Are scientists prejudiced against astrology? Earlier this
month our Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse, took a sideswipe at astrology
following reports that footballers were preparing for the World Cup by studying
the stars - their signs, in this case, rather than the opposition's strikers.
It was all, concluded Dr Whitehouse, a hoax. The article infuriated another
scientist - Dr Paul Kail of Prague in the Czech Republic. So we asked Dr
Kail to expand on his point of view.
David Whitehouse should stick to talking about things that he knows something
about. His comments on astrology reflect a complete ignorance about the subject,
coupled with the irrational nihilism. We have come to expect this from scientists
who are frightened by ways of looking at the world which are not consistent
with existing scientific dogma Mr. Whitehouse's knowledge of astrology seems
to be limited to newspaper columns, since he believes that a major part of
astrology is predicting the future, and that astrologers might claim to be
able to predict the World Cup. He claims to have talked to practising
astrologers: however, any professional astrologer would have told him that
newspaper columns have little or no connection with proper astrology. He
claims that "There is not the slightest bit of serious scientific evidence
that it works." This simply isn't true, and shows that he has not taken the
trouble to look at the literature.
Testable
The claims that astrology makes are just as testable as the claims made by
chemists or physicists. For example, astrology claims that people born with
Mars in Aries are likely to be more aggressive than average. This is testable.
Unfortunately, because of the prejudice of the scientific community, funds
for studying astrology are limited. Consequently , much astrological theory
is unproven. Despite this, there is very strong evidence that a core of astrology
is, indeed, valid. Hans Eysenk, professor of Psychology at the University
of London, has written an excellent review of recent literature. Another
book I would recommend him to read is "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology"
by G. Dean, an analytical chemist from Perth.
'Does astrology work?'
Professor Eysenck's conclusion is as follows: Overall, then, in response
to the question "Does astrology work?", we would agree with the summing up
of Dean and others (1977), that 'the picture emerging suggests that astrology
works, but seldom in the way or to the extent that it is said to work.' One
could hardly expect otherwise from a tradition which is thousands of years
old, but which has only in the last century been subject to scientific analysis.
My objection to Mr Whitehouse's attitude is as follows. Science will advance
if we constantly question the things that we see around us. The moment we
tell ourselves that science has answered all our questions, and simply needs
to be "defended" against heretics, it becomes a religion. Astrology will
succeed or fail on the basis that the claims that it makes are tested, and
found to be valid. It cannot be judged on the basis that we don't yet have
a plausible mechanism for it. When I studied medicine and neurophysiology
at Oxford, back in the early eighties, anaesthetics had already been used
for many years. Yet nobody really knew how they worked (of course, there
were various conflicting theories). Nor did we really know how most of the
neuroleptic drugs worked, let along ECT However, nobody pretended that they
couldn't work, just because we didn't have a completely watertight mechanism
to explain what they did. Maybe by now, we do have a better understanding
of these areas. However, many phenomena which we know exist are inexplicable:
and others have accepted explanations which are probably wrong.
Scientists scoff
Yet scientists scoff at astrology because they cannot understand how it could
work. This is an irrational approach, not a scientific one. Moreover, it
is getting the cart before the horse. If at least 20% of what astrology claims
is proven (and at least this is certain), then we have something to investigate.
With a scientific background and a strong interest in astrology, am very
interested to find out what the mechanism actually is. I think that any scientist
should be equally curious: if astrology cannot be explained by existing laws,
then maybe it can tell us something new about the universe. Mr Whitehouse's
comment that the gravitational fields of the planets at the time of birth
are too weak to affect the child is trite. We know this, thank you very much.
Open to new ways
It is your job as a scientist what the mechanism actually is. Indeed, any
scientist worthy of the name should be open to new ways of looking at the
universe, rather than to defending existing dogmas.
Dr David Whitehouse replies:
Ever since my early interest in astronomy and especially when I was a
professional astronomer, I have been regularly told by someone or other that
there is something in astrology. If only I wasn't a blinkered scientist with
a biased mind I would see it. But I refuse to be gullible. When I look at
the evidence put forward that astrology works I come away very unimpressed.
I can't agree that at least 20% of what astrology claims is proven. Just
because science can't explain everything doesn't mean that it has not explained
astrology. Because we cannot explain why some things work, like some drugs,
does not mean that astrology works in an as yet undiscovered way. Some things
are just plain wrong. Thor is not the god of thunder, the earth isn't the
centre of the universe and there are not fairies at the bottom of my
garden.