Does astrology need the approval of modern science?
© 1999 Hamish Saunders
�Vilified by science for three centuries, derided by
philosophy, psychology, medicine, the law and every other
branch of modern learning, astrology refuses to
die�.
So states the blurb on the back cover of �The Case for
Astrology� by John Anthony West & Jan Gerhard Toonder.
Since their book was first published nearly thirty years ago
a lot has changed in the world and opinions about astrology
and its detractors have changed with it. The modernist
scientific genre is being eclipsed, or at least
complemented, by the post-modernist approach, which favours
ultimate scepticism that any technique can have all the
answers. There is a cornucopia of techniques to employ. Many
so-called scientists are merely tribal men and women acting
like tyrannical trade unions of old who lock out and refuse
to allow ideas to bubble up. These self-appointed guardians
of knowledge are seemingly unaware of the observation made
by Darwin�s acolyte, T.H. Huxley, over 100 years ago:
�Intellectually we stand on an island amidst an
illimitable ocean of inexplicability, the purpose of each
new generation is to claim a little more land�.
Thus to reject anything out of hand is antiscientific � we
should keep an open mind. Though for some reason, an open
mind is as foreign to some scientists as their knowledge of
astrology, which they periodically feel obliged to attack.
The BBC�s on-line Science & Technology correspondent, Dr
David Whitehouse, made such an attack on astrology during
last year�s Soccer World Cup. It discomfited him that some
of the players and teams employed the services of
astrologers. He complained that there isn�t the slightest
bit of serious scientific evidence that astrology works. He
asked why no astrologer had predicted the dramatic death of
Diana, Princess of Wales (Assuming there was a reliable
method for determining longevity, he obviously doesn�t
realise that no responsible and ethical astrologer would do
such a thing as predict someone�s passing). And, with
confident authority, he informed his readers that the
positions of the planets at our births are irrelevant, and
that we could do better to consider taking the gravitational
effects of the doctors and nurses around the mother during
birth as a guide to personality.
Whitehouse said nothing new, but that he is able to say it
at all without question from his media masters tells us how
things are. Would the same media space be given to an
astrologer who felt inclined to attack any subject he or she
disliked, and knew very little about, because it didn�t fit
into their understanding of the world? To their credit, the
BBC did allow a reply to Whitehouse�s assault. It is usually
the case that the right of reply is denied. Dr Paul Kail of
Prague, a scientist and astrologer argued that Whitehouse
himself was being unscientific and that his comments on
astrology reflect a complete ignorance about the subject. He
accused Whitehouse of irrational nihilism and of being
frightened by ways of looking at the world which don�t
conform with existing scientific dogma. As an astrologer he,
like most of us, is interested in finding out what the
mechanism is that allows astrology to work. He also said
that any scientist should be curious in something that
cannot be explained fully by the existing laws. He said that
when he was a student of medicine and nuerophysiology at
Oxford in the early eighties nobody fully understood how
anaesthetics or nueroleptic drugs worked, despite there
being many conflicting theories. Whitehouse remained
unconvinced, of course, and concluded that: �Some things are
just plain wrong�. In asserting this view Whitehouse
shows us how wrong and out of touch he is. If he knew
anything about astrology he would know that it studies the
endless universe looking for rhythms, patterns and
coincidences. It does so with an open mind, respecting both
science (quantitative) and art (qualitative) methodology,
unconstrained by the paralysis of analysis pure-scientific
approach. He is merely throwing his weight around, because
he can. His attitude is not new. Astrology has suffered
repeated attacks since the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
So, what happened then that brought on this unease between
astrology and modern science?
The Decline of Astrology in the West
No single thing has been attributed to the decline of
western astrology at the end of the 17th century. Some say
it was the rise of orthodox science, which is ironic
considering many of those who pioneered the scientific
revolution were astrologers themselves. One of the most
amusing ironies, given the state of affairs existing between
astrology and astronomy today, is that the first Astronomer
Royal, John Flamsteed (1649 - 1719), used his skills as an
astrologer to elect the best time to found the Royal
Observatory at Greenwich.
