Article: Science and Astrology
While the tabloid newspaper level of astrology, the Stars, may be considered popular, and various polls have indicated its continued popularity (increasingly so among younger generations1), it is in no way considered worthy or acceptable by mainstream science.
This is hardly surprising on the face of it. And scientists are not alone in their judgement on this. The tabloid level does provide a very poor representation of Western natal astrology…
How the “Stars” began…
Richard H. Naylor, a UK astrologer, is often quoted as the person who began the Stars of the tabloids.
He began writing horoscopes for the Sunday Express back in the 1930s. He was asked to write an article on the birth of Princess Margaret – the sister of the late Queen. This was a few days after her birth. It attracted a lot of interest and attention, and clearly helped to sell the newspaper at the time.
Back then what would appear in the press was the whole birth-chart of a person (or event, such the sinking of a ship), that was of public interest.
The commercial value of astrology didn’t go unnoticed by the Express, but how to do this on a weekly basis that could interest a lot of people; well required something else.
The Paper offered Naylor to run a regular column, and What the Stars Foretell was the outcome. Naylor came up with, using Sun-sign astrology – simply the position of the Sun through the zodiac signs. And the newspaper stars was born. It was kept simple, for entertainment purposes, not even the Moon was included in the arrangement.
It worked… and is still going strong!
Although a watered-down version of Western astrology this Stars column certainly helped to sell newspapers, and arguably it is its simplicity while having something for everyone, that has kept it going – and why it is in the frame for scientific comment/interest (even today). And likewise in the line of fire for sceptics to continually seek to debunk it – mostly with unhelpful comments like…
If one were to bring ten of the wisest men in the world together and ask them what was the most stupid thing in existence, they would not be able to discover anything so stupid as astrology.
David Hilbert, German mathematician2
Science attacks astrology
Following on with the “hippy revolution” and not least helped by the planetary positions of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune, astrology (both pop and proper) was gaining a revival and gathering apace in popularity, certainly by the Nineteen Seventies. This development, and particularly one area of challenging research, The Mars Effect (more on this to follow soon), got noticed by the scientific community and attracted some real opposition.
In the Humanist3 (American humanities journal) of September/October 1975, an article entitled Objections to Astrology – A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists appeared. This was a condemnation of astrology by “astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other fields” that included in it a list of the 186 scientists. These also involved 18 Nobel Prize winners. It was a statement with a lot of eminent support.
The work was drafted by Bart J Bok, of the University of Arizona. Bok had by then been battling against astrology since 1941. The “statement” was revised by Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York, Buffalo, and then editor of the Humanist. This was with the help of Lawrence Jerome who at the time was also writing a book4 intended to debunk astrology. Here’s an extract from the statement:
One would imagine, in this day of widespread enlightenment and education, that it would be unnecessary to debunk beliefs based upon magic and superstition. We are especially disturbed by the continued uncritical dissemination of astrological charts, forecasts, and horoscopes by the media and by otherwise reputable newspapers, magazines, and book publishers. This can only contribute to the growth of irrationalism and obscurantism. We believe that the time has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans.5
The statement in the Humanist was followed by a much more sustained attack on astrology in the form of two articles – A Critical Look at Astrology by Bart J Bok; and Astrology: Magic or Science? by Lawrence Jerome. The New Humanist,6 the British sister of the American journal, also picked up the story and added its own comment to the condemnation of astrology, by saying:
No doubt if it would be as easy to gather the signatures of several hundred scientists on this side of the Atlantic as on the other, and no doubt this is a useful exercise in reiterating the scientific opposition to all cults of unreason.
As some consolation for astrology and astrologers this condemnation was not shared by all members of the scientific community. At least two scientists, Paul Feyerabend and Hans Eysenck, at the time, publicly criticised the unscientific manner in which astrology was treated by the statement.
In Science in a Free Society, Feyerabend7 wrote:
Now what surprises the reader whose image of science has been formed by the customary eulogies which emphasize rationality, objectivity, impartiality and so on is the religious tone of the document, the illiteracy of the ‘arguments’ and the authoritarian manner in which the arguments are being presented. The learned gentlemen have strong convictions, they use their authority to spread these convictions (why 186 signatures if one has arguments?), they know a few phrases which sound like arguments, but they certainly do not know what they are talking about.
And, in a footnote to Feyerabend’s comments, he noted:
When a representative of the BBC wanted to interview some of the Nobel Prize winners they declined with the remark that they had never studied astrology and had no idea of its details; which did not prevent them from cursing it in public.
In Eysenck’s article entitled, Astrology: Science or Superstition?8 He wrote:
Actually the behaviour of the scientists who signed this declaration was as unscientific as they believed that of the astrologers to be. Few, if any of them, were familiar with the empirical literature; and consequently their condemnation was based on a priori reasoning, and possibly prejudice, neither of them a good counsellor in matters of fact.
Eysenck, of course, more than most was in a strong position to level such criticism due to being one of the few researchers who had, at the time, also tested astrology. He knew what he was talking about on the subject in other words.
Nothing much has changed since…
I think we can anticipate that nothing much has changed, in attitude by the scientific community towards astrology, over the intervening years:
The hackles of Britain’s astrologers were raised last year, when [astronomer Brian] Cox took a moment during his Wonders of the Solar System series to explain to the public that “astrology is a load of rubbish,” a statement which pretty much echoes the scientific consensus on the matter, which says that, “astrology is a load of rubbish.”
The Guardian9
The chances are that the hackles of Britain’s astrologers were also raised by the Daily Mail article; Has your star sign been wrong your entire life? by Sarah Rainey. Certainly mine were and I let them know…
A scientist had written a book to let us unsuspecting astrologers know that the star constellations don’t line up with the signs of the zodiac that we are using.
Any Western astrologer worth their salt would have been able to tell Rainey that the scientist either truly thought he was onto something, or was purposely mixing up the Tropical Zodiac with the Sidereal Zodiac – and presenting it as a new revelation to debunk astrology. Astrologers have known about it for over 2,000 years – since the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes.10 For more on this see What is Astrology article.
No evidence for Astrology?
Where commentary is less prejudiced, the common criticism of astrology is that there is no evidence for it.
Well there is… but…
But before directing you to some of the evidence or sources of evidence, let me first suggest there is a problem with research into astrology, and it is intrinsic to its holistic nature…
To get the best from it you really need to test the internal relationship between all or most components (especially planets) in order to anticipate outcomes. But the problem there is that the internal relationship is unique to each individual person, so it can’t easily be measured across a group of people by the scientific method – unless, that is, you make allowances.
On top of that we are talking energy patterns that can be given more than one form of expression. A birth-chart does not represent a static or fixed situation – it is dynamic. It is another misconception to assume astrology provides, or should provide, fixed predictable outcomes that would satisfy scientific investigation. Trends will be anticipated but as to what form they take in manifestation is not so easy to predict – and shouldn’t be so where people are concerned.
From my perspective, it comes down to the will, or soul, of the individual as to what direction they take their energy pattern. If we tend to follow a predictable or traditional path in life, as laid out for us by our parents, background or culture, then probably we are inclined to be more predictable in our desires, interests, vocation and behaviour.
What you also have to bear in mind is that in the popular view of astrology – and the level which the sciences tend to want to test it – it is all about, and only about prediction!
Terms such as “potential,” “tendencies,” “likely outcomes” and “trends,” don’t really wash with science. Such terms are too uncertain. They might be acceptable for psychology but not for a system of knowledge seen by science as antiquated and viewed as hanging onto its ability to predict.
What the sciences are seeking is hard objective evidence that astrology works – and it would need to work every time by their standards to be anywhere near acceptable. Astrology, proper astrology, is too complex in its workings, in its moving parts, to ever meet scientific endorsement…
References
1. Insider Media teamed up with Morning Consult and questioned 8,805 people across the USA. They found: Young people, ages 18-29, more so than any other demographic are more likely to believe in astrology and use knowledge gleaned from their horoscope in their daily lives. Of respondents in that age group, 16% said they believe in astrology a lot while 28% said they somewhat believe in it. The remaining 30% and 27% of those who responded were various degrees of sceptical, saying they believed in astrology either not much or not at all, respectively.
https://www.insider.com/poll-young-people-love-astrology-2019-2 [accessed 28/04/2020]
2. Breverton, T. (2010) Immortal Last Words: History’s most memorable dying remarks, deathbed declarations and final farewells. Quercus Books.
3. The Humanist journal. September/October 1975.
4. Jerome, L. E. (1977) Astrology Disproved. Prometheus Books.
5. The Humanist journal. op., cit.
6. New Humanist journal. October 1975.
7. Feyerabend, P. (1978) Science in a free society. Verso.
8. Eysenck, H. J. (1979) Astrology: Science or Superstition. Encounter 53.
9. The Guardian online (2011, January 23) Astrologers angered by stars http://www.guardian.co.uk/ [Accessed 09/05/2014].
10. Daily Mail article: Has Your Star Sign been Wrong Your Entire Life? Sarah Rainey 25/9/2025
Links you might also like:
Article: The Church and Astrology
Article: The Backstory to Astrology Part 1
Article: What is a birth-chart and how can it help me understand myself better?