Here is the opening paragraph from Wikipedia’s entry on the scientific opinion of astrology.

Astrology consists of a number of belief systems that hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events or descriptions of personality in the human world.  Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe. Scientific testing has found no evidence to support the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.

– Wiki

Let’s stop here for now, because there is a lot to unpack. For example, this third sentence: “Scientific testing has found no evidence…” 

None? Really? Literally zero? 

This statement seems suspect because, my personal experience finds abundant evidence,  and I seem to have heard of a few formal studies as well, but let’s let this breathe, and wait to see what the rest of the article has to say about it.

How about this the second sentence: “Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community…” 

Really? The whole entire community?

I’m sure Wiki is talking about the modern scientific community, because almost everyone knows that almost all ancient and classical scientists literally were astrologers, but even then, what about modern scientists. All of them reject astrology? What about people like Carl Jung? 

But again, let’s let Wiki breathe on this, and see what the rest of the article has to say.

There is another weird thing about this second sentence: “Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe.” 

No explanatory power? None?

Zodiacal coordinates are used to this day to point telescopes and calculate spacecraft trajectories. Even if it’s only that, it’s not factual to say astrology literally contributes nothing to our descriptions of the universe.

But the elephant in the room is really the  first sentence: “Astrology consists of a number of belief systems that hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events or descriptions of personality in the human world.”

So, in other words, the idea that there is a relationship between the heavens and human events is an irrational belief, not a scientific fact, right?

OK, here is an astrological event, the Sun is in Cancer. Am I to understand that this literally has no relationship to what  human are doing here at Jones Beach?

Or how about thisastrological event, the Sun in Capricorn. It has relation at all to what humans are experiencing here on the Long Island Expressway?

It seems pretty blatantly obvious that there is a relationship between celestial conditions and human affairs. The real question seems to be, what kind of relationship???

Types of Relationships

There are two important types of relationships we should consider, Causal and Indicative.

In Causal relationships, one thing causes another. In Indicative relationships, one thing indicates another. 

Heat causes fire, so the relationship between them is Causal. Smoke doesn’t cause fire, it indicates fire – so the relationship between smoke and fire is Indicative.

Which Relationship for Astrology?

Which of these two describes the relationship astrology posits between celestial events and human events? This is a very important question because astrology’s ridicule from the modern scientific community will either be deserved or undeserved, depending on your answer.

It’s tempting to say there is a Causal relationship between the heavens and humanity. After all, the Sun in Cancer literally sets a chain of effects in motion that directly causes humans to flock to Jones Beach. Similarly, the Sun rising at dawn seems to literally cause humans to wake up and become active.

But while this is scientifically reasonable for simple positions of the Sun and basic daily and annual human patterns as a general whole, it becomes less defensible the more we try to explain specific decisions and actions of specific individuals. Also, while it basically works for the Sun, since the Sun’s effect on the earth is so massive and overwhelming, it starts to become iffy when we bring the Moon into the system, and entirely breaks down if we bring in the planets. 

The effect of Saturn on a human being, for example, is empirically non-demonstrable, and if Astrology just ignores that, well then it has earned the disdain and ridicule of science.

Faced with this, astrology fans either retreat into a closet, or boldly declare science irrelevant, or a hoax. Neither of which really does any good for astrology.

I have really good news for you, though! Astrology doesn’t need the Causal Model. There is another option: the Indicative Model: this is the proposal that the heavens indicate human affairs – like smoke indicates fire, but doesn’t cause it.

What is even more interesting is that this is Astrology’s original concept!

Ptolemy’s Blunder

It wasn’t until this 2nd Century scientist, Claudius Ptolemy, that astrologers began to adopt a Causal Model. Previous to him, almost no astrologer would propose that planets have direct causal effect on human life. Instead, everyone agreed that the shape of the sky indicated earthly conditions and events, by acting as a unique universal time-stamp, a code which could be utilized to infer how the past was evolving into the present, and how the present would evolve into the future. 

If you would like to understand this model of astrology, please read The Beautifully Rational Philosophy of Astrology – the link is in the description, below.

Why did Ptolemy introduce a Causal Model into astrology? In his world, the “hard sciences” (sciences like physics, which deal with direct causalities) were rapidly becoming very successful and respected. He wanted astrology to share their status and prestige.

The irony of his failure is poignant. In attempting to class astrology with the empirical sciences, he wound up making it a giant bullseye for their ridicule, because the developments and advances in the hard sciences over the many centuries since his era have only made it perfectly clear that there simply are no direct empiric causalities between the distant planets and your love life.

To make maters even worse, not only did Ptolemy turn astrology into a donkey for scientific ridicule, he did so at the cost of sacrificing its respect among logicians and philosophers – since his theory amounted to a fatalistic determinism in which human agency played no significant role.

Modern Scientific Criticism of Astrology

Modern scientists usually don’t care enough about astrology to find out that any of this. They just assume that the post-Ptolemy deterministic causal model is the only model in astrology – and then they proceed to rip it to shreds.

Unfortunately, most fans and even many practitioners of astrology are not aware that the Causal Model was a blunder inflicted upon us by Ptolemy, and the the original astrological conceptions are philosophically and logically sound, and do not defy any modern empirical sciences.

To understand the original Indicative Model of Astrology, please read this book: The Beautifully Rational Philosophy of Astrology.

See you soon for Episode 2 of this series, where we will unpack the rest of what Wikipedia has to say on the subject of Science and Astrology.

Video Version of this article: