Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T23:40:04.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Paul R. Thagard
Paul R. Thagard*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan-Dearborn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most philosophers and historians of science agree that astrology is a pseudoscience, but there is little agreement on why it is a pseudoscience. Answers range from matters of verifiability and falsifiability, to questions of progress and Kuhnian normal science, to the different sorts of objections raised by a large panel of scientists recently organized by The Humanist magazine. Of course there are also Feyerabendian anarchists and others who say that no demarcation of science from pseudoscience is possible. However, I shall propose a complex criterion for distinguishing disciplines as pseudoscientific; this criterion is unlike verificationist and falsificationist attempts in that it introduces social and historical features as well as logical ones.

I begin with a brief description of astrology. It would be most unfair to evaluate astrology by reference to the daily horoscopes found in newspapers and popular magazines.

Type
Part VI. Aspects of Rationality
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 223 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Dan Hausman and Elias Baumgarten for comments.

References

Bok, Bart J. “A Critical Look at Astrology.” In [2]. Pages 21-33.Google Scholar
Bok, Bart J., Jerome, Lawrence E., and Kurtz, Paul. Objections to Astrology. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1975.Google Scholar
Cioffi, Frank. “Freud and the Idea of a Pseudoscience.” In Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Borger, R. and Cioffi, F. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pages 471–499.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. (trans.) Wiener, P.. New York: Atheneum, 1954. (Translated from 2nd edition of La Theorie Physique: Son Object Sa Structure. Paris: Marcel Riviere & Cie, 1914.)Google Scholar
Gauquelin, Michel. The Cosmic Clocks. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1967.Google Scholar
Gauquelin, Michel. The Scientific Basis of Astrology. New York: Stein and Day, 1969.Google Scholar
Gauquelin, Michel. “The Zelen Test of the Mars Effect.” The Humanist 37(1977): 30–35.Google Scholar
Haggard, Howard W. Mystery, Magic, and Medicine. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1933.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
Ihde, Aaron J. The Development of Modern Chemistry. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.Google Scholar
Jerome, Lawrence E. “Astrology: Magic or Science?” In [2]. Pages 37-62.Google Scholar
Koestler, Arthur. The Sleepwalkers. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research.” In [16]. Pages 1-23.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In [16]. Pages 91-195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. and Musgrave, Alan.(eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959. (Originally published as Logik der Forschung. Vienna: J. Springer, 1935.)Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. “Normal Science and its Dangers.” In [16]. Pages 51-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ptolemy, . The Almagest (The Mathematical Composition). (As printed in Hutchins, Maynard, Robert (ed.). Great Books of the Western World, Volume 16. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. Pages 1–478.)Google Scholar
Ptolemy, . Tetrabiblos. Edited and translated by Robbins, F.E.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Pages 20–46. (Originally published in The Philosophical Review 60(1951): 20-43.)Google Scholar
Sagan, Carl. “Letter.” The Humanist 36(1976): 2.Google Scholar
Stahlman, William D. “Astrology in Colonial America: An Extended Query.” William and Mary Quarterly 13(1956): 551–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swift, Jonathan. “The Partridge Papers.” In The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, Volume 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1940-1968. Pages 139–170.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul R. “The Autonomy of a Logic of Discovery.” Forthcoming in the Festschrift for T.A. Goudge.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul R. “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice.” Journal of Philosophy 75(1978): 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, Lynn. “The True Place of Astrology in the History of Science.” Isis 46(1955): 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.Google Scholar
Voltaire, . “Astroiogie” and “Astronomie”. Dictionnaire Philosophigue. In Oeuvres Completes de Voltaire, Volume XVII. Paris: Garnier Freres, 1878-1885. Pages 446–453.Google Scholar
Watkins, J.W.N. “Against ‘Normal Science’.” In [16]. Pages 25-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Alfred. “Die Entstehung der Kontinente.” Petermanns Geographische Mitteilung 58(1912): 185–195, 253-256, 305-309.Google Scholar
West, J.A. and Toonder, J.G. The Case for Astrology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.Google Scholar