Are scientists undercover astrologers ? Some astrologers think so

Abstract

Some supporters of astrology claim that various areas of science are really astrology in disguise. For example an astrological principle is that "celestial-terrestrial correlations exist", therefore any area is astrological if it involves things like biological clocks, bird migration, bee navigation, weather and earthquakes, as well as notions such as the Gaia hypothesis and Grand Unification theories in physics. But such things are irrelevant to what astrologers actually do. To describe them as astrological is to claim that modern astrology is scientific when in fact it is quite the opposite. In effect the claim tries to obtain support for astrology on the cheap. To paraphrase what Winston Churchill said of Mussolini, "Astrologers want Napoleon's victories without fighting Napoleon's battles." Are scientists undercover astrologers? Most definitely not. It may have been true in the Middle Ages but not today. 45 references. What's in a name? Some astrologers and sympathetic defenders claim that scientists are often engaging in astrological research under new labels. Some examples: Vaughan (1996a,b) says that such scientists are "intellectual land grabbers" who are "usurping entire conceptual frameworks originally developed and held by astrologers", and who are then claiming as their own their "discovery of what astrology has always known." Landscheidt (1989:7) says "most scientists do not realize that their findings confirm fundamental astrological ideas." Cornelius, Hyde and Webster (1995:166) say that astrology includes "electro-magnetic fields in the solar system, the ancient metal-planet affinities, and the statistical demonstrations of the Gauquelins." Erlewine (undated) says that studies on lunar activity, especially those involving geomagnetism, are consistent with astrological tradition. West (1991:312) says that if astrology cannot be disconfirmed then "a new branch of science may well take root", calling itself anything but astrology even though it involves "nothing but astrology." The reasoning behind such claims is detailed best by Vaughan, so her comments will be the focus of what follows. Vaughan is the militant astrologer whose debunking of skeptics (Vaughan 1998) claimed that skeptics are ignorant, biassed and misinformed. Her claim was disputed by Kelly (1999), who showed that Vaughan considers only misinformed critiques of astrology, never informed critiques, which are numerous and devastating. Her wordy, rambling rebuttal (Vaughan 2000) receives an extended reply in Kelly (2000a). How scientists are supposedly usurping astrology According to Vaughan (1996a) scientists and other academics have been usurping astrology by rewriting history and by not admitting the astrological basis of their ideas. As a result "astrological language is already being depleted and supplanted by scientific terminology: we are being dispossessed of our astrological principles." What are these astrological principles that scientists and other academics are supposedly usurping? According to Vaughan (1996a,b) a basic astrological principle is "celestial-terrestrial correlations exist." Therefore any area is astrological if it involves things like biological clocks, bird migration, bees orientating themselves by the sun, fractal geometry, planetary patterns that correlate with anything terrestrial (weather, earthquakes, human behavior, animal behavior, the stock market). It is also astrological if it involves theoretical ideas such as the Gaia hypothesis, morphic resonance, and grand unification theories in physics. Similarly, Landscheidt (1994) includes patterns of plant growth, sunspot cycles, long lasting weather patterns, and daily cycles in animal metabolism, under the astrology label. Vaughan (1995) says these scientific labels are "plagiarized astrology, pure and simple, and [astrologers] should feel free to quote [such research] when discussing correct astrological prediction." Furthermore, they "are not simply new names for what astrology has known all along, they are also scientific proof that astrology works"; therefore, despite academic talk of astrology being dead, "many astrologers think we should be celebrating a revival", even though the revival is being absorbed by these revisionist "territorial grabbers" (Vaughan 1996b). Here the basic astrological principle "astro correlations exist" is like arguing that a basic principle in marine biology is "watery life exists", therefore anything involving water is by definition marine biology, like gardening, or cooking, or lifesaving at pools. Obviously this is a poor argument. Instead we need to ask "is gardening, cooking, etc relevant to what marine biologists actually do?". In this case the answer is No. Similarly we need to ask "is bird migration, fractal geometry, etc relevant to what astrologers actually do?" Below, we show that again the answer is No. How can scientific research be seen as astrology? Vaughan provides three