Jyotihśāstra

1. Introduction
The highlight that “Astrology versus Science Controversy” has received now, owes its
origin to the UGC approval of the proposal for introduction of regular courses in Vedic
Astrology from the next academic year. A section of the intelligentsia has looked upon
the move as an attempt to legitimize pseudo-science and superstition. An appeal to the
UGC signed by a group of scientists reads as:

"We the members of the Indian scientific community feel that the proposal by the UGC
to introduce Vedic Astrology…in Indian universities is a giant leap backwards,
undermining whatever scientific credibility our country may have so far achieved. We
request the UGC to abandon this ill judged course of action."

As reported in Frontline of 7 February 1997, the study with academic rigor of the place of
astrology in the history of sciences and giving the subject the legitimacy of a science are
very different things - conclusive proof of astrology being nothing but mumbo-jumbo.
Magazine quoted Shawn Carlson of Berkeley University to drive their point that
seemingly successful astrological predictions were no better than random hits. UGC's
letter on the other hand stated:

→ "...there is an urgent need to rejuvenate the science of Vedic Astrology in India, to

allow the scientific knowledge to reach the society at large and to provide opportunities
to get this important science even exported to the world...

→ Vedic astrology is not only one of the main subjects of our traditional and classical
knowledge, but this is the discipline which lets us know the events happening in human
life and in the universe on time scale.

→ The distinguishing feature of this subject is that it makes us familiar with time, its
nature and feature and its effects on human life and other events and that way it helps us
manage and make optimal utilization of time. It is a common feature that despite methods
adopted for estimation, the events happen in different way and add to worries, tensions
and frustrations in life. Here, Vedic astrology can help to see the unforeseen, it being the
subject dealing with the time.''

A string of opinions relevant to the context of the present conference can also be found in
the above issue of the magazine:

• Eminent historian Romila Thapar

"The stated objective is so shallow as to be almost a caricature. How can any

educationist seriously argue that astrology helps us to foresee events and therefore
removes the worries, tensions and frustrations of life? Even those whose lives are
dictated to by astrology would not endorse such a statement. To call astrology 'scientific
knowledge' and to say that this 'important science needs to be exported to the world' is to
make fun of scientific knowledge, for, however important astrology may claim to be, its
fundamentals are not in conformity with scientific knowledge"

"Usually when new disciplines are introduced at the university level the request comes
from the university departments which have studied the discipline in depth and prepared
the pedagogy and structure of the subject. In the case of Vedic Astrology the procedure
has been reversed, presumably because the HRD Ministry is instructing the UGC."

• Professor Yash Pal

→ "I have no objection to studying the sociology and the anthropology of the era in
which astrology was born and the influence it has had on human history. This was an
important step in the growth of human cognition. This needs to be studied and
understood better. But all this is best done in one or more of the existing departments,
preferably in collaboration with each other. This is very different from establishing
structures to apply, with a utilitarian passion, the received wisdom of the distant past.
Setting up, almost like religious seminaries, separate departments protected from other
sensible ways of thinking would be a horrible mistake. I hope no self-respecting
university would ask to start such a department."

→ “Alignments and conjunctions of planets have minimal impact on the earth and
certainly none of it selectively on a person, depending on time or place of birth. Setting
up separate departments for astrology, almost like religious seminaries, protected from
other sensible ways of thinking, would be a horrible mistake. I hope no self-respecting
university would ask to start such a department''

• Prof. P.K. Srivastava [Professor of Physics, Delhi University]

"But here it is an attempt to close the process of inquiry. The UGC is telling us what astr
ology is and what the course should be. This is yet another prescriptive structure is being
imposed by the UGC. In this respect, it is no different from the other new courses that
have been introduced in the recent past, like those in electronics and computer
applications. My opposition to this proposal is more from the larger perspective of the
UGC telling us what is right and what we should do"

According to a statement issued by the Democratic Teachers Front (DTF), Delhi

University:

"The UGC proposal is at once ridiculous and dangerous. It is ridiculous because it seeks
at the beginning of the second millennium to pass off astrology as a science. It is
dangerous because it seeks to use the powers of the UGC to pressure universities to
introduce such courses…”

• Current Science, the premier Indian Journal of Science described astrology in the
words:

