IS ASTROLOGY A SCIENCE? - Part 1

- by Satrajit Majumdar

Is astrology a science? This is the most common question posed about astrology by both sets of people - the non-believers and the rationalists who claim that astrology is bogus and that it exploits the fear and insecurity of people. The believers of astrology and the astrologers themselves stoutly defend the stance that astrology is a precise science.

To my mind, both are wrong and both sets of people approach this question from a predefined mind set.

For nonbelievers, it is fashionable and politically correct to denounce any system of knowledge, which does not fit into the 19th century definition of materialism and physical science.

For astrologers, the mind set is that unless Astrology is a science, it is not respectable in today's world, and for believers, anything that is termed as science can be blindly believed or accepted.

The new millennium is called the age of Aquarius, and astrologers claim Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus. Uranus signifies new science and technology.

So in the age of Aquarius, I propose to examine this question in an objective fashion without any preconceived mindset.

The first question that comes to mind at this stage is, "What is the meaning and definition of science and astrology?"

According to Random House Dictionary, the definition of these two words are:

Science:

Astrology:

As far as the definition of astrology is concerned, there is little reason for disagreement. However, the debate and dispute begins the moment astrologers start claiming that astrology is a science. Of the three definitions of science given above, I believe that definitions '2' and '3' are not applicable to astrology as it has evolved over the years and exists as of date.

Rationalists and nonbelievers argue that heavenly bodies cannot influence human affairs. On the other hand, astrologers, particularly Vedic astrologers, start with the assumption that the systematic body of knowledge, is in fact inspired by the Supreme Being himself. Hence, this is the absolute truth and cannot be questioned. They are God's words, which were passed on through generations by oral tradition and were first documented and classified by sages like Parashar (Astrology is part of Vedas and that is why it is called Vedangas).

I believe both these extreme viewpoints are wrong and we can never resolve this debate in this manner. I should now clarify why the 2nd and 3rd definitions of astrology as a natural physical science, are not valid. For this, we must understand the methodology of physical science.

Scientific Method:

A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

As an astrologer myself, I believe that astrology has never strictly followed the stages of scientific methodology, namely data gathering, hypothesis formulation and empirical testing.

Apart from sporadic attempts at individual levels, astrology has always been cloaked in secrecy and restricted to select groups. Even today, astrologers are very secretive about their knowledge and methodology. Astrological principles, in both ancient and modern astrological texts, irrespective of belonging to Vedic or Western astrology, are full of 'hypothesis'. No serious attempts have been made to collect data or to conduct empirical tests.

Data collection and empirical testing cannot be conducted by individuals alone. It has to be a project which involves sharing of data and large scale coordinated testing to establish a hypothesis as 'truth' or 'fact', as required by the first definition of `science'.

The spirit of sharing knowledge is also an essential ingredient of scientific methodology. Physical science has progressed because after the renaissance, scientists started exchanging knowledge amongst themselves. Even during the height of the cold war, ideas were freely exchanged, between scientists of the USA and USSR, though not in matters related to defense and war.

However, even if we start exchanging data and start examining the validity of astrological hypothesis, astrology will still not qualify to be a mathematical or natural science.

But this would not reduce astrology to a less respected science. Astrology can be more aptly defined as a 'behavioral science', like economics, but science none the less as per definition 1 of `science', provided we are willing to adopt the scientific methodology in all its three phases. It is essential to understand the difference between the scientific methodology adopted in the case of behavioral sciences and physical sciences.

In a physical science, we deal with causes and their effects. Physical scientists then formulate a hypothesis as a law or equation which explains in terms of existing state of knowledge or truth why such causes create the effects as stipulated in the hypothesis. This can then be tested through physical experiments and data collection.

In a behavioral science like economics or astrology (the position that I intend to defend), we are also dealing with causes and effects and we are making hypothesis to state what causes can produce what effects.

The theory of Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen, which connects literacy with economic growth is now very popular in India and other developing countries. But it is not possible for Dr. Sen to state in precise terms how much economic growth is achieved by literacy. This is because he is dealing with a very large population - the entire population of a country. Also, the existing state of knowledge in physical sciences cannot identify or isolate the forces in nature that connect literacy with economic growth.

I think the parallel with astrology is now obvious.

We are both dealing with statistical correlation and are trying to come to specific conclusions. But economics is a science by the first definition because it attempts to establish truth through scientific method as outlined earlier.

Astrology has not attempted to do that earlier. But all is not lost, in the age of Aquarius, we are bound to start our inquiry into astrology using scientific methodology and this is one of the mission statements of Cyberastro.com.

I will now share with the visitors, the result of our very first, though small, step in that direction. Since September 1997, when we first set up our web site, we have collected the exact birth details of approximately 20,000 people spread over different age groups across the globe. Internet revolution makes that possible.

I give below the first analysis report from that database:

I showed this data to my friend Ravi Sangal, who is the President of International Data Corporation (IDC) India. IDC understands data and IDC understands statistics. He vetted the following conclusions that I have drawn from this data.

In absence of any past data on the subject, 20,000 randomly chosen samples across the globe is a valid statistical sample to represent the global population. Human beings biologically are productive throughout the year.

In view of the skew in our age groups in the table which shows that most Internet savvy people are between the age group of 20-30 years, our first cautionary conclusion is that among Internet savvy people, there are more Virgos, Librans and Scorpions in the world and less Aquarians than the average numbers which belong to the rest of the zodiac signs. An interesting conclusion in the age of Aquarius!

What is the astrological significance of this conclusion? Librans, Virgos and Scorpions are more materialistic than Aquarians, who are more spiritually oriented. Isn't that the profile of the Internet savvy people of today? Or is it going to change in the new millennium?

However, as Ravi Sangal puts it, this is a preliminary conclusion only, further calculations are needed to determine the sample size error etc. to arrive at the final conclusion. This will remain the subject for some other time.

Before I end, I will get back to our original question "Is Astrology a Science".

My conclusion is "Yes, Astrology can be considered a Science", provided we astrologers follow scientific methodology and acquire scientific spirit. Only then will astrology be relevant for the new millennium. We have already discussed scientific methodology.

So what is scientific spirit? Scientific spirit is objectivity and our willingness to discard yesterday's belief and hypothesis at a moment's notice, no matter how ancient or how sacred is that belief - if our data and empirical tests do not validate those hypothesis any more.

Astrology can become a respectable science only then.

Back