By far, the oldest of the claptrap philosophies of mankind is astrology [...] But there is probably no other major delusion that is more easily examined and shown to be without any logical basis. Thus, its hold on the public is all the more remarkable.[1]

����������� James Randi's abusive attack on astrology is not without merit. Indeed, astrology is an absurd type of divination for modern folk who fail to justify this pseudo-science on any rational grounds. This article seeks to show that astrology cannot be considered a science in any sense of the word. Though the approach will be admittedly skeptical, it will be shown that astrology is untestable, unfalsifiable, and defended with nothing but fallacies. This is indeed a sharp polemic, but it is also a valid one as well.

Astrology: Unfalsifiable

����������� First, it should be noted that, as was just stated, the claims of astrology are totally unfalsifiable, despite what many will tell you. This is indeed a problem. As many philosophers and/or scientists (Karl Popper comes to mind) have shown, a claim is worth nothing if there is no way for it to be falsified. Under such conditions, there is no way to check if the claim is right or wrong, as essentially everything will confirm the theory.

����������� To set a quick analogy, let us consider Freud's Oedipus complex. If a child runs up, sits on his mother's lap, and gives her many kisses, one could point and claim this is an obvious sign of the Oedipus complex. However, if the boy instead ran up and whacked his mother with his toy truck, this would also be evidence of the Oedipus complex. The boy is in a no-win situation, and might be best off avoiding his mother all together, but then, under the right interpretation, this too can be considered evidence of guilt brought on by his Oedipus complex. Let us not even consider any disagreements with the boy's father.

����������� The point is, the way the claim is put forth, the rules are "rigged" so that everything confirms the theory. There is essentially no way that we could ever know if the claim is false due to the circular nature of the structure of the argument. For this reason we should be suspicious of it. It is also for this reason that we must reject any theory that is unfalsifiable.

����������� Now, the claims of astrology are like this as well, as there is always a back door, leading you down a curved hall, and back to the center. One claim may be that those born under the sign of Aquarius are loving and kind, but when we come across a cruel Aquarian, the astrologer will not accept this as a falsifying instance; rather he or she will try to direct attention to another part of the person's "chart."

����������� Not only is one's personality determined by the sun sign, but also by the moon sign, ascendant, and numerous "houses" and planets. This gives the astrologer many chances to point out why the person does not fit under the already vague descriptions of "kind," or "stubborn." With numerous aspects of the chart, and only 12 possibilities for each aspect, the chances that every sign (or at least 92%) is found in the chart are very high. Thus the astrologer can easily find one of the various signs that more easily fit that description, and say something like "yes, you're cruel because you have Capricorn in your Mars...."

Lawrence Jerome summed up this silliness best when he wrote:

When the entire chart is constructed and interpreted, the astrologer has no less than nineteen or twenty separate horoscope elements [...] A complete, "well-aspected" chart may provide the studious astrologer with as many as fifty to a hundred separate horoscope elements from which to choose and juggle in matching his interpretation to the client at hand.[2]

����������� In short, the claims made by astrologers are more based on faith and emotion than anything rational. Like a hybrid of theologian and magician, the well-trained astrologer can pull an ad-hoc hypothesis out of his proverbial hat at any moment, and perform a hermeneutic miracle almost on command.

Astrology: Untestable

Even though evidence is abundant showing flaws and fallacies of the art, astrology nevertheless appears to be marching along unscathed [...] I discuss this with friends, and they nod, acknowledge my criticisms, then ask "by the way, what's your sign?" It is as if people are slightly brain-dead.[3]

����������� While some aspects of astrology can be disproved using certain tests and equations, as will be shown later, it is, for the most part, untestable. This is mostly for the above sorts of reasons. The claims are wholly vague, and the fact that much of their claims are contradicted by sound science does not deter the believers in the least. This comes down to a matter of faith, which cannot be tested. As Stewart puts it:

