Astrology: Science or Pseudoscience?

by Michael Johnson

In Part II, I will discuss the lack of serious science related to astrology.  I’ll rely almost entirely on the findings of the Astrological Association of Great Britain [AAGB] as reported in their Journal of Astrological Research; Correlation [CJAAGB]. I’ll excerpt heavily from the CJAAGB but would welcome your checking my bias in editing by referring to the detailed web sources.

What do Astrologers think of Scientific Astrology?

Apparently, not much. During the five year period 1994-1999 a classic series of four articles appeared in Correlation addressed to key topics in astrological research (see http://www.astrology-and-science.com/ktsumms.html). The reports are the combined output from numerous astrologers and somewhat fewer scientists (counts are given in the reports). Even a skeptic has to be impressed with the apparent integrity of the lengthy AAGB report.  For brevity, I will simply extract from the report itself.  I again encourage you to check the original for my bias in editing.

Key Topics in Astrological Research:

1.    Is science relevant to astrology?
2.    Some philosophical problems of astrology.
3.    Theories of astrology.
4.    Astrology and human judgment.
5.    A fifth topic (Future Directions for Research) was planned “but folded due to lack of interest from astrologers.

”     The following selected extracts indicate the flavor of the report. Anglicisms are quoted verbatim but the italics are my own, added for emphasis:   ·    “Up to now the results of research into astrology have been far from spectacularly confirming the claims of astrology and its practitioners, understandably to their deep disappointment (and, often, also resentment).” · 

“Is the scientific approach relevant to astrology? Yes, but only to those parts testable by observation. No distinction between Material and Formal causes is necessary. Thus to test whether a person fits his chart better than a control requires no causal assumptions whatever.” ·

“Why are scientists and astrologers in conflict over whether astrology works? Mainly because they tend to look at different things. Scientists are mostly concerned with accuracy (controlled tests) whereas astrologers are mostly concerned with satisfaction (client acceptance). But accuracy is unrelated to satisfaction. So their views can conflict yet both can be right. In particular cases a more important reason on either side may be dishonesty, ignorance and arrogance.” ·

“Modern philosophers generally accept astrology as a source of sympathy and support, but they reject it as a source of knowledge.” · 

“Satisfaction typically rests on value judgments and subjective feelings, both of which can legitimately differ. So arguments about the extent and type of satisfaction provided by astrology may be pointless.  The astrology so viewed need not be true and is therefore uncontroversial.” ·    “Astrologers have been reluctant to describe what their model predicts, the criteria by which it could be tested, and the evidence they would accept as showing it had failed. No claims to accuracy can be justified unless astrologers make proper experiments and distinguish between alternative explanations and have independent reasons for thinking that astrological effects exist.” · 

“Astrologers and researchers need a good testable theory of astrology to guide their inquiries, to gain the attention of scientists, and to obviate most of the conceptual problems uncovered in the Key Topic 2.” · 

“Spiritual, physical, information and magical theories are unpromising. Psychic theories are ambiguous but deserve testing.” · 

“How does belief in astrology arise? Astrologers and clients believe in astrology because it seems to work. They perceive that people really do fit their birth charts. But such perceptions are suspect due to a large number of errors and biases in human judgment.” ·

“What judgment processes underlying [sic] chart interpretation? In general, human cognitive skills are quite adequate for everyday living, but they cannot cope unaided with complex situations such as interpreting birth charts. Nor are they sensitive enough to detect the correlations said to exist between chart factors and human behavior. The way we make clinical judgments tends to ensure that errors go undetected, so we are unlikely to learn from experience. It is not clear how astrological correlations could have been derived in the first place except by speculation.” ·

“Unaided human judgment is open to pervasive biases, inferential errors and statistical artifacts, all of which can generate convincing correlations between chart and person where none actually exist (which is not to deny that genuine correlations may exist). Some biases encourage belief in the first place. Others make astrology look good, or make clients feel good, or make the chart fit, or make the client fit, or prevent disconfirmation. As a result, the system of astrological correspondences that generations of astrologers have seen as completely valid could be completely false, in the same way that the system of phrenological correspondences now known to be completely false was seen by generations of phrenologists as completely valid.” ·

“In short, there are many non-astrological reasons why astrology should be seen as valid, none of which require that astrology be true (this of course is not a problem peculiar to astrology). There are also ways of avoiding the known ways of fooling ourselves, and ways of dealing with crooked arguments, all described here at some length. However, such matters are almost universally ignored by astrologers and their teaching institutions. Until the situation improves, the education of  astrologers will remain fatally deficient. The need for a better education is briefly discussed.” ·    "Key Topic 5: Future Directions for Research: Ironically this key topic folded due to lack of interest from astrologers. But the general argument was that research would be more productive if it abandoned accuracy as its target and focused instead on satisfaction. That is, on how to improve the benefit obtainable from astrology even though astrology is not a source of scientific knowledge."

Conclusion

Ref. Word/Newton Astrologer II.rtf 8/22/2002 00:30