Objectivism 101

Lesson 2: Reason Applied to Astrology

Conclusion

Skepticism applies to the case of astrology. Astrology is an extraordinary claim because it clashes with both the scientific facts that we have, and our own daily experience. And as you know, validating extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence. "My horoscope said I would be lucky, and I won a free lottery ticket !" doesn't cut it.

I said at the beginning of this lesson that we must answer two questions :

1. Could it work ?
2. Does it work ?

We can now answer these questions.

1. The theoretical underpinnings of the planets-personality relationship are unknown at this time, and difficult to imagine. Furthermore, basing astrology on the constellations is completely futile.
Therefore our answer to this question must be "no, as far as we know".

2. Scientific studies show numerous negative studies and a couple of contested results. The fact that astrology seems to "work" is demonstrated to be trivial by examining the Forer Effect.
Our answer here is the same : "no, as far as we know".

Our competing hypothesis, while it does not attempt to make predictions, is more supported than astrology. The specific source of personality has not yet been found, but we have evidence that parts of the brain are responsible for personality, notably because of the effects of brain accidents.
We also know that medication can change behavior (the most well-known example being Prozac), and in some cases, like bipolar disorder, genetic links have been confirmed by studies.

Our conclusion in this case is that we must reject astrology as a valid explanation.

However, one must understand that any conclusion about what is true, is always "for now". If we find new evidence for a better hypothesis, or if studies show that some forms of astrology are valid, then we would have to revise that conclusion.

This is true of all knowledge. Our use of reason is based on a context of knowledge - i.e. the things that we know at a given time. The more we find things, the more our context grows, and the more precise our knowledge becomes.

We already saw the example of Rutherford. A more radical example would be the ancients' view of nature. They were bewildered by the changes of seasons, the movement of the stars, and many other things. It seemed impossible for them to understand, and therefore they had no problem accepting that an array of gods was responsible for these changes.

Does that mean they were irrational ? Not necessarily. In the same situation, we would probably think the same thing. But now that we know so much about the laws of nature, a person who would believe today that gods control every aspect of nature would be ridiculed.

  1  2  3  4  5  6