skeptics

I’ve been thinking about the classification of astrology as a “pseudoscience” ever since the now well-known study appeared that indicated an “unsettling growth” in the belief in pseudoscience such as astrology and visits by extraterrestrial aliens.

In the first place, the lumping together of astrology with extraterrestrial alien visits is puzzling, but this is likely the result of the media and most scientists believing that sun sign “horoscopes” are astrology, and then horoscopes and alien visits become fodder for tabloid journalism.

Richard Tarnas in his excellent book Cosmos and Psyche writes that as human intelligence has become more scientific there has been a loss of a sense of connection with the natural world; a loss of a sense that the universe is magic and soulful. (For a fascinating philosophical discussion of this book and its implications see this debate on an Amazon discussion board.) As we astrologers know, everyone is wired differently; some of us have strong Neptune/Pisces influences that impel us to seek out experiences beyond the realms of “reality.” Some have strong Uranus/Aquarius influences that require a logical basis for their belief system.

From Wikipedia:

Popper considered astrology to be pseudoscientific simply because astrologers keep their claims so vague that they could never be refuted, whereas Thagard considers astrology pseudoscientific because its practitioners make little effort to develop the theory, show no concern for attempts to critically evaluate the theory in relation to others, and are selective in considering evidence.

I confess to being one of these practitioners that shows no concern for critically evaluating whether astrology works or to prove it to others. For me and most other practitioners the question is this: Does it help me? […]