Computers and statistics, once thought to be the death rattle for horoscopic astrology, unfortunately have not shaken the faith of the believer. The suspicion is that statistics may be skewed. even the dabbler is aware of this. the faith is being attacked, and no amount of statistics will alter his conviction.[4]

����������� If it really is a matter of faith, there is nothing more to discuss, as this takes it outside the realm of science. The astrologer, of course, does not want to admit that their pseudo-science is accepted on blind faith, as belief in the unseen is one of these sorts of unfalsifiable arguments that can be a justification for anything. Thus astrology is cloaked in all sorts of pseudo-scientific jargon, but none of it is really available for testing.

����������� The greatest idiocy of astrology is the claim that the planets are within a given constellation at a given time. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. As the aforementioned J.V. Stewart points out:

Astrology contends that the sun, moon, and planets are "in" a particular sign, or in earlier times constellation, of the Zodiac. This is inaccurate. These bodies are seen against a background of non-related stars that have been artificially grouped into a constellation. Stars have no connection with one another, nor do constellations, nor do galaxies.[5]

����������� Of course, to the astrologer, this does not make the least bit of difference, thus their claims about the effects caused by a given constellation cannot really be tested. They will only make an appeal to belief in a hidden and magical sort of force that is projected on those who are born while the celestial bodies are in that particular position.

����������� A similar problem would be the fact that the signs of today no longer match the constellations with which they are associated. Just like a top, the earth "wobbles" slightly on its axis, and shifts "on degree backward every 71.1 years[6]". Since Ptolemy's time (150 CE), the same signs have been assigned to roughly the same dates, but in that time the earth has shifted back some 30 degrees. The result is the impression of the constellations shifting forward, and the earth shifts into Pisces on March 21, when it should be in Aries (at least according to astrology). Once again, however, this means nothing to the astrologers, so we are again unable to test any of their unapproachable claims.

����������� So-called "Tropical" and "Sidereal" astrologers have been known to openly refer to the above facts as "irrelevant,"[7] and instead say the signs are more related to the seasons. If this is the case, all the pointing to the stars and all the claims about what age we are approaching[8] are worthless. Furthermore, pointing to dates also becomes pointless, as the seasons are more closely related to latitude and one's location on the globe.

����������� Finally, how can we test anything when the astrologers themselves cannot agree on a clear definition for their usually ambiguous terms? One example might be the house divisions. At a 1974 seminar on house divisions, the world's leading astrologers could do nothing more than engage in angry shouting matches over the many disagreements. They could not come to agreement on the number of houses (usually 12), their sequence, or the method of division.[9]

Why Astrology "Works"

Nowhere are the the battle lines more sharply drawn between scientist and astrologer than over the issue of astrological planetary influences.[10]

����������� In looking through the countless books that argue in favor of astrology, or at least presuppose that it is true, almost none made any sort of attempt to explain why the position of the celestial bodies had the effects they allegedly did. One book that did make an attempt to explain the "science" behind astrological phenomenon attributed it to gravity, and put forth the following argument:

Science recognizes the moon's power to move great bodies of water. Since man himself consists of seventy percent water, why should he be immune to such forceful planetary pulls?[11]

��������������� So the famous astrologer Goodman cites gravity as the cause. However, Culver and Ianna pointed out that that calculations of the gravitational forces of various masses reveal that the planets have next-to-no influence on the child at birth. Furthermore, starting from certain assumptions[12], it was estimated that the gravitational force exerted by the mother's body is twenty times stronger than that of Mars. In fact, the amount of gravitational force that the average hospital would place on a child would be five hundred times stronger than that of Mars[13]!

