I thought it is relevant to post this article culled from elsewhere in the web

Science versus Astrology


Basically, science’s rejection of astrology is based on ignorance.  Science’s ignorance.  When the astronomer Edmond Halley asked Sir Isaac Newton (essentially the “patron science of physics”) how he could possibly believe in astrology, Sir Isaac answered, “Because I have studied the matter, Sir.  You have not.”  And therein lies the crux of the matter.  When Shakespeare made the comment of the “stars influencing our lives”, he too was mis- or un-informed.  Astrology is about the planets of our solar system, not the stars!

And it is the geometries of these planets which somehow affects us.  The “somehow” may lead a critic to raise his hand, but before pursuing the matter [put your hand down!] please note the geometrical relationships of the planets as shown in A Book of Coincidence and demonstrated over and over in the Harmony of the Spheres.  When someone can explain the scientifically inexplicable geometrical correlation among the planets -- and not dismiss it as some quirk or nature -- then they can challenge the theory of astrology’s geometrical influence.  (But of course, if they do the prerequisite, they will likely inadvertently find the means of verifying the truth and validity of astrology.  It’s a Catch 22 for the skeptics and a “win-win” for astrologers!  Such is the fate of truth.  Sigh.)  

Another example of the ignorance of mainstream science is the oft-quoted astronomer’s notation of the Precession of the Equinoxes, and how this somehow makes astrology invalid.  In fact, on the day this was being written, NPR’s “Star Date” had a brief, lucid explanation about the sun entering Ophiuchus -- what astronomers like to refer to as the 13th constellation of the Zodiac.  In turns out that in 1930 astronomers had decided that the allegedly arbitrary division of the Zodiac into 12 equal segments of 30 degrees each was not in keeping with actual sizes of the constellations.  Scorpio, for example, spans a much smaller section of sky than say Pisces.  While the NPR report was well done and basically accurate, others have taken the position that because of the slow rotation of the Earth’s axis on a 25,920 year cycle, this ensures that the portion of the sky that was in Pisces four thousand years ago, is no longer the same portion of the sky now.  And thus the constellations are not the same as in the days when astrology was born -- and what astrology calls Scorpio is no longer related to the constellation of Scorpio.

This alleged fallacy of astrology is in fact astronomy’s miscue.  Astrology simply does not in any shape, form, or fashion base its results upon the stars, the star backgrounds, or any of the constellations.  These are simply names, and Scorpio could have easily been called the sign of “wild, sexy beast” (with those born in Leo, always having attached HRH to their names).  Scorpio, on the other hand, as a time of year -- when the days are rapidly growing shorter and the Sun approaching its winter solstice -- does count for something.  An Aries personality, for example, is one born on the first day of spring -- what some think as the more appropriate initiation of the yearly cycle (and thus those born under the sign often act the part of the demanding infant).  Meanwhile, Capricorn is in the dead of winter and strongly encourages one to accept the boundaries and limitations of survival in such times.  And so it goes.  On and on.  An astrology based on one star, the Sun.

Thus the only effect of the Precession of the Equinoxes on astrology is to provide one point of evidence as to when astrology was first being developed -- i.e. several thousand years ago, when the time of year now allotted to Capricorn (following the winter solstice) was also the time when the sun had as a background of stars, the constellation Capricorn.  Otherwise, this slow movement of the earth’s axis has no effect on astrology whatsoever.  And accordingly, the Precession is an ally of Astrology -- not an enemy.

Arthur Young <http://www.arthuryoung.com/astrocos.HTML> has had a few choice words about Astrology, and mainstream science’s inability to come to grips with it.

“Science has been the great venture of modern man, but I am deeply disappointed that it has stopped short of its goal.  It has become political, adhering to a materialist dialectic.  The cult of calibration and measurement has dispensed with consideration of first principles and produced tons of facts tied together with bits of fragile string.  The consistency and clarity, even of classical determinism, has been lost and its blundering prejudice retained.  The stimulating challenge of ESP is ignored and made ridiculous; even the nineteenth-century recognition that perception was only partially based on sensation, and had components of value and image carried over from earlier experience, is set aside in obeisance to a reductionism based on a physics long since obsolete.   Science, in short, is a motley of fragmented special disciplines, each encrusted with its own jargon and incomprehensible to its fellows, rallying under a common policy of objectivity -- valid enough as applied to method, but downright misleading when applied as it is and without justification to require that the world be exclusively objective and physical.”

