Astrology Debunked
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2005
by The Iconoclast
Gifteteria
“So, what’s your sign?"
More than just a corny pickup line, astrology in various forms, has been with
mankind for a very long time. People from various countries and cultures, have
often looked up to the stars for guidance. Million of people read their daily
horoscopes, though most look at it as a mere form of entertainment. Other
people genuinely take the art of astrology very seriously and think it is a
valid medium with which to predict a person’s personality, as well as their
immediate future (though most serious astrologers view magazine horoscopes as
just being entertainment).
So where did it all get started? Around 3,500 years ago, the
ancient Babylonians were attempting to correlate events that happened on earth
(e.g. good crop yields, bad diseases) with things they noticed in the night
sky. This was not the first time that this happened, either. Other ancient
cultures, such as the Mayans and Aztecs, developed their own form of astrology
too. Most of the astrology we see today, though, comes from India,
Europe and China.
All of it, though, is either deeply routed, or deeply influenced by Babylonian
astrology.
Early astrologers simply correlated earthly events with
celestial ones. It wasn’t until mathematical astronomy developed (which allows us to predict the movement of
stars and planets), around 612-539 BC, that astrologers started to “predict"
the future. It was also around this time that the “twelve" signs of the zodiac,
were created. The oldest recorded horoscope dates back to April 29th 410 B.C. It comes from an
old clay plate that was made for the birth of a Grecian man. The tablet is very
similar to the natal horoscopes given out today. Even more similar, though, is
the vague prediction given about the person. The parts of the tablet that have
still survive, state:
“…things will be good for you."
Early Babylonian astrologers were called: Chaldeans. They
would set up shops in cities, and offer their services to passersby.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until they did this in Greece,
that the concept of free will was entered into the equation. Ancient Greeks
viewed these chaldeans as jokes, and their predictions to be patently false.
They refused to believe that the stars themselves dictated their actions, and
that they had no free will. Because of this, astrologers adopted the belief
that the stars can only show “possible pathways" through life. This turned out
to be a greater boon for the chaldeans and future astrologers, than it did for
the Greeks. Now astrologers had a viable excuse for why their predictions did
not always come true.
Finally, we come to the most influential man in astrology:
Claudius Ptolemeaus. Also known as Ptolemy, he wrote the book: Tetrabiblos. In it, Ptolemeaus attempted
to consolidate all the various aspects of astrology at the time, into some sort
of viable standard. Tetrabiblos is generally regarded as the modern
astrological “bible," from which all western astrology derives.
Okay, so now we see where it all got started, but what’s with the surge in popularity? Astrology was on the downturn back in the 1600’s, as astronomy really took off. It wasn’t until the relatively recent events of World War I, that astrology really started to pick up again. So, why is it that in this day and age, with the knowledge available to most industrial and post-industrial nations, that astrology is so popular? Could it actually be a viable means of telling the future, or a person’s psychology?
So far, that answer is an emphatic NO, from the scientific
community. Despite the fact that one Gallup
poll found that an estimated 50% of Americans believe in astrology, there has
been no scientifically valid evidence to back up this belief. On the contrary,
there are quite a lot of counterexamples for it. In fact, there are so many
counter-examples to the validity of astrology, that most scientists just
dismiss it as a fun diversion. Still, for the sake of closure, a few such
examples are given below.
For starters, we have the arbitrary nature of astronomical
symbols themselves. All the traditional planets of our solar system (i.e. none
of the recently discovered planetary candidates), were named after Roman gods.
This assignment was completely arbitrary. There might have been some logic
behind it (Mars is red, war has blood, etc.), but overall there is no real
reason to think that just because Venus was named after the goddess of love,
that it should hold any sway over one’s relationships. If the “effects" of the
planets on people, had any real relationship to the planets themselves, then
Venus should be the ruler of bad gas, not love.