����������� Some might want to dig further into Goodman's claims, and try and cite tidal forces and the effects the moon might have on the body's water supply. The methods used for calculating tidal forces are only slightly different, thus slight adjustments are made to the equations. Culver and Ianna performed such equations, and noted the following:

In looking at the tidal forces exerted by the various entities [...] we now find that the tidal forces exerted by the people and objects in the immediate vicinity of the child totally overwhelm those exerted by all celestial objects, even those old storied tide raisers, the sun and moon.[14]

����������� Two other supporters of astrology took a different approach, and tried to argue that "radiations"[15] from the celestial bodies were what placed influence on the child's personality. However, simple mathematical equations will reveal that a typical light bulb exerts an electromagnetic force that is hundreds of times stronger than any of the celestial bodies, with the exception of the sun. Poking fun at this fact, Culver and Ianna write: "Nowhere could we find a horoscope which considered the impact of configuration of delivery room lights."[16]

����������� The Parkers[17] tried to make note of x-rays and gamma rays, and then postulate some sort of unknown radiation, but the reality is that all forms of electromagnetic energy can be described by exactly the same mathematical model that is used to discuss visible light. In short, any attempt to speak of yet undiscovered forms of energy is wholly fallacious, and again, untestable.

Why They Believe: The P.T. Barnum Effect

Elaborate studies, using refined statistical methods, have shown that this effect is an important ingredient not only in astrology but also in psychic readings, palmistry, the reading of Tarot cards, selling automobiles and politics.[18]

����������� The real reason that astrology "works," or at least seems to, is due to the miracle of reinterpretation. The customer is given an ambiguous statement, and is then subtly encouraged to reinterpret it in light of his or her own life. The astrologer makes good use of amphibole, often uttering vague statements that could apply to anyone, such as "you sometimes have good ideas, but others try to shoot them down." Other times, a flattering mark that no one would dispute is put forth, such as "you are an independent thinker who does not accept claims if they seem illogical."

����������� Any astrological chart can be matched to any person, and numerous studies have shown this. As Stewart recounts:

[Michel] Guaquelin gave 150 people a ten-page computer interpretation supposedly of their own birth chart but which was actually that of a notorious mass murderer. Ninety percent found the accuracy confirmed by family and friends. Ninety-four percent found it accurate described their characters, personal problems, and cycles of events in their lives."[19]

����������� Another example is when the great debunker of pseudo-scientific fraud, James Randi[20] gave a chart (actually done for himself as well as his secretary) to a selected listener of his radio show. The story is recounted as follows:

At the end of two months, the listener phoned and told Randi that he should take this matter very seriously, that her chart was "at least 90 percent accurate." In reality, purposely, she had been sent Randi's own chart. He then blamed the error on his secretary. He then sent her his secretary's chart, which he said was the correct one. She was thrilled and reported that this one was "even more accurate." He then told her she had received his secretary's chart. "There was a short pause, then a snort, and the woman hung up," related Randi.[21]

����������� The reasons that such funny events have happened should be obvious, but I will give one last example to drive the point home. Several years ago, Dr. Shawn Carlson did a study on astrology in San Diego, California with the collaboration of 28 astrologers. There were 118 subjects, and the astrologers did complete charts for each of them. With the signs and names removed from the reports, the people were unable to accurately pick their chart.[22]

Conclusion

����������� There is nothing left for the astrologers except fallacious forms of defense that expose their poor ability to think critically. There is argumentum ad-numerum (the argument from numbers: "if astrology was false, why do so many people believe it?"); argumentum ad verecundiam (the argument from authority: "great minds from Ptolemy to Kepler believed in astrology, so..."); and of course the circumstantial ad-hominem ("well of course you're skeptical - you're a Taurus!"[23]).

����������� Astrology is not a science; rather it is an irrational belief in ancient Chaldean/Babylonian superstition. Their claims are circular, and at times contradictory. The only reason it appeals to weak minds is because it has a little something for everyone, and, more importantly, there's a sucker born every minute. Richard Dawkins summed up astrology best when he wondered the following: "If astrologers cannot be sued by individuals misadvised, say, into taking disastrous business decisions, why at least are they not prosecuted for false representation under the Trade Descriptions Act and driven out of business?[24]"

NOTES