“A subject that comes cloaked in the garb of pseudo-science, purporting to make

definitive predictions on human affairs, based on planetary conjunction. Astrology has no
basis in planetary studies as practiced by scientists. Higher education in India was in a
dismal state, with crumbling standards and institutions across the country. By focusing
on astrology at a time when higher education needed sustained and careful attention, the
UGC appeared to have followed the example of the Emperor Nero”

• Dr. C.N.R. Rao

“It was one thing for people to believe in astrology and another for it to be introduced as
a course in universities. Personal faith and belief must not enter the public domain.
Astrology was not a science and did not conform to the established practices of science.
By introducing astrology as part of the university curriculum, the Government was
making it a bonafide science subject. This was a serious matter, which should be taken up
by the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet”

2. Contempt of the Scientists: Where lies the fault - in Astrology or in

scientific thinking?

Since the beginning of the modern scientific age, innumerable ancient and medieval
propositions have undergone scientific scrutiny, stood the tests of science and blossomed
in to scientific disciplines or gained recognition as theories of science. Astronomy is the
classic example without which astrology could not have evolved and the factors that
prevented astrology from emulating the destiny achieved by astronomy is that we need to
look in to in trying to answer the imbroglio – conflict between astrology and what we
term as modern science. All the cannons of astronomy revealed by the Rsis have
undergone refinement and humanity has gained a graphic picture of the heavens more
precisely than a being has the comprehension of his palm. In tracking the heavenly bodies
modern mind-set has scaled heights greater than those scaled by the ancient astronomers
and as such under normal circumstances modern science could have comprehended the
interpretation of that heavenly picture with equal ease. However, the situation is different.
It is doubtlessly clear when examined against the background of modern science that
astrology does not exclusively fit within the frame of observations and reasoning over
which astronomy is founded. What does this mean – Astrology is a pseudo-science or
supernormal science?

It is certainly either a pseudo-science or supernormal science and the task in the context
of the present conference is to identify its category, whether it’s pseudo or supernormal.
To achieve this identification of the true nature astrology we need to have a look at:

What makes a science?

How can a pseudo science be distinguished from science?

What may be described as a supernormal science?

3. What Makes a Science, Pseudo-science, and Supernormal science?

→ Modern Science in its manifestation is the method of exploring answers to the myriads
of questions that the phenomenal Universe invokes in us. It is not simply a bunch of
answers but a method by which we give shape to an intellectual comprehension of the
world, a consistent set of verified hypotheses that not only explains but also predicts the
behavior of the universe. Further, the bunch of knowledge is subject to continued test and
refinement by figuring out which explanation best predicts what actually happens, or best
fits the observations.

• Science is a human endeavor with the same basic faults of its inventors.

• Science is a questioning of the natural world and is therefore constantly and

systematically revisionary.

• Science uses data collected from the real world and quantifies that data.

• Science is the search for meaning in the data. Seeking inter-relationships, the
formation of testable theories, hypotheses and models.

• Science recognizes the assumptions on which it is based.

→ A pseudo science on the other hand starts out within the premises of an
unchallengeable hypothesis or a hypothesis that resists changes in contrast to the routine
refinement in science for better match with observations. No objective assessment of
experimental evidence even though some pseudo-scientists profess unconstrained beliefs,
open mind and constant refining of their tools. Pseudo-scientists are often characterized
by lack of critical inquiry, unwillingness to challenge ideas and the practice tend to be
fraudulent driven by selfish motives. Problem in pseudo-scientific thinking as outlined in
an article are:

• Anecdotes often quoted as evidence do not make a science

• Scientific vocabulary used does not make astrology a science
• Bold statements that do not make any sense/claims true
• Heresy does not equal correctness
• Burden of proof is ignored in making claims
• Unexplained is not inexplicable mystery
• Failures are ignored/ rationalized
• After-the-fact reasoning
• Coincidences that lack any design = mystery
• Representativeness not examined
• Appeals to mysterious and unknown forces
• Diversity of Astrological World Views
• Symbolism and the difficulty in testing of astrological claims
• Ideological immunity

→ A supernormal science can arise only under inquiring circumstances that defy the
intellectual approach of modern science - the criteria of evidence, experiments, the
weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the
many aspects of the methods of science which make it possible to draw accurate, reliable,
meaningful conclusions about the phenomena of the physical universe.

