http://www.ntskeptics.org//FACTSHTS/astrolog.htm
Astrology Fact Sheet
Astrology is almost certainly the oldest and most widespread of all
pseudosciences. Its origins can be traced back to the first half of the
Hammurabi dynasty in Babylonia about 3,500 years ago.
In its modern form astrology asserts that the positions of the solar
planets at the time an individual is born are somehow correlated with
his or her personality, activities, preferences, and even major life
events (accidents, marriages, divorces, etc.). There is no general
agreement among astrologers as to how or why this can be. Nor is there
agreement as to precisely which planetary positions lead to which
specific traits or experiences. It is almost certain that no two
astrologers will "cast" an individual's horoscope with precisely the
same result. The predictions that do result are often so vague that
verification is impossible, anyway.
Astrology is best understood by learning how it began. Like most urban,
agricultural peoples, the Babylonians had a pantheon of many gods. They
also had a well- developed science of observational astronomy, which
served the highly utilitarian purpose of providing a calendar, times to
plant and to harvest, times of religious festivals, etc. In this
observational scheme each planet was im****tant, and the priests whose
task it was to make the observations named the planets for the gods in
their pantheon -- Marduk, Isthar, Nergal, etc. By about 1000 B.C. there
was an extensive Babylonian literature of "planetary omens." Since
Nergal (Mars) was the god of war, a summer in which Nergal shone down
brightly from the sky was a good time to wage war (or a time in which
risk of war was great). Since Ishtar (Venus) was the goddess of love, a
spring night in which Ishtar shone high in the West after sunset was a
good time to make love.
About 600 B.C. the Babylonians devised the twelve-sign zodiac: markers
in the sky along the path of the sun, moon, and planets, which roughly
correspond to the months of the year. The oldest horoscope that has been
discovered dates to April 29, 410 B.C. A horoscope is simply a crude
chart which indicates the directions in which the various planets lie,
relative to the zodiac, at the time of a person's birth. During the
classical era dominated by, first, Greece, and then, Rome, Babylonian
astrologers (called Chaldeans) set up shop in most large urban areas
throughout the civilized world. Greek astronomers scoffed at the
Chaldean astrology as absurd, but the Greek public embraced astrology as
lovingly as they had embraced many other bizarre or barbaric cults.
Later, the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote, in 44 B.C., a
devastating critique of these astrologers, which is still worth reading
today. A typical passage: "What utter madness in these astrologers, in
considering the effect of the vast, slow movements and change in the
heavens, to assume that wind and rain have no effect at birth!"
With the coming of Christianity, the Chaldeans had hard going, since the
early Christians (like the Hebrews before them) were hostile to other
gods and pagan religions. Of course, there was no way to disguise the
essentially religious underpinning of astrology. During the early Middle
Ages astrology nearly became extinct in Europe, but was kept alive
elsewhere by Islamic scholars.
The Crusades brought astrology back to Europe where it co-existed
uneasily with Christianity until the dawn of the age of science. The
explosive growth of scientific astronomy from 1600 A.D. paralleled an
explosive decline in the fortunes of astrology. By 1900 a French
encyclopedia accurately described astrology as a vani****ng cult with no
young adherents.
Astrology made the strongest comeback in all its history after World War
I, when British astrologer R.H. Naylor invented the daily newspaper
astrology column.
The paradoxical result is that the heyday of astrology was not during
the benighted Middle Ages, when the average person was sunk deep in
ignorance and superstition, but rather in the 20th Century, when most
citizens presumably know the basic facts of astronomy and are aware that
the planets are worlds similar to the earth rather than god-fires in the
sky.
Thus, at least 90% of all Americans under age 30 know their sun-sign.
There are more than 10,000 practicing astrologers in the U.S., and
Americans spend more than $200 million annually consulting astrologers.
(In the U.S. there are only about 3,000 professional astronomers, and
only about $100 million is spent on basic research in astronomy-- except
in space probes.)
