Research On Whether Astrology Is A Scientific Evidence Or Pseudoscientific Belief

Scientific evidences are a set of results obtained when a theory is tested objectively by a scientist or researcher in an experiment or in a controlled environment. On the other hand, the term ‘pseudo’ itself means fake. Pseudoscientific beliefs are theories that have been considered true but have no basis in scientific fact which means that they were either disapproved scientifically, cannot be tested or they simply lack evidence to support them. In the digital age, people no longer accept being told what to believe. Instead, people want to know why they should believe something. They go around looking for more information and start reading sources to verify the “facts”. On the other hand, most people from the older generations, believe everything they see because they were never taught to ask questions. Be it the old or the young, there are still some people who fall for pseudoscience as it is easily present everywhere. Loud glossy prints of facts attracts people’s attention. There are many topics being argued if it is science or pseudoscience. One such example that has commonly been debatable whether it is scientific or pseudoscience is astrology. The difference between science and pseudoscience is the difference between objective reality and subjective impressions. Hardened scientists will tell you astrology does not work, believers will tell you it does. This paper is going to identify if astrology is considered to be a scientific evidence or pseudoscientific belief.

Astrology is the belief that there exists a meaningful relationship between the positions of celestial bodies and human experience, and that we can systematically determine this relationship. Public interest in astrology has grown rapidly, due in no small measure to the general misapprehension that exists in the minds of many about the standing of astrology as a “science”. It is known to be the most popular of personality theories, that has generated the least empirical research, no doubt because it lacks sanction as scientific inquiry. Nearly one-third of the population in Western countries believes in astrology; another third cares enough to attend astrological predictions at least some of the time. Anecdotally, horoscope sections seem to be like morning coffee for many. On the other hand, most scientists, in contrast, have simply ignored, dismissed, or denounced astrology. As a result, the scientific community has been vulnerable to accusations of dogmatism and authoritarianism.

The basic claim of astrology is that the psychological attributes and personal destinies of individual human beings are related to the positions of heavenly bodies at the moment of an individual’s birth. The fairest test of astrology assesses the accuracy of predictions made by qualified astrologers on the ground of global interpretations of complete horoscopes. Unfortunately, many of the studies that have pursued such a test have undergone methodological problems that have interrupted them from providing explicit evidence concerning astrology’s validity. For instance, in the science world, to prove that something is scientific, explaining the process of science is vital. Research studies include honest limitations. Scientists are required to show the full picture of what the scientific evidence tells us, followed by the journey (research methodology) of how they reached their conclusions. Based on all these scientific bases of information, people are allowed to check the sources themselves and decide what to believe in. Clear communication of the findings of research is crucial to the growth and development of science.

On the other hand, past studies focused on the astrologer’s ability to use birth information to predict only single dimensions of personal information, eg occupation. A more ecologically valid test would be to determine how well astrologers would match specific birth information to the full, complex pattern of an individual’s life experiences and personal characteristics. Previously done studies have been vulnerable to the criticisms that the test was a flawed or unfair representation to standard scientific practice.

To fight these arguments, a consensus was formed to come up with a cooperative study involving both scientists and astrologers, to design a hypotheses. Only one such study has been done. The results following the study was unambiguous, both from the point of view of methodology and astrology. The study consisted of two parts. In the first part, nonastrologer-test subjects displayed equal adversity in choosing from a group of three possible interpretations (prepared by astrologer subjects) the horoscope interpretation that best described themselves, and in picking from a group of three possible profiles the California Personality Inventory (CPI) profile that best described themselves. None of the data consented clear conclusions about the relative accuracy of personality descriptions derived from astrology. While in part two of the study, the astrologer subjects were not able to pick from a group of three possible profiles the correct CPI profile of test subjects (for whom they had the corresponding horoscopes). It was concluded that the data from part 2 of the study showed a “surprisingly strong case against natal astrology. This conclusion could be incomplete. Even though it is true that the astrologers could not select the CPI profile comparing to the test subjects, it is also the case that the test subjects themselves could not select their own CPI profiles. Therefore, both the astrologers and the test subjects failed on the identical tasks. That is, both the astrologers and the test subjects themselves could not select their own CPI profiles.

The failure on the task could not have been due to the invalidity of astrology, their failure must have been due to some non-astrological difficulty with the task, therefore the astrologer’s failure on the task may have resulted from the same nonastrological difficulty (eg: difficulty understanding the personality terms or profile configurations used to describe individuals’ traits on the CPI). The experimental procedure cannot differentiate between these rival hypotheses. Thus, with this experiment’s methodological deficiency, it cannot be concluded that the astrologers’ failure was due to the invalidity of astrology. Therefore, the results of this study are inconclusive. The study has generally failed to support the arguments of astrologers as it simply lacks information.

