ॐ ASTROLOGY

ASTROLOGY AIMS FOR RESPECTABILITY

Thin Evidence Hasn't Hampered Brisk Business

NEW DELHI, India, JUNE 12, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Astrology enthusiasts recently won a battle in India in their efforts to obtain academic credibility. The nation's Supreme Court upheld a 2001 decision by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to introduce courses in Vedic Astrology leading to undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, the Indian magazine Frontline reported in its June 5 issue. The court decision, handed down May 5, rejected a challenge to the UGC approval brought by several academics.

In their petition to the court the academics argued that Vedic Astrology cannot be considered a part of scientific study because astrology lacks the basic attributes and tenets involved in the pursuit of science. Specifically, they argued, astrology does not use the accepted scientific method of inquiry that is characterized by fallibility, verifiability and repeatability.

In 2001 the UGC invited applications from universities to set up astrology departments. Out of 41 submissions the UGC accepted proposals from 20 universities. The article termed the Supreme Court decision "a serious blow to the efforts of the scientific community and rational-minded people who have been relentlessly campaigning against the pernicious move."

Nevertheless, the writer took solace in the recent defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party in India's national elections. The BJP, observed the article, gave backing to astrology and other similar practices as part of its support of traditional Hindu culture.

Defenders of astrology are not limited to India. On May 16, Britain's Sunday Times reviewed a book published by a Royal Astronomical Society member, Dr. Percy Seymour, in which he lends some credence to astrology. Seymour, former lecturer in astronomy and astrophysics at Plymouth University, stated that he does not believe in the validity of star-sign horoscopes. Yet, in his book "The Scientific Proof of Astrology," he maintains that brain development may be affected by the Earth's magnetic field, especially during a child's growth in the womb. This magnetic field is affected by interactions with the sun, the moon and other planets.

The review did note, however, that Seymour is a lone figure in scientific circles in his defense of astrology. Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, has described astrology as "absurd," noted the Sunday Times. "There is no place for astrology in our scientific view of the world; moreover its predictive claims cannot stand any critical scrutiny," commented Rees.

Payoff, but no proof

An example of this scrutiny was a decades-long study of more than 2,000 people, reported on in the British newspaper Telegraph last Aug. 17. The study involved a group born in early March 1958. Many of the babies were born within minutes of one another and, according to astrology, should have many traits in common.

Researchers examined more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, marital status and IQ levels. In their findings, published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, the scientists reported no evidence of similarities between those born at the same time.

One of the researchers, Dr. Geoffrey Dean, said the results undermined the claims of astrologers, who typically work with birth data far less precise than that used in the study. "They sometimes argue that times of birth just a minute apart can make all the difference by altering what they call the 'house cusps,'" he said. "But in their work, they are happy to take whatever time they can get from a client."