“But when it comes to constructing a cosmology based on the nonmaterial, and I find that the discredited astrology, the divine science of the ancients, is founded on the same vocabulary of elements that is the basis for the measure formulae of physics, I am, like John Dean [of Watergate fame], impelled to turn state's evidence and expose the cover-up.  But there is no court of inquiry to hear the evidence.  It is only when the cosmology I have set up, based on scientific evidence, itself calls out for the importation of something of larger import than the ingredients of science per se, that I turn to astrology.

“At this juncture I can no longer say as before, ‘Ignore the popular usage of astrology, ignore its employment by fortune tellers; consider only the remarkable vocabulary it uses.’ Why?  Because I find it not a relic of ancient custom, a temple built to an unknown god, not even an occasional revelation such as inspired ancient prophets or modern-day persons who have seen flying saucers -- it is an ever-present influence as real as were the Greek gods to Ulysses.  The arcs and transits of planets do precisely correlate to important events in my life.”

“But the notion of elements and their subdivision does not encompass the other ingredient essential to astrology -- the gods as principles or powers operating through the planets.  This is where, in answer to the charge that I’m snatching pieces of the temple of astrology to serve my own purposes, I can cite my own inadequacy.  The whole temple cannot be transported except it be taken in pieces.  And the temple itself is not the ultimate; it too is an idol.  But as an idol it is closer to life than the idol of science.  That perhaps is my final plea.  So I must take the gods and their correlation with the planets on faith.  Let us see what this faith entails.

           “I . That the solar system is an organon.

           “II. That the organon is ‘a process machine’ having a number of distinct periodicities or rhythms.

           “III. That said rhythms are indicated by the planets.

           “IV. That the direction in which planets ‘point’ at any given time indicates, or creates, the zeitgeist of that time.

           “V. That the pointing of the planets produces such zeitgeist because the directions are themselves different in quality.

           “VI. That the planets, because of their difference of period, contribute to the different powers of persons.

           “VII. That a person’s birth is an introduction into this organon.  A birth is an enrollment, as it were, to ‘take a course in the universe.’  The birth establishes the central stance.  The motion of the planets thereafter establishes the scenario.”

Young’s essay <http://www.arthuryoung.com/valueofastrology.HTML>, “On the Value of Astrology for a Science of Life” is particularly noteworthy and includes the well-reasoned argument that the biological rhythms of life are endogenous (i.e. not dependent upon known external influences), and that the planets are influencing mundane (worldly) events by other means -- perhaps geometrically, geometry being used here as a verb and not a noun.  Thus mainstream science’s rejection of astrology is due to the inadequacies of mainstream science in not knowing the manner of the physical influence.

Young notes, for example, that the number of rings in a clam shell are based on the new moons and not the high tides (which occur at both the new and full moon).  In general, the “study of circadian (near to 24 hour) and other biological rhythms” have been found to be endogenous (produced from within; originating from internal causes).  Young also claims science “does not include any first principles which predict or even accommodate life.”  Again, mainstream science’s rejection of astrology is an admission of its own inadequacy.

Incidentally, Young invented and developed the world’s first helicopter.  What has the guy who had his hand up, done?  Hmmmm...?

I found the following lines from Arthur Young's essay very apt for the purposes of this discussion


Now I realize that science would insist at this point that the facts of astrology have not been proved; but since I have, to the best of my ability, verified many of the claims of astrology I would have to answer science as Newton answered Halley when the latter criticized him for his study of astrology. "I have studied the matter; you have not," was Newton's reply.

In any case the judgment of science against astrology is based on a belief of science, and science has progressed by revising its beliefs, not by insisting on them.


Unknown to many but a lot of world's scientists on whose founding principles the entire body of scientific literature is based turned to astrology in their later years.

