 |
|
A GenePoool.com Essay
Astrology
I don't understand astrology, or rather, I don't understand people who put any stock in it. This may seem like a fairly minor confession coming from me, but usually I'm pretty good at playing Devil's Advocate with myself. But when it comes time to take the perspective of an adult human being living in the 20th century and defending astrology... I just can't do it.
Let's strip away all of the dressings and take a look at the root claims here. Essentially, the idea is that cosmic objects directly affect my future on a daily basis. The person I am now is directly related to the positions of those objects at the time of my birth. But of course, not ALL the objects in outer space affect me; only the ones that were discovered a long time ago and can be seen with the naked eye. Likewise, constellations-- not all the constellations, mind, just the ones identified a long time ago-- hold some sort of influence over me.
Do I need to go on?
It would make my job a lot easier if everyone else saw the inherent absurdity of the above paragraph that I do. For one thing, I'd already be done with this column.
But I guess I should do SOME work here. So for starters, take a look at the whole constellation issue. Seeing pictures in the stars is as old as mankind itself, partly because pattern recognition is hard-wired in our brains. For ancient man to look up at the stars, see a human-like shape, and conclude that they are looking at a god is not much of a leap. Ancient man did that sort of thing all the time, and we've come to expect that from him. But modern man should understand that this astronomical game of connect-the-dots is arbitrary. Modern man should also recognize that the constellations are meaningless from a non-terrestrial perspective; they consist of stars whose distances vary greatly from point to point. The pictures we see in the sky from our earthbound perspective melt away into an unrecognizable collection of random dots when we look at them from, say, Saturn. Beyond our perception of them, they aren't REAL.
The planets, however, are very real. The first planets mankind ever discovered were given the names of gods, and not only because they were neat names. The connection that begins with gods affecting mankind and gods being visible planets necessarily ends with planets affecting mankind. But it should be fairly evident that this equation falls apart once we determine that planets are not gods.
So let's try this one more time. The relationships of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn-- the planets, not the gods-- to the arbitrary mythic figures we elect to see images of in the random collection of distant stars, affect our day-to-day lives.
You can understand why I'm having trouble with this, can't you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponents of astrology have tried many different things to prove it "works." One of my favorites was a study done in England a while ago that seemingly proved that a disproportionate number of "exceptional" athletes were all born under the same sun sign. There were a couple of fairly fundamental problems with the study, not the least of which is the inherently subjective nature of the word "exceptional." Given that athletes from many different sporting events were used, the determination of who is average and who is above average is inherently arbitrary. When the data from the study was reexamined it was determined that athletes who did not fit the hypothesis (i.e., they were not born under the same sign) were summarily excluded regardless of their qualifications in regards to the "exceptional" issue. Likewise, unexceptional athletes who fit within the appropriate sun sign were added. But worse than that, in some cases birthdates were CHANGED to fit the hypothesis.
Another shelter for astrology claimants is the moon, or, more specifically, gravity.
The reasoning begins with scientific fact: the moon is responsible for the ocean's tides. It is true that the gravitational pull of the moon has a specific, measurable effect on the earth's water. In other words, we have an example of a heavenly body directly affecting something on earth.
The next step is a second scientific fact: more than 90% of the human body consists of water.
The third step is the first mistake: the gravity of the moon must therefore affect human beings the same way it affects the tides.
This erroneous conclusion leads to a variety of correlaries, such as the idea that if the moon's gravity can have this effect, why not the gravity of other celestial objects? Furthermore, this effect can explain what I'll refer to the Full Moon Phenomenon.
Let me explain why this is a mistake in the first place. The problem is really that nobody has bothered to check the details on the tidal effect.
The moon's gravity will cause tides in LARGE quantities of UNBOUNDED water. It does not magically tug at ALL water. If you don't believe me, go on outside and check for tides in a puddle. So as far as gravitational pull is concerned, the obstetrician has more of an effect on the newborn than the moon or any of the planets do.
But that doesn't, by itself, explain the Full Moon Phenomenon. The idea is, basically, people act crazier when it's a full moon. I think all of us can offer testimonials that support this claim, but does that make it true?
