Astrology Should Be Studied

First, please let me exorcise politics out of this blog's way. The purpose of this blog is to explore astrology. I do not argue that it definitely is true. I also do not argue that it definitely is false. I would like to start by arguing about what it is, and more importantly, what it is not. Most people I have ever talked to on either side of the fence have decided about the accuracy of astrological claims before ever trying to learn what those are, exactly. As far as that is concerned, I have only this to say - wanna-be astrologists, shame on you. Wanna-be skeptics, shame on you too. And actual scientists, try being actual scientists in this matter for a few minutes, okay.

To that end, I will be dealing with scientific criticisms of astrology on this blog quite a lot, I imagine, but right now I need to address perhaps the most fundamental scientific question about astrology - why even bother? Why not rather spend our time and resources on something infinitely more sensible, like astronomy or psychology, which are the subjects that cover most of what astrology claims to explain or do for people. It is on these grounds that scientists typically tend to switch off their brains when dealing with astrologists (who have admittedly sometimes never had them turned on). It is on these grounds that they believe that they don't need to know a lot about it to be able to debunk it or decide to reject it.

So why care at all? Great amount of people believe in astrology today, and have had in the past. Doesn't make it true, sure, but it makes it worthy of study, at least within a field like anthropology. It has been with humankind most likely from before the recorded history. Doesn't make it true either, but it does make it worthy of study. Historically, it was considered a science, one of the most important ones, and it had its place at universities (which is still true today in India), and moreover, various ancient cultures arrived at it and developed it similarly, independently of each other, just like it is with religion as a concept. There are religious studies after all, and I don't mean theology, I mean scientific study of the phenomenon.

Why shouldn't there be a scientific study of astrology as well? Which means, in no uncertain terms, neutral, objective, methodical, detailed, comprehensive, systematic, differentiated, peer reviewed and frequently updated study. It matters to people now and it is woven into the whole of human history, what more does a social scientist need? Practical application? That is being claimed by astrologists and their clients on many levels - healing of mind and body, prediction of future events (personal, political, even natural), explanation of human personality, society and possibly even the meaning of existence. Extraordinary claims? Maybe. Let's be a judge of them using science, then, instead of being comfortable with ignorant presumptions.

ANECDOTAL ADDENDUM

In the academic library of my alma mater, Faculty of Social Sciences of Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic, one of the most prestigious educational institutions in my country, there is a single book about astrology, and that's it. Faculty that houses both psychology and political science, fields into which astrology has significantly intruded throughout all of history, and still does today. More so in the Czech Republic than in your average world country, mind you. For instance, the court of Rudolph the II., the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, located in the Czech capitol of Prague, was teeming with renowned astrologers and various other occultists, including Johannes Kepler. Yup, you are reading it right, there was no separation of astrology and astronomy until more modern times. Even more amusingly, however, in the contemporary Czech Republic, a prominent astrologist, late Antonin Baudys, was the Minister of Defense. To make the issue still not closed, his son, also an astrologist, aims for political office even today.

It would seem logical, then, to try to deal with it somehow in academia, but I guess my colleagues simply don't give a flying spaghetti monster about it. To be fair, there is a decent selection of literature about astrology in the library at the Faculty of Arts, where they also teach psychology. Which is a bit weird, to have it be duplicated like that, but apparently, the two psychologies are not really different in terms of the content of the study, only the structure of it. What seems to me as the reason for the striking difference in their stock regarding astrology is the simple fact that for more than ten years, coincidentally since soon after the new psychology course had appeared, no new publications related to astrology have been purchased at all into any library of any faculty at the whole university. In contrast to religion as a topic, for instance, which gets new books all the time. Also striking is the notable absence of astrology related research among that literature, especially of its tests. Where are the scientific experts supposed to get their information from about the issue? Wikipedia? Graffiti? Crystal balls? Amusingly though, the one book actually present in the library of my faculty argues in support of astrology and its use in psychotherapy. It is Lebenshilfe Astrologie by Fritz Riemann, a good read, in my humble opinion.

Doesn't prove anything, but makes ya think.