Here is what yet another Indian writer writes

Science and Astrology
by Ashish Khandekar

We are a democratic country. We also try to be secular and, to keep pace with the time, scientific! No one can surely say how far we are successful but our efforts are on. Every one accepts that there is a need to brush our scientific temperament, particularly after union Human Resource Minister Murli Manohar Joshi proposed to introduce astrology as a subject in universities. Electronic media has exploited the new idea to their best. Thousands of articles have been written, and are still being written on this topic since then. A common man, who does not want to put on a mask of a thinker, when interviewed, found to be in-tact with his belief in astrology. The media campaigners statements aimed to prove how the entire astrology is based on wrong presumptions, failed to convince the reader, even the rational class of society, as they do not touch upon the nerve of those who believe in astrology. Proving that the methodology being followed by the astrologers would not serve the purpose, as astrologers themselves do not claim it to be a perfect and pragmatic science. It is normally termed as partial science. Let's first get the faces strength in understanding the term science. The word science comes from a Latin word 'scientia' meaning 'knowledge' which is derived from the verb 'scire' meaning 'to know'.

Dictionary of contemporary English published by Oxford University press (1989) defines science as organized knowledge esp. when obtained by observation and testing of facts, about the physical world, natural laws and society. In simple words science can be defined as the process of knowledge which has some theories, which are proven with examples or concrete evidences that can lead to a rational conclusion. Today science is taken only as empirical science like physics, chemistry, biology etc. Crusaders of so called science initially declined to accept sociology, political science, history and other non-empirical sciences to be accepted as sciences.

A significant discovery was made in such field towards the end of 19th century when Sigmund Freud proposed his theory of Psychology. These theories are not experienced all the time as expected by science. But still, having a strong base of maximum percentage of proven theories, the field of study was accepted as science. Same was the case with Herbert Spencer's social theories or Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Entering into the field of empirical sciences, many theories have been changing over the period. In Physics, for example, the theory of nature of light proposed by Newton was discarded in the latter period. It was replaced by the wave theory. Let us take a view towards the chronology of how theories of nature of light have been changing over the period.

Prior to AD 1666 ► Before this year it was supposed that dispersion of light produced color instead of separating already existing colors.

AD1666 ► Isaac Newton was the first to discover that sunlight is composed of a mixture of light of different colors in certain proportions and that it could be separated into its components by dispersion. Newton explained it by the assumption of a corpuscular theory of light. According to this theory a luminous body emits swarms of corpuscles that travel in straight lines through the all- pervading ether.

AD 1676► The ancients believed that light traveled at infinite speed; its finite speed was first discovered by Danish astronomer Ole R'mer in this year.

AD 1678► Christian Huygens, a contemporary of Newton, (in The Trait� de la Lumi're/Treatise on Light, 1678) formulated a wave theory of light, but Newton's great contributions to the knowledge of light, combined with his great reputation, caused his theory to be favored.

AD 1801► Thomas Young, British physicist, physician, and Egyptologist revived the wave theory of light and identified the phenomenon of interference.

AD 1821►French physicist Augustine Jean Fresnel refined the theory of polarized light. Fresnel realized in 1821 that light waves do not vibrate like sound waves longitudinally, in the direction of their motion, but transversely, at right angles to the direction of the propagated wave.
Augustine Fresnel and Thomas Young established Huygens's theory by the evidence of their experiments on diffraction and interference.

AD 1873► James Clerk Maxwell, Scottish physicist, went on to infer that light consists of electromagnetic waves. He also established that light has a radiation pressure, and suggested that a whole family of electromagnetic radiations must exist, of which light was only one. (Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism 1873)

AD1888 ► James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic radiation theory was confirmed with the discovery of radio waves.

AD1900 ► Max Planck, German physicist, framed the quantum theory. He proposed that radiation is emitted or absorbed by atoms in discrete units, or quanta, of energy.

AD1905►Albert Einstein used Planck's quantum theory as an explanation for photo electricity.

AD1913 ► Niels Bohr, Danish physicist, advocated quantum theory of light. He postulated that emission or absorption of energy occurs only with electron's transition from one stable state to another. When a transition occurs, an electron moving to a higher orbit absorbs energy and an electron moving to a lower orbit emits energy. In so doing, a set number of quanta of energy are emitted or absorbed at a particular frequency.