For the empiricists belief in the five senses is an act of faith and all that we call as science
will become a child’s play if a sixth sense develops in someone and opens up a new
window in to another dimension of the world. Modern science at the beginning of the 21st
century understands its limitations better than ever before and a supernormal science
could have evolved under a paradigm of thinking or a method of inquiry that transcended
these limitations of modern science. Cognition in modern science is through the five
senses and the conscious mind, which in no way can be considered as windows
exhaustive in to the different dimensions of the world. The sum total of the modern
scientific worldview achieves only a partial isomorphism with the phenomenal world.

The world of organisms – especially what we tend to describe as destiny – lie outside the
relatively small range of isomorphism achieved by modern science and it is in this
domain a pseudo-science manages its existence or a supernormal science confers
enlightenment. The philosophy of modern scientific pursuit does not take in to account
the subjective side of human experiences – the unexplored realms of human existence –
what we describe as the mysterious. We cannot rule out the possibility of scientific
pursuit in this arena, but that need not be of the same geometry or anatomy as the
objective sciences, or as of a precise structure as of science in its modern manifestation.
When we walk around experience tells us that the earth is flat but the truth is otherwise –
commonsense or even experimental evidences are not that decides the truth – as had
happened in the case of the theory of continental drift and also in subtle cases like the
wave theory of light. The complex organismic phenomena represented by Man remains a
mystery outside the isomorphic models of biologists and it is better to plead ignorance
rather than trying to serve a judgment that shall ultimately prove to be premature. As is
well known to modern scientists “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and
this applies in general to many controversial aspects of Man’s existence, especially with
regard to the domain we describe as ‘spiritual’.

Brain corrupts the revelation of senses and the scientific hypotheses are nothing but
imaginations consisting of distortion of the sensory data - as Werner Heisenberg
observed: "What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of
questioning" - our perceptions of reality are influenced by the “theories framing our
examination” of it. This is true not only for quantum physics but also for all observations
of the world. It is well known among scientists that the equipments construct results and
it is worth noting that the world of science expanded with the invention of new and new
telescopes and the same has to be true about the sensory equipment – science in no way
debars the existence of a supersensory world. If we want to do science, we have to learn
to play the game of science and in the same manner if we want to do astrology we have to
learn the game of astrology. It is not proper to demand the game of astrology in the field
of restricted sensory science.

4. Astrology As Practiced today is Fraudulent?

 [Observations Collected from the Internet]