Other things to consider are the fact that many astrological terms, are holdovers from a time when the Earth was believed to be the center of the universe (geocentric). As such, astrologers still talk about cycles and epicycles. How many times has one heard an astrologer (or astrology minded individual) say that “Mars is in retrograde."
Then there is the fact that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have
only been discovered within the past 250 years. Many astrologers assert that
astrological techniques have been accurate for numerous centuries. If planets
affect people, then one cannot discount these three which is to say nothing of
the recently discovered “10th planet."
Another nail in the proverbial coffin is the mysterious
omission of the 13th sign of the zodiac: Ophiuchus. This constellation falls along the ecliptic, and houses
the sun during one month of the year (December). Yet modern astrologers choose
to ignore the “serpent bearer," in favour of the 12 zodiac symbols. The reason,
they cite, is the turbid history of the constellation. Ophiuchus lies in a spot
in the sky, which once housed multiple constellations. This argument tends to
fall apart, though, when one considers that the ancient Greeks, as well as
“father of modern astrology," Claudius Ptolemeaus, both considered Ophiuchus to
be a valid constellation. The more likely scenario seems to be that 12 zodiac
symbols fit rather well with the 12 months in the Gregorian calendar. As such,
the reason for the omission seems to be convenience and aesthetics, rather than
any real problem with the constellation itself.
Two more examples of where astrology fails the test of validity
include twin studies and the affect of precession. With twin studies, one sees
how two people born at the same time and same place are able to lead lives
completely different from each other, even though their astrological horoscope
should work for both of them. The affect of precession is even more interesting.
As Earth spins through the universe, it “wobbles" along its
axis due to the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun. This wobble can be
compared to the wobble that we see when we spin a top. Even when the top spins
very fast, one can still see it make a small circle on the area it is spinning.
The Earth does something very similar to this. The geographic North Pole makes
a 23.5 arc around, what’s known as, the ecliptic pole. This
precession proceeds at a rate of 1 for every 180 years.
Because of this, the placement of the constellations in the
night sky, no longer conforms to their position in the original tropical
zodiac. Every zodiac symbol is now off by 1 month. So if one is born in the
constellation Virgo, they are actually in the constellation Libra, and so on.
There is a separate type of astrology called: Sidereal Astrology. It does take into account, the precession of the
planet. It does this by deducting ~24 from the constellations. Both
versions still suffer from the fact that the constellations themselves, are not
of equal size, and thus, do not fit neatly into the 12, 30 “slices"
of the sky, that astrologers have assigned them to. As such, constellation overlap
still occurs.
More examples include the affect of gravity (why worry about
Saturn’s pull, when the moon’s pull is so
much stronger!), to magnetic field affects (modern electronics produce
magnetic fields much more powerful than Earth’s).
Astrology can be a fun and entertaining diversion for many,
but one should always keep in mind that it is for entertainment purposes only.
"There is hardly
an absurdity of the past that cannot be found flourishing somewhere in the
present." - Will Durant
This Article has been viewed 4,584 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsAnyone who believe astrology actually works should provide proof, rather than complain how 'unfair' it is to criticise astrology.
thanks for the article . it was very informative indeed, but as someone already posted, it takes more than evidence and just plain common sense to convince those who adhere ot it. Sadness of sadness
I'm glad that my real sign is actually Sagittarius, not Capricorn. I wish people would realize that the signs and constellations are the exact same thing. I read this one thing on wiki and it said "The sign of Aries lies within the constellation of Pisces." Really, now? Hmm...well, I can't find Aries in Pisces. So, it doesn't make sense. I know a lot of people don't believe in astrology, though part of me thinks that it does have a little influence to people, but who really knows? Science debunks a lot of ideas or theories and one of the most popular is intuition. They can't prove anything about it, so they say that there's no such thing. Makes you wonder.
