I know this topic has been beaten to death; I know I am not going to convince anyone to think different that what he/she was earlier. But still I have to write this post. Just because I want to consolidate my ideas on why I don’t think astrology is a science.
Disclaimer here: I have nothing against people who 'believe' astrology. People can believe in whatever they want. Be it astrology or ghosts or transporting people through light beams. What I am against is the idea of trying to back up a belief by allegedly scientific theory.
(I would mostly be talking about Indian astrology since that’s the area that I have had opportunity to study to a good extant).
OK lets get started. What they say is in bold and what it actually is in normal font.
Astrology is very closely linked with Astronomy, which is undoubtedly an accepted science.
Astrology is as close to astronomy as alchemy is to chemistry. Starting from the same point does not essential make two things correct. The closest astronomy comes to astrology is in predicting eclipses. That is because the equations involving the relative positions of sun moon and the earth have been established well long ago and they come with correction factors. But what do you say of Makara Sankranti? It is supposed to be the winter solstice day right? And we all know the winter solstice is on December 22nd. But how does Makara Sankranti always come on January 14th? That’s because the astrologers have not applied corrections from last 2000 years!! And you expect me to believe in a prediction based on an equations that has been outdated for 2000 years? This is only the tip of the ice burg. I have seen the almanac and found that the positions of the planets as predicted by it are totally off too. You still insist it is accurate?
There is an unknown force that affects our lives
Ah, it had to come. Science does not like ‘unknown’ forces. It does not like ‘mysterious’ forces or materials just because they make things easier to understand. At certain points in history science did assume things such as ‘phlogiston’ and ‘aether’ but was courageous enough to accept and correct mistakes when appropriate discoveries were made to disprove them. The very lack of ability of anyone to isolate or locate phlogiston or aether lead to theories that were more consistent, and meaningful. Any scientific problem can be solved by conveniently assuming some special material or force. Astrology seems to be doing just the same. If astrologers say that there is indeed such a force, the burden of proof lays on them for it to be accepted as a scientific theory. See this unknown force theory decimated here.
Astrology is accurate
No, its not. Period. If it were accurate, then we would not see vague statements like ‘something good will happen to you today’ in the newspapers’ astrology columns. Something good will always happen to everyone every day. Its just that the human mind, when it comes to astronomy, glorifies the hits and ignores the misses. Have you ever been in this situation? I wish to see just one astrologer who can predict to more than 50% accuracy the gender of 1000 people just based on their date of birth. (Not only the gender, any similar attribute will do too). Well, if you know any good astrologer who wishes to take this challenge, you may want to tip him/her off. There is a genuine 1million dollar bet on this here. I am not surprised there is not a single person who passed even the preliminary tests. What more, no two astrologers would ever agree on how to predict a certain thing. There goes all your accuracy.
But then meteorology is not accurate too
Yes, meteorology is not accurate. But the difference is that we know WHY it is not accurate and how it can be more accurate. If you have more powerful computers, more data to compute, meteorology can be more accurate. I have lived abroad where the meteorology departments are better funded and have been surprised at the prediction accuracies. In meteorology, we know what are the direct and indirect factors that cause rain if we know those factors with accuracy, we can predict the whether there will be rain or not accurately. The same does not apply to astrology. We don’t even know what is the link between the plants and our lives. Astrology says “oh, don’t worry about that, it just works. Cant you see?”
Astrology is statistical just like sociology
What they mean is a prediction is not absolute but statistically it true. Something like saying “every second 1.7 children are born in this country” which is not the absolute truth, for there is nothing called 0.7 children, but if you take the mass aggregate, the statement is still true. Well, if you want to make statistically correct statements, the there is no need to use astrology. Any simple statement will still do fine. What I would be more interested in astrology to do is to be more specific and provide me with guidance at least as accurate as at 4 PM you have 35% chance of getting injured with a sharp object. This is still a statement that is as accurate as statements in sociology etc and I will be fine with such statement.
All the intelligent guys and famous people believed it
So what? Intelligent people have not always taken intelligent stands. For, otherwise the world would have been much better a place to be. On a more serious note, science does not accept something just because someone said it. The motto of the Royal Society "Nullius in Verba" (Latin: "On the words of no one") means don’t take anybody’s word for it. Scientists accept with all due respect the greatness of Sir Isaac Newton but still point out that he was wrong on most of his stands including the one on light. Nobody in the field of science ever said, “hey Newton believes in corpuscle theory of light so it must be true”.