Scientists have been quite baffled by the growing popularity of
astrology, and a number of them have taken the time to carry out careful
studies to see if there is any actual correlation between planetary
positions at birth and any attribute of the individual in later life. No
statistically valid study has ever shown any connection that would give
any validity to any astrological concept-no matter how vaguely that
concept has been worded! There is no question about the simple fact that
astrology does not work.
Nor is there any reason why it should work. In order to go from an
individual's horoscope to a specific prediction of what is in store for
that individual, the astrologer must consult a table. This table
correlates features of the horoscope (positions of the planets) with
individual attributes (intelligence, affection, physical strength, good
health, etc.). Where did this table come from? [Note that it is such a
table and not the horoscope itself that is the "guts" of astrology.]
This table simply is made up by whoever wrote the particular manual of
astrology being used. This is why two astrologers can arrive at
different (even contradictory) predictions from a single horoscope.
There are numerous quite different "astrological systems"; all
different, all arbitrary, and all completely disconnected from reality.
This arbitrariness is a characteristic of all pseudosciences, and
results because the origins of pseudosciences lie not in observation of
nature, but in accidental historical conventions of human culture. For
example, the ancients happened to call the second planet from the sun
Venus and the fifth planet from the sun Jupiter. If they had done it the
other way, it would not have made the slightest difference to astronomy.
Venus would then be the big planet with colorful belts and a red spot,
while Jupiter would be a hellishly hot planet about the size of the
earth. But astrology would then be totally different, because astrology
depends entirely on the characteristics associated with the name, not
the actual planet! Jupiter, chief of the gods, is a leader of men.
Venus, goddess of love, rules the emotions. Changing the arbitrary names
would leave reality unaffected but astrology, horoscopes, etc., would
become totally different. It is interesting to note that the Maya
considered Venus the lord of death.
Another way to see this is to consider the zodiac. The Babylonians, with
their interest in the calendar, naturally had 12 zodiacal signs. But
again this is arbitrary. Other cultures used 28, for instance the
Chinese and Hindus. The Toltec cultures of Middle America used 20. The
Babylonians themselves used from 6 to 18 before settling on the
"traditional" 12. Again the arbitrary choice of number of signs (not to
mention names of signs) is obvious. As for the names, if a given group
of stars were called "Aries, the Ram," this arbitrarily chosen name then
predetermined the "interpretation" in the tables... for since Rams are
aggressive and assertive, so will be people born with the sun (or
something) in Aries. How one distinguishes the aggressiveness of the Ram
from that of the goat Capricorn or the scorpion Scorpio is another
problem! If these groups of stars had been named "The Chair", "The
Writing Desk", and "The Castle", interpretations would again be
unrecognizably different.
As another example, consider the so- called "house system" of astrology.
In order to provide more tables with more characteristics to be looked
up, astrological lore has put forward many different (perhaps as many as
50) house systems. These are arbitrary divisions of the sky in sectors,
vaguely like orange slices. The various systems differ in how wide these
sectors are, how many sectors there are, and how they are oriented in
the sky relative to the ecliptic, the horizon or the equator. There are
two main house division systems in use by modern astrologers, the Koch
and the Placidian. It is hilarious that in neither of these two systems
does anyone born above 66.5 degrees north latitude even have a
horoscope! The stars have nothing to say about 12 million people!
Another hilarious aspect of astrology is due to the astronomical
phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. This was known to
Greek astronomers by 150 B.C. and may have been known much earlier. It
completely destroys the framework of astrology. The problem is that the
early astrologers, for whom the sun rose in Aries at the spring equinox,
defined the sign of Aries to be centered on the point of the spring
equinox. But as the ancient Greeks knew, the equinox swings in a great
circle, taking about 26,000 years to complete its cycle. Thus, today,
the sign of Aries is nowhere near the constellation Aries! This
detachment of the meaning of the symbol from the random scatter of stars
whose arbitrary name originally gave the symbol its name and
significance is ludicrous even to many astrologers, who thus disagree
with all other astrologers by keeping the sign fixed to the
constellation instead of letting it move with the equinoxes!
