Written in the stars
Astrology is a pseudoscience but there are no lack of arguments from the believers and practitioners of astrology to buttress their claim that astrology can be supported by science. The Guardian has published an article on this interesting subject today. Percy Seymour is not an average astrology believer, he is a distinguished astronomer with the membership in Royal Astronomical Society of United Kingdom. He claims that the movement of the sun, moon and various planets undoubtedly hold an influence over us.
Could it be that the declining of belief in our world's organized religions is one of the reasons that human beings try to find an alternative way for describing the order of the universe, the meaning of life? We are all mortal, but could it be our inherent vulnerability to death which is a sure certainty in the end promulgate many of us searching meaning of life from religion or in many cases from horroscrope and astrology?
If these ideologies, "pseudoscience" provide false hope but solace to many, would it be wrong?
The full article can be found from the following location: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1218934,00.html
Some portions are provided below:
The argument Seymour puts forward is that the movement of the Sun, moon and sundry planets from Jupiter to Mars, interfere with the Earth's magnetic field. In doing so, the unborn offspring of expectant mothers around the world are exposed to different magnetic fields that toy with the development of their budding brains.
Seymour's book is just the latest salvo in an ongoing battle that pits the vast majority of scientists, on one side, against the substantially fewer (but better paid) astrologists on the other. Most scientists are happy not to bother with research into astrology; to them astrology is among the worst manifestations of pseudoscience, worthy of as little intellectual expenditure as homeopathy. Others dabble with testing astrology's claims, while a few, such as Seymour, hop the fence of tradition completely to become scientist turned believer.
Most scientists dismiss Seymour's arguments simply because the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that he believes are so significant for our behaviour are so minute. The magnetic field, which is generated by the Earth's spinning molten iron core, is pathetically weak compared with the magnetic fields our gadgets and infrastructure produce.
The field is most disrupted by bad weather on the sun. A huge magnetic storm there releases clouds of particles that blast Earth. But at worst, these storms make the magnetic field waver by nothing more than 1% or 2%. As for seasonal changes that astrologers might unwittingly be picking up on, they do exist, but are so small as to be almost unmeasurable.
"If the Earth's magnetic field collapsed to zero, we'd get a higher dose of radiation from space and that would have an effect on our behaviour, but I don't think it would make it any easier to predict if you're going to come into money one week or the next," says Massey. "Your mobile phone, your television, your washing machine - any electrical equipment you have generates far stronger magnetic fields than the Earth's field."
While Seymour is widely seen as a scientist who has joined the defence of the astrologers, it was an ex-astrologer who helped deliver the most signifiant blow to the credibility of his former profession. Last year, Geoffrey Dean, who left astrology to become a scientist in Perth, carried out what is probably the most robust scientific investigation into astrology ever undertaken. He led a study of 2,000 people, most born within minutes of one another, and looked at more than 100 different characteristics, ranging from IQ to ability in art and sport, from anxiety levels to sociability and occupation - all of which astrologers claim are influenced by heavenly bodies. He found no evidence of the similarities that astrologers would have predicted.
But despite the intellectual mud-flinging that goes on between many astrologers and scientists, much to the latter's discomfort, science is too blunt a tool to definitively rule out that astrology is bunkum. Some scientists certainly believe there are valid questions to be asked. Dr Mike Hapgood, an expert in what astronomers refer to as "sun-Earth interactions" at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, says we have no real data on how, if at all, magnetic fields might affecthuman behaviour. "There's an interesting question there and it's not something that is well understood," he says. Hapgood argues that it could be folly to dismiss outlandish ideas too easily. "You need to do the science properly to find out anything solid."
The word "cause" is key. So far, studies that claim to support astrology point out correlations, merely observed links between one happening and another. But correlations do not always point to causes and effects. And with nothing else to go on, the nature of the real cause and effect can only be speculated upon. Can magnetic fields affect the way an unborn child's brain develops? Undoubtedly if the field is strong enough, but how strong is strong enough? And how do we know what difference those changes would make to behaviour? If a simple blast of magnetic field could turn your average unborn child into a future premiership footballer, neuroscientists would be tearing up text books quicker than you can say hippocampus.
The problem for those scientists keen on debunking astrology is that designing an experiment to prove one way or another whether the movement of the planets affects us is practically unachievable. With that in mind, some scientists, while privately laughing out loud at the suggestion that astrology could be for real, are publicly reluctant to dismiss it all together. "The difficulty for scientists is that we know the strangest sounding ideas can sometimes turn out to be true," says Mitton.
The popularity of astrology, is to some at least, driven by a need for a substitute for religion, a desire to believe that life is reassuringly out of one's hands. "When you have the decline of organised religion in the conventional sense, you get people looking for other things, whether it's Californian crystals or a daily horoscope. It provides some kind of psychological prop. I have no wish to suppress it, I just don't think it's a useful way of interpreting the world," says Massey.
Seymour's book will not be the end of the argument. While there is no proof that either side can trumpet, there will be noises made. "Maybe being born in the summer gives you a predisposition to a certain type of behaviour, I don't know. But I do know it's highly unlikely to have anything to do with where Mars, Saturn, Jupiter or Venus are in the sky that night," says Massey.