As far as the famous people believing it, I don’t think I need not say anything about their rational abilities after you have seen SRK in the Lux ad ;)
Out ancestors were much smarter than we were so they must be right
Well, if you ask me, it’s a matter of shame to accept that we are stupid. But, if that’s the image you have of your intellectual self, then astrology serves you fine anyway. Yes, out ancestors were very smart people and did things that were outstanding at any time. But again, that does not make everything they say right. I know even of disgusting people who try to support the Sati system just because our ancestors thought that’s a good thing. Wake up folks.
Come on, there are things beyond science
Yes, that’s what science is all about. About studying things that are beyond understanding and to understand them. At this point in time, there is no scientific answer to questions like ‘How this universe was created’ or ‘What is the ultimate nature of matter’. But the strive has been to find out answers to these questions. And again, until you make something understandable, it will not be called science. As again, burden of proof lays on the scientists to support any theory they propose to answer the questions beyond science today and on astrologers to support their claims. It’s a fair game.
I know there is an endless list of sane insane and even fanatic defenses that will be put up by astrology believers. But I am content to type this much. If you are type who believes astrology has science behind it, and has something to back it up, let me know in the comments section. May be we can have a good debate.
In summary, astrology is not a science. If you want to believe in astrology, feel free to do so. But don’t call it a science unless issues raised above are addressed. Thank you in advance.
PS: And yes, I am not even going to talk of palmistry, face reading and the like.
17 comments:
Expected this post from you! Quite natural to come from you!
I don't agree with your attitude. Not that I care about it. But more tolerance would do you a world of good.
It's good that you don't agree with anything that's not science, that's not logic, that's not backed by mathematical proof or experimental proof. Very good. That's how we can grow scientifically. I totally agree with you on this and in fact am happy that you know so much on this front.
But is that all that's there to this life that you are living? Didn't you ever have anything called a sense of deja vu or a premonition of things to happen? That sense of feeling that your wife is sad because you said something but she never gave you an inkling about it? Does science explain this? Can science explain emotions? Not how they are created, but why they are created?
Why did I laugh when I saw "Lage Raho Munnabhai"? Science can explain how laugh happens. It cannot for the world of it explain why the laugh happened.
And finally can science explain, what women want?! LOL! ;)
PS: Well, take these questions with a pinch of salt. My basic intention is to let you know that science is fine to believe in and all that. But that's not everything!
Aditya! its sad to see that you have totally lost the main theme of the post.
All I have been saying, starting from the title of the post is that Astrology is not a science. At no place did I claim that science can explain everything. In fact I even admitted that there are many things science can not explain at this moment and the best thing about science is that it tries to evolve itself to find those explanations.
I have been open enough to acknowledge that people can have things that they want to believe, beyond logical and mathematically amenable ones. My only motivation to write this post is to tell those people 'hey look, its fine if you want to believe it. But don’t call it science, because it isn’t one for these reasons'.
A religious guy is hurt very seriously when something that does against his doctrine. In a similar way I get totally annoyed when someone calls something a science when it isn’t.
I have no problems with anyone who wants to believe astrology or that we live in the Matrix. But my only request is, don’t call it science.
Hope I sound open now.
NS,
I know just why you’ve published this post! :-) Put it up on BB?
I agree with all the points you’ve mentioned. Yet there’s something not mentioned there that makes Astrology useful. It’s hard to debate or know what a ‘Science’ really is & whether or not astrology is a ‘Science’!
Nevertheless, please read http://anandanubhava.blogspot.com/2006/03/astrology-science-or-pseudo-science.html where I’ve written about the same topic without really concluding whether it’s a ‘Science’ or not! Also read the link it points to – really informative. Its not necessary to believe in chakras or the macro/micro-cosm model.
Astrology can always be defeated. Predictions can always be made wrong. Even if it’s the best astrologer in the truest sense. Why? Simple, cause of human free will! No matter what’s predicted, free will can over turn it. Just that sometimes, it might require tremendous effort to change course of things/ events. Sometimes it might need concerted exertion of free will of lot of people. That is something I as an individual will not have full control over.
