Skeptics often insist that astrology is not science, that in contrast to what science is like, astrology is much more like a religion. This alleged fact is also practically universally judged by these people as bad. What if I told you that astrology is decidedly neither, and that its differences from either of those doctrines are a good thing?
You might not consider that to be a possible opinion to argue, since scientists criticizing any "pseudoscience" certainly do not make it clear that there are other logical options than those they select. Oftentimes, they may not even be able to imagine other options at all, being genuinely convinced that science is simply the best there is, without question. If that conviction itself was well supported, say, scientifically, it would not be problematic, but the skeptics often do not know the alternatives to science very well, in the scientific way. Reducing the options only to science versus religion is of course the logical fallacy of false dichotomy or false dilemma, while any value judgment of religion is inherently outside of the scientific method, anyway. For all those reasons, I intend now to define religion and compare it to what astrology actually is, so that we see where exactly science stands in regards to both of them.
There is of course some amount of controversy in regards to the definition of religion, given that it is a diverse phenomenon spanning the whole of human history everywhere in the world. For that reason, I am not really going to choose any particular definition, but look at the more significant elements often associated with religion, one by one. Feel free to determine for yourselves, how essential any of those might be, but I will really try to be comprehensive, so as to err on the side of not missing anything fundamental. Probably the most unscientific religious element is official dogma, potentially related to a set of taboos - articles of faith that have to be believed and topics that are forbidden.
You will find neither in astrology. Astrology has lore, yes, but it is completely mutable. It is traditionally preserved and handed down, but in that process it evolves in a number of ways. In any historical period, astrological symbolisms have to be kept up-to-date, or otherwise they would lose their ability to communicate anything to people of that period, and therefore relevance to their lives and with it any practical utility. Apart from continuous updating, there actually is a form of peer review. Not necessarily officially organized in a group, as it is in Academia, but still - at the individual level, anyone can personally reject any astrological claim or rule, if they do not find them accurate.
You will find neither in astrology. Astrology has lore, yes, but it is completely mutable. It is traditionally preserved and handed down, but in that process it evolves in a number of ways. In any historical period, astrological symbolisms have to be kept up-to-date, or otherwise they would lose their ability to communicate anything to people of that period, and therefore relevance to their lives and with it any practical utility. Apart from continuous updating, there actually is a form of peer review. Not necessarily officially organized in a group, as it is in Academia, but still - at the individual level, anyone can personally reject any astrological claim or rule, if they do not find them accurate.
There never was an astrological equivalent to inquisition, either. Partly because astrology is not an organised church, but also because to question the traditional lore is seen as a constructive effort, not heresy. If anything, dogmatic religious (or secular) censors always hated astrology and tried to ban it. That may be a part of the reason why astrological practice evolved into a secretive, largely individual effort. At most, astrologers gather in small, elite, hermetic societies - not cults of worship. These groups of course sometimes are religious, but astrology is not the religion. For western astrologers, it would typically be Christianity, with appropriate equivalents in other parts of the world.
What is important to note, though, is that astrology can function within the secular context completely fine, since it aims to explore and explain things, not to enforce values or any kind of worship. That is another fundamental element of religion, which is completely missing in astrology. It is a bit more complicated with the Greeks and Romans, since their official state religion involved the gods as planets, the movements of which are being interpreted in astrology as meaningful in regards to what happens in the world, but at that point in history, science was not differentiated from philosophy, art, religion or politics. Astrology (coupled with astronomy) was only one of the essential components of overarching Greek worldview and philosophy of life.
What is important to note, though, is that astrology can function within the secular context completely fine, since it aims to explore and explain things, not to enforce values or any kind of worship. That is another fundamental element of religion, which is completely missing in astrology. It is a bit more complicated with the Greeks and Romans, since their official state religion involved the gods as planets, the movements of which are being interpreted in astrology as meaningful in regards to what happens in the world, but at that point in history, science was not differentiated from philosophy, art, religion or politics. Astrology (coupled with astronomy) was only one of the essential components of overarching Greek worldview and philosophy of life.
