This paper is a consideration of whether or not astrology, once an important tool in many major religious rites and governmental functions, is a science. Though it remains a popular diversion, attracts serious study, claims the belief of many, and helps sell newspapers when little else will, scientists contend that it does not meet the criteria of being a provable, testable system of knowledge. Its continuing mainstream popularity is the result of a very human need to find meaning in life and connections to the natural world. For a variety of reasons, astrology is unlikely to disappear, despite the fact that it cannot be classified as a science. This paper examines the problems with its claim and the reasons why, despite this rejection, it continues to capture the human imagination.
Philip C. Plait (2002) reports, "The basic premise of astrology is simple: the arrangement of the stars and planets at the time of our birth affects our lives. There is no evidence to show that this is true, but people believe it nonetheless" (p. 213). He (2002) quotes a Gallup poll from 1984 that shows that 55 percent of American teenagers believe in its veracity. The news in 1988 that First Lady Nancy Reagan regularly consulted an astrologer made headlines, including the cover of Time magazine, and sparked a national debate on the veracity and scientific basis of astrology.
Plait (2002) says, "But that doesn't make it right" (p. 213). Astrology's claim to scientific accuracy does not hold up to the rigor and repeatability that defines what science is. Plait (2002) writes, "Scientists look for causes and use them to make specific predictions about future events. If the theory fails, it either gets modified and retested or it gets junked" (p. 213). He (2002) contrasts this with the astrology works, making "vague predictions that can always be adapted after the fact to fit observations" (p. 213). He (2002) contends that ast...