Are scientists prejudiced against astrology?

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

The following is

an article that appeared on BBC News website. I have posted the article and

some of the responses came for the same in favor of astrology here.

Love and Regards,

Sreenadh================================================

Are scientists prejudiced against astrology?

Dr Paul Kail: Defends astrology as

a science

 

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/119299.stm)

 

Earlier this month our Science Editor Dr David

Whitehouse, took a sideswipe at astrology following reports that footballers

were preparing for the World Cup by studying the stars - their signs, in this

case, rather than the opposition's strikers. It was all, concluded Dr

Whitehouse, a hoax. The article

infuriated another scientist - Dr Paul Kail of Prague in the Czech Republic. So

we asked Dr Kail to expand on his point of view.

Dr Kail states:

David

Whitehouse should stick to talking about things that he knows something about.

His comments on astrology reflect a complete ignorance about the subject,

coupled with the irrational nihilism.

We

have come to expect this from scientists who are frightened by ways of looking

at the world which are not consistent with existing scientific dogma

Mr.

Whitehouse's knowledge of astrology seems to be limited to newspaper columns,

since he believes that a major part of astrology is predicting the future, and

that astrologers might claim to be able to predict the World Cup.

He

claims to have talked to practicing astrologers: however, any professional

astrologer would have told him that newspaper columns have little or no

connection with proper astrology.

He

claims that "There is not the slightest bit of serious scientific evidence

that it works." This simply isn't true, and shows that he has not taken

the trouble to look at the literature.

Testable

The

claims that astrology makes are just as testable as the claims made by chemists

or physicists.

For

example, astrology claims that people born with Mars in Aries are likely to be

more aggressive than average. This is testable.

Unfortunately,

because of the prejudice of the scientific community, funds for studying

astrology are limited. Consequently, much astrological theory is unproven.

Despite

this, there is very strong evidence that a core of astrology is, indeed, valid.

Hans Eysenck, professor of Psychology at the University of London, has written

an excellent review of recent literature.

Another

book I would recommend him to read is "Recent Advances in Natal

Astrology" by G. Dean, an analytical chemist from Perth.

'Does astrology work?'

Professor

Eysenck's conclusion is as follows: Overall, then, in response to the question

"Does astrology work?", we would agree with the summing up of Dean

and others (1977), that 'the picture emerging suggests that astrology works,

but seldom in the way or to the extent that it is said to work.'

One

could hardly expect otherwise from a tradition which is thousands of years old,

but which has only in the last century been subject to scientific analysis.

My

objection to Mr Whitehouse's attitude is as follows. Science will advance if we

constantly question the things that we see around us.

The

moment we tell ourselves that science has answered all our questions, and

simply needs to be "defended" against heretics, it becomes a

religion.

Astrology

will succeed or fail on the basis that the claims that it makes are tested, and

found to be valid. It cannot be judged on the basis that we don't yet have a

plausible mechanism for it.

When

I studied medicine and neurophysiology at Oxford, back in the early eighties,

anaesthetics had already been used for many years. Yet nobody really knew how

they worked (of course, there were various conflicting theories). Nor did we

really know how most of the neuroleptic drugs worked, let along ECT.

However,

nobody pretended that they couldn't work, just because we didn't have a

completely watertight mechanism to explain what they did. Maybe by now, we do

have a better understanding of these areas.

However,

many phenomena which we know exist are inexplicable; and others have accepted

explanations which are probably wrong.

Scientists scoff

Yet

scientists scoff at astrology because they cannot understand how it could work.

This is an irrational approach, not a scientific one.

Moreover,

it is getting the cart before the horse. If at least 20% of what astrology

claims is proven (and at least this is certain), then we have something to

investigate.

With

a scientific background and a strong interest in astrology, am very interested

to find out what the mechanism actually is.

I

think that any scientist should be equally curious: if astrology cannot be

explained by existing laws, then maybe it can tell us something new about the

universe. Mr Whitehouse's comment that the gravitational fields of the planets

at the time of birth are too weak to affect the child is trite. We know this,

thank you very much.

