Mason Li
The three major criticisms of astrology, according to Thagard, made by the public
statement drafted by Bart Bok, Lawrence Jerome, and Paul Kurtz in 1975, are First, the statement
claims that astrology “originated as part of a magical world view,” second, that “the planets are
too distant for there to be any physical foundation for astrology,” and third, that belief in
astrology persists largely because “people believe it merely out of longing for comfort” and not
for rational or evidential reasons. These criticisms, made by many prominent scientists, served as
a basis for rejecting astrology on the grounds that it is a pseudoscience. However, according to
Thagard, none of these criticisms, singly or in combination, prove conclusively that astrology is a
pseudoscience.
The first argument is related to the magical origins of astrology. Jerome, in particular,
states that the failure of astrology is due to the fact that its interpretations and predictions are
based on the magical worldview of the ancients. Thagard rejects this argument on the grounds
that the origins of a theory are not relevant when considering its present-day scientificity. He
says, "The alchemical origins of chemistry and the occult origins of medicine are as magical as
those of astrology,” but these are now paradigmatic sciences. Also, "Historians have traced
mystical influences in the work of many great scientists, including Newton and Einstein." Thus,
astrology cannot be dismissed merely because of its historical roots in magic without committing
misconceptions.
The second argument is that the theory of astrology has no physical basis, as the
gravitational or radiation influence of distant planets is negligible. Bok argues that statistical
testing of astrology is pointless unless such a foundation is established. Thagard responds to this
argument by saying that “the lack of a physical foundation hardly marks a theory as unscientific.”
He gives examples from the history of science like when Wegener proposed the theory of
continental drift, “no mechanism was known,” but the theory was later vindicated. Similar
correlations like smoking and cancer were established before the biological mechanism was
understood. Therefore, the absence of a known mechanism does not, by itself, justify labeling a
theory pseudoscientific.
The third argument is one concerning the psychology of belief, which is that people are
drawn to astrology because they are looking for comfort or reassurance. Thagard finds such an
argument to be irrelevant to demarcation and notes, “people often believe even good theories for
illegitimate reasons.” The believer's motives are not what make a theory scientific or
pseudoscientific in nature. While people may be irrational in their belief in astrology, “good
reasons may be available” independently of those motivations.” Moreover, according to Thagard,
other traditional demarcation criteria, such as verification and falsification also failed to rule out
astrology conclusively. Astrology is “vaguely testable,” and statistical testing, such as
Gauquelin’s, has shown that it is not completely unverifiable. Furthermore, the fact that it is not
falsifiable does not make it different from accepted scientific theories, which are not falsifiable
until an alternative theory is developed.
Overall, Thagard finds that although astrology is facing serious challenges, the challenges
presented by Bok, Jerome, and Lawrence are not sufficient to establish the pseudoscientific
nature of astrology. Bok, Jerome, and Lawrence are presented as challenging the nature of
astrology from the perspective of its mechanisms of action and the psychology of belief.
Klemke, E. D., Rudge, D. W., & Hollinger, R. (1998). Introductory readings in the
philosophy of science; ed. by E.D. Klembe, Robert Hollinger, David Rudge, Chapter 4 pg 82-95