The link I pointed to in my blog also explains in great detail (which I cannot understand or attest to), as to why the correction factors haven’t been applied by all, making lot of dates wrong.
Why then is astrology useful? It merely tells me in a probabilistic sense the estimate of the amount of free will I need to put in to achieve something. This is terribly hard to understand by most people. The debate between ‘free will vs fate’ becomes the subject matter here. Read http://www.jagadgurus.org/cb-tea-fate.htm for a nice exposition on this.
What does a horoscope provide? Merely a blue print of what you alone have done in the past. Even if it wasn’t ‘you’ in this form who did it, it provides an indication of the kind of energy stream that you as a person bring. You will definitely agree that each of us (mind & body both) is some sort of ‘energy’ stream in time-space. Think of it as a river flowing in its path. The flow yesterday deepened the grooves, changed the river bed etc. Yet, it is continuous, hard to tell yesterday from today or tomorrow, cause the water is ALWAYS flowing, with no distinctions. Same is true of us. Think of all of creation as water, like the ocean. Then, each of us is like sub currents charting paths within, interacting & influencing every other sub current.
Why will I go to an astrologer? I have my free will, which will defeat his predictions. Simple, cause sometimes when things become hard, my free will alone might not suffice, might not be strong enough or might yield results only after a long time. There might be grooves for the river that’s me to travel in, which I myself don’t know. There might be other waters to mix with, that will get this river to flow along desired channels. Very simple, isn’t it?
Why will I NOT go to an astrologer? Same reason again. I have my free will, which should be exercised. Only practice makes it resilient & makes me confident. It’s not good to depend on ‘fate’, the unknown or unseen free will that I exerted in the past, cause the present is here that can shape the future.
I see the points you’re making, and also the points I’m making. There’s logic behind both. I saw the tree from far & it looked like pole to me. I then came near, & from another angle it looked like a tall rock. Finally, what was the tree? A mere definition in our own terms (wood, life, leaves, sap, etc). Irrespective of our definition it continues to exist. Same way, I see no dichotomy here, just a connection at the deepest level that I might not be able to explain in words. Thus, every post that praises astrology, as also condemns it, makes me equally happy :-)
This is the link to my blog on same topic. It didn't appear correctly in my long post, so here it is again:
http://anandanubhava.blogspot.com/2006
/03/astrology-science-or-pseudo-
science.html
"...I have been open enough to acknowledge that people can have things that they want to believe, beyond logical and mathematically amenable ones..."
First things first, people will anyway believe what they want to. By acknowledging that I guess you are just trying to address it to some particular person or group of people. I don't know who and I will not get into that.
"Hope I sound open now"
Well, see shastri, being open is a state of mind. You are either open or not. You cannot sound open!
Now that I am done with my nitpicking, let me attack the main issues:
I should admit that I did lose my objectivity while looking at the topic and the way you had presented it using strong words like "insane, fanatic, etc." Sorry about that.
I did read through the article again and seem to see it through your eyes now. And it all seems fine.
But I still want to know what answers you give for my questions.
1. Didn't you ever have anything called a sense of deja vu or a premonition of things to happen?
2. That sense of feeling that your wife is sad because you said something but she never gave you an indication about it or vice versa?
3.Why did I laugh when I saw "Lage Raho Munnabhai"?
The answers to these questions cannot be logical. But it's a science, is it not? That's the point behind asking the questions. Can I call it science or not is what I want to know from you?
Anand,
yes, it was the BB which made me write this. I usually hate posting serious stuff on BB for the fear that someone might hijack the topic and take it to place that it did not intend to go to start with.
Well, coming to your comment, I must say I am very impressed with your comment. You take the most balanced way. From your personal encounters with me I know that you were once of the stand I was and you can perfectly see the sense in my stand too.
I suppose the only difference in our stands comes out with this statement from your blog
"The planets relate in some way to the chakras, subtle sources of energy as yet un-discovered by mainstream Science. Everything in the Universe being interconnected in some way, it is not preposterous to assume this just because the laws of interaction are unknown!"
From my stand, effects of planets on chakras is a hypothesis rather than a theory. Don’t get me wrong, I am not calling it a hypothesis because it is not in the area of 'accepted sciences'. Even Quantum theory was a hypothesis before observations matched its predictions.