1. Astrology, as the majority of astrologers presently practices it, offers no valid

contribution to any understanding of our Organismic world or of the cosmos.
2. Philosophical notions like the ‘equivalence of microcosm and macrocosm’ [as
above, so below] and 'Universal interconnectedness' play very little role in the
astrology under application.
3. There is little consensus on basic issues in astrology, and little agreement on how
to settle differences among astrological techniques and theories.
4. Astrological symbolism is unsystematic and based on metaphors, analogies,
verbal associations, and mythology, all of which are developed in different ways
by astrologers with no clear way of evaluating them.
5. The philosophies or world-views associated with astrology are underdeveloped or
poorly articulated. Modern advocates cannot provide research studies that have
results commensurate with the claims made in astrology books.
6. Astrologers overwhelmingly rely on anecdotes or testimonials as central evidence,
seemingly either unaware or uninterested in the potential flaws and biases
inherent in such stories as evidence.
7. Astrology as a discipline is a prime example of what happens when advocates
consider only confirming evidence for their multitude of conflicting claims with
little regard for contrary evidence, which is either 'explained away' by appeals to
other parts of the horoscope, or with slogans like "the complexity of astrology",
and "astrology is another way of viewing the world."
8. In Western culture until Newton the views of astrologers and scientists were not
so very different. There was widespread belief that all phenomena in the inferior
elemental world of nature were governed in some way by the motions of the
superior and incorruptible celestial bodies.
9. However, since Newton, the views of astrologers and scientists have become
increasingly opposed.
10. Astrologers today still hold that the connection between celestial and earthly
phenomena is so strong that knowing the heavens allows us to explain and/or
predict the earthly happenings. But scientists and philosophers disagree. The
terrestrial and cosmological sciences, including the life sciences and social
sciences, even though no less interested in extraterrestrial relations with earthly
events, do not provide any support to these realms of our existence as advocated
by astrologers.
11. The symbolic basis of mythology, analogies, metaphors, and verbal associations
that underpin astrological claims are fraught with very problematic
methodological issues. For one thing, much of astrological lore conflicts with
what we have discovered about the solar system. The planet Venus is associated
with aesthetics, love, and an individual's sense of internal harmony. However, we
have discovered, over the last century, that Venus is more like Hades with its
 blistering high temperatures, lava-covered landscape, and sulphuric acid clouds. It
is even hotter than Mercury, although twice as far from the sun. The point is that
most of the symbolism modern astrologers use was created in times when the then
astronomer/astrologers had no idea whatever about the physical characteristics of
the planets.
12. There is little worldwide agreement on central tenets of astrology, let alone
agreement on how astrological issues can be resolved.
13. Research into astrology have provided no evidence that astrology does work, at
least not in the way and to the extent claimed by astrologers. Of course, every
time we wake up with the sun, or plan barbecues on moonlit nights, or go fishing
at high tide, we are showing how celestial bodies have real impact on our lives.
But this is very different from the symbolic connection claimed by astrologers.
Other channels of relationship might exist and science is certainly open for
unexpected discoveries (including celestial effects on human behaviour). But in
the sciences, tradition and authorities are not deified as they are in astrology.
Astrologers (unlike scientists), in general, can be characterized as less interested
in discovering the truth of their assertions, and more interested in making a case
for propositions already accepted in advance.
14. Before 1950 very few scientific studies of astrology existed. Most critiques of
astrology over the centuries focused on the problematic nature of astrological
theory or the gap between the claims of astrologers and their actual performance.
Something like a dozen major statistical compilations by astrologers had appeared
since 1900, notably in France, Germany, England and the USA, but none were
widely known, and in any case their methodology was too poor (e.g. no controls)
for meaningful results. In 1955 Michel Gauquelin published his landmark
L'Influence des Astres, the first rigorous study of astrological claims, with
generally negative results but with what seemed to be provocative exceptions.

15. During the next two decades various factors combined to establish a small but
continuing interest in astrological research, namely the booming popular interest
in astrology, further work by Gauquelin (e.g. 1966, 1969), the occasional
astrology-related paper in a scientific journal, and not least by astrologers
themselves founding research-oriented bodies such as the Astrological
Association (UK) in 1958 and the International Society for Astrological Research
(USA) in 1970. The result was a notable increase in the number of critical studies.
 16. In the 1970s there appeared various critiques of the occult that included astrology
and critiques devoted entirely to astrology. The Dean and Mather1 (1977) book
was the first comprehensive critical review of astrology's scientific research base.
It documented over 150 empirical studies published in astrology journals and over
twenty published in psychology journals. The research interest that Dean and
Mather (1977) stimulated led to the foundation in 1981 of Correlation, an
international peer-reviewed journal devoted entirely to scientific research into
astrology, followed in 1982 by Astro-Psychological Problems, oriented more to
Gauquelin interests. By then the advent of home computers in the late 1970s had
revolutionized astrological practice and research. Calculating a birth chart (as well
as the often required complementary charts, such as progressions, transits, etc.),
once took anywhere from an hour to a day; now it could be done in seconds,
allowing researchers to do studies that were previously unthinkable. Today there
is a scholarly research base that covers most of the basic claims of astrology.
Even sun sign columns have been tested (Dean & Mather, 2000)2. The outcome
from all this, in what probably amounts to well over two hundred person-years of
research, is almost uniformly negative (Dean, Mather, & Kelly, 1996)3.
17. Critical reviews of astrology in the light of research findings, post 1980, include
those by psychologists Eysenck and Nias (1982)4, astronomers Culver and Ianna
(1988)5, Crowe6 (1990), skeptics Martens and Trachet (1998)7, and Bible scholars
Ankerberg and Weldon (1989)8 and Bourque9 (1997). The most recent reviews
and the first to include meta-analyses are by Kelly, Dean and Saklofske (1990)10
and Dean, Mather, and Kelly (1996). Critiques of philosophical, religious or
social aspects of astrology include Kelly and Krutzen (1983)11, Leahey and
Leahey (1983)12, Thagard (1980)13, Kanitscheider (1991)14, Dean (1992)15, Dean
and Loptson (1996)16, Kelly (1998)17, and Spencer (2000)18.