Similarly the absorption of light, and in particular the emission of electrons from metallic surfaces illuminated by light (photoelectric effect), was explained by the quantum theory. Certain properties of light, however, are explained only on the hypothesis that light is propagated as electromagnetic waves. Thus the quantum theory accounts for the photoelectric effect, while the electromagnetic wave theory accounts for the interference of light. The relation between these two theories can be approached in terms of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. His uncertainty principal (or indeterminacy principle) says �In quantum mechanics, it is impossible to know with unlimited accuracy the position and momentum of a particle. The principle arises because in order to locate a particle exactly, an observer must bounce light (in the form of a photon) off the particle, which must alter its position in an unpredictable way.� He gave a theoretical limit to the precision with which a particle's momentum and position can be measured simultaneously: the more accurately the one is determined, the more uncertainty there is in the other.

All possibilities of the discovery of new theory proving light to be something else than what we believe today are fairly in chance.

There have been many theories about the structure of an atom, which were contradictory to each other. To ask a practical question, has any human being ever seen a nucleus by any means? Or can anybody photograph the DNA as double helical, which was proposed by James Watson on the basis of illusion seen during the sleep?

But still we spend thousands of crores of dollars for further study in it. We cannot deny all these facts merely because we cannot see them. For many things we have to rely on the experimental results. In a nutshell, science gives scope to all rational possibilities in understanding of any subject.  Gone are the days of monarchy when Galileo was forced to change his opinions based on his organized and systematized study. We are a democratic country with democratic way of life and expression. But those who threatened Galileo with death for denying what was believed then were called orthodox and unscientific in the latter period. The reason behind was they did not allow new concepts to creep in. Today astrology is believed to be a partially scientific branch of study. Are we not courageous enough to let the scrutiny go on over this subject by making it popular and draw the conclusion after the complete comparative study is done? Are we not becoming orthodox in an opposite way? Thorough study will be the only way to prove or disprove any branch of knowledge. Not an autocratic control of not giving exposure to the subject. If it has an element of truth, it will survive by the nature's law of survival of the fittest, else it will extinguish giving more perfect ways to study the human destiny.

Another base on which astrology has survived through the ages is that there is no method in (empirical) science which would answer the questions of destiny of a person or forecast the fortune.  This was the inspection of Astrology through the lenses of so called science. Beyond this, in fact, astrology has a lot to do with human need of belief. By adopting astronomical basis for it, we are giving more scientific base to our beliefs.

To put it in another way, Astrology is a study of destiny. Theories in it are merely tools to reach to the conclusion. It is not just dreaming about the promotion or getting married to a beloved girl, but it has a deeper aspect of natural charges governing human life. Let us not be finicky by simply denying it because all theories or predictions do not come true. We will have to discard all the methods of gathering national statistical data and the branches of study like History, Sociology, Political science and Economics etc. if perfection of experimentation is the only criterion applied.  Let us find out the theories in astrology, which are being experienced as true and try to reason out them as to why are they experienced. Only then we will be truly called people with scientific temperament.

Astrology is an art having a base of science. Like surgery, after a certain level one has to lift himself above technicalities and achieve skill of doing the thing swiftly. That is one of the sciences through which one can read fortune. There are many other sciences like palmistry, Numerology, Face Reading, Ramala Shastra, Nadi Samhita, Chhaya shastra and so on. Some occult sciences like Tantra, Aghori Vidya, Karna Pishaccha, Mantra Vigyan and intuitions, are also used to know the fortune. Astrology provides larger base to all other skills. All these are only means to read the fortune, and are not unchangeable. The theories in these all sciences have changed over the period. Like every other science it is also moving towards perfection. In the olden days Astrological skills were the basic qualification for any high-ranking post in the king's courts or Army. King Samudra Gupta and Vikramaditya are well known for their skilful courtiers. But in the latter period, particularly after the industrial revolution, all these sciences went on the back burner. Obviously the development slowed down and people in general started thinking, with their boasted confidence that man can create and destroy the things he feel alike. But now in the age of uncertainty these sciences, Astrology or Vastushastra are being refreshed.

As one can find a cure for fever in Homeopathy, Allopathy, or Ayurveda or even in Naturopathy. These all branches of medicine have their own method of treating diseases. Some of them are contrary to each other but still capable of curing diseases. Same is the case with all branches of Astrological sciences.