Open to new ways

It

is your job as a scientist what the mechanism actually is. Indeed, any

scientist worthy of the name should be open to new ways of looking at the

universe, rather than to defending existing dogmas.

 

 

 

Dr David Whitehouse replies:

Ever

since my early interest in astronomy and especially when I was a professional

astronomer, I have been regularly told by someone or other that there is

something in astrology. If only I wasn't a blinkered scientist with a biased

mind I would see it.

But

I refuse to be gullible. When I look at the evidence put forward that astrology

works I come away very unimpressed. I can't agree that at least 20% of what

astrology claims is proven.

Just

because science can't explain everything doesn't mean that it has not explained

astrology. Because we cannot explain why some things work, like some drugs, does

not mean that astrology works in an as yet undiscovered way. Some things are

just plain wrong.

Thor

is not the god of thunder, the earth isn't the centre of the universe and there

are not fairies at the bottom of my garden.

 

Responses came to this article

in support of astrology is given below:

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/115338.stm)

 

Paul Kail

is right - more research is needed. Either way, astrology does a lot less harm

than most religions I can think of. Perhaps we should research some of those

too and then see which is the most ridiculous...

Sally-Ann Russell, UK

Astrology is an exact science. We only need to master it

in order to reach correct conclusions. It is no use discrediting it, simply

because of people claiming to understand it but delivering incorrect

predictions. We all know how people disbelieved earlier scientists, but later

inventions and discoveries confirmed the truth of their findings.

Jason White,

USA

There are mathematical calculations involved behind

astrology and its results. Basic inputs to it are your exact time of birth and

birth place. Sometimes it fails because the time of birth may not be exact. You

will realize this fact if you refer to Vadic mathematics.

Peter Clarke, UK

Astrology is proof that human beings still believe in

magic!

Robert Thomson, Canada

Perhaps it is possible that

electromagnetic fields exist which influence life on a genetic level. The

effects of extremely low magnetic fields are not fully understood at this time

(eg power lines and cancer, etc). I don't think that astrology can predict

outcomes of events or events themselves but there may well exist some as yet

undiscovered scientific basis for astrology.

Scott Marcussen, USA

Is the practice of medicine another science fiction? There

are scores of quack doctors destroying innocent lives daily. I believe in and

practice astrology to serve my brothers.

Yao, Ghana

The article states there is no serious scientific evidence

to support astrology, however the same is true for God. I believe in both.

Dr Shane McKee, UK

I agree with Tony Lezard... there is some evidence which

seems to link the personality traits of people born under the same sign. The

human body will change in chemical composition throughout the year through the

effect of temperature, exposure to sunlight, and possible sociological

influences which will change throughout the year - it seems quite feasible that

this has an influence on the final personality of the child. The prediction

side of astrology is, of course utter rubbish.

Steve Hennerley, UK

Scientists are always running around screaming that there

is no evidence of this and no evidence of that. How many actually look for any?

To me, the fact that almost all ancient cultures had a belief that the heavenly

bodies affect lives, events, and nations is a bit of evidence. So many peoples

who had never come into contact with each other somehow arrived at this same

conclusion. Of course, the horoscopes one finds in the newspaper are rubbish.

They would have one believe that there are only 12 types of people and 1 out of

12 is going to experience what they predict. Astrology is half science and half

art. A real horoscope prepared by a real astrologer is very time consuming and

expensive. It must be prepared according to exact data relating to the birth of

the person. Scientists are great at discovering the obvious - like smoking

causes cancer, but when it comes to something not readily visible, they lack

the imagination necessary to see things that are not right in front of their

faces.

David Maness, U.S.A.

I think astrology is popular because it has some of the

benefits of a religion, yet very few of a religion's demands. Astrology offers

reassurance about the future, with no real demand that the future is in our own

hands. This is comforting because it means we don't need to do much. If the

stars are in our favor, we will have good fortune. On the other hand, its

effect is pernicious because it encourages us to sit back and act

fatalistically. In fact, our own actions, not those of the stars, determine the

future. Our society is set up to make us feel like isolated individuals who

can't make a difference to the big issues of the world. Astrology contributes

to this ideology by suggesting that the individual is the most important focus

of the good and bad fortune predicted by the stars. Actually, if we join

together with other like-minded people, we can have a huge effect on events,

both at a personal and a global level.

