Do you believe Astrology has a scientific basis?

Question

I mean real mathmatical astrology not the silly entertainment stuff published in the papers.

Answer 1

It's about lines of force and equilibrium biased by sociological and general health factors.

The measurements are scientific, the interpretations are an artisan craft more than a textbook delination.

Oh, and I was superstitious once. I honestly thought Pluto was actually a planet! Silly me. Wonder what gave me that idea.

See, when I tried to use Pluto astrologically it never worked, hence I gave up on including Pluto.

Glad science finally gave up on it too.

Now what do we do with all those text books that are out of date!

Answer 2

No, I don't. (However, what I 'believe' is not much proof of anything: that is not a very scientific approach either)

When 'astrology' was everything about the universe (astrology = understanding the stars), some parts of it were able to be represented scientifically (mostly through mathematics).

Eventually, those parts became astronomy. However, it did not happen overnight, and, at first, so many errors were made (wrong theories, poor equipment...) that it was difficult to distinguish what was 'scientific' and what was not.

What is now left in astrology is not really submitted to a real scientific process. For example, there are no real falsifiable predictions made so that you can check the accuracy of a method.

If anything, people who want to support astrology rely on anecdotal evidence. When one prediction turns out true, everyone shows it as an example, ignoring the other 57 that turned out wrong.

And it is the 'ignoring' the bad ones that makes it less scientific. There is no structured way to analyse a wrong prediction and correct the process for the next prediction (and informing all others of the change).

For real scientific comparison, you must determine in advance what you will compare and how you will compare it. Choosing after the fact makes it too easy to fall into the trap of accepting coincidences as evidence.

The other missing aspect (to make it a scientific process) is a causal link. What is it about Jupiter's position that causes you to win the lottery (or whatever else). Is it a gravitational effect? a magnetic effect? and if so, why would YOU win the lottery while the other 57 born on the same day in the same region do not win it?

If is is a gravitational effect, then how would you account for a bus parked two blocks from your house -- having a greater gravitational effect on you than Jupiter?

And so on.

To have a scientific basis, you need the two aspects: predictions that can be verified with precision using criteria established in advance, AND a verifiable causal link: e.g., a detectable effect that causes Jupiter to impact your behaviour (or the world around you) in a way that is linked to you place and time of birth.

There are some people trying to find these scientific bases for astrology, but they are very rare (and they are having a hard time making it work). Most astrologers are just happy to have enough people believe it so that they can continue to operate.

Answer 3

If it ever had any scientific basis in the past, that is long gone. Here's why. When astrology was originally developed some 2 or 3 thousand years ago, the sun's position in the Zodiac was correct. By that I mean, for example, that the sun was in the constellation Aries from about March 21 to April 20, and in Taurus from about April 21 to May 20. However, since that time the positions of the constellations of the Zodiac have changed with respect to the sun. Now, the position of the sun has shifted one constellation westward, so that now the sun is actually in the constellation Pisces from about March 21 to April 20, and in the constellation Aries from about April 21 to May 20. The more enlightened astrologers, knowing this fact, have tried to pretend that nothing has changed. What they did is to say that from March 21 to April 20, the sun is in the "sign" of Aries and from April 21 to May 20, in the "sign" of Taurus. That way they can use the same data and predictions from 2 thousand years ago using the same names of the stars that were used then. Nevertheless, the "sun sign" of Aries is now actually in the constellation of Pisces, and every other "sign" has moved westward into the previous constellation. If you want more information, look up "precession of the equinoxes".

Answer 4

As one scientist once put it on being questioned on the influence of the planetary line-up, "the glass of water in my hand exerts more gravitational pull on me than the planetary line-up." So if they don't exert gravity on you, then what do they influence? Lots of early Astronomers started out as Astrologers. When the math was developed as well as the telescopes to really observe the stars and planets and predicting the motion became reliable, Astrology declined. The hours of chart reading to predict fortunes and events are now reduced to a few key strokes. Note that the horroscope never predicts you will have a bad week. They would lose customers over that. If they say you will have a good week and then you do your best to make it happen, well what's the harm? And what if you can't tell the day and hour and latitude and longitude of your birth because you were adopted? Never get a horoscope? And have girls/guys reject you because you have the wrong horoscope. Come on.

Answer 5

There is absolutly no scientific basis for Astrology. However, there is a fair amount of common sense in some Astrological advice.

Answer 6

Astrology uses the planets and constellations (which have a scientific basis) to sound legitimate and scientific.
But astrology has no basis in scientific fact or observations. It is pure superstition and myth, and while it may have some entertainment value it has no validity in reality.

Answer 7

It's not a matter of belief. It's a simple matter of whether or not it actually works. And astrology has never passed the test - newspaper astrology or 'mathematical astrology', whatever that it.

Answer 8

No. As I understand it, mathematical astrology attempts to find statistical correlations between planet positions and real events. Unfortunately I fail to see how you could define a set of real events in such a way as to make any reasonable statistics. And anyway, statistical correlation does not prove cause and without a cause and effect relationship, it is just, well, astrology.

Answer 9

No. When you understand how far away the planets and stars are from the Earth, there's no way they could have any effect of people on the Earth. What would the causal mechanism be?

Answer 10

no, it seems unlikely that the alignment of the planets would have a significant effect