A study was done recently to test the validity of the Full Moon Phenomenon. The study concentrated on homicide rates in South Florida, and the hypothesis was, during a full moon, the homicide rates would increase, and the homicides themselves would be more "brutal" in some way. There is an obvious problem with the brutality question, insofar as it's a purely subjective thing. (Aren't all murders kinda brutal?) The first part of the study is perfectly measurable, however. And it did seem to prove the homicide rates increased during a full moon.
But the great thing about science is that someone will eventually come along to verify the soundness of a study. The data used in a study is made available so the numbers can be checked and the assumptions of the hypothesis can be re-thought.
Some minor errors were found in the numbers, and the question of whether the increase was statistically relevant was brought up, but neither of these findings are huge. However, someone bothered to use the same numbers to test whether there was evidence that murder rates went up during a THREE-QUARTER moon. According to the numbers, this hypothesis is just as valid. So if we're going to use this study to claim that the full moon causes people to act crazier, we'd better be on the lookout for the three-quarter crazies too.
What we have to ask when analyzing our evidence that people act "crazier" during a full moon is whether we're remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. (See: Premonitions.) We should also ask how the moon could possibly have such an effect on us in the first place. Even if we were to swallow the argument that the moon's gravity well affects people, why should the reflective quality of the moon be an issue at all? We all understand that the moon is still THERE when not all of it is visible, right?
Just because an entire half of the moon is reflecting the sunlight, that doesn't mean the moon is any closer or further away. The question of gravitational pull (and, remember, there isn't any; I'm just having some fun) shouldn't be any more of an issue when the moon is full than it is when the moon is a mere sliver.
We could argue, I suppose, that the amount of reflective light somehow makes people act crazy, but I honestly can't even think of a way to support this contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we strip away all of the central claims of astrology, we're really not left with very much, which leaves us with the most important question: why does it work?
Rather, why does it SEEM to work?
I'm holding in my hand the horoscopes from the Boston Globe for May 18, 1998, which just so happens to be my birthday. Here's a few excerpts. (in all cases, emphasis is added, and parenthetic remarks are mine.)
"You MAY be up for SOME SORT of financial gain, but be careful. There MAY be problems surrounding the conditions of the deal."
"You'll be emotional when it comes to love. (Duh....) Your partner will be upset if you haven't been responsible about your duties."
"You need to take care of yourself. Overdoing it will lead to fatigue and minor health problems. (Big Duh.) Take some time out to regenerate. Relax and enjoy your day."
"DON'T get involved with just anyone. You can't let other people pick out a partner for you. (Never mind that I'm being told this by someone else in a horoscope...)"
"Don't invest in something because someone else wants you to. Do a little research and if the numbers don't come back right, back away. (Another Big Duh.)"
"Your friends will be important to you..."
"You'll be feeling anxious if your position is uncertain..."
It's a mixture of common sense and vague predictions. There's also the example where the horoscope is urging a negative, which is totally unverifiable. If you don't do it, the horoscope is automatically validated.
And finally, my very own "Born Today" horoscope:
"It's time to get on with it. Stop waiting around for others. Make your choices and go after your goals. You've been wavering too long now. Jump on the information highway and get with the technology before it's too late."
So this is the advice the lords of astrology have determined for me on my thirtieth birthday. Four sentences telling me the exact same thing, and advice that is so totally wrong it's ridiculous.
If astrology works, it works because the people who believe in it want it to work. The above advice is sound advice for anybody and can be fit into any situation the believer wants to fit it into. The reason I've removed the sun signs from each of the above passages is because there's no point to having them; it's totally arbitrary. In fact, I challenge anybody who does not already have access to the May 18, 1998, edition of the Boston Globe to tell me which horoscope is for which sign.
So the next question is, why do people WANT it to work?
Galileo was excommunicated from the church and put under house arrest for the rest of his life because he championed the Copernican view that the Earth orbited the Sun. He was not imprisoned because he was wrong, but because it was considered heresy to think that the Earth-- and by extension mankind-- is anything less than the center of the universe.
It's very comforting to think that the universe was made FOR us, that the stars were put in a specific order to show us specific images, or that we're important enough for seemingly unrelated cosmic events to have personal meaning to each of us. It elevates us. Rather than being one member of one species on one small planet we become, on some level, the reason the planets orbit, the stars twinkle, and the moon spins.
Why do people believe in astrology? They want
to. I can't think of any other reason.
© 2000, Gene Doucette
| |
|