Richard Griffiths, UK

Dr

Whitehouse's final comment to Dr Kain "Thor is not the god of thunder, the

earth isn't the center of the universe and there are not fairies at the bottom

of my garden." seems to me to be the type of knee-jerk response that one

would not expect of an esteemed scientist.

Jonathan Edwards, South Africa

Dear Dr

Whitehouse, I frankly don't know whether astrology works or not, nor care But I

care a lot about eminent scientists being misquoted for tendentious ends, and

your correspondent, Dr Paul Kail of Prague appears to be doing exactly that to

Dr Hans Eysenck.

Dr Kail

represents Eysenck as follows: Professor Eysenck's conclusion is as follows:

Overall, then, in response to the question "Does astrology work?", we

would agree with the summing up of Dean and others (1977), that 'the picture

emerging suggests that astrology works, but seldom in the way or to the extent

that it is said to work.

Notice in

particular that the uses of the phrases "Overall, then" and

"Does astrology work?" leave the impression that Prof Eysenck

concluded that in some sense Astrology "works". Perhaps even works in

an "overall" sense. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.

In reality, Dr Eysenck only found one single worker in the field of astrology

whose results could not easily be explained by naturalistic means. That's one

single set of results out of six thousand years of extravagent claims, and not

an admission that the results are real, or that something "works", but

only that an naturalistic explanation wasn't immediately available. And recall,

less than a couple of hundred years ago, naturalistic explanations for things

like magnetism and lightning weren't immediately available, which didn't imply

that concepts like Fire Gods "worked".

To give a

more honest and in-context summary of what Prof Eysenck actually said, rather

than the rather wish-fulfilling summary presented by Dr Kail, here's a quote

from a review article written by Angela Bourque, Department of Religion,

Carleton University, http://sites.internetcorp.net/abourque/thesis.html: In

their last chapter, Eysenck and Nias sum up their position via astrology. They

first divide the subject into three groups, pop astrology, traditional

astrology, and what they call cosmobiology (the influence of extraterrestrial

forces on Earthly organisms and chemicals). The first of these they feel is

useless and an exploitation of the masses for the purpose of personal profit.

If the statement signed by leading scientists were to apply to this type of

astrology only, they would agree with it 100%.

The second

type of astrology they see differently. Though they still feel that it does not

relate to any real influence of the planets and stars on our personality or

fates, they feel that this elaborate system of symbols can be a useful tool for

providing a sense of meaning and relatedness with the universe as a whole. In

general, though, they feel that astrology is largely superstition ("a

belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in

magic or chance, or a false conception of causation; a notion maintained

despite evidence to the contrary" - Websters Dictionary).

As far as

cosmobiology goes, though, they feel that "these discoveries must stand as

clear indications that our conceptions of the universe we live in are not as

final and complete as we might like to think, and that there are certain facts

urgently in need of a good hypothesis to explain them." Still they point

out that these findings should not be viewed as supporting traditional

astrology. Even Gauquelin himself does not feel that astrology (the assumptions

behind it and its practice) has been supported by his work.

As you can

see, the work of Eysenck and Nias could hardly be presented as support of Astrology.

Moreover, one really has to ask why Dr Kail feels that support for the efficacy

of Astrology is to be found in the late-life work of a retired Professor of

Psychology working outside his own field of expertise. Indeed, one might ask

why it is so often the pattern that advocates for fringe science end up quoting

Mechanical Engineers on Creationism, Astronomers on Biology, or Psychologists

on Astrology, unless it is that they are taking advantage of the somewhat

regrettable tendency of both the public and of the eminent to take themselves

for experts in more than they really are.

G. Athanassoulis (Mr), Greece

 

The more I look into astrology the more I am astounded by

its accuracy. If it is looked at it for predictions of actualities or definates

then the point is being missed. It shows universal INFLUENCES on life, the

universe and everything. We all have the ability to make whatever choices we

want, but we can go with the flow or against it. To go with the flow can mean

to be a helpless victim of circumstance or, to be sensitive to the influences

around and negotiate a course through them AND learn something on the way.

