Astrology has been a part of human culture for thousands of years. Many people still rely on horoscopes, natal charts, and planetary positions to gain insight into their lives, believing that the movements of celestial bodies can influence their health, career, relationships, and more. However, despite its popularity, astrology is often classified as a pseudoscience by the scientific community. But why? In this blog, we’ll explore the key reasons that demonstrate astrology does not meet the standards of scientific inquiry and how it fits the criteria of pseudoscience.
Lack of Empirical Evidence
A fundamental criterion of any science is the availability of empirical evidence to support its claims. In the case of astrology, no consistent, measurable evidence shows that celestial positions influence human behavior or events on Earth. Scientific studies have repeatedly tested astrology’s predictions, but the results have been no better than random chance.
For example, in a famous study conducted by Shawn Carlson in 1985, astrologers were asked to match personality profiles to natal charts. The results were statistically insignificant, proving that astrologers were no more accurate than random guesses. If astrology were truly scientific, we would expect astrologers to achieve far better results in controlled experiments. Moreover, if are a follower of astrology you can give a try to free chat with astrologer.
Failure to Make Testable Predictions
A key characteristic of scientific theories is that they make testable and falsifiable predictions. This means that the claims made by a theory should be clear enough to be tested and potentially proven wrong. Astrology, however, often fails to provide specific, testable predictions.
Horoscopes, for example, are typically written in vague, general terms that can apply to almost anyone. Statements like “you may face challenges this week” or “you will find joy in small things” are broad enough that anyone could interpret them as relevant to their own lives. This is known as the Barnum effect, where people see personal meaning in generic statements.
Inconsistent and Contradictory Systems
One of the hallmarks of science is internal consistency. Scientific theories are based on a consistent framework of ideas that do not contradict one another. In astrology, however, there are many different systems, all claiming to offer accurate readings based on varying techniques. For instance, Western astrology is based on the tropical zodiac, while Vedic astrology (Jyotisha) uses the sidereal zodiac, which differs by about 23 degrees due to the precession of the equinoxes.
If astrology were a science, these systems would produce the same results, but they do not. This inconsistency weakens astrology’s credibility as a scientific discipline.
No Mechanism of Action
For astrology to be scientific, there would need to be a mechanism by which celestial bodies like planets and stars influence human affairs. In sciences like biology or physics, we understand the mechanisms behind the phenomena we observe, whether it’s the way gravity works or how diseases spread.
Astrology, however, offers no credible explanation for how the distant planets and stars could have such a profound effect on human lives. The gravitational influence of planets is negligible compared to local forces like Earth’s gravity or the pull of nearby objects. Without a plausible mechanism, astrology cannot be considered scientifically valid.
Read Also: How Much Does It Cost to Develop a Custom Astrology App?
Astrology Ignores Key Scientific Discoveries
Astrology is based on ancient knowledge and a geocentric worldview, where the Earth is at the center of the universe. Modern science, however, has shown that the Earth is just one planet among many in a vast, expanding universe. Moreover, many astrological charts still use only the classical planets (up to Saturn) and exclude newly discovered planets like Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto or even exoplanets orbiting distant stars.
A scientific field evolves and adapts based on new discoveries, while astrology has remained largely unchanged for centuries, ignoring advancements that would render its methods outdated.
Confirmation Bias
Astrology thrives on confirmation bias, which is the tendency for people to remember information that confirms their beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them. When people read horoscopes or get their natal charts interpreted, they often focus on the parts that seem accurate while dismissing the inaccuracies.
For instance, if a horoscope predicts that you’ll have a bad day and something minor goes wrong, you may attribute that to the horoscope, even if the rest of your day was fine. This selective memory can give the illusion that astrology is more accurate than it really is.
Conclusion
While astrology may offer comfort or a sense of guidance to many, it does not meet the basic requirements of a scientific discipline. It lacks empirical evidence, makes vague and non-testable claims, and ignores scientific advancements. Astrology’s reliance on confirmation bias and its inability to explain how celestial bodies affect human lives further undermines its credibility.