Now, a question remains, even if it is a branch of study, should it be introduced in Universities? What is the use of this study in terms of productivity? Answer is simple- examine what contribution is made by historians, philosophers, sociologists and those practicing other branches of arts. If you find that they have made, be optimistic that some day with his study some astrologer would guide our nation on the path of prosperity like Kalidasa did in the time of King Vikramaditya. And if just hope doesn't satisfy you, ask an astrologer -- or else simply disbelieve everything you have read till here and call the writer vicious. You can surely do that, remember, we are a democratic country

At the very onset, I'd like to mention that by making a big deal about what the westerner or the scientist educated in sciences laid down by the west think or not of astrologers or divinators or psychics, or spiritualists, we are implicitly acknowledging that their opinions in these matters matter to us personally!

It is VERY SAD that Indians cannot get away from this mentality of having the west decide everything for us.  I have lived there for close to a decade and I can tell you that westerners don't care much about India or how Indians view them. They go about doing their own thing confidently and that is what matters. The problem with Indians is they lack the sincerity, the dedication and most importantly the  spine to portray themselves or their culture, hence come out as insecure or a mercenary at best. It's not India or the culture that is the problem, it's the Indians attitude that is the BIG problem. I have heard many Indians talk about "EKLA CHOLO RE" in jest, no wonder. Most are a mockery of the song although the song was written by an Indian, such is the mainstream yuppie Indians allegiance to the west.

All of the sciences, starting with what are known as pure sciences such as Physics and Chemistry, derived-sciences such as Biology (based on pure sciences -- although if one thinks of it, Physics is the only pure science because Chemistry is based on physical actions and interactions between atoms and so on...) or applied sciences such as Medicine, Engineering and Psychology (many scientists still wonder about its status as science as also sociology and the biggest hodge podge of all: Political Science!) are ultimately PHYSICAL SCIENCES.

Based on study of the finite, palpable, definable by PHYSICS and so on. Most science educated need to CLEARLY understand and acknowledge this first, if they are confused about this part, it is not even worth proceeding to argue with them because they don't have the brains, can't think no matter how educated they are. After all, university degrees are mere cloaks to hide the talent.

Literature, Poetry (also literature but deserves a special place ), scriptures, religious learnings and experiences, and the spiritual side of human experience are very important but beyond the comprehension or description that standard SCIENCE simply does not have the ability to explain. In simple terms, the westerner says since I cannot see this side of human experience with this fancy microscope I have, it does not exist, won't acknowledge it (but can't you FEEL? how retarded do you have to be to disregard your FEELINGS just because you can't see, it's just one of your senses or is that all you have?), no wonder they are so mechanical and robotic unless one curious soul among them decides to experience spirituality, shows up in India and ends up partying with page 3 folks in one of the metros or wanders aimlessly like a hippie without the slightest awareness that spirituality is not the proprietorship of any one nation, so tunnelled is their focus towards the material.

The most unfortunate part is cultures as spiritually rich as Indian trust this without a whimper, leave alone question, it's this submissive attitude and the betrayal of a few that has failed India numerous times in the past.  Until each and everyone of us, especially the yuppies make a serious attempt at rectifying such spinelessness, the west is always going to decide who we are, not because they want but because we want them to.

QUANTUM sciences are perhaps forming a bridge that approaches the two -- Science and Spiritualism, but quantum physicists are light years away from achieving anything concrete. Stephen Hawkins has literally made a habit of making an ass of himself by making weird statements about GOD and how big bang created the universe. The next logical question even the completely uneducated can ask, who created big bang then ? Stephen Hawkins? Vain scientist, need I say more ?

REALITY is HUGE and has different parallel pathways which if someone has the vision/foresight can see as merging (although it could be an illusion of perception!) but not quite yet!

So, we should stop calling the spiritual and related disciplines including astrology as western defined SCIENCE  and not feel the need to justify it as one or to give credence to scientists whose STOCK is running higher in the Market of Human Experience but rather continue on the arduous path we have chosen. Someday we shall FLY, but only if we do not get distracted by the other parallel throng!

AND with the BELLWETHER
Fanatics are crazy and Fanaticism on either side is deadly FOR BOTH SIDES! It wastes energy, lives and TIME better spent in the pursuit/pursuits one has chosen to work and strengthen...!

Note: Not everything in this post is my original idea.