Astrology: Science or Pseudoscience? Part I; Urban Legends

by Mike Johnson

Our Mensa Forum speaker  August 2002 was the highly acclaimed astrologer/psychiatrist Dr. Mitchell Gibson.  Dr. Gibson, Chief Research Scientist for the accredited Astrological Institute of Scottsdale, maintains that “modern astrology is a Science”.   He was invited back to continue his presentation of December 2001.  This time he expanded his topic somewhat, beginning  with a presentation of various psychic abilities credited to historic figures such as Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce and others. Attendees supplied their own memorable psychic experiences.     I maintained an excruciating self-imposed vow of silence throughout the meeting but would now like to offer my view as a scientific skeptic.  As a Life member of the Phoenix Skeptics, a chapter of CSICOP, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, I expect my own views to be treated with skepticism. From years of exposure I do have a “bias”, a skepticism of the widespread claims of what appear to be supernatural abilities. I am also guilty of periodic irreverence when faced with such claims.

I would like to discuss two topics:

1.     Part I: The question of accuracy in reporting surprising situations.  Urban legends are so numerous that I will illustrate with just one from Dr Gibson’s own book, that of Sir Isaac Newton’s alleged support of astrology.

2.     Part II (next month): The lack of serious science related to astrology. I’ll discuss the findings and reservations of the Astrological Association of Great Britain as reported in their Journal of Astrological Research; Correlation.

Nostradamus and Newton

Anecdotal reports are too numerous to check out every case. They can be so easily contrived, misreported or misremembered and embellished. Unfortunately each would require considerable effort to research even when that is possible.     For example: consider the run of the mill regressed soul who claims to have been a nobleman in France, killed in the Battle of Wotnot and buried in such and such a cemetery in 1722!   Making the claim is easy, but the factual confirmation would be rather expensive. When selected claims have been carefully checked they invariably fail,  but more are instantly created. So we end up with a heap of questionable case histories from which the new  age proponents can draw to impress the gullible.     The problem is a matter of credibility. I will  therefore select just one extremely well documented case – that of Sir Isaac Newton since, as the granddaddy of science,  he has been studied and analyzed in great depth.

Newton and Astrology; Urban Legend

Dr. Gibson’s “Astrological and Psychiatric Breakthrough” book “Signs of Mental Illness” perpetrates the Sir Isaac Newton myth. On page 3, ironically in the chapter labeled Facts and Fictions, Dr. Gibson states: “Critics of astrology are quick to condemn it as a pseudo-science and superstition. But in that case, what are we to make of the truly great minds who were lifelong students and  proponents of astrology? How are we to explain Newton’s unequivocal defense of the subject and his terse dismissal of those who condemn astrology without studying or  testing its validity?”

I  ran an Internet search on Newton, astrology... using Google. [Please don’t trust me - you can easily do the same.] It turned up “Isaac Newton and Astrology, Witness for the Defence or for the Prosecution?” by Robert H. van Gent [http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/astrology/newton.htm]. Interestingly the key references are based on reports of the Astrological Association of Great Britain (AAGB). They publish  Correlation, Journal of Astrological Research. I’d like to extract a few items from the article:

1.     Newton’s nephew, John Conduitt (1688-1737), who was collecting biographical material on his illustrious uncle, interviewed Newton on August 31, 1726, shortly before his death. During this interview, Newton confided to Conduitt that his interest in science had first been roused in the summer of 1663, when, as a young student at Cambridge, he purchased a book on astrology at the midsummer fair at Stourbridge. Baffled by the incomprehensible astrological diagrams and calculations in this work he then studied some books on geometry and calculus (such as by Euclid, Frans van Schooten and René Descartes) and was “soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology”.

2.     Newton scholar and English historian of science Derek Thomas Whiteside has stated that he never found any reference to astrology among the 50 million words which have been preserved from Newton’s hand.

3.     Newton’s Library at his death, contained 1752 books with identifiable titles, no more than four books on the subject of astrology: a work by the German astrologer Johann Essler from Mainz (end 15th/begin 16th century), a treatise on palmistry and astrology by the English doctor/astrologer Richard Saunders (1613-1675), an almanac from the same using the pseudonym Cardanus Rider and finally a work debunking astrology by the philosopher-poet and Cambridge professor Henry More (1614-1687). If we get Newton wrong, what confidence can we have in anecdotal reports of lesser mortals?  

So What Now – Peer Review?

Glenn Case’s editorial in the August MAAM challenged the validity of review of Dr. Gibson’s work by astronomers and proposed that psychiatrists’ review would be more appropriate. Maybe, but at his previous Mensa appearance, in answer to a question from the audience regarding peer review, Dr. Gibson stated that the medical profession was not very receptive to astrology/psychiatry research. I appreciate Glenn’s concern but would suggest that the review should be by Scientists focussing on scientific method. And, of course, astronomers are scientists with an added expertise, which does seem somewhat relevant.     As we will see in part II next month the Astrological Association of Great Britain seems to offer a promising forum for review of Dr. Gibson’s research. They seem to be wanting for sound research papers and appear to  have a regard for astrology and scientific method. Peer review is an essential part of real science and I wish Dr. Gibson every success in trying to substantiate his research findings with the scientific method.  

Mike Johnson is a retired physicist/professional engineer/statistician. His specialty is statistical design and analysis of experiments. He has trained and consulted in this subject in Asia and in the USA for over 30 years.