Astrology can be one way of tuning into the environment we exist in. As Isaac

Newton suggested, if you study it, then you can comment on it, until then how

can you possibly have any worthwhile opinion on it! And I think he was meaning

study beyond the daily paper sunsign predictions. One final thing, science is

often mistakenly understood to be the study of provable fact, and materialistic

in your face'ness. There are many methods of science, all of which have their

value. The study of astrology is based upon observation and recording of

information and then analyzing that information with respect to the stars. Some

people will add to this their own intuitive thoughts and perceptions which

helps speed up the process. At the end of it there is undeniable truth in the

body of knowledge. Check it out, seriously. On the other hand we have the

science that includes medical findings and drug research, which give us

"scientific" proof of all manner of cures and treatments. A closer

look at much of this shows quite clearly there is much misinformation and

misinterpretation of findings leading to a bad use of the treatments and drugs

being "researched". Maybe this is what is meant by science fiction?

Steve Logue, Bucks

Let me state some facts, as I see them: From the time of

conception, a person's development is affected by many different factors, some

in utero and some external. Humans are bio-electrochemical organisms and are

subject to magnetic forces. Planets exert magnetic forces i.e. tidal forces

exerted by the moon. If all these facts/assumptions are true then I am left

able to comfortably conclude that, within all likelihood, the location of

planets have an effect on the mental state of a human being. Astrology attempts

to chart and predict what these attempts may be. There cannot be 'scientific'

proof for theories which step outside the 'accepted' boundaries of science. Who

knows?

Stefan Kunze, Germany

I never realized that a subject like astrology could bring

forth such vilification. Whilst everyone knows that tabloid horoscopes are just

a bit of lighthearted fun I have been surprised at the insights offered by the

couple of full birth charts I have seen. We all know that the tides on earth

are affected by the Moon and its phases/movement. There is also evidence that

animal behavior can be affected. So maybe astrology is not completely nuts? I

for one am prepared to keep an open mind on this one.

Wm. Robb, Canada

Sun-sign columns are not astrology. Only a full birth

chart analysis can provide any significant insight, and that mostly in the area

of personality analysis. About 500 million people share your sun sign. Will you

and they all have the same kind of day tomorrow?

Tracey Smith, Canada

Just because something cannot be explained by today's

concept of science does not make it mumbo-jumbo or science fiction. As in

medicine, there are many astrologers who are quacks and dupe gullible people

and make money. Having said that even if astrology is a science in the modern

sense, what is its use. For example, if an astrologer tells me that I will fail

an exam and I put in a lot of effort (thanks to the astrologers predictions)

and pass, then the prediction has been wrong. On the other hand if the

prediction turns out right and I do fail, then astrology has been of no help to

me.

Tony Ellis, USA

We listen and read astrologers all day all year. They are

called political experts, financial wizards and weather forecasters. They have

an error ratio as large as astrologers, yet we treat them as able people who

can forecast the future. Of course our most prestigious future gazers are our

religious leaders - they know where we are going to be sooner or later.

Larry Coppelman, USA

Astrology

as we know it today is just another victim of the commercialization that has

polluted so many fine arts. The "real" astrology though was one of

the major sciences of our past and has contributed greatly to our scientific

progress. Although it also has its weaknesses which Pico della Mirandola

managed to describe in a work of 9 volumes, it is also a fascinating and quite

useful science.

Tony Lezard, UK

Studies show that people born under Mars are more likely

to become competitive athletes--- a shred of "scientific evidence".

Oliver Boldizar, Canada

Astrology and the people and technology should be praised

for letting us see outside our own planet, and far out into the solar system.

Astrology is REAL.

Keith Taylor, N Ireland. U.K.

Astrology is not scientific truth and most people know that,

but it has certain ways of tapping into our creative subconscious in a way that

rational thinking cannot do. Thus, astrology is important, and it taps into our

human side as much as art, religion, and language do.

James Castro, USA

 

- 0 -================================================