28 January, 2013

Astrology: Science or Pseudoscience?

Astrology can be easily misunderstood.   One reason for this is that general daily horoscopes, which are fun to read and consider, are rarely accurate.  This is because of astrology's complexity.  You are not just a Scorpio, or a Taurus although one of these may be your sun sign.  Rather, you are a complex blend of planets in 12 houses, depending upon the date, and latitude and longitude at the exact time of your birth. As stated by noted astrologer Katherine de Jersey, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," which refers to knowing only your sun sign, and/or the overall general transits that affect everyone based on astronomical planetary configurations.
       Astrology is often regarded with skepticism and considered unscientific.  But a scientific hypothesis must be observed and tested over time.*  Astrologers were the scientists (and often the astronomers) of the ancient world.  Astrology is over 2,000 years old, based on careful observation by scholars from one civilization to  another.   A study that has been exclusive to our solar system's affect on an individual.  Much like science, it has been tested repeatedly over time, resulting in formulas that replicate unique, often surprisingly exact characteristics of  individuals.  Only expert astrologers can interpret the complexity of each horoscope chart.  As advanced as technology is in quickly computing what once took days to calculate, computerized charts still contain broad descriptions that are often incomplete and inaccurate unless sifted and balanced by an astrologer.
       For those who have been surprised by the accuracy of their birth charts, astrology cannot be easily discounted as an inaccurate pseudoscience.  Nor can expert methods of calculation and analysis be easily dismissed.  Still, it is best when it's done by an astrologer who has studied and assimilated its nuances.

*"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations"


No comments:

Post a Comment