arguments for seeing scientific research as astrology, namely history, as-above-so-below, and similarity, but none are persuasive. Her arguments are as follows: (1) History. Originally astrology consisted of natural astrology (the forecasting of natural phenomena such as tides and eclipses), and judicial astrology (the judgment and prediction of human affairs such as wars). That is, astrology had a foot in two different camps, namely physical science and divination. So Vaughan (1996b) argues that from the earliest days "astrologers were also astronomers, meteorologists, and mathematicians", therefore astrology has original land titles to these areas. But Vaughan fails to point out that natural astrology was absorbed by science in the 17th century, so that judicial astrology is "the only meaning of astrology since end of 17th C" (OED 1991 edition). To argue otherwise, as Vaughan does, is like arguing that chemistry is still alchemy, or psychology is still natural philosophy, or that much of science is still philosophy and theology. But it just ain't so. (2) As-above-so-below. Vaughan says astrology involves "as above so below", so it involves anything terrestrial-celestial. But this fails because, as in (1), it tries to revive an obsolete natural astrology as modern astrology. Indeed, many astrologers flatly disagree with Vaughan, arguing that astrology deals with symbolic connections, not physical connections, so (2) fundamentally misrepresents astrology's core beliefs. For example, Negre (1998) argues of physical links that "by no means should they be confused with astrology", while Guinard (1997) argues that such links could never explain "the [astrological] transformations which occur at another level of reality" or support "the understanding of a birth-chart." (3) Similarity. Vaughan says that chronobiological explanations are similar to astrological explanations, for example stellar effects on bird navigation are similar to those claimed by astrology on people (Vaughan 1996b). But they are not similar. Birds use stars in real time like street signs, which is nothing like people supposedly acting out their lives according to stars fixed at birth. Thus the latter "provide the physiologist with none of the usual electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, or biochemical variables to record and analyze" (Wheeler 1990:82-83, see also Hughes 1999 on sensory exotica). To link chronobiology with astrology is not plausible. The implausibility of Vaughan's three reasons is further revealed by comparing the procedures and achievements of astrology with those of the supposedly usurping research, as follows next. Procedures: Science vs astrology The scientific study of celestial-terrestrial correlations is described easily enough. It is what the relevant scientists actually do, which in broad terms is the same as in any science -they test ideas against empirical data and against competing ideas (Pennock 1999, Sober 1999). For example, the idea that birds navigate by the stars can be tested in planetariums where stellar positions and visibility can be controlled at will. Ideas that are disconfirmed are either modified or replaced by others, which are then examined and tested in turn. In other words the ultimate arbiter of success is nature herself. Similarly, we can examine what astrologers actually do, both in their practice with clients and in their ideas given in astrology books. In broad terms, astrologers make judgments from birth charts. No chart, no astrology. But here the arbiter of success is not nature but personal experience -if it seems to work then it does work. What could be more reasonable? In fact it is quite the opposite, simply because experience can be unreliable. In the 19th century phenology was all the rage because it seemed to work, but we now know that phrenology is totally invalid. By relying on experience, thousands of phrenologists and their clients had been led astray. The same is happening in astrology. Are Scientists Und r over Astrologe s We can now see the huge difference between the procedures of science and astrology. Science is evidence-based, astrology is experience-based. Science relies on nature, astrology relies on analogy and mythology (eg Mars the red planet indicates blood, anger and war). Science thrives on criticism, astrology drums critics out of the corps. As a result, astrology has nothing to do with reliable ideas tested against nature, and everything to do with unreliable experience. Astrologers generally ignore this unreliability, which nevertheless is more than enough to explain astrological claims (Dean et al 1999, Beyerstein 1999). That is, astrology delivers nothing that cannot be explained by non-astrological factors. This conclusion is confirmed by decades of research into astrology, which has found nothing commensurate with astrological claims (Dean et al 1996, Dean et al 2000). To put it another way, if the scientific study of celestial-terrestrial correlations can be considered "astrology', then