While you would go to agree with the hypothesis, for me it would require little more proof if it were to be accepted as science.
Again, I have no problems in you or anyone believing in this as a hypothesis. After all, that will be the starting point for someone who intends to prove astrology is a science.
I am sure this will call for lot more discussions than this so that I get to hear more about what goes into this hypothesis.
Aditya,
aren't you making contradicting statements when you said
this
But is that all that's there to this life that you are living? Didn't you ever have anything called a sense of deja vu or a premonition of things to happen? That sense of feeling that your wife is sad because you said something but she never gave you an inkling about it? Does science explain this?
and this
The answers to these questions cannot be logical. But it's a science, is it not?
Well, coming directly to the main point, lets take your questions one by one.
Deja vu happens to me all the time. There was a time when I thought I may be a psychic :) But as I put more efforts into analyzing it, I figured out that when a deja vu happens, you only have a feeling that 'I have seen this before'. But you can not predict the thing happening next. I also observed that deja vu happens more often when I am tired, tense or sleep-deprived. I was about to conclude that this was just and illusion or malfunction of my mind, that makes me 'believe' I have seen this before while I actually have not. And as with many cases, the encyclopedias say what I had to say ;) see this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_vu
It turns out that you can recreate deja vu in the labs also http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5194382.stm all the more reason that science can explain the phenomenon.
Then about emotions and the laughter, I am sure science can explain how they happen. Science can also say why they are there to some extant. Science says those things were needed for evolution and survival of the human race. (You can find out details online).
But coming to the more fundamental point, as you say, more often than not, since can explain the HOW of the things but not the WHY. I agree with you. But I am not sure even religion or anything beyond science can explain the WHY of the things either. Ever heard this joke?
Atheist: Who created the earth?
Believer: God of course
Atheist: How do you know that?
Believer: The scripture says so
Atheist: Who wrote the scriptures?
Believer: God himself
I know our discussions here are at a level much higher than that, but in essence every answer to WHY of things comes with an associated bundle of beliefs. Be it scientific of otherwise.
Now that you have dragged in Religion into the discussion. Let me put it this way. There's something called "faith" in life. Let me use faith instead of religion because I think that's more sensible and all-encompassing.
And I know what you believe in and what you don't. It hasn't changed all these years. That's your "faith" and you have an explanation for everything with your faith.
Faith changes with experience in life. Various situations in life force you to think and sometimes re-think your faith.
Various people are at various stages of faith. I see things from your point of view, my faith gives me the sensibility to do that. And am happy about it. I was trying to impose my faith on you, which was wrong. So, let me say this finally: You are perfectly right in your place and I agree totally to your final statement "...every answer to WHY of things comes with an associated bundle of beliefs. Be it scientific of otherwise."
Dear Shatri,
(I am not pointing only at you but addressing those who feel that they are rational and criticize vedic astrology)
I can understand your stand point in making astrology different from 'SCIENCE' in its present
sense. But the reality is that it is a SCIENCE in its correct sense! All critics of astrology
make a mistake - they do not study astrology! Even if they study with certain degree of prejudice,
they can never 'feel' that it is a science; yes prejudice plays a bad role here. So let us answer
your questions one by one:
1. SCIENCE is defined as 'the systematized body of knowledge'. If you study astrology, certainly
you will understand that it is the systematized body of knowledge, so simply IT IS SCIENCE. So then
why do many - including you - feel that it is NOT!? Answer is very simple: they mistook science
for 'that which can be proved practically whenever and wherever and whoever tests its concepts'.
If THIS is your perception of science, sorry you have mistaken! Being a SYSTEMATIZED BODY OF KNOWLEDGE,
astrology simply is a science, without any doubdt! Only difference is that the astrology is the DIVINE
science and hence NEED NOT (read again - not CAN NOT) prove anything to anybody anywhere! It is same
like the concept of GOD. For theists, he exists and atheists he does not! And WE are not capable enough
to prove about (non-)existence as of now, and perhaps for ever?!
2. Astronomy connected to astrology is an absolute science in all its concepts and not only with eclipses,
which will be evident when one studies SIDDHANTA part of JyOtiSha, may be Surya-Siddhanta, Siddhanta
SirOmaNi or AryabhatIyam. Now for your question: MAKARA SANKRANTI has been miscalculated for 2000 years?
