The Science of Astrology
April 15, 2016
G.D.O'Bradovich III
Repetition is the scourge of genius.
The Brain
The Brain
the science of astrology
We have previously stated that the term “science” is ambiguous, and we suggested that “science” should be limited to those disciplines where reproducibility is accomplishable [Vide]. We attribute the uncertainty to the meaning of “science” today as a result of presumptions from the general population and careless speaking from experts, who we assume should be aware of what science is what it is not. With a return to the strict definition of science, nearly all of the disciplines of the Formal, Life, Social, and Earth and Space Sciences become “Assumptions”, “Suppositions”, “Inclinations” and “Tendencies”.
We list the disciplines of the Social Sciences [courtesy of Wikipedia].
We list the disciplines of the Social Sciences [courtesy of Wikipedia].
Environmental Studies
Anthropology Area studies Business studies Civics Communication studies Criminology Demography Development studies Economics Education Geography |
History
Industrial relations Information science Law Library science Linguistics Media studies Political science Psychology Public administration Sociology Social work |
Firstly, we are amused that Information, Library and Political are designed as sciences, where science is understood as “knowledge”, although one may be excused if one reads “Library Science”, but thinks “Library Opinions”. Secondly, we note that none of the listed disciplines exhibit reproducibility, although some of the fields, for example psychology and sociology, confirming research may reach similar, but not necessary identical, results. In the field of sociology, we feel confident to state that if an adequately large sample of subjects results in a certain defined conclusion, then additional research may confirm the tendencies of the studied behavior. However, since the result will not always be identical, reproducibility does not exist, although certain inclinations and tendencies may be repeatedly observed.
To reduce any misunderstandings, we offer the following definitions:
To reduce any misunderstandings, we offer the following definitions:
Tendency-
an inclination toward a particular characteristic or type of behavior.
Inclination-
a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way.
Assumption-
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
Supposition-
an uncertain belief.
an inclination toward a particular characteristic or type of behavior.
Inclination-
a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way.
Assumption-
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
Supposition-
an uncertain belief.
These four definitions are applicable to the disciplines of the Social Sciences, so called. We note that Astrology, similar to sociology, also has certain basic assumptions regarding the inclinations and tendencies of large groups, such as those with the sun sign of Capricorn. Astrology, similar to psychology, also has certain basic assumptions regarding the inclinations and tendencies of individuals, such as Capricorns, as revealed in their natal charts. Therefore, Astrology could be considered as a Modern science, since it lacks reproducibility.
We suspect the derision shown astrology by most skeptics today is due to the fact that Astrology has no regulatory body and, therefore, not only are the basic principles of Astrology available to the layman, so is the direct application of the Astrology's assumptions. We recall that there was time when medical doctors were required to know astrology. This obligation was only removed when Astrology and Astronomy became separate recognized disciplines. Only later, did Astrology become discredited. We are curious what methods, or evidence, were used to malign Astrology.
Just as attorneys practice law, and doctors practice medicine, so Astrologers practice Astrology- not all practitioners have the same experiences, insights or abilities-so price and participation will vary. We note that while some lawyers may described as shysters, and some doctors as quacks, it seems that all Astrologers are regarded as charlatans. We attribute this general attitude towards the science of Astrology due entirely to a lack of an accrediting body that oversees the training of competent Astrologers and their adherence to specific standards. Of interest: “The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966 and boycotted it until . . . 1987” [Wikipedia]. Therefore, we remain hopeful for the formation of the AAA [The Astrological Association of America] and, for youths, the FAA [Future Astrologers of America]. In humility and modesty, Yours Truly looks forward to being duly elected to the boards of both organizations.
If the assertions of Astrology were reviewed without bias, then we would expect it to be recognized as an ancient and veritable discipline of the Social Sciences, as Astrology's claims are no more extraordinary than the claims of psychology. If there is a bias against Astrology, then we offer two potential explanations- the blurring of disciplines and the loss of credibility. Although methods differ, the implied goals of Astrology and psychology are identical. If Astrology were reinstated as a science, would people be justified in viewing psychology with the same skepticism as they regard Astrology? Should they? And if not, why not?
As always, the unbiased Gentle Reader will reach his own conclusions.
We suspect the derision shown astrology by most skeptics today is due to the fact that Astrology has no regulatory body and, therefore, not only are the basic principles of Astrology available to the layman, so is the direct application of the Astrology's assumptions. We recall that there was time when medical doctors were required to know astrology. This obligation was only removed when Astrology and Astronomy became separate recognized disciplines. Only later, did Astrology become discredited. We are curious what methods, or evidence, were used to malign Astrology.
Just as attorneys practice law, and doctors practice medicine, so Astrologers practice Astrology- not all practitioners have the same experiences, insights or abilities-so price and participation will vary. We note that while some lawyers may described as shysters, and some doctors as quacks, it seems that all Astrologers are regarded as charlatans. We attribute this general attitude towards the science of Astrology due entirely to a lack of an accrediting body that oversees the training of competent Astrologers and their adherence to specific standards. Of interest: “The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966 and boycotted it until . . . 1987” [Wikipedia]. Therefore, we remain hopeful for the formation of the AAA [The Astrological Association of America] and, for youths, the FAA [Future Astrologers of America]. In humility and modesty, Yours Truly looks forward to being duly elected to the boards of both organizations.
If the assertions of Astrology were reviewed without bias, then we would expect it to be recognized as an ancient and veritable discipline of the Social Sciences, as Astrology's claims are no more extraordinary than the claims of psychology. If there is a bias against Astrology, then we offer two potential explanations- the blurring of disciplines and the loss of credibility. Although methods differ, the implied goals of Astrology and psychology are identical. If Astrology were reinstated as a science, would people be justified in viewing psychology with the same skepticism as they regard Astrology? Should they? And if not, why not?
As always, the unbiased Gentle Reader will reach his own conclusions.