1
Dean, G., & Mather, A. (1977). Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976. Rockport, Mass.:
Para Research, Inc.
2
Dean, G. & Mather, A. (2000). Sun Sign Columns, Skeptical Inquirer, 24 (5), 36-40
3
Dean, Mather, & Kelly, (1996), Astrology. In G. Stein (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the paranormal (pp. 47-99), Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus Books.
4
Eysenck & Nias, (1982), Astrology: Science or Superstition? New York: Penguin Books
5
Culver, R., & Ianna, P. (1988) Astrology: True or False? A Scientific Evaluation, NY: Prometheus Books
6
Crowe, R. (1990), Astrology and the Scientific Method, Psychological Reports, 67, 163-191
7
Martens & Trachet, (1998), Making Sense of Astrology, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
8
Ankerberg & Weldon, (‘89), Astrology: Do the Heavens Rule our Destiny? Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House.
9
Bourque, A. (1997) Astrology: An Assessment of Its Validity, Appeal and Potential Harm. MA thesis. Dept. of
Religion, Carleton University.
10
Kelly, I. W., Dean, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (1990). Astrology: A Critical Review. In P. Grim (Ed.), Philosophy of
Science and the Occult (2nd ed., pp.51-81). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
11
Kelly, I. W., & Krutzen, R. (1983). Humanistic Astrology: A Critique. Skeptical Inquirer, 81, 62-73
12
Leahey, T. H., & Leahey, G. E. (1983). Psychology's Occult Doubles: Psychology and the Problem of
Pseudoscience. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
13
Thagard, P. (1980). Resemblance, Correlation and Pseudoscience, In M. Hanen, M. Osler, & R. G. Weyant (Eds.),
Science, Pseudoscience and Society (pp. 85-102), Ottawa: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
14
Kanitscheider, B. (‘91). A Philosopher Looks at Astrology. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 16, 258-266
15
Dean, G. (1992). Does Astrology Need to be True? In K. Frazier (Ed.), The Hundredth Monkey and Other
Paradigms of the Paranormal (pp. 279-319). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
16
Dean, G., Loptson, P., & Kelly, I. W. (1996). Theories of Astrology, Correlation, 15, 17-52
17
Kelly, I. W. (1998). Why Astrology Doesn't Work. Psychological Reports, 82, 527-546
18
Spencer, W. (2000). Are the Stars Coming Out? Secularization and the Future of Astrology in the West, Paper
presented at the British Sociological Association (Sociology of Religion Study Group), University of Exetor, March
29-April 1.
 18. Reviews of the arguments of astrologers include Kelly, Culver, and Loptson
(1989)19, Dean, Mather, and Kelly (1996), Dean (1997)20, and Kelly (1999,
2000)21. Theories of astrology (including Jung's synchronicity theory) are
critically examined in Dean, Loptson and Kelly (1996)22 and Dean, Ertel, Kelly,
Mather, and Smit (2000)23. Descriptions of the Gauquelin work include Gauquelin
(1983, 1988)24 and Ertel (1989-1997)25 and Dean (1985-2000)26.

19. The 'Mars effect' is specifically addressed by Benski et al. (1996)27, whose
conclusions are disputed by Ertel and Irving (1996). The cognitive and perceptual
biases that can underlie belief in astrology are briefly reviewed by Dean (1992)
and in detail by Dean, Kelly, Saklofske and Furnham (1992)28, and Dean, Kelly
and Mather (1999)29. The social-psychological reasons for belief in astrology are
described by Durant and Bauer (1997)30, Lindeman (1998)31, and astrology along
with other paranormal phenomena in Goode (2000 b)32. Recent critiques of the
occult that cover astrology include Couttie (1988)33, Hines (1988)34, and Neher
(1990)35.