Absolutely wrong! It is 'scientific'(?) or Western zodiac which is being miscalculated from time immemorial!
WHY? Because Vedic astrology defines starting point of rashi cakra wrt STARS, movement of which are negligible.
So a Vedic Makara Sankranti happens whenever SUN enters second quarter of UTTARA-AASHADHA star, which absolutely
falls on Jan 14 or 15 usually. But the same makara sankranti according Western Zodiac - which has no starting point
but calculates its new starting point, relative to the old - falls on Dec 22nd, when Sun still shines near
MOOLA, in DHANUS. And very funnily they call it MAKARA SANKRANTI, even when SUN is visible- even to them at 245 dgree
of the ZODIAC and the sign undoubdtably being DHANUS! Tell me who is wrong now?
The concept behind this is 'precision of equinox' and 'ayanamsha'; please do well to study it!
3. Unknown force which affects our lives:
Well, astrology surely believes in this but the problem is that the WESTERNER needs a PROOF!
Let us take an analogy: Now we use remote controls of TVs to control its action and every baby
born yesterday knows it now. Just 200 years back, even if the greatest scientist explained anyone
about remote controlling techniques, people would call him fool or mad and pelt stones at him.
This is what is happening to astrologers now! Just we lack 'something' to show that IT EXISTS,
even if you do not see it, as it is happening in a remote control. It is the matter of interest
and time and not of astrologers and critics. THIS 'SOMETHING' part can be felt but it differs
from person to person! Just one has to try with belief!
4. Astrology is accurate: YES! 100% true. BUT the real problem is - ASTROLOGERS are not accurate!
Like any other professionals - doctors, lawyers, engineers - astrologers too are inaccurate. Does
that mean that medicine/technology/law is defective??? so is the astrology! If you are feeling that
'future telling' or whatever appears in columns is astrology, surely it is inaccurate! Real astrology
is beyond future telling and is a science of sciences!
5.A comparative study on meteorological prediction by local panchanga and met.dept has revealed that
panchanga is better! Foreign countries - even with their very HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC equipments have failed
miserably in prediction of rain and whether conditions. Otherwise Katrina would not have killed so many!
Neither China,Japan would not have suffered cyclonic storms! Neither Denmark would lose much from heavy rain!
SO there is no point in feeling that problem is with Vedic astrology! Humans have limits!
6.Astrology is statistical: yes, of course! It plays with numbers and points too! But it does not give vague
statements like 'you will have 1.7 children next year'! It is possible with astrology to give accurate prediction
upto seconds(mind you not just 4 pm but 4:13:26 pm!) BUT WHY should it give you? It is not an alarm system to predict
danger. If you query with belief(and not for prank or testing), you will see that your results are 100% accurate.
Otherwise, astrology would not have survived for more than 5000 years!
7.Because the famous and great believed it: Belief must come within oneself and initiation may be from anything or anyone!
Just blindly following others does not help in anything!
8. Our ancestors were smarter: Absolutely right! That need not pressurize anyone to believe in anything. Before condemning
any ancient thought, it is wise to recall that our ancestors too would have thought of it. Just because we do not know the
reason, we can not say they were wrong!
9.There are always things beyond one's perception! One need not believe astrology by this concept, but if that is the initiation,
why not?
Summary: Who all criticize astrology, just graze through surface of the ocean of jyotisha but if they try to plunge deep,
they really see the precious stones inside! One who feels that he has mastered astrology is the first person to give wrong prediction!
with reverence to such a great ocean,
yours
Mihira
NS,
I'm not an expert, so I wont justify or go into the theory of chakras & how they relate to planets. Some things some times make intuitive sense to me... which is far more convincing than any hypothesis or material I read.
Regarding your comments about psychic phenomenon, I can firmly attest from experience that such things happen. Sometimes, you start seeing the future. You know exactly what the other person is going to say. You know exactly who's calling u when the phone rings & what its about. It begins to happen systematically & becomes a series of 'coincidences'! Only drawback is, I know it before it happens, but before hand, I'm not sure if its my own thought or really a prediction. Only after the incident is past, I realize that indeen, I knew it before hand. If I develop it sufficiently & practice it - which is what psychics do, then it becomes an art & predictable too.
