Astrology: If Not Science, Then What?
This article is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. No portion of these articles may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, scanning, photocopying, recording, emailing, posting on other web sites, or by any other information storage and retrieval or distribution system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
To summarize – astrology is not a science because:
1) Our own historical development is not that of a science.
2) Astrology does not yield objective truth.
3) Its conclusions are context-dependent, inconsistent from one context to the next and not verifiable by research demanding consensus and replicability.
4) Its conclusions are derived through a wide range of diverse techniques and approaches to astrology that differ widely from astrologer to astrologer.
5) Its conclusions are derived, not through empirical observation alone, but through the participation of subject and object in a mutual dialogue.
6) Its conclusions assume the possibility of meaning and purpose, while science disavows these possibilities and is not prepared to discuss them.
7) Astrology ascribes a qualitative dimension to time, which is not acknowledged by science.
8) Astrology has no cogent, testable mechanism to explain how it works; nor has any such theory ever been tested by the rigorous standards demanded by science.
This is the last post in this series.
To read more blog posts, go here.