Hello everyone. I would like to share my views on this article which I found very interesting and informative. Astrology has quite often been misjudged largely due to the fact that the mechanisms behind it cannot be explained scientifically as of now. The effect of astrology is largely due to a still undiscovered force, something that we still cannot comprehend with modern science. There is simply no means available yet to measure it.While there are counter-examples to it, which are designed to provide an explanation that is easier to comprehend, they merely prove that there is an alternative or different means to obtain the same results that astrology can produce and therefore is insufficient proof against its validity. To give an example to my statement, take the number 10. There are many ways to calculate for it. The easiest is by using simple addition or multiplication e.g. 2x5 or vice versa, 1+9, 2+8, 3+7 through to 9+1, etc. This is the easiest way to calculate the number 10, however it does not rule out the possbility of subtracting 15 from the square of 5, which is 25, or adding 2 to 2 cubed, or squaring 8, producing 64, adding 36 resulting to 100 and extracting the square root from 100. All of them, no matter how complicated, produce the number 10. If all that has been asked for is to compute for the nubmer 10, the means is irrelevant.Before I proceed, I might add that astrology has been separated from astronomy in the late 17th century, so there is actually no point of trying to compare them because they developed to be entirely different subjects despite that they were once used together.Regarding the arbitrary nature of the planets, there is no way of knowing whether their naming was actually arbitrary. It can be possible that they were named after their placement in a chart was correlated with particular persons' behavior. Yes, the appearance and movement of the planets in their orbits do actually match to some extent what they represent, something that could be attributed to the unknown force. While it is true that Venus is actually quite "unloving" because of average 462 degrees Celsius on the surface, 96.5% carbon dioxide atmosphere, and rain of sulfuric acid, it is quite irrelevant to astrological validity. Venus also not really love but attraction in general, love is just one of them. Also Mars has a quite placid atmosphere (with exception of the occasional dust storms) and has an average -46 degrees Celsius, both of which contradict the association of Mars with action which, if frustrated, results to anger and hot temper. Again, this is irrelevant because it is in the realm of astronomy. Interpretations of the planets are based on observed correlations of behavior and planetary placement in the chart. Also when the planets were discovered and named, no one had an idea about their detailed physical characteristics to make a judgment based on them.Although it is true that astrology takes a geocentric view of the universe, it is irrelevant to the validity of the interpretations. The question is: Does it work? Can it be applied practically? There is, however, a recently developed astrological method which is heliocentric or Sun-centered. The Earth is used here instead of the Sun and Moon in the geocentric system.It is true that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto cannot be discounted, but this has nothing to do with astrology but with individuals who are keen to stick to the tradition. In fact, there are many astrologers who are actually using them. It does not follow that because these planets were still undiscovered before the discovery of Uranus by William Herschel the earlier astrological readings were invalid. Better: they were incomplete as seen today. In any field of study, a new discovery enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the previous method used but does not invalidate it because it is the previous method that serves as a basis for the recent one.I agree that Ophiuchus should not be omitted if there are correlations of his placement in the chart and behavior of individuals. But then there are many constellations that are not being used in the chart. Orion for example is not being used but Ptolemy had an interpretation for him. There is also no way to tell that the reason for Ophiuchus' omission was out of convenience because the zodiac already existed before the Gregorian calendar was developed.The twin studies presumably refer to the one conducted by Ivan Kelly and Geoffrey Dean. It should be noted that the subjects were born apart of nine days, which produces a sizable overall difference. Even a mother expecting twins cannot deliver both babies simultaneously but in matter of minutes. Truly simultaneous births in the same delivery room are very, very rare. Also during the time in which the study was conducted, astrological techniques were still quite depleted as the subject was just newly revived resulting to quite vague interpretations. The concepts of dwads or dwadasama, a technique from Vedic astrology in which the entire zodiac is contained within one zodiac sign of 30 degrees. One dwad, therefore, changes every 10 minutes on the house cusps. (1 sign=30 degrees changes every 2 hours or 120 minutes/12 signs=10 minutes). If a dwad chart is erected the differences become