Regarding science, we've studied it for minimum of 25 years & are in a position to scratch the surface & comment on its authenticity or lack of. Regarding vedic astrology or vedanta, we've 'heard' about it, or have an illusory idea of what it alludes to. Hence, as buddha points out, I feel most of us arent at all qualified to debate about it. I think once we're formally trained in it, just like we studied Physics, Chem, math, etc in school for decades, we'll be able to better appreciate the pros & cons of the systematic body of knowledge that forms Vedas, Vedanta, vedic astrology, etc!
Mihira:
I won't say I understood the entire text of your comment, but yeah, I found that you have sufficiently refuted the claims made by Shastri on this blog. Really liked your comment. Keep 'em coming!
Anandanubhava:
Totally agree with you. You have a very very valid point.
Buddha/Mihira/Benaka, amazing how world can be such a small place and we end up meeting in places more than one :)
Well, coming to the discussion here, lets make it clear here that we are merely opposing each others’ views. Nothing to be taken on a personal basis. [BTW, I have a feeling that you must be from one of the Canara District. Call it paranormal intuition if you want ;) I am from Sirsi, NK]
Firstly, I am happy to encounter a ‘stereotype’ argument from an astrology believer (I might be a stereotype scientific attitude myself). Your replies to my points contain the kind of arguments I almost expected. Your arguments contain blanket statements, statements without appropriate backing up, throwing up a lot of gobbledygook where not necessary and then (as Scott Adams would put it) ‘misinterpreting the stuff said and then attacking those misinterpretations’. Leaves me a lot to tell below.
Luckily I have had opportunity to study astrology (Vedic of course) during the days when I still had not taken a clear stand on anything. So I don’t think I had any prejudice or a bias when I was. All I did was to approach astrology with a clear, but questioning frame of mind. I am sorry to say, astrology did not hold enough water even for a young mind like me.
(I will retain the point structure for clarity)
1. Science is not a body of knowledge. You may ask any scientist. Science is a philosophy of seeing and understanding things. Science is about being rational, questioning established beliefs and drawing conclusions from observations. No scientific theory that could not clear the scrutiny of reproducibility and scrutiny of proving its predictions has ever been accepted by the scientific community. Nobody accepted theory of relativity till Arthur Eddington’s experiments proved it. As to your point of ‘Astrology need not prove anything to anyone’, well, I can not have an argument against that can I? I wonder then perhaps why did you bother posting this long comment at all.
2. OK, here you are basically saying two things. Indian astrology defines raashis based on stars and that the western zodiac is not correct. I understand what you mean by ‘with respect to fixed stars’. I said I have studied a bit of astrology and what this means it, the zodiac used by Indian astrology is ‘calibrated’ long ago (about 1700 years, going by my understanding of taking Spica as star of reference for 180 degree zodiac). So as you and I correctly point out, the inputs that go into calculations on Vedic astronomy do not match with that we would observe in the sky if we just looked up from our almanacs. This is because astrology did not apply corrections that arise due to the precession of earth’s axis. And anything that does not try correcting itself in spite of visible differences, can not be called science. (It was not very clear to me why you called the western zodiac wrong. But even assuming it is wrong does not make astrological zodiac right).
I am not really sure of this, but one of the websites tells today the sun is in Uttarabhadrapada (which I guess corresponds to Meena or Kumbha raashi) but the sun today is (visibly) somewhere in Simha/Kanya.
3. Wait a second here, 200 years if a scientist claimed he could do remote control, another scientist would ask him to prove his claims that’s all. It was people who did not want to accept the truth who threw stones at Galileo, Kepler or Darwin. Today when someone claims they can transpond people through light beams (like in star treck), it is considered incredulous and we call it science fiction, not science. The moment when someone indeed succeeds making such a thing, it will be called science. What I have been maintaining from beginning is that if Astrology is to be considered as a science, it should prove its claims through observations. If you think there is something that makes astrology work but we cant find it out now, because we don’t have that ‘something’, I guess at this point in time, it can be called nothing more than wishful thinking.