19
Kelly, I. W., Culver, R., & Loptson, P. (1989). Arguments of the Astrologers, In S. K. Biswas, D. C. V. Malik & C.
V. Vishveshwara (Eds.), Cosmic Perspectives (pp. 207-231). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20
Dean, G., (1997), The Truth of Astrology Competition; A Summary of Each Entry and some Implications for
Researchers. Correlation, 16, 2, 40- 56.
21
Kelly, I.W. (1999). 'Debunking the Debunkers': A Response to an Astrologer's Debunking of Skeptics. Skeptical
Inquirer, 23(6), 37-43. Kelly, I.W. (2000). Critical Comments on Valerie Vaughan's 'Rebunking the Debunkers'
22
Dean, G., Loptson, P., & Kelly, I. W. (1996). Theories of Astrology, Correlation, 15, 17-52
23
Dean, G., Ertel, S., Kelly, I.W., Mather, A., & Smit (2000), Chapters 9 & 10, In G. Phillipson (Ed.). Astrology In the
Year Zero. London: Flare Publications
24
Gauquelin, M. (1983). Birthtimes: A scientific Investigation of the Secrets of Astrology. New York: Hill and Wang.
Gauquelin, M. (1988). Written in the Stars. Wellingborough: Aquarian Press.
25
Ertel, S. (1989). Purifying Gauquelin's 'Grain of Gold': Planetary Effects Defy Physical Interpretation. Correlation
9, 5-23. Ertel, S. (1990). Scrutinizing Gauquelin's Character Trait Hypothesis Once Again. Correlation, 10, 3-19. Ertel,
S. (1992). Update On the 'Mars Effect'. Skeptical Inquirer, 16, 150-160. Ertel, S. (1993). Why the Character Trait
Hypothesis Still Fails. Correlation, 12, 2-9. Ertel, S. (2000). Gauquelin's Planetary Effects - Made Up by Superstitious
parents? On Geoffrey Dean's Erroneous Grand Notion. Astrology Under Scrutiny, 13 (1&2), 73-84. Ertel, S., & Irving,
K. (1996). The Tenacious Mars Effect. London: Urania Trust. Ertel, S., & Irving, K. (1997). Bias in Mars Effect
Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11, 1-18.
26
Dean, G. (1985). Can Astrology Predict E and N: The Whole Chart. Correlation, 5, 2-24. Dean, G. (1992). Does
Astrology Need to be True? In K. Frazier (Ed.), The Hundredth Monkey and Other Paradigms of the Paranormal (pp.
279-319). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Dean, G. (1993). Astrology Strikes Back - But to What Effect?: Review of
Parry's 'Astrology's Complete Book of Self-Defense' and West's 'The Case for Astrology'. Skeptical Inquirer, 18, 42-49.
Dean, G. (1996a). Review of the Magi Society's 'Astrology Really Works'. Skeptical Inquirer, 21, 46-48. Dean, G.
(1996b). A Re-assessment of Jung's Astrological Experiment. Correlation, 14, 12-22. Dean, G. (1998) Meaningful
Coincidences: Parallels between Phrenology and Astrology. Correlation, 17, 1, 9- 40. Dean, G. (2000a). Attribution: A
Pervasive New Artifact In the Gauquelin data. Astrology Under Scrutiny, 13, 1&2, 1- 72. Dean, G. (2000b). Reply to
Ertel. Astrology Under scrutiny, 13, 1&2, 85-87
27
Benski, C., Caudron, D., Galifret, Y., Krivine, J., Pecker, J., Rouze, M., & Schatzman, E. (1996). The 'Mars Effect':
A French Test of Over 1000 Sports Champions. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
28
Dean, G., Kelly, I. W., Saklofske, D. H., & Furnham, A. (1992). Graphology and Human Judgement. In B.
Beyerstein & D. Beyerstein (Eds.), The Write Stuff: Evaluations of Graphology (pp. 342-396). Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books.
29
Dean, G., Kelly, I.W., & Mather, A. (1999) Astrology and Human Judgement. Correlation, 17 (2), 24-71.
30
Durant, J., & Bauer, M. (1997). British Public Perceptions of Astrology: An Approach From the Sociology of
Knowledge. Culture and Cosmos, 1 (1), 55-71.
31
Lindeman, M. (1998). Motivation, Cognition, and Pseudoscience. Scandinavan Journal of Psychology, 39, 257-265.
32
Goode, E. (2000b) Paranormal beliefs: A Sociological Investigation. Prospect heights, Illinois: Waveland press.
33
Couttie, B. (1988). Forbidden Knowledge: The Paranormal Paradox. Cambridge UK: Lutterworth Press.
34
Hines, T. (1988). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
35
Neher, A. (1990). The psychology of Transcendence. New York: Dover.
 20. Since the mid-1970s, psychology journals have averaged a steady total per year of
about two empirical studies of astrological claims, plus an equal number devoted
to related topics such as the acceptance of astrological statements or the
prevalence of belief in astrology, all of them easily accessible via the American
Psychological Association's computerized abstract database.

