Astrology - Why a "scientific" astrology is not enough

Why a "scientific" astrology is not enough

One of the biggest challenges of our astrological time – as well as of other times astrology flourished - is to define philosophically (and not only philosophically) what exactly is this thing, called astrology. Is it a predictive science, a tool for self-analysis, a method of contact with non-material realities? What exactly is the nature of this subject and what is it intended for?

As it has happened in other periods of astrological history we are divided on this issue. Most astrologers, whether acknowledged or not, believe inside them that astrology has a metaphysical connotation. To some extent they pass this out, because they cannot otherwise explain some astrological concepts that are not "translated" properly in modern psychological language (e.g. the issue of Lunar Nodes).

On the other hand, many astrologers, either for professional reasons or perhaps in order to maintain a high prestige make a major effort to prove that astrology meets the requirements of modern science. And in order to do so, they are trying to find scientific evidence for the validity of astrology.

The problem with this approach is the nature of proof itself. As it is nicely described in the book Astrology, Psychology and the Four Elements by Steven Arroyo, until now the scientific community accepts as proof the so-called "quantitative" proof. To prove that astrology is a phenomenon or a natural law, it should be described quantitatively, i.e. with mathematical equations and pass the test of cause and effect. Which means, whenever there is a specific reason, we should have a specific effect and vice versa. Whenever there is a specific effect a specific cause should hide behind.

Please note however that in the course of science in the 20th century, the last rule of cause and effect has been a little less strict, with the introduction of statistics in the scientific process; which transformed the natural law from a rigorous rule to an average behavior in accordance with a probabilistic function.

The challenge then, for many astrologers or sympathizers of astrology is to prove in terms of cause and effect, or even in terms of statistical frequency that there is a relationship between planetary motions and human facts.

This approach, however, paints only half the picture and does not deal with the experience of the “subject”. It deals only with what the subject "does" outside, which is the only measurable data under investigation.

In other words the statistical processes can measure only "facts" and not emotions, internal conflicts (which may not ever occur), or differences due to the subjective view of events.

So, statistical science can describe only a part of today’s astrology, namely that part which deals with macrocosmic situations, political issues or other forms of measurable events.

On the other hand statistics cannot tell the personal story of each of us, where the subjective view of things is not a "veil" of reality but a reality itself. You see there isn’t any measurable size that can say if I am unhappy or if I'm happy. There isn’t any measurement that helps me put goals in life, or tell me how in all this puzzle of contradictions I can find something I can call "myself". Or any measurement that can get me a tip on how to put all things in order in my life and explain why I’m acting the way I’m acting.

All this is data unavailable for the statistic science because it is not just a "phenomenon." But for the person who goes to an astrologer for advice, these things "are" his reality, a reality as real as it will ever become, unlike statistics and numbers which only lay somewhere in some hidden books.

For such a person the statistical approach of astrology is completely irrelevant and the so called 'scientific' approach is nothing less than another "academic" theory.

So, the fact that the quantitative process has helped man conquer nature and improve the chances of survival simply mean that numbers are only a means of measurement for the average. It does not matter if someone is hungry, what is important is that the “average person” is not hungry, or in other words, that the GDP rises. If economists say that we are doing well, so be it, even if some of us are a bit unhappy. It doesn’t matter what a specific person thinks personally about things; it is rather important what the “experts” say about those issues. Each and everyone’s personal opinion has never been less important for how things are going to end up finally. And of course this person, whose opinion is ignored every day, tries desperately to feel important through participation in reality shows and other means of discharge for his dissatisfaction.

Having to deal with all this, astrology can offer a different perception on how we can arrange our lives avoiding the fury of numbers and it also offers a completely different perception of what "proof" essentially means. Proof in Astrology is not just the quantitative measurement or the mathematical representation. Proof is mainly the result. If the result is there, then all other approaches are simply theories and redundant. If the result is true, then there is no reason for further study, dispute or controversy. If astrology works, this is enough for us and should be sufficient at least for all astrologers who claim to do advisory work. If astrology works, we must thank God that we have it and have inherited it from our ancestors. Because, if astrology weren’t there, we would probably have been forced to invent it!

PS: The above has been published in english in the 1st issue of NewAgeAstrology Magazine.. See further for a preview and feel free to order if you like it...