Is there any connection between the position of the stars and our lives? Even though love is not dictated by the stars, horoscope matching before marriage is a very common practice in different parts of India. People continue to believe in astrology in spite of mountains of evidence against it. And the Supreme Court, in a judgment in 2004, ruled that astrology is a science. When an irrational practice such as astrology is passed off as science, the question of pseudoscience comes up.
Pseudoscience, according to Michael Brant Shermer, an American science writer, historian of science and founder of The Skeptics Society, is the practice not of bad science but of something that is not science at all and yet is passed off as science, confusing people and threatening science education itself.
The word originated with the rise of such practices as alchemy, psychokinesis, astrology, UFOlogy and clairvoyance.
The term can be traced back to the late 18th century when James Pettit Andrews used it with reference to alchemy. But since the last century, astrology has exerted more influence, with its advocates presenting it as science. The rationalists’ stance to dismiss astrology as pseudoscience actually reflects Shermer’s contention.
It is important to understand why the advocates of astrology want it to be recognised as science. Science, we know, is held in high regard. Apart from the benefits it has brought society, the reason for this is that science is seen to be the finest expression of human intellect where objectivity and rationality are at their best. Because it is held in high esteem, there exists the temptation of labelling any area of study, or activity, or a body of work as science to secure legitimacy and acceptance for it.
This need to appropriate science and the opposition to it have led to debates about the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. In this context, it would be interesting to examine the judgments of the court in two cases:
- On astrology, in India, when the decision of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to introduce it as a science subject was challenged;
- On creation-science, in the US, where a controversy erupted when it was pushed as a science subject to be taught along the same lines as evolutionary theory. Those opposed said creationism is not science but a religious doctrine introduced under the garb of science.
Let us consider each of these cases.
Whenever the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is in power, the saffron brigade and its sympathisers, particularly in the field of education, attempt to forcefully introduce retrogressive ideas as a formal domain of study in universities and colleges. Moreover, they force the domain of study to be considered a science.
In 2001, when the BJP was ruling, the UGC decided to introduce courses in Vedic Astrology (JyotirVigyan) leading to undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.
Pushpa M. Bhargava, a distinguished biologist and the founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology at Hyderabad, K. Subhash Chandra Reddy, the then head of the department of political science at Osmania University, and Chandana Chakrabarti, an independent writer and consultant, challenged the decision in the Supreme Court. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Chief Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P. Mathur in May 2004.
Something similar had happened in the US in the eighties when an attempt was made to push creation-science as a discipline of study, with some states proposing laws that required schools to give equal priority to teaching evolution and creation-science.
The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo. Photo: Public domain.
Creation-science is an attempt to present the account of creation in the Book of Genesis as science. The constitution of the US prohibits religious instruction in public schools. To get around this, the votaries of creationism claimed that it was no less a science than evolution. Scientists and others challenged this and, finally, the case came before the court where judge William R. Overton had to decide whether creationism was a science.
In judging such cases, the significant point one should be clear about is how to characterise science. Only then can the judgment proceed to resolve whether a practice is science or not. It is interesting to see how the judgments in the two cases went about characterising science.
The Supreme Court judgment first records what the petitioners had to say regarding science as a body of knowledge: that it is knowledge generated by scientific method and that the distinguishing characteristics of the method are fallibility, verifiability and repeatability.
Having stated the petitioners’ viewpoint of science, the judgment then attempts to understand what astrology is. For this, it draws upon the Webster’s New International dictionary and Encyclopaedia Britannica, second edition. It is rather odd that the court took as its reference the second edition of the Britannica published in 1783 and not the current edition available. The definition from Webster’s also appears to be drawn from dated editions.
The judgment says (under para 10):
“Before dealing with the contentions raised it will be useful to understand the meaning of the word ‘Astrology’ as given in various dictionaries.
“The science or doctrine of stars, and formerly often used as equivalent to astronomy, but now restricted in meaning to the pseudo-science which claims to foretell the future by studying the supposed influence of the relative positions of the moon, sun and stars on human affairs [Webster’s New International dictionary].”
“Either a science or a pseudo-science, astrology the forecasting of earthly and human events by means of observing and interpreting the fixed stars, the sun, the moon and the planets has exerted a sometimes extensive and a sometimes peripheral influence in many civilisations, both ancient and modern. As a science, astrology has been utilised to predict or affect the destinies in individuals, groups or nations by means of what is believed to be a correct understanding of the influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs. As a pseudo-science, astrology is considered to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science. [Encyclopaedia Britannica]”
Drawing upon these two sources, the judgment concludes: “Astrology is a science that claims to foretell the future or make predictions by studying the supposed influence of the relative positions of the moon, sun, planets and other stars on human affairs.”