even more apparent. Since the dwads represent our true inner motivations, the results are different. Less frequent but still relevant are aspects to house cusps because over time some aspects become closer to a particular cusp than others and some change from applying to separating. The problem is that many astrologers do actually not care about those details.Yes, there is precession of the Earth's axis but the position of the Sun, Moon and the planets in relation to Earth might be of more importance than whether they match the present location of the constellations. The zodiac was merely used as a marker to determine the location of the planets in relation to Earth at a given time. The zodiac may shift because of the precession but the location of the planets remain the same. Again it may be due to the undiscovered force that the location of the planets matters.While the existence of gravity, magnetic fields and radiation is scientifically proven and therefore accepted, we cannot claim that these forces are actually operational here. As said, the force is still undiscovered and cannot be measured yet, given our present technology.According to one poster, those who cannot face reality turn to astrology. On the contrary, they are confronted with it. Not the outer but the inner reality. That's why there are many emotional moments at the astrologers office when he hits a sensitive spot. Many are very aware of reality but seek the best way to take advantage of it. Also that immature people turn to astrology, well I don't know whether the astrologer is meant here with his endeavor to study it or the person who seeks astrological advice. With regard to astrologers, I think not. I don't see myself emotionally immature and ni fact there are a lot of them who are professionals not just in astrology. Some are lawyers, engineers and many are computer programmers. With regard to the client it may be possible. Again there is no proof that this will ALWAYS happen as there also some who turn to other means like psychology. There are actually many professionals who are very aware of reality but seek the best way to take advantage of it. I don't know a single person who will prefer to experience pain, suffering and loss if he or she can avoid it.I think astrology does deserve more thorough study to unravel more about its mysteries. Unfortunately there are many, as mentioned by one poster, who are charlatans and carry the label of an astrologer. This and the lack of research does contribute to its apparent failures.
Correction: Regarding the twins study. The subjects were born 6 days apart, not 9, that is from March 3 to March 9, 1958.
I'm not convinced astrology is any less "truthful" than science, only that it is not always practiced with proficiency. You can find inaccuracy in science, if that's what you want to promote. A scientific research study in the 70s demonstrated that the female mosquito does not buzz. My girlfriend of the time, a died-in-the-wool pragmatist biology student would not believe her own ears when the little buzz-ette bit my arm.
Contrarily, I've had some remarkably prescient astrological charts drawn, and when it comes to personality and psychology, which must be so broadly characterized, a person can debunk anything by selectively choosing what and what not to pay attention to. For instance, you pass by a person whom you have seen for 15 seconds of his entire life. "He must not be a happy person because he's crying at the moment," you confidently surmise.
Psychological realities are a fact that defy the usual metrics. If you must debunk the reality of astrology, you might as well take down the entire pleroma of spiritual reality, no matter what language or part of the world it sprang from. I would venture to say that, like another commenter pointed out, all religions had some origin in people looking up at the stars. Even the Hubble hasn't seen everything, Horatio. Apparently, it can't even look inside itself.
Interesting article, thanks.
Astrology is unsupported by evidence.The basic idea, that the time of year you are born can impact your character, is plausible (if you are born in summer your formative months will be warm, food will be plentiful etc, if you are born in winter your welcome to the world will be somewhat harsher or more indoors-based).But astrology adds lots of mystical nonsense on top of that, and has not been demonstrated to be accurate.The fact that astrologists still talk of cycles and epicycles, despite these being relics of an old model of the solar system that has been shown to be wrong, demonstrates the clinging on to outdated ideas that are the core of astrology.A great article - a well supported and reasoned debunk of astrology.
Well, I used to think astrology had some merit, but then I found out my Husband and I were supposed to be the worst combination for each other based on our signs. It said a relationship was impossible between us. Nothing but happiness for 5 years makes me skeptical.
All said and done, astrology is a great conversation module in most gatherings.
a great conversation module for dimwits. i seriously don't get how people can enjoy dishonest conversation, its like a knife on a plate to me. i have bull$%&*@$%&aphobia i guess.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.