Astrology is a pseudoscience but there are no lack of arguments from the believers and practitioners of astrology to buttress their claim that astrology can be supported by science. The Guardian has published an article on this interesting subject today. Percy Seymour is not an average astrology believer, he is a distinguished astronomer with the membership in Royal Astronomical Society of United Kingdom. He claims that the movement of the sun, moon and various planets undoubtedly hold an influence over us.
Could it be that the declining of belief in our world's organized religions is one of the reasons that human beings try to find an alternative way for describing the order of the universe, the meaning of life? We are all mortal, but could it be our inherent vulnerability to death which is a sure certainty in the end promulgate many of us searching meaning of life from religion or in many cases from horroscrope and astrology?
If these ideologies, "pseudoscience" provide false hope but solace to many, would it be wrong?
The full article can be found from the following location: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1218934,00.html
Some portions are provided below:
The argument Seymour puts forward is that the movement of the Sun, moon and sundry planets from Jupiter to Mars, interfere with the Earth's magnetic field. In doing so, the unborn offspring of expectant mothers around the world are exposed to different magnetic fields that toy with the development of their budding brains.
Seymour's book is just the latest salvo in an ongoing battle that pits the vast majority of scientists, on one side, against the substantially fewer (but better paid) astrologists on the other. Most scientists are happy not to bother with research into astrology; to them astrology is among the worst manifestations of pseudoscience, worthy of as little intellectual expenditure as homeopathy. Others dabble with testing astrology's claims, while a few, such as Seymour, hop the fence of tradition completely to become scientist turned believer.
Most scientists dismiss Seymour's arguments simply because the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that he believes are so significant for our behaviour are so minute. The magnetic field, which is generated by the Earth's spinning molten iron core, is pathetically weak compared with the magnetic fields our gadgets and infrastructure produce.
The field is most disrupted by bad weather on the sun. A huge magnetic storm there releases clouds of particles that blast Earth. But at worst, these storms make the magnetic field waver by nothing more than 1% or 2%. As for seasonal changes that astrologers might unwittingly be picking up on, they do exist, but are so small as to be almost unmeasurable.
"If the Earth's magnetic field collapsed to zero, we'd get a higher dose of radiation from space and that would have an effect on our behaviour, but I don't think it would make it any easier to predict if you're going to come into money one week or the next," says Massey. "Your mobile phone, your television, your washing machine - any electrical equipment you have generates far stronger magnetic fields than the Earth's field."
While Seymour is widely seen as a scientist who has joined the defence of the astrologers, it was an ex-astrologer who helped deliver the most signifiant blow to the credibility of his former profession. Last year, Geoffrey Dean, who left astrology to become a scientist in Perth, carried out what is probably the most robust scientific investigation into astrology ever undertaken. He led a study of 2,000 people, most born within minutes of one another, and looked at more than 100 different characteristics, ranging from IQ to ability in art and sport, from anxiety levels to sociability and occupation - all of which astrologers claim are influenced by heavenly bodies. He found no evidence of the similarities that astrologers would have predicted.
But despite the intellectual mud-flinging that goes on between many astrologers and scientists, much to the latter's discomfort, science is too blunt a tool to definitively rule out that astrology is bunkum. Some scientists certainly believe there are valid questions to be asked. Dr Mike Hapgood, an expert in what astronomers refer to as "sun-Earth interactions" at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, says we have no real data on how, if at all, magnetic fields might affecthuman behaviour. "There's an interesting question there and it's not something that is well understood," he says. Hapgood argues that it could be folly to dismiss outlandish ideas too easily. "You need to do the science properly to find out anything solid."
The word "cause" is key. So far, studies that claim to support astrology point out correlations, merely observed links between one happening and another. But correlations do not always point to causes and effects. And with nothing else to go on, the nature of the real cause and effect can only be speculated upon. Can magnetic fields affect the way an unborn child's brain develops? Undoubtedly if the field is strong enough, but how strong is strong enough? And how do we know what difference those changes would make to behaviour? If a simple blast of magnetic field could turn your average unborn child into a future premiership footballer, neuroscientists would be tearing up text books quicker than you can say hippocampus.
The problem for those scientists keen on debunking astrology is that designing an experiment to prove one way or another whether the movement of the planets affects us is practically unachievable. With that in mind, some scientists, while privately laughing out loud at the suggestion that astrology could be for real, are publicly reluctant to dismiss it all together. "The difficulty for scientists is that we know the strangest sounding ideas can sometimes turn out to be true," says Mitton.
The popularity of astrology, is to some at least, driven by a need for a substitute for religion, a desire to believe that life is reassuringly out of one's hands. "When you have the decline of organised religion in the conventional sense, you get people looking for other things, whether it's Californian crystals or a daily horoscope. It provides some kind of psychological prop. I have no wish to suppress it, I just don't think it's a useful way of interpreting the world," says Massey.
Seymour's book will not be the end of the argument. While there is no proof that either side can trumpet, there will be noises made. "Maybe being born in the summer gives you a predisposition to a certain type of behaviour, I don't know. But I do know it's highly unlikely to have anything to do with where Mars, Saturn, Jupiter or Venus are in the sky that night," says Massey.
Comments
Post a Comment