The moral is that when one has a system based on randomness and
arbitrary convention, a shuffle or mixup of the system is undetectable.
Astrology is just a random-word generation, and mixing up the procedure
by which the random word is generated is not detectable, since the
output words remain random with any genuine further mixup. The puzzle is
how anyone could not be aware of this randomness, of the mindless
conventions that crucially determine the nature of astrology's
"predictions".
The question of why people believe in astrology is more interesting than
the details of the horoscope. Psychologists have shown that customers
are satisfied with astrological predictions as long as the procedures
are individualized in some rather vague way. For example, if the
astrologer asks for a great deal of personal information before
providing the prediction, the individual is much more satisfied with it
than if the astrologer asks few questions (and provides the same
prediction). The predictions themselves are nearly always very vague and
universal in applicability; they might accurately describe nearly anyone.
Astrology relies on an illusion in thinking called personal validation.
This depends on the selective nature of memory. If we believe something
is so, we tend to remember the events that sup****t it, and for get those
which don't. The result is a growing feeling of conviction. We remember
the part of the spiel that fits us and forget about the parts which
don't. Influencing people this way is called cold reading, and there is
a considerable psychological literature on the subject.
Modern science has undercut the basis for astrology at every turn. The
individual is formed at conception; not at birth. The gravitational
force exerted on a newborn baby by the earth is more than a million
times greater than that of any celestial object. The tidal force exerted
by the mother and the hospital building is, likewise, a million times
greater than that of any celestial body. The electromagnetic radiation
falling on the baby from the sun or room lights is a million times more
intense than that from any other celestial object. Changes in
environment during early development have much greater effects upon the
developing person than the events at the time of birth. Also, the time
of birth can be altered, to some extent, by the actions of a physician.
What are the astrological implications of a caesarean section or forced
delivery? Another im****tant point to make is the established role of
genes in a person's nature. Suppose two unrelated persons are born at
the same time in the same hospital. Will the astrological forces
outweigh the genetic ones? The science of genetics has shown the answer
to be 'no'. There is nothing whatsoever in all of nature as we have
explored it to date, or in any of our other experience that gives any
credibility to any astrological idea.
Nevertheless, millions of Americans, from Ronald Reagan to many
minimum-wage earners, continue to regulate their daily schedules (to
some extent) in accord with the arbitrary and potentially harmful
advice. Why? It is essential to remember that a belief doesn't have to
be true to be useful. Astrology has flourished because it is a framework
within which people can discuss and look for meaning in their lives.
Viewed as a social sup****t system, astrology is somewhere between a
religion and a psychotherapy.
This fact sheet is substantially based on material prepared by Prof.
Rory Coker of the University of Texas at Austin, in cooperation with the
Austin Society to Oppose Pseudoscience.
Suggested Reading:
* Abell, G.O. and Barry Singer (Eds.), Science and the Paranormal.
(Scribner's, N.Y., 1981) See articles "Astrology" and "Moon Madness"
both by Abell.
* Carlson, Shawn, "A double-blind test of astrology," Nature,
318:419, Dec. 5, 1985.
* Cohen, D. Myths of the Space Age (Dodd, Mead, New York, 1967.)
Chapter II.
* Culver, Roger B. and Phillip A. Ianna, Astrology: True or False?
A Scientific Investigation. Prometheus Books, 1988.
* Dean, G., "Does astrology need to be true? Part I: A look at the
real thing," The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1986-87, p. 169.
* Dean, G., "Does astrology need to be true? Part II: The answer is
no," The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring, 1987, p. 257.
* Gauquelin, Michel, Dreams and Illusions of Astrology. Prometheus
Books, 1979.
* Hyman, Ray, "Cold reading: how to convince strangers that you
know all about them," The Zetetic, Spring/Summer 1977, p. 19.
* Lindsay, J., The Origins of Astrology. Barnes and Noble, 1971.
|
