Astrology: Pseudo Science

In the world of scientific inquiry, there are provable theories and those which are based on pseudo science. Philosopher Karl Popper postulated that the scientific method mandates that a theory must not be able to be falsified if it is to be proven as a valid scientific theory. An example of two divergent theories are those of astronomy vs. astrology as science. Astrology is the study of the cosmos. Astronomers, as educated scientists, have for centuries observed, plotted, hypothesized, theorized, and calculated mathematically the movements and actions of the stars, planets, and universe to arrive at conclusions. These conclusions are based on hypotheses that are theorized then either accepted or refuted. If the result of an experiment based on a hypothesis can be proven, it must be repeated again and again, and the same result observed, if it is to be considered as a valid scientific theory. With astronomy, these observations, and the data they elicit, are able to be replicated over and over, thus making them provable to a scientific certainty. The same cannot be said for astrology.

It is not results-oriented through scientifically provable data. There is no established scientific protocol that proves that an individual born under a specific astrological sign carries characteristics assigned to that sign. Nor is there any evidence that the movement of the stars affects or influences life events. There is no existing quantifiable or qualifiable data to support contentions made by those who call themselves astrologers. There is no peer review process to affirm or refute such contentions. Therefore, astronomy is not able to be proven scientifically. One of Popper’s criterion that a theory is falsifiable is if it has been enlarged or altered through its evidence, and this is the case with global