Debunking Astrology: Not so Cut and Dry

I read your article by Isabelle Gan about astronomer Gary Fouts. I happen to agree that the field of astrology is a bad mess, but no science is an exact science. Even modern physics is plagued with all sorts of logical dilemmas, and on a broader level itself, the ability of logic to answer life’s questions was questioned by Immanuel Kant in his “Critique of Pure Reason” in 1781.

I have been especially critical of modern psychological astrology for the reasons Fouts explains and I am in full agreement that a lot of what is out there is made of “Ms Cleo wanna be’s.” However, Fouts is an astronomer and does not know the field of astrology very well. If he did, he would have known that precession is the reason why there is at least 3 possible definitions of tropical zodiac AND several sidereal zodiacs and that precession of the vernal point itself has been linked to the zodiacal ages.

Those who do study it seriously have to weed through all of the BS out there and it is not helped by scientists who use spurious arguments implying that the signs and constellations are the same thing (they are not).

A much clearer picture would be to admit that there does appear to be a cyclical pattern to life. A correlation can be drawn (though not causal in nature) between all kinds of things. For instance a positive correlation can be found between violent crime and ice cream consumption in a given area, but one doesn’t leap to the conclusion that ice cream causes people to lose their minds. Instead, hot weather tends to produce both behaviors.

Some consider astrology to be a system of linking these patterns in life without saying that the stars cause them (I am not one of those however, but it should give you pause to think). If you would take your own advice about critical thinking to your own argument seriously, you would see that it has flaws.

Curt Manwaring
Software Developer