If anything, astrology had a status of science then more than anything else, the status it has maintained for thousands of years afterwards. The philosophers, heroes and martyrs of science up until people like Isaac Newton were often the best minds that seriously practiced astrology, without it preventing them from advancing science, obviously. If anything, the popularity of astrology, especially among wealthy patrons, helped stir up interest and finance the development of astronomy.
If you look at the quintessential astrological work, Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, over 2000 years old, it is a work of a scientist of that time, as close to the scientific method as anyone at that time could get, and certainly more scientific in its methodology and more related to natural world than theology, which became much more popular among scholars for the entirety of medieval period. So, in summary of the ground covered so far - astrology has no dogma, taboos, inquisition, church, worship or cults.
How is it a religion? Yes, there are things that are believed by astrologists without scientific evidence, but that is absolutely true of art and philosophy as well, not to mention that it is true in science just as much - even scientists need unfalsifiable arbitrary axioms, ethical norms and counterintuitive hypotheses.
If you look at the quintessential astrological work, Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, over 2000 years old, it is a work of a scientist of that time, as close to the scientific method as anyone at that time could get, and certainly more scientific in its methodology and more related to natural world than theology, which became much more popular among scholars for the entirety of medieval period. So, in summary of the ground covered so far - astrology has no dogma, taboos, inquisition, church, worship or cults.
How is it a religion? Yes, there are things that are believed by astrologists without scientific evidence, but that is absolutely true of art and philosophy as well, not to mention that it is true in science just as much - even scientists need unfalsifiable arbitrary axioms, ethical norms and counterintuitive hypotheses.
As for what actually are astrological beliefs, not even here does it approach religion. It is important to understand that astrology does not even necessarily require a creator of the universe, or any gods. Yes, traditionally speaking, since Greeks and Romans did see planets as gods, astrology does interpret planets symbolically as entities or agents. However, in the modern times, astrology has moved, along with contemporary scientific ideas, strongly toward more natural interpretations, trying to explain the influence of planets by physical mechanistic forces, rather than subjective agencies of god-like entities.
It is only a matter of perspective or semantics, anyway. What ultimately matters, is whether there are any of the proposed real effects of celestial correlations on observable phenomena like health, personality, society, civilization, environment, etc., or not. But even if I were to concede that all of the astrological lore is entirely made up without any observation or evidence and entirely false, that would make astrology equivalent to philosophy and to art as much as religion. But here we meet the second problem, the alleged clear and total superiority of science. At this point, the skeptic might actually be fine with astrology being classified as art or philosophy, but for a patently misguided reason - complete disdain for art and philosophy.
It is only a matter of perspective or semantics, anyway. What ultimately matters, is whether there are any of the proposed real effects of celestial correlations on observable phenomena like health, personality, society, civilization, environment, etc., or not. But even if I were to concede that all of the astrological lore is entirely made up without any observation or evidence and entirely false, that would make astrology equivalent to philosophy and to art as much as religion. But here we meet the second problem, the alleged clear and total superiority of science. At this point, the skeptic might actually be fine with astrology being classified as art or philosophy, but for a patently misguided reason - complete disdain for art and philosophy.
Just like art and philosophy, astrological lore does contain attempts at logical and aesthetic description of human personality and meaning of life in the context of nature. You can derive ethics of a good life or a good society from it, or some idea as to how natural world fundamentally works on the metaphysical level. All that is of course typically part of religion as well, but precisely only to the extent to which religion contains art and philosophy. Art also enters astrology in the sense that it is a skill that needs to be mastered, meaning that astrology can be done well or poorly by an individual astrologer.
But then it has something extra, which is neither typical of conventional philosophy, nor of science. Unlike typical philosophy, astrology is based on precise observations and measurements of natural phenomena. Unlike science, the way in which the acquired data is processed is based on a very different experimental paradigm. In order for astrology to work, the subjectivity has to be universal on some natural level, and the world has to be fundamentally non-random and in a unique state in each moment. It prefers analogy to analysis and personal intuition to objective evidence, focuses on correlation more on causation, and only finds utility in statements of value (essential quality).
But then it has something extra, which is neither typical of conventional philosophy, nor of science. Unlike typical philosophy, astrology is based on precise observations and measurements of natural phenomena. Unlike science, the way in which the acquired data is processed is based on a very different experimental paradigm. In order for astrology to work, the subjectivity has to be universal on some natural level, and the world has to be fundamentally non-random and in a unique state in each moment. It prefers analogy to analysis and personal intuition to objective evidence, focuses on correlation more on causation, and only finds utility in statements of value (essential quality).
I don't think it needs to be pointed out that in all of these choices, science zigs everywhere that astrology zags. Therefore it is clear that astrology is not science. That is bad enough for skeptics, but perhaps the most infuriating part is that astrology doesn't even want to be science. To put it accurately, astrology is not religion or pseudoscience, it is parascience. From the viewpoint of the scientific method, astrology is based on logical errors. That is true, in the same sense in which anything can be formally true - it is true by definition. If you truly understand philosophy, you know that nothing is beyond being questioned, including formal rules of logic or definitions of good or bad reasoning.
It is completely possible that two logical systems that are mutually incompatible both work when applied to reality. By the definition of scientific method, it appears that astrologers merely believe without evidence that astrology works, because science simply doesn't recognize the standards of inference or evidence in astrological method as valid. Ironically enough, science doesn't require any proof that astrology doesn't work to believe it doesn't work, because one of its arbitrary axioms is the null hypothesis - something works only after scientific experiment shows so repeatedly. Failure to prove something scientifically is a sufficient equivalent of a proof to the contrary, as far as scientists are concerned.
It is completely possible that two logical systems that are mutually incompatible both work when applied to reality. By the definition of scientific method, it appears that astrologers merely believe without evidence that astrology works, because science simply doesn't recognize the standards of inference or evidence in astrological method as valid. Ironically enough, science doesn't require any proof that astrology doesn't work to believe it doesn't work, because one of its arbitrary axioms is the null hypothesis - something works only after scientific experiment shows so repeatedly. Failure to prove something scientifically is a sufficient equivalent of a proof to the contrary, as far as scientists are concerned.
It is ultimately all about the fact that science is a product of people as much as philosophy, art, religion or astrology. Unlike the other disciplines, science is designed to produce very tangible results, virtually impossible to deny, choosing reliability as the main value. That is all well and good, but it leads to a dangerous misconception - that the other disciplines produce no knowledge and provide no important practical utility. There is very little to no room for aesthetic experience in the scientific method, or vast majority of all subjective experience as a matter of fact, or sense of community, or spiritual fulfillment. You can of course make scientific institution into a religious organization, stand in awe before the splendor of the natural world, derive ethical philosophical conclusions from scientific observations or incorporate artistic effort into technological design, but then you need to be aware of the fact that you are overstepping the boundaries of the scientific method.
Any claim you cannot falsify empirically and objectively (regardless of personal subjective experience) in a controlled and replicable experiment is simply unscientific. That is not necessarily wrong, but it is formally true. Astrology contains some of the elements that science doesn't, has a different sphere of what it can observe and explain, but as such it complements science, even though it formally contradicts it. Historically, both disciplines have risen and fallen only together. Like it or not, if you look at the evidence, they are much more alike than unlike.
Any claim you cannot falsify empirically and objectively (regardless of personal subjective experience) in a controlled and replicable experiment is simply unscientific. That is not necessarily wrong, but it is formally true. Astrology contains some of the elements that science doesn't, has a different sphere of what it can observe and explain, but as such it complements science, even though it formally contradicts it. Historically, both disciplines have risen and fallen only together. Like it or not, if you look at the evidence, they are much more alike than unlike.
No comments:
Post a Comment