The Stars Fail to Align with Astrology as a Science
Whether we are flipping through the pages of a weekly paper or monthly magazine, we all look forward to reading our horoscopes. All those born from February 19 to March 20 are grouped under the Pisces sign, in that time span millions of people are born. Could all these millions of people show similar behaviour or experience similar events because they happen to be born around the same time? This starts to sound more like a hasty generalization, making these astrological predications less certain. The core principles of astrology are explaining human and natural events through the cosmos. In terms of science, astrology is uncertain because through a definition of science and through an understanding of what encompasses astrology, it can be concluded that astrology should not be considered a science, by lack of universal principles and sufficient evidence. Ironically, astrology lacks universal principles. Astrology loses its credibility by lack of consistency, and only with consistency is a reliable method attained. Science is based on inductive reasoning, meaning nothing is ever absolutely true or false, however reliability can be measured to bring them closer to “truthness,” by mounting evidence or lack of it. When it comes to the planets, there is frequent disagreement, such as, how they are used, the number and consideration of asteroids (Kelly, Ivan). On the principle that force weakens with distance, Phil Plait argues it is impossible for all planets to have equal force on earth, as astrologists suggest. Saturn is linked to the action of control, and Mercury is connected to the action of communicating, both cannot have the same amount of influence over human actions if Mercury is a lot closer, even after taking into account the greater mass of Saturn. He adds that asteroids come within closer distance of earth, but go unaccounted for by some astrologists. The only explanation offered is a weak response...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document