is there even a bit possibility that astrology could be consider as a science? in what way?

Answer 1

If you take Planck's views serious, it established a foundation for and event occurance.

Dr. Planck says an observer has an effect on the results.

Thus if you accelerated an electron in an accellerator with no observers and with observers the results would be different because the observer generates and effect on the electron.

If you take this into account, all the planets, moons and stars in the universe generate an effect on each other.

If Jupiter were to vanish tomorrow it would have an effect on our solar system, only it takes millions of years to occur.

It would change the balance of things.

On an atomic level this is what an isotope is.

U238 can not generate an atomic explosion it requires changing it to U235.

Thus making a small atomic change has an effect on the characterists of the matter.

It is logical to conclude that gravitational wells can do the same thing to organics.

A large gravitational well, like the sun, can bend light from a star.

We call that bend a BIASING.

Gravity generates a bias on things.

Now, of course, the Earth's gravity is humungous compared to the gravity of Mars.

The moon, however, drags ocean waters to high and low levels based on the position of that body.

Now, if something can have that profound an effect on trillions of tons of water each month, it must certain exert an effect on us.

Astrology, however is an art form based on this effect.

The science, which doesn't exist, would determine, mathamatically, multiple body effects on a given object at a given position. Which is essentially what astrology does.

It computes, to seconds of an arc, body positions on a single entity or event (you for example) at a given location (no two bodies of mass can occupy the same space precisely).

While astrology works in seconds of an arc for bodies and mintues or seconds of time, it generally doesn't get into GPS levels for latitude and longitude of the body in question, and maybe it should.

If we take the concept of gravity wells and draw lines (or threads) from one object outwards we find threads crossing each object at varied angles which are quite minute.

But we do this with science, down to the quarks.

The question is what is the total effect and how does it work.

Astrology ties it to behaviorism or psychological levels, failing to take sociological levels into effect.

The thing of a science is turning it into a reliably preductable set of terms.

On this level Astrology is akin to Evolution as a science. In fact, evolution has less proofs and maths going for it, than does astrology.

We can actually make measurements and potentially observe some effects on things.

Evolution, for example, would require genetic preducability in which you observe patterns of genes about to do something and using what you know predict what they are about to do and when this might occur.

Evolution, as a science, is a long way from doing that.

Thus one could say Astrology is a theory on the balance of multiple body gravitational forces on any given point in time and space. But it's not being explored that way on a serious level.

If science were to explore it that way the first thing it would do is explain how all those gravity wells affects aspects. Then it would have to observe cause and effect (of course Planck says observing it taints it).

Psychological sciences would have to then take those elements and see if any predictable behaviors arise as a result of those factors.

Since no one is doing that, it is an unexplored field left to the artisans who have their own ways and methods that are slightly scientific (Astrologers gave us Astronomy) but have little in the way of proofs and do very sloppy math and don't take realtavistic thinking into things.

It strikes me a Unified Field concept or law would be easier to prover and faster to do.

What separates Evolution from Astrology as a quasi science is that actual scientists are working on it.

But, the concepts are similar.

Evolution ATTEMPTS to predict future changes in biologicals, for example, with very little to go on.

Evolution attempts to say we changed over time by some undiscovered process through which genes meld or spilt.

Astrology attempts to say we are formed to a degree as a result of the distortion of a given point in space at a given time by a series of localized gravity wells, of which the Earth is the largest gravity well.

Like I said, it's potential theory, but the end results may differ from the current views.

Astrology, as with evolution, is putting the cart before the horse. You are postulating a results before you have all your evidence on hand to demonstrate how that result occurs!

The primary difference is no one is taking localized time space fabric warps into serious consideration as a potential field of exploration on a deeper level.

Answer 2

No, astrology is not a science, and cannot be considered as such. That being said, astrology is based on sound science, astronomy. The closer that adherents remain to astronomy, the sounder their statements, such as saying that you were born with Mercury in such and such a house. The discrepancy occurs when astrologers try to interpret astronomical events through non-scientific imagination to, for example, guess what your future will be like.

Answer 3

No, it's not a science. There's no credible way that that movement of stars and planets across the sky could or would affect a person's life.

Answer 4

i would say no, because there is no data to back its theories. science is a collection of data that suggests something behaves in a certain manner. astrology is more of a religion.

Answer 5

It's pure garbage.