FANDOM


Below analyses of arguments being made astrology. The arguments are taken from the question & answer-site Quora. 

Analysis 1

Some criticisms are more common than others. Let us pick such a one to start off with:

Western astrology is a sun-based astrology, meaning that your sign depends on which constellation the sun is located in when you are born. However, because of the non-uniform coverage of constellations across the sky and the peculiar motions of the earth across the past 5000-10000 years, the dates we commonly assign to astrological signs (such as November 23-December 22 for Sagittarius, my sign) don't align at all with the sun's location in Sagittarius. Also, the sun spends time in a 13th constellation not in the classical Zodiac- Ophiuchus. So even IF you acknowledge that the position of suns and planets in constellations have an impact on your future (in complete contradiction with every scientific test ever performed), the astrological predictions you read in the paper would necessarily be entirely wrong, given that they are giving you false information. 

[Spelling of Sagittarius was incorrect and has been amended.] The question was What are the best arguments against astrology? and is posted to the topic Astrology. You will need a Quora membership (which is free) to be able to read all answers to the question.

Having picked one, now let us pick it apart.

Assertion 1 — Astrology is about constellations

Western astrology is a sun-based astrology, meaning that your sign depends on which constellation the sun is located in when you are born.

Correction

No, Western astrology is not based upon constellations but upon signs. These two are different things. Signs are divisions of the ecliptic, not of the entire sky. 

Assertion 2 — Precession matters

[B]ecause of the non-uniform coverage of constellations across the sky and the peculiar motions of the earth across the past 5000-10000 years, the dates we commonly assign to astrological signs (such as November 23-December 22 for Sagittarius, my sign) don't align at all with the sun's location in Sagittarius.

Correction

The starting point of the twelve signs is determined by the vernal equinox, which is quite independent of the constellations and determined solely by the relationship between earth and the Sun. In other words, precession—which is what is referred to—is irrelevant.

Assertion 3 — There exists a 13th sign

Also, the sun spends time in a 13th constellation not in the classical Zodiac- Ophiuchus.

Correction

It is correct that there is exists a constellation by the name of Ophiuchus. However, as astrology is not based upon constellations but upon signs, this is irrelevant in an argument against astrology.

Assertion 4 — Science is investigating astrology

So even IF you acknowledge that the position of suns and planets in constellations have an impact on your future (in complete contradiction with every scientific test ever performed), 

Correction

For now, let it be noted that this is an unbacked assertion and also a contentious one. It is also written in a way that takes the above mentioned mistakes for granted, when it is the case that astrologers do not make claims about constellations.

We may also note that this unbacked contentious assertion comes from someone who does not even know the rudimentary basics about astrology. We shall return to the topic of scientific testing in a later blog post.

Assertion 5 — Tabloids give astrological predictions

the astrological predictions you read in the paper would necessarily be entirely wrong, given that they are giving you false information

Correction

Astrological predictions in newspapers need have nothing whatsoever to do with astrology as practiced by astrologers, for which reason a reference to such is irrelevant. Case in point would be that the serial skeptic James Randi worked as faux-astrologer in his youth, fabricating astrological interpretations.

Analysis 2

Let us look at another answer:

So, if Sagittarius will get sick this week, there will be 7.000.000.000 / 12 = 583.333.333 sick people. Do we have enough medicine or hospital?

[Spelling of Sagittarius has been corrected.]

Assertion 6 — Astrologers make specific predictions for the global population

So, if Sagittarius will get sick this week, there will be 7.000.000.000 / 12 = 583.333.333 sick people. 

Correction

The kind of example is obviously ridiculous. Presumably the poster of this answer thinks he is funny, but what it really shows is that he does not know what kind of predictions astrologers make. Certainly there are astrologers making predictions for sign columns in newspapers that make very generic predictions, but you will not find a real astrologer making the prediction given in the example. 

Analysis 3

This is a more odd one:

Gravitational lenses.

The fact that gravity bends light means that whatever position the stars one observing from earth's frame of reference isn't its actual position.

Assertion 7 — Gravitational lensing should be considered by astrologers

Gravitational lenses. 

Correction

Astrology does not consider objects distant enough for gravitational lensing to matter in positioning. 

Assertion 8 — The ’actual’ position of an object in space should be considered by astrologers

The fact that gravity bends light means that whatever position the stars one observing from earth's frame of reference isn't its actual position.

Correction

a) Astrologers use astronomical data

Astronomers do not consider the ’actual’ position of an object in space any more than astrologers do. The data astrologers use is astronomical, so if the data is somehow not scientific, this argument would simultaneously be an argument that astronomers are not scientific. However, people do not seem to make that claim. 

b) Astrologers do not consider the stars

Objects that are outside the solar system are not as such considered by astrologers, who work with the Sun, the Moon and the planets. Obviously, as the stars are not changing in relation to one another—that is why they are called fixed stars—and to consider what is practically the same for every human being alive would not offer any information about an individual

c) The speed of light makes it impossible to know the ’real’ position of a star

Even if astrologers would be considering the fixed stars neither we, nor astronomers, could know the position of a stars ’now” as we only have the light now reaching us to base any conclusion upon. As is nowadays well known, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. We do not know if our local star Sol ceased to shine five minutes ago as it takes eight minutes for its light to reach earth. Assumptions about a star’s ”real” position, thus, can only be conjectural. The whole idea flies in the face of the establishment via relativity of the speed of light as the ultimate speed for information.

Analysis 4 

Answer quote:

The universe is fast expanding, old stars are dying and new stars are appearing, planets are slowly changing their orbits. Collectively, these bodies may be able to exert their gravitational pull on earth (in fact they do..tides et al) - but - here's the bit - can these planetary bodies individually pick you out from a crowd? Can Jupiter reach out to you individually and cause you an impact which is different in scale from the impact it can cause your co-worker in the next cubicle?

Assertion 9 — Gravitation matters in astrology

The universe is fast expanding, old stars are dying and new stars are appearing, planets are slowly changing their orbits. Collectively, these bodies may be able to exert their gravitational pull on earth (in fact they do..tides et al) - but - here's the bit - can these planetary bodies individually pick you out from a crowd? 

Correction

Astrologers do not suggest that gravity is a mechanism by which astrology works.

Assertion 10 — Astrology claims planets interact with people as individuals

can these planetary bodies individually pick you out from a crowd?

Correction

Personal horoscopes are based upon the birth moment, which is when a person becomes a part of the shared world. To say that this moment is important is not to say that planets somehow ’pick you out’. The most common idea among astrologers is rather that what we have is correlation. As is well known, correlation is not causation.

Analysis 5

This is an answer to the question What are the best arguments against astrology?

”Haath ki lakiron par mat kismat ka gumaan karna, kismat to unki bhi hoti hai jinke haath nahin hote.” 

It basically translates to the fact that believing that one's destiny is governed by the stars or palm lines is foolish indeed, because even people who don't have hands have a destiny of their own.

[Quotation marks added for clarification.]

Assertion 11 — Because some people do not have hands, astrology is foolish.

Correction

Actually, strictly speaking, the above argument does not even assert anything as what it does is to provide a metaphor and then attack the metaphor. In other words, it may possibly be true for palmistry, but as there is no one born outside of time and space—which are the coordinates a horoscope uses—the parallel between palmistry and astrology is invalid. On a side note, astrologers do not believe that ”one’s destiny is governed by the stars” (see above).

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.