Many other research studies were done to analyse if astrology is science or pseudoscience. None proved to have enough evidence to back up astrology. Thus, giving scientists the reason to defy to the teachings of astrology. It might be logical but it does not meet the criteria to fall under scientific. Astrologers have not given scientist with as much as a sound hypothesis that might serve as a basis for their speculations. Furthermore, there was little or no predictive agreement among the astrologers, even though the astrologers purported to be using the same system and methods to arrive at their predictions. Such responses to studies raises questions about the nature of belief systems and the resistance of belief systems to change in the face of disproving evidence.

Despite the lack of evidence, there are still upcoming amount of horoscope websites available, and a large amount of people who still believe in astrology. It is widely used because it provides a tangible template for knowing one’s fate. People just believe what is pleasing to their eyes. Bold statement in multi-syllabic scientific jargon gives the false impression that they are supported by laboratory research and hard facts. They strongly believe in these facts that are not scientifically proven and some even follow accordingly. For instance, if something in their astrology specifies as bad luck, they try to avoid it completely. Today, people also look at horoscopes to see if they would make compatible partners. Media also plays an important role in influencing how people perceive things. For example, till today radios will announce the birth of famous celebrities on the particular date. When people born on the same date hear these announcements, they try to associate themselves with these celebrities based on their astrology.

People fall for such kind of pseudoscience as it is easy, you just believe what you hear and what makes you feel good. Astrology makes people feel better because of a psychological effect known as the placebo effect. It is when the belief in a “useless” method actually makes a person feel better. It is the belief itself, and not the method, that causes the improvement. A method that has been scientifically proven. It is a mechanism at work with astrology.

Instead of looking at numerous amount of articles and reading through longwinded research methods with scientific terms, people rather read a simple article as they are easily retrievable and form a strong belief towards it. The history of thought shows us that many people were totally committed to absurd beliefs. Scientists, on the other hand, are very sceptical even of their best theories. Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue; it is an intellectual crime. A theory is said to be pseudoscientific if it has been less progressive over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems , the community of practitioners make little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems. In this case, astrology, has faced many baffling issues and people believe in astrology out of longing for comfort and to have some certainty in life. They lack in evidence to provide with a strong basis to stand out as science. When people read their horoscope and follow its advice, they feel better. But it is the belief itself and not the astrology that is making them feel better.

Astrology, identified by scientists that it is not science as there is no evidence that one’s zodiac sign actually corresponds to personality. It is a system if its own consisting its own logic. Astrology attributes meaning to the placement of the sun, the moon, and the planets within 12 sections of the sky- the signs of zodiac. It is based on where the sun was on one’s birthday. While the placement of the moon, and each of the other planets at the time and location of birth adds additional shades to the picture that is painted by one’s “birth chart”. In conclusion, be it scientific evidence or pseudoscientific beliefs, before we consider to believe something, it is important to know the sources and read up more instead of just blindly believing because the “fact” is delivered in glossy headlines or endorsed by a famous celebrity. In this case, astrology seems to fall under pseudoscience, without valid evidence to back up its logic. It is simply known to be a popular understanding about the manifestations of the planets in the experiences of daily life. This has been evident with past researches, backing up to show that there were no proper proof showing that astrology falls under the scientific bases. It lacks clear communication of the findings of research.

References

1. Baird, C. S. (2013). How does astrology work. http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/03/23/how-does-astrology-work/
2. Bok, B. J., Jerome, L. E., & Kurtz, P. (1975, September). Objections to astrology: A statement by 186 leading scientists. The Humanist, 4-6.
3. Bok, B., & Mayall, M. (1941). Scientists Look at Astrology. The Scientific Monthly, 52(3), 233-244. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/stable/17231
4. Bunge, M. (1984). What is pseudo-science? Skeptical Inquirer, 9, 36–46.
5. Carlson, S. (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature, 318, 419-425.
6. Eysenck, H. J., & Nais, D. K. B. (1982). Astrology, science or superstition? New York: St. Martin's Press.
7. Lakatos, I. (1978). Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press.
8. McCaffery, E. (1942). Astrology: Its History and Influence in the Western World.
9. McGrew, J. H. & McFall, R. M. ( 1990). A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(1), 75-83. Retrieved from http://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_mcgrew.pdf
10. Moedes, C. (2017). Open Access Government. Why should we trust science? Retrieved from https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/why-should-we-trust-science/40511/
11. Ser Guan, K. H. (2000). The Mathematics of Astrology
12. Silverman, B. I. (1970). Studies of Astrology. The Journal of Psychology, 77(2), 141-149
13. Thagard, P. R. (1978). Why astrology is a pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association
14. Townson, S. (2016). The Guardian. Why people fall for pseudoscience? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/jan/26/why-people- fall-for-pseudoscience-and-how-academics-can-fight-back
15. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 185, 1124-1131.