4. This again is a claim difficult to fight logically. When a doctor/Engineer or someone is inaccurate, we can decisively say from where did the inaccuracy come. When GSLV failed, we know because there was a problem with the fuel system. So when there is an inaccuracy in an established science, it is because of limitations in resources or data as I said in the original post. I agree we can give the same handicap to astrology too. But there must be ‘some’ standard in astrology that makes any two astrologers arrive at the same conclusion for a case that is enough simplified. After all, astrology is a systematized body of knowledge. When you ask two engineers to create an object that has minimal surface area but maximum volume, both of them will invariably give you a sphere. When you ask them to design two cars, they will take different paths and give different things. I wonder if two astrologers ever agreed on anything.
5. Phew, I hate to quote Scott Adams so often, but this is a clear case of conformational bias (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/07/confirmation_bi.html) . The original point I had on my post was ‘astrologers agree they are inaccurate but they claim they are as accurate as meteorology, which is accepted science’. Now you take it to a different theme as to whether meteorology is better or astrology. I wonder what did that comparative study on meteorological predictions versus the astrological ones contain. I know on certain ‘nakshatras’ like chitta, magha etc it is expected to rain. But I surely remember more than once instance when it did not. And does it rain everywhere on these nakshatras? Or only in India? Or only Asia? Or does it rain around the world?
As astrology and astronomy started off hand-in-hand, there is a clear (and explainable) correlation between seasons, weather and the zodiac. We can very well explain rains and sun and winter without taking astrology’s help. No need to bring in astrology into weather prediction. As far as averting natural disasters, yes, science did help to know in advance that Katrina and floods will happen, but the advance was not enough. And since science told that this will happen, the people who were saved, could be saved. I have never seen an astrologer making an accurate prediction of a disaster ‘before’ it actually happened.
6. If astrology can but wont give me accurate predictions, there is hardly anything I can do about it. As I have been saying burden of proof is on the claimant. And about testing it with belief, its against scientific mind altogether. If I test anything with an assumption to start with, I am sure I will find proof that reinforces my beliefs. This has happened to science before, and has set back the course of development astray for years (Anthropology is a case in example. Google for ‘Piltdown Man’.
And your tone in this post reminds me of this Calvin strip.
14-09-93:
Calvin: Today for show and tell, I have an utterly amazing whistle! I'll demonstrate. TWEEEET.
Moe: What's so amazing about THAT?! It sounds like an ordinary whistle to ME!
Calvin: It can only be heard by ugly cretins.
Moe: I'll get you at recess, Calvin.
7. We agree on this I guess.. for a change :)
8. Just because we don’t know, we cant say they were wrong. Of course not! But just because we don’t know we cant say they were right either. Which side would you give the benefit of doubt? Fermat thought he knew the proof to his famous theorem and wrote so on a margin of paper too. After 350 years of extensive (and successful) effort to prove the theorem, mathematicians today think Fermat was mistaken. Fermat was a man smarter than me and you and may be many present day mathematicians but does not mean he was absolutely right in thinking he knew answers to his own question.
9. I think I have talked earlier about things beyond our perception. For the second part, I don’t think I understood your statement.
(I am not being sarcastic here) I am genuinely interested in knowing how a subject that looks so much unlike science at the surface can offer precious insights into understanding this world better when dived deep down. I really mean it. I will look forward to a theory of astrology that is consistent within itself and with other accepted sciences and helps understanding the universe better so that we can help this world be a better place together.
PS: You may want to refer to the wiki article on Astrology which I feel covers pretty much both the sides.
Anand,
I must agree with you that without understanding Vedic astrology we are not in a position to critisize it. I of course claim to be no expert on astrology but I feel if it cant answer the most basic questions regarding its fundamental principles satisfactorily, then it fails at the first check.
We all would wish Santa Clause was for real and want to believe he is. But once you ask certain basic questions, you would know how much logic the red suite holds. I dont think to disprove Santa you need not study christianity or about reindeers.
About the deja vu, I really am not sure about it. I know there are two possibilities.
1. We can see the future (through psych waves, or m-strings or whatever)
2. Our mind (say a hardware bug in the brain) makes us 'feel' that something is a 'memory' when it is happening.
As with many cases, the simplest of alternative theories makes most sense, so personally I would prefer to go with the second one. I must admit I dont know the definite answer to this...
wait.. I have a feeling I will know it in future ;) he he he
Aditya,
how can you not understand something, still agree to it? And moreover in the very next sentence you agree with Anand that you should not bash anything which you know nothing about.