However, there can be no denying the seeds of the 17th
century's eventual disaffection with astrology had already
been sown in the earlier part of that century. Astrologers
were increasingly at theological odds with the Catholic
Church. Their cause probably wasn�t assisted by a prediction
against the life of Pope Urban VIII in 1631 by a somewhat
over-eager astrologer. This understandably earned the Pope's
displeasure and prompted his re-assertion of a 16th century
Papal Bull against the practice of judicial astrology. No
astrologer had ever been persecuted for practising
astrology, however, the disfavour of the church at this time
could have contributed to the political climate change that
was to come.
What is most likely, is that intellectual focus shifted
towards a more mechanistic Newtonian view of the universe,
and the minds that had previously applied themselves to
Neo-Platonic and Ptolemaic cosmologies now rejected these
models. While these considerations may go some way to
determine astrology's fall from favour, they are not
sufficient reasons for its decline. It could be that the
world was becoming simultaneously more specialised and
expansive through the discoveries of new colonies,
developing technologies and the eventual arrival of the
Industrial Revolution and its impact on world economies and
capitalism generally. Court astrologers found themselves
being replaced by more specialised advisers. Intellectual
focus was shifting and astrology was no longer fashionable,
nor was it still seen as a subject worthy of serious study.
In the light of reason it looked jaded and superstitious. It
was finally removed from the universities in 1776 resulting
in a decline of intellectual rigour amongst its
practitioners through the 18th and 19th
centuries.
The Isaac Bickerstaff Affair
Today, there is a plethora of astrology books and magazines
on the market, reflecting a wide public interest in the
subject. This, too, was the case during the 17th and 18th
centuries, with the publication of almanacs by the leading
astrologers of the day. However, an almanac published in
1708 by an unknown astrologer, Isaac Bickerstaff, became the
means by which astrology was made to look very foolish in
the eyes of the educated and the privileged; the holders of
power and shapers of general opinion. Isaac Bickerstaff�s
almanac attracted a great deal of attention for its specific
prophecies, the most notable being that John Partridge, the
leading English astrologer of the day, would �die upon the
29th of March next, about eleven at night, of a raging
feaver�. Partridge, of course, did not die, but this
didn�t prevent the publication of an elegy of his death on
the 30th of March followed by an anonymous letter describing
his last hours and bedside confessions. Partridge published
his own almanac later in the year. His protestations that he
was alive and well amused his readers and Bickerstaff, who
in turn, went back into print to assert his reputation as an
accurate forecaster. Bickerstaff maintained that Partridge
was dead, and that someone else had published Partridge�s
almanac in his name, much like Raphael�s almanac is
published today long after Raphael�s death. Partridge didn�t
help his own cause by falling out with the Company of
Stationers, who prevented him from publishing his almanac
for the next three years, indirectly ensuring a noticeable
lowering of his public profile. It could be said that
Partridge�s weakened profile was like a death after all. In
one way, Bickerstaff�s bogus prediction was accurate. The
originator of this elaborate hoax and inventor of the
fictional Bickerstaff was Jonathon Swift. The implications
of his actions were far-reaching then for astrology and are
just as relevant today.
What Swift managed to do was show Partridge as a fool and
to irreparably damage his reputation within intellectual
circles. He commented on Partridge�s humble background as a
cobbler turned astrologer, implying that he didn�t have the
wit, class or education for high intellectual activity. In
Swift�s opinion Partridge was vulgar. This implies that
knowledge is the property of the privileged and the ruling
classes. It also implies that if astrology had any value
respectable and educated minds would take an interest in it.
