Astrology is pseudo-science. No astronomer regards it as serious. All attempts to find proof for astrology failed, and since 200-300 years it has no longer belonged to the sciences.
The modern views of astrology are too narrow. Consider the movement of the planets as a clock, a time keeping comparison like we use a pendulum swings o measure time. Mercury's orbit time =1, all other planet orbit times are 2 times multiples of Mercury's time (e.g, venus = 2, Earth =4).
In ancient days, new rulers changed the calendar according to their desire to eliminate prior rulers memory. People have gained advantage by predicting future events such as when to plant crops by watching the stars. That they would want to predict future human social action such as when a neighbor is going to invade seems of great advantage. So, how di they measure time without the chronicle of dynasties? Watch the planets as a clock. When 3 major planets align, a new view-of-the-universe change emerges - Jesus. Every 1500 to 1600 years After Jesus (Christianity), Galileo/Newton.
Therefore, astrology records human evens and related the cycles (the major assumption is that history follows cycles) to time duration which is chronicled to planetary clock. he great difficulty is that planets (Earth) precesses which is an unaccounted shift in the clock - hence some inaccuracy.
@Harendra Nath Singh, thank you for your question. The answer to “is astrology science?” is a qualified no, not exactly. Astrological researchers look for evidence but they call it a discipline. Popular astrology with its hundreds of untested techniques and claims is not a science. However, astrology can be researched scientifically because its core literature consistently describes relationships between the precisely-timed placements of celestial bodies and certain observable behaviors and lifestyles. This suggests laws and correlations potentially useful to science.
These relationships can be tested by careful sampling and analysis, provided the researchers have expert knowledge of both astrology and evaluation methods. Currently, very few researchers have these combined skills and this is why the astrological research program (see my 2023 article “How to think about the astrology research program”) has been crucial in establishing a body of consistent, positive findings from around the world that can serve as evidential benchmarks. Any subsequent development of explanatory theory, which is necessary for science, rests on the evidence of robust, falsifiable findings.
An example of robust testing is Vincent Godbout’s 2020 paper on the very challenging task of matching subjects’ natal charts to their biographies (and potentially to personality self-test profiles). Machines can do this task much better than humans have done (as in Shawn Carlson’s highly criticized 1985 test) because they can match much larger samples of subjects. With the strongly positive, replicated results of automated matching tests now in hand, the research can turn to the development of theories that explain and improve upon the benchmarked results.
At least one instance of, let’s say, a “proto-theory” has already been found in a separate study by Godbout (2023) that would vindicate traditional astrology’s insistence on timing. This is the finding of an inverse relationship between the temporal durations of celestial placements and their correlated astrological effects in the lives of the test subjects. The finding that the most fleeting alignments are the strongest would seem to explain, in theory, the uniqueness of individual character and subjective awareness. And it explains why so many tests of astrology that are not precisely timed (making up the vast majority of tests so far) have failed.
Clearly, further study and independent replication of the positive astrological results are necessary before anyone can claim that the way the evidence can be found is scientific. But the new theory appears to answer two important questions and it looks promising.
Article How to Think about the Astrology Research Program: An Essay ...
Dear Doctor
"Astrology, the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world, has been a subject of interest and debate for centuries. While some view astrology as a form of pseudoscience, others argue that it is a valid scientific practice.
One argument in favor of astrology as a science is that it has been used for thousands of years in various cultures and societies as a means of understanding and interpreting the world. Astrology has been used to predict weather patterns, natural disasters, and even political events. The fact that it has been relied upon for so long by so many cultures and societies suggests that there may be something to it.
Another argument in support of astrology as a science is that it is based on a complex system of mathematical and astronomical calculations. The positions of the planets and stars are calculated with great precision, and the interpretation of these positions is based on a complex system of symbolism and meaning. Astrology is not just about the stars and planets, it’s about the relationship between them and the earth, and how that relationship affects human life.
Astrology also has a psychological aspect, it can be used as a tool for self-discovery, personal growth, and insight into one’s own nature. Astrology can help people to better understand themselves and their place in the world, which is a valuable benefit in and of itself.
It is also worth mentioning that astrology is not a substitute for scientific methods, it is a complementary practice. Astrology and science can work together, astrologers can use scientific data and research to support their predictions and interpretation of astrological events."
- Badges
- Science method