Its final ground or premise for the conclusion is that since these positions are determined scientifically through astronomy, there is a partial reliance of astrology on astronomy, which is a science. Therefore, astrology is a science to that extent.
Does this not come across as a bizarre argument?
It is similar to claiming that since horoscopes are now generated by computers and software programs, and these are products of science and technology, astrology is also scientific and technical.
What are the problems with the judgment? First, it consults outdated editions of both Britannica and Webster’s. And even from these, it is not possible to deduce the conclusion that astrology is science.
The second edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which the judgment refers to, was published in 1783.
According to the more recent editions, astrology is defined as a “type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets.” Divination is the practice of foretelling events by occult means.
Also read: Kumbh 2021: Astrology, Mortality and the Indifference to Life of Leaders and Stars
The first edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (published in 1771) has the following description of astrology: “A conjectural science, which teaches to judge of the effects and influences of the stars, and to foretell future events by the situation and different aspects of the heavenly bodies. The science has long ago become a just subject of contempt and ridicule.”
It should be noted that the word science in the eighteenth century did not have the same sense as it does today. It only meant a study of something. Even the first edition notes that astrology was a “just subject of contempt and ridicule.”
With regard to the definition from Webster’s dictionary, I wrote to Merriam-Webster Inc. to find out their description or definition of astrology in their latest edition that was in use in 2004. Paul Simcha Wood, Associate Editor, Merriam-Webster, Inc., sent the following reply:
“Every printing of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines astrology as (1) divination that treats of the supposed influences of the stars upon human affairs and of foretelling terrestrial events by their positions and aspects; (2) obsolete: astronomy. The obsolete tag in the second sense of the definition for astrology is used to indicate that the sense in question is not known to have appeared in standard use since 1755.”
Since this definition differed significantly from what the judgment quoted, I wrote to Wood again for clarification on the definition as given in the judgment. I reproduce his reply as follows:
“I have not been able to track the quote you provide to any printing of our New International Dictionary, though it is a close paraphrase of the definition of astrology as it appears in the first and second editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary. These editions define astrology as: ‘In its etymological signification, the science of the stars; among the ancients, synonymous with astronomy; subsequently, the pseudo science which treats of the influences of the stars upon human affairs, and of foretelling terrestrial events by their positions and aspects’.”
As Wood, the associate editor of Merriam-Webster Inc., clearly mentions, the description used in the judgment is a paraphrase of the definition in the first and second editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary. These editions were outdated in 2004 as Webster’s Third New International Dictionary had already appeared. Wood’s clarification makes it clear the judgment did not directly quote even from the outdated editions of the dictionary.
The judgment gives the impression that astrology as a science of stars is a definition given by the Webster’s dictionary. But the dictionary clearly states that is the meaning etymologically, a reference to the origin of the word; what “astrology” signifies if split into “astro” and “logy”. Its equivalence to astronomy, upon which the judgment relies, cannot be drawn because even the outdated edition of the dictionary clearly says that it was only the ancients who considered it “synonymous to astronomy”.
The second problem is this argument: Astrology uses astronomy partially, and since astronomy is science, therefore astrology is science to that extent. In other words, A uses B partially and B is science and therefore A is also science to that extent. This is a weird and outlandish argument.
By contrast, the US judgment in the creation-science case – the judgment Justice Mathur authored mentioned this as one cited by the petitioners – Judge Overton did take into account significant questions like “what is science?” and “when can a claim be considered scientific?”
To address these questions, the court called upon philosophers and scientists for their views. Based on their testimony he formulated the criteria which he then took into account for deciding the case. Scientific knowledge, according to the judgment (Mclean v. Arkansas ruling, 1982), has the following characteristics:
(a) It is guided by natural law.
(b) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
(c) It is testable against the empirical world.
(d) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word.
(e) It is falsifiable.
In the judgment authored by Justice Mathur, no attempt was made along these lines to independently arrive at what the conception of science is; the sources consulted for characterising astrology were outdated; and the argument that astrology is a science because it partially depends on astronomy is not sound. Such a judgment, fraught with inadequacies, is used by the proponents of the view that “astrology is science” to justify it. This, unfortunately, is defending the indefensible.
S.K. Arun Murthi taught Philosophy at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali.
The author acknowledges with thanks Paul Simcha Wood, associate editor, Merrian-Webster Inc., for providing the clarifications to my queries with patience.