Possibly, he must have conveniently overlooked the fact that
some of the great minds before him had involved themselves
with its study, e.g., Plato, Ptolemy, Roger Bacon, Tycho
Brahe, Galileo and Kepler. Swift was part of a new breed of
intellectuals that held court with the powerbrokers of his
day. Both parties propped each other up by maintaining that
their reason driven take on knowledge was the only point of
view worth considering. Anything that existed outside their
new scientific discoveries was untenable.
The 20th Century: Astrology in pursuit of scientific
acceptance.
Today, opinions differ within the astrological community as
to whether scientific validation is necessary for the
progress of astrology. Certainly, there have been genuine
attempts in this century to bridge the gap between astrology
and modern science. The efforts of the Gauquelins, John
Nelson, Hans Eysenck and Percy Seymour spring immediately to
mind.
One of the firmest advocates for a scientific approach to
astrology was Reinhold Ebertin. An innovator in astrology,
Ebertin was a student of another 20th century pioneer,
Alfred Witte. Both men revolutionised astrology by throwing
out many of the time-honoured techniques of traditional
astrology and concentrating on planetary and angular
relationships. Parker described Ebertin as the reformer of
astrology stating that �he threw overboard many additions of
the Middle Ages, limited the orbs of the aspects, and
concentrated the interpretation on significant points which
appeared to repeat themselves�. Ebertin didn�t chuck
everything out. He stripped astrology down to its undisputed
factors: these being the Ascendant, Meridian, Sun, Moon,
Mercury and all the planets through to Pluto. He did
jettison house systems, minimise the use of soft aspects and
emphasise the importance of midpoints. He further emphasised
the need to consider the native�s environment, education,
medical and psychological backgrounds and hereditary in
astrological judgement. He held that the two concepts of
�Cosmos� (the heavens) and �Bios� (the body) were the basis
of astrology. The word, �Cosmobiology� was first coined in
1914 by the medical scientist, Feerhow, and adopted by
Ebertin and his associates in the 1920s. In his �Combination
of Stellar Influences� Ebertin describes cosmobiology
as:
��a scientific discipline concerned with the possible
correlations between cosmos and organic life and the effects
of cosmic rhythms and stellar motion on man, with all his
potentials and dispositions, his character, and the possible
turns of fate�..cosmobiology utilizes modern methods of
scientific research, such as statistics, analysis and
computer programming. It is of prime importance, however, in
view of the scientific effort expended, not to overlook the
macrocosmic and microcosmic interrelations incapable of
measurement.�
In reality, cosmobiology is essentially an adapted version
of modern astrology. Its attempts to incorporate scientific
methodology are admirable and to be encouraged. However,
while cosmobiology can look scientific, it is still
astrology by another name, and because of that any serious
consideration of it by the scientific community hasn�t yet
occurred.
So, where does this leave us now after nearly a century of
attempting to acquire scientific approval? A little bit
further ahead I would say, but still a lot further to go.
Personally, I do not think astrology needs scientific
approval. I am not convinced that acknowledgement from a
discipline whose certainty has gifted us with thalidomide,
the Challenger disaster and pesticide-induced deformity
really is necessary. I do think astrology needs rigour, and
astrologers need to know their craft, in whichever form it
may take, after all astrology has many branches. A thorough
knowledge of astrology by its practitioners, respect for its
tradition and responsible and wise use of it will ensure its
survival, with or without scientific approval.
References
�The Case for Astrology� by John Anthony West & Jan
Gerhard Toonder; pub. Penguin Books 1970
�The Moment of Astrology: Origins in Divination� by
Geoffrey Cornelius; pub Penguin Arkana 1994
�Working With Astrology� by Michael Harding & Charles
Harvey; pub. Penguin Arkana 1990
�The Combination of Stellar Influences� by Reinhold
Ebertin; pub. AFA 1972
�An Introduction to the History of Astrology� by Nicholas
Campion; pub. Institute for the Study of Cycles in World
Affairs 1982
�The Astrologer�s Apprentice� Issue #1, Sept. 1996