21. Recent Shifts In Astrological Ideas

• Classical (traditional) astrology was associated with prognostication and relatively
specific, testable hypotheses about planetary configurations and human activities.
Until the twentieth century, astrologers have held that the stellar connection
mainly reflected actual outward human behaviour, but today among the influential
group of psychological astrologers there is the tendency to put main weight on
Jungian archetypes and (usually psychoanalytic) structures underlying personality
- "astrology only plays a role in the mental plane and does not express itself
consistently or systematically in events or behavior" (Terpstra, 1994, p.42)36.
• Direct connection of horoscopic factors with outward behavior and external
events is played down. Instead the emphasis is with theoretical psychic structures
that are symbolically connected to the planets.

20. In the latter half of the twentieth century, many astrologers thought scientific
investigations could confirm many of the claims of astrology. Since the 1950's
both astrologers and researchers sympathetic to astrology conducted many
studies. The picture that emerged out of this research, as pointed out, was mostly
bad news for astrology. But negative studies, even when they are cumulative,
have been 'explained away' and dismissed in many different ways by astrologers,
such as the stars incline but not compel, or the astrologer or the technique is not
infallible, allowing them to maintain their belief in astrology whatever the
evidence or criticisms (see Kelly, 1998)37.
22. Accounts often put forward by astrologers for the origin and justification of
postulated celestial relationships with outward behavior/activities of human
beings (traditional astrology), or inner structures of consciousness (modern
psychological astrology) are problematic and implausible in the extreme. We can
conclude that astrology, as presently practiced by most astrologers, in its
multifaceted, often contradictory variations (all of which claim truths that
allegedly transcend both time and space) is not a reliable source of information or
knowledge about ourselves.
23. Anomalies and problems do not result in constructive attempts to revise the
conceptual basis of astrology or extend it in ways that would allow astrologers to
learn from failures as they do in orthodox disciplines (Mayo, 1996)38. Rather, they
are dealt with by the use of metaphors that lead nowhere and constantly shifting
ad hoc hypotheses that are not independently testable. Confirmations are readily
36
Terpstra, B. (1994). Comments on Dean & Mather. Correlation, 13, 39-42.
37
Kelly, I. W. (1998). Why Astrology Doesn't Work. Psychological Reports, 82, 527-546.
38
Mayo, D. G. (1996), Ducks, Rabbits and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn's-eye View of Popper's Demarcation
of science. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 47, 271-290
 attributed as support, but failures can be hidden in the complexity of astrology and
never need confront any specific astrological hypotheses. Hence, the general
indifference of most astrologers to negative evidence (Mayo, 1996, pp 280-282;
Kelly, 1998).
24. The failure of physical models to provide a plausible underpinning for
astrological tenets has resulted in a shift to, or returns to, more animistic,
transcendental world-views. While astrology is more "plausible" within such
world-views, it is so only in the banal sense that such frameworks provide fewer
constraints on what may be postulated than modern scientific formulations of the
world.
25. The appeal to transcendent world-views allows astrologers' postulations to
override or sidestep any physical laws that may conflict with astrological
philosophizing (Evans, 1994)39. Astrologers who advocate such world-views do
not provide articulated positions capable of constructive evaluation and
improvement, but rather, couch their 'framework' in terms of spiritual/occult
expressions, along with passing references to modern physics and allied
disciplines to appear contemporary and fashionable. These convolutions (e.g.
'animating spirits', 'sympathies', 'pure consciousness', 'resonant bonds of vibratory
frequencies', 'psychic anatomy', etc.) are not ascribed properties to be of any
useful explanatory value. We are left with a disparate set of ideas taken out of
context from various, often incompatible, ancient world-views, juxtaposed
together without any coherent, interlocking metaphysics.
26. There is little agreement within astrology on what astrological factors should be
considered in a chart (that is, what factors can be ignored), nor how selected
factors should be combined, nor which factors make the strongest contribution in
the birth chart, nor how to collect relevant data to resolve even the most basic
astrological disputes. Astrology consequently does not have the conceptual
resources to deal with its own anomalies, let alone to contribute to findings in
other fields (such as psychology or biology) other than by arbitrary means and
sophistry. Astrological interpretations from birth charts are based on an
unsystematic hodge-podge of physical symbolisms, word associations, analogies,
mythological connections and idiosyncratic contributions of individual
astrologers, as well as authority and tradition. Astrology is part of our past, but
astrologers have given no plausible reason why it should have a role in our future
except for its undeniable historical value.
It is undoubtedly clear from the above spectrum of observations and references that
astrology as under practice is not a science. Apart from the researches that have taken
place in the western world, we have in India too ample illustrations of the unscientific
prejudices and ignorance that rules the roost in the field of astrology. The scientific spirit
of any student of astrology may receive a severe jolt when he comes to know in the
course of his study that innumerable mathematical abstractions of the ecliptic are under
use in the name of Zodiac exclusively based on arbitrary choice. Divergent systems as

