Astrology Is A Pseudoscience Summary

In the article, “Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience” Thagard makes the claim that astrology is a pseudoscience by constructing a demarcation criterion of his own that combats those of previous philosophers and applying it to the theory of astrology and other similar disciplines. In this essay, I will give new reason to accept Thagard’s premise that astrology is dramatically unprogressive which is what he believes to be one the most unscientific aspects of astrology. I will do this by introducing another theoretical problem that astrology presents and that I consider to be characteristic of the paradigm-dominated problem solving nature of what is considered “normal science” (228). I will then argue for the soundness of Thagard’s principles by emphasizing the unprogressive nature of astrology. Thagard’s premise that astrology is unprogressive is the first principle of his demarcation criterion, “A theory is
My concern here is not entirely focused on how C-sections can affect the predictions of one’s Zodiac but more so the reluctance of astrology to adapt to the modern. C-sections and other such complications during childbirth can cause time differences that come in conflict with the basis of astrology. This person now has the option to choose when their child is born rather adhering to what has been predicted by the planets. I highly doubt that cesarean sections were common during the time of Ptolemy. So that is one transparent example of an aspect of astrology that should be upgraded and that I believe argues for Thagard’s conclusion that what makes astrology pseudoscientific is its obvious inability to progress, especially when it is being compared to other alternative