I think I should here again make a mention of my stand. At no place did I say (or mean) that astrology is crap. All I am saying is dont allude the status of science to it.
I understand that there can be more than one interpretaions of the same truth. Both of them may be true but exclusive of each other. This does not mean any one or both of them are correct or wrong. It just means they dont agree with each other.
As is the classic case of nature of light, IS both a particle and wave. You can choose to believe only one of them and design any experiment to prove that nature and it will satisfy your expectations. But you CAN NOT design an experiment to make light behave both wave and particle. Meaning to say, you can not belive in both things at a time.
Astrology may or may not be true but its surely no science.
Dear Shastri,
Your definition and perception of 'science' was coined in Western hemisphere where Oriental
knowledge is rubbished with great ease! The difference between the Occidental and Oriental
thoughts is same as 'materialistic' and 'metaphysical' respectively! Whatever you feel a west
defined science can prove consistently is MATERIALISTIC is nature and it can not even think
of anything pertaining to SPIRITUALITY or Metaphysics, simply because it fails there! You know
the story of jackal and sour grapes! :). But astrology deals with spiritual aspect and whatever
material matters it deals with is a by-product.
I would like quote an instance from Chandogya upanishat, where a father instructs his son to
taste salt water to make him 'feel' the PRESENCE of SALT though he does not SEE it! So is the GOD!
So is the case with proving astrological truths. By testing atrology on WESTERN grounds, you are
finding the dissolved salt by visual inspection! We need a different sense organ to find the
dissolved salt like astrological facts!So by calling astrology a science, I am not pulling down
its status to Physics or Chemistry but giving it a status which makes it available to all as an
academic subject like any other branch.
About Zodiac, you must be knowing that they derive their names from the actual STAR constellations. Vedic astrology with citta or SPICA at 180
degrees makes ASWINI the starting point. So when we say MESHA, or ARIES it is the RAM shaped constellation formed by specific stars. Similarly
when anyone says MAKARA, it is the sign which looks like deer-headed crocodile(skeletal) with specific star pattern. It starts with UTTARASHADA
star at 90 degrees from SPICA in Zodiac. So, whoever sees it however he sees it, it is a FIXED point in space wrt Solar system. So Vedic astrology
which calculates position from fixed point can not go wrong! The western, so called scientific zodiac has no fixed point to start but moves
continuously backward at the rate of 50 sec / year. So if vernal equinox happens at zero deg Aries this year, next year it would be at Pisces ie
359 deg 59' 10''. After 10 years, it is 1 deg 23' approx..etc etc you can extrapolate. Now it has become 23 deg 57' approx and so vernal equinox
happens in Pisces 6 deg approx! But West calls it ARIES for the new year, though Sun is visible near UTTARABHADRA, a part of FISH SHAPED PISCES!
Similarly Sun enters WESTERN MAKARA on Dec 22nd even if star aligned with him is MOOLA, a part of BOW HOLDER constellation and not by any chance
resembles MAKARA. Still West calls it MAKARA SANKRANTI! And also calls Vedic Zodiac wrong!
All who boast of predicting calamities etc are just headed towards popularity and astrology doesnot
authorize anyone proclaim something without being seriously queried! In matters pertaining to
a nation, query must be from a king and the answer must be from an eminent scholar. Now a days
giving statements is for popularity. They are not astrologers; but businessman! By the way, rain
etc are not predicted just by star and planet combination. Please do well to read BrihatsamhitA
and ArthaSAstra to know them in greater detail. Your feeling of 'does not hold much water' will
be lost within minutes you start studying from classical texts and not local authors.
Please note that my long responses are to make one know the truth and not to criticize anyone
going against astrology. My intention is to stop spreading wrong information. Having said all these,
I do not force anyone to believe in astrology but strongly condemn misleading the believers!
yours
Mihira
This is omething I feel strongly about (I don't believe in astrology) - but I haven't read this post yet - am yet to get enough time to do this post justice. Will get back to you.
Loved this post. Spirited, logical, well organised.
On the one hand astrogers try to tell you that science doesnt have solutions to everything and you need something like astrology to take you through life, and on the other, try to convince you that what they are doing is science. Dont they see the contradiction in this? Something that annoys me is, they resort to using words which have precise definitions in science, and use them in extremely vague terms in the hope of bringing credibility to astrology.
Post a Comment