39
Evans, H. (1994). Critical Review of West's 'The Case for Astrology', Journal of Scientific Exploration, 8, 411-415
“Tropical” and “Sidereal” and the multiplicity of the sidereal Zodiac may make even the
most irrational of students wonder as to what kind of science astrology is!

Followers of the different schools of astrology preaching and teaching the same
fundamental principles regarding planetary, zodiacal and house characteristics and
functions but differing radically when it comes to mathematical conception of longitudes
is nothing but an absurd corpus of literature that has come to accumulate over the ages
under a pseudo-scientific paradigm of development and practice.
Astrology prevailing today is based on an absurd corpus of literature that facilitates any
number of conflicting predictions or postmortem explanations for events and therefore
people having very little notions about science are able to see it 'working' everywhere.
Just look around and see –who all are the practitioners of astrology today? Where do they
stand academically in relation to the advanced state of science today? On the contrary
what was the situation three or four hundred years before? Astrology was in the hands of
the geniuses of those days and traditional schooling in astrology was by no means an easy
task. There were no shortcuts in those days to become an astrologer as these days have.
Astrological business needs no experience of science – the farther you are away from
science the better…. Like underworld pseudoscience is a reality and it survives: See for
example:
• Two volumes of a book published from Bangalore on how to judge a horoscope.
Not a single horoscope given in those volumes are correct even as per the
arbitrary Zodiac (ayanāmśa) professed by its authors. But still that book has run
into 8 or 9 editions without any revision of the erroneous contents. Is this possible
in the field of science?
• One of the premiere magazines on the subject – ‘The astrological magazine’ has
no rationale to offer in support of the arbitrary Zodiac it professes. It takes shelter
under the adage: “Proof of the pudding is in the eating”.
• Look at the earthquake predictions. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is making
astrological predictions about the earthquakes without giving any cognizance to
the geology involved. Can we such things in science?
• There are many articles coming out as outcomes of research in astrology. Most of
them are nonsense and can be invalidated using probability theory. But people
tend to carry them as predictive tools as they give occasional hits. Adequate
scientific knowledge is lacking among astrologers to realize the folly of their
conceptions. Many times it’s simply a game of chance if not a game of niyati.
• Popular magazines of the field – all have vested interests and have no truthful
policy of advancing the cause of astrology by publishing true studies of the
subject.
• As astrology partakes, the features of an occult/esoteric discipline common people
and the society as such is unable to conceive a framework of accountability for
the astrologers.
These circumstances demand creative steps to eliminate the fraudulent business going on
in the name of astrology. Proliferation of pseudoscientific research in astrology can be
curtailed only by imparting institutionalized formal training in the subject. Curriculum
needs to be drawn with creative insight to make the astrologers of future good
mathematicians and astronomers as well. If the training fails to invoke a devoted
affiliation to science the practice astrology shall continue on a non-axiomatic
pseudoscientific level and nothing can be more calamitous to our education system, our
national character and our heritage.