In the discussions on astrology, a couple of
‘not very articulate’ astrologers were pitted against rabble rousing rationalists
and asked to predict the outcome of the elections. Despite protestations
that Jyothisha predictions should not be made without sufficient data
they were made to predict electoral outcomes, only to be jeered at. The anchors
saw to it that the odd articulate astrologer did not get enough air
time. He was simply shouted down in cacophony.
The overt objection of the rationalists to astrology
is that it is unscientific. If the objections were really
‘scientific’, they should have objected to such disciplines as craniometry (measurement
of the head), phrenology (measurement of the skull) and nasal indices
as predictors of race not to speak of the wholly unscientific Aryan
Invasion Theory (AIT)—which was based not on historical or archaeological
evidence but on comparative philology!
Their unstated, underlying objection could be that it
is a Hindu discipline! The rationalists, with their pathological
rather than logical hatred for everything Hindu forget that the original
Jyothisha Vedänga concerned itself with astronomy, not astrology.
The primary objective of this Vedic addendum (of the Rig and Yajur
Vedas) was in the preparation of almanacs. The Indian almanac writers known
as Siddhantis have been producing accurate almanacs for hundreds
of years. The predictive discipline of astrology was a latter-day
offshoot, just as psephology was an offshoot of political science which
itself can hardly be described as science. The question that the faux
rationalists should seriously introspect is, ‘Why do they unquestioningly
believe in psephology while they equally irrationally disbelieve in astrology?’
What logical arguments do the rationalists offer
in support of their contention that astrology is unscientific? Do they
offer cogent reasoning and verifiable proofs? No, just an arrogant and unsubstantiated
assertion that it is ‘impossible’! In the history of science, there are many
examples which disprove the theory of ‘impossibility’ when subsequent
discoveries upturned confident assertions. For example, in 1800, the English
scientist, John Dalton proposed that the atom was the smallest particle
of elements and was indestructible.
Eysenck and Nias list several ‘impossibility’ theories
which fell flat when subsequent discoveries disproved them.[1]
In 1933 Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford two of the world’s greatest
physicists declared that the splitting of an atom could have no practical uses.
Just twelve years later America dropped its bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Many countries in the world today harness the energy released by the splitting
of an atom for peaceful uses.
Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, all dismissed the
theory that oceanic tides were caused by the moon as ‘astrological nonsense’.
Johannes Muller, a very reputed nineteenth century physiologist and the author
of an authoritative monograph on the subject, declared that measuring the speed
of a nervous impulse would never be possible. Only three years later Helmholtz
had measured it quite accurately.
What is science and what are the criteria that
should be satisfied for a discipline to be declared scientific? Eysenck
and Nias suggest three methodologies. Sir Francis Bacon’s induction method
involves collection of facts and a theory hypothesized based on them. The
Vienna School of Logical positivism suggests that a theory is proposed which is
then verified or disproved by research. Then there is Sir Karl Popper’s
argument that no theory can be finally verified as, even after a theory
is verified umpteen times, one more experiment might still disprove it. The
catch in this proposition is that Popper believes that ‘a theory is scientific
if it is open, not to being proved true (which it never can) but to being
proved wrong’. The authors argue that none of these methodologies were ever applied
to astrology before disqualifying it as science.
A generally accepted criterion for a scientific theory
is that its results should be replicable, i.e. it should yield
predictable results and that the same results should be obtained in repeated experiments.
Let us consider the example of modern medicine to validate this theory. Medical
magazines regularly publish clinical trial reports of medical, surgical,
radiological or other procedures used in the treatment of diseases. The reports
very rarely report 100% cure rates with several trials reporting as low as
60-70% success rates. This means the results of curative procedures used in
modern medicine are not always replicable. In spite of this anomaly,
none disputes that modern medicine is a scientific discipline. ‘Statistical
significance’ (rather than absolute conformity) is an accepted criterion for
validation of results in ‘double blind cross over’ clinical trials used to
study the efficacy of medicines. A majority of rationalists appear to be
unaware of such nuances in scientific criteria.
While Eysenck and Nias do not explicitly say that
astrology is a scientific discipline, they do not dismiss it as
superstition either. They argue that more data is needed to come to a definite conclusion
and more research. They cite the work of Michel and Francoise Gauquelin to
support their view. Eysenck and Nias describe the Gauquelins as ‘a rare
combination, possessing both a detailed knowledge of astrology and a genuine
scientific outlook based on a formal academic training.’ The Gauquelins were
not astrologers but professional psychologists steeped in the ways of research.
Their work in cosmobiology found a positive correlation between certain
personality traits (which determine professional success) and planetary
positions at the time of birth. Here is a brief account of the work of the Gauquelins
that may be instructive:
The Gauquelins began their work by analyzing 576 members of the
French Academy of Medicine, ‘who had achieved academic distinction by virtue of
their research’. They found that the doctors were all born when Mars or Saturn
had just risen or just passed midheaven. In order to validate the theory, the
Gauquelins tried to replicate their experiment with another group of 508
doctors with similar antecedents. The replication conformed to the original
observation.
Encouraged and intrigued by the results they extended the research
to include other professionals in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy and
reviewed 25,000 birth dates. When they contrasted 5,100 successful artists with
3,647 successful scientists they found quite interestingly that while the
scientists were born when Saturn has just risen or was past midheaven, the
artists tended to avoid being born under the planet.
Similarly when they reviewed the birth charts of 3,438 military
leaders, in 680 cases (against 590 sufficient for statistical significance) they
found that Mars considered the symbol of the god of war had risen or was past
midheaven.
In order to confirm the results the researchers studied control
groups selected from the general population and concluded that the planetary
positions as mentioned occurred only for the births of the famous and
distinguished. The results seem to indicate that these planets are ‘related to
destiny, success and good fortune’.
A corollary to the observations already made was the predictability
of certain character traits found in business leaders and successful
sportspersons. It was found that those with birth times associated with Mars
were seen to have greater determination and iron will. A study that reviewed
the birth charts of 2,089 sportspersons, 1,409 actors and 3,647 scientists could
predict personality factors like ‘extravert’, ‘introvert’, ‘unstable’ and
‘tough-minded’.
The researchers made quite a few other interesting observations
in their studies. It is not possible to include them all here for want of
space. However one point deserves mention. Invariably
the results the researches obtained conformed to naturally occurring births and
not artificially induced ones. This means that human hand cannot design destiny.
It has to be ordained by the Gods!
Eysenck and Nias conclude that “the time has come to state
quite unequivocally that a new science is in process of being born.”
It may be apt to remember what Bertrand Russel said on
‘the value of scepticism’: “When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion
cannot be held to be certain.”
[1]
Eysenck, H. J., and Nias, D.K.B. (1984). Astrology
Science or Superstition? Penguin Books. New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment