual, if there is Sun in the first house in the individual's chart, the observer will say that the person will have problems with eyes. There is no dispute to that.If physics is a science which can accurately calculate the path of a rocket launched under condition of specific Atmospheric Tempetature, Pressure, Gravity etc., Jyotish is also a science which can also predict that a person having 9th and 10th lord together will have Rajayoga under specific condition that the Lagna is strong and there are no Rajabhanga yoga in the horoscope. However, if the contention is that why Jyotish is not accurate in all the cases. The answer would be that the principles enuntiated by the Maharshis couldn't be understood and interpreted properly and the specific condition under which those ptincliples could be applied are not known. This is similar to Physics in way that, if scientists are launching rocket over the Moon, they can't accurately predict the trajectory unless they know the gravity of the launcing site, the density of air, the temparature, the velocity of air etc.Thus we see that, the impression about Jyotish that it is not a sceince is nothing but prejudice of so called Rational minded Scientists, who like to comment on something which they don't know.These are my understanding and you need not to the same.OM TAT SAT

 

 

Posted by Sarajit Poddar at 12:51 AM ======================================> > , "neelam gupta"> neelamgupta07@ wrote:> >> > *Dear All,*> >> > Let me share some of my views on the topic as I have been playing the> dual> > role, as a scientist and an astrologer, and switching between the two> with> > ease.> > **> >> > *In some ways, there is no difference between astrology and science?> both> > are advancing, moving forward, creative, both are justification of> thoughts,> > both are about development and both are seeking answers. Both systems> of> > seeking knowledge, *about trying to understand the world, what's in> it,> > what's beyond it.> >> > *But I would also say astrology is not science and science is not> astrology.> > I *wish I could coin another acceptable term a subject like astrology.> >> > Both seek the truth, and both lurk in the grey zone between ignorance> and> > truth. Both start with observation, make a hypothesis/theorem, collect> > statistical evidence and information to prove it and make it> replicable so> > that it fits our observation. It all becomes a matter of what we> observe.> > Both are beliefs, both are half truths? In this sense, there is no> > difference and no significant hostility between the astrology and> science.> >> > *But how do we differentiate? The difference springs from our way of> > thinking, the way we process information. And they become two> independent> > systems.*> >> > One? Global and holistic, an intuitive and simultaneous way of looking> at a> > whole picture first, and then details. It is like seeing a complete> image> > and then breaking into jigsaw pieces to see how they fit to make the> puzzle.> > This gives endless possibilities. That is the art in astrology, to be> able> > to visualise and then synthesize.> >> > Two? An analytical and sequential way of processing information by> putting> > together bits of information and trying to create a whole picture. It> is> > collecting the pieces of zigsaw puzzle and putting them together to> see what> > they make. This creates only limited possibilities. This is science in> > astrology, you synthesize and then see what you could make.> >> > This comes from our working of the right and left hemispheres of the> brain.> > Both are independent and have different approach of working, yet they> are> > related and interdependent for certain processes. That is why many> people> > can switch between them and easily go back and forth between these> areas.> > Scientists are creative, they must be in order to be effective at> scientific> > inquiry, and many have music or art or even astrology as hobby. Good> artists> > are always critically analyzing their work, practicing technically> demanding> > techniques, and must understand technical concepts such as perspective> etc.> >> > Right brain processing means: Visual, focusing on images, Intuitive,> led by> > feelings, process ideas simultaneously, 'Mind photos' used to things,> > remember names rather than faces, see the whole first, then the> > details, organisation> > tends to be lacking, likely to follow rules without questioning them,> no> > sense of time, enjoy sensory input, enjoy observing, trouble> prioritising,> > so often late, listen to how something is being said impulsive, etc.> >> > Left Brain Processing means: Verbal, focusing on words, symbols,> Analytical,> > led by logic, Process ideas sequentially, step by step, remember> things by> > writing things down or illustrating them helps them remember words,> Make> > lateral connections from> > information, Highly organized, work up to the whole step by step,> focusing> > on details, information organized, Make logical deductions from> information> > like making lists and planning, Like to know why you're doing> something or> > why rules exist (reasons), Good at keeping track of time, Spelling and> > mathematical formula, Plan ahead, Likely read an instruction manual> before,> > Listen to what is being said, etc.> >> > Astrology is more likely to be a right brain child and science more> likely> > to be a product of left brain. Hence, the difference lies in our> approach to> > these two fields of learning. The two approaches are different, but> there is> > a very thin line between the two. Many of us easily switch between the> two> > approaches in today's times because so called science is more of a> norm.> > This creates unnecessary confusion in our minds. The two types of> thinking> > need to be complementary. Someone who starts with being a scientist> ends up> > taking up photography as a career and an artist may be an engineering> > professional. In fact, the two areas of endeavor are compatible and> overlap> > in the use of mental skills.> >> > A mix and match technique could help a learner progress faster in any> of the> > fields and would ultimately lead to more complete knowledge. When we> doing> > astrology, we need be able to visualise the whole cosmos (Brahmand) in> our> > mind (right brain, working from the whole), then search the smaller> spheres,> > choosing the stars, zodiac, elements, patterns, placing the planets in> > shadows and highlights (right brain, working on various things> > simultaneously), but at the same time be able to look critically at> what we> > are doing (left brain, being analytical).> >> > However, the left brain or science approach can deal only with limited> > probabilities therefore, it makes more sense to the uninitiated and> limited> > mind. The right brain, for art and astrology throws endless> possibilities> > and fails to make any sense to a common mind. It leaves such a mind> more> > intrigued than convinced by it. Our ultimate objective is to harness> the> > limitless possibilities the left brain offers.> >> > I am not getting into the esoteric and metaphysical aspects of this.> But> > hope this would help a little in understanding how the two studies> become> > different and why different people feel inclined to think differently.> >> > Regards> > Neelam> >>