8/12/2019 Astrology 18

1/1

Demarcation

Under the criterion of falsifiability, first proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper, astrologyis a pseudoscience.[107] Popper regarded astrology as pseudo!empirical in that it appeals toobser"ation and e#periment, but ne"ertheless does not come up to scientific standards.[10$]%&& 'n contrast to scientific disciplines, astrology has not responded to falsification throughe#periment.[10(]%)0* 'n contrast to Popper, the philosopher +homas Kuhn argued that it as notlac- of falsifiability that ma-es astrology unscientific, but rather that the process and concepts ofastrology are non!empirical.[110]%&01

+o Kuhn, although astrologers had, historically, made predictions that categorically failed, this initself does not ma-e it unscientific, nor do the attempts by astrologers to e#plain aay the failureby claiming it as due to the creation of a horoscope being "ery difficult. ather, in Kuhn/s eyes,astrology is not science because it as alays more a-in to medie"al medicine they folloed aseuence of rules and guidelines for a seemingly necessary field ith -non shortcomings, butthey did no research because the fields are not amenable to research,[111]%$ and so they had nopu22les to sol"e and therefore no science to practise.[110]%&01[111]%$ 3hile an astronomer couldcorrect for failure, an astrologer could not. 4n astrologer could only e#plain aay failure but couldnot re"ise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful ay. 4s such, to Kuhn, e"en if the starscould influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific.[111]%$

Philosopher Paul +hagard belie"ed that astrology cannot be regarded as falsified in this senseuntil it has been replaced ith a successor. 'n the case of predicting beha"iour, psychology is thealternati"e.[11)]%))$ +o +hagard a further criterion of demarcation of science from pseudoscienceas that the state!of!the!art must progress and that the community of researchers should beattempting to compare the current theory to alternati"es, and not be selecti"e in consideringconfirmations and disconfirmations.[11)]%))75))$ Progress is defined here as e#plaining nephenomena and sol"ing e#isting problems, yet astrology has failed to progress ha"ing onlychanged little in nearly )000 years.[11)]%))$[116]%&( +o +hagard, astrologers are acting asthough engaged in 8ormal science belie"ing that the foundations of astrology ere ellestablished despite the many unsol"ed problems, and in the face of better alternati"e theories9Psychology:. ;or these reasons +hagard "ieed astrology as pseudoscience.[11)][116]%))$

;or the philosopher 'n that case, ' thin-, e are perfectly ?ustifiedin re?ecting astrology as irrational. ... 4strology simply fails to meet the multifarious demands oflegitimate reasoning. @