Science vs. Astrology
Astrology has existed for thousands of years and is being practiced throughout the entire world. Knowledge gained through astrology is based on observation and experience and thus shares similarities with psychology - even though this latter discipline is much younger. A great many psychologists are positive about the insights astrological methods can provide. Still, astrology is not officially considered a science. Roy Alexander, a qualified astrological counselor based in London, has published various studies addressing this topic, and I would like to recapitulate some of his thoughts in the following: The overall method of astrology and the scientific paradigm of a mechanistic universe are mutually exclusive. This paradigm has been severely challenged by modern scientific theories as for example put forward in quantum physics. The latter could not deduce its axioms from classical mechanics due to its primary assumption that matter shows aspects of particles and wave characteristics at the same time. It might only be a matter of time until astrology will be scientifically acknowledged and sciences will finally renegotiate traditional paradigms that have hitherto shaped our understanding of the world. Until that point, astrology can be evaluated according to empirical data comparable to the way they are used in psychology.
According to their own statements, critics of astrology (e.g. Eysenck and Nias) declare themselves incapable of interpreting a horoscope. This kind of proposition is comparable to a deaf music critic, stating that his own incapacity to hear is of no consequence for the professional practice of his line of work...
According to their own statements, critics of astrology (e.g. Eysenck and Nias) declare themselves incapable of interpreting a horoscope. This kind of proposition is comparable to a deaf music critic, stating that his own incapacity to hear is of no consequence for the professional practice of his line of work...