To What Extent Is Astrology A Science Or A Pseudoscience

In this paper, I will argue that Astrology is not a science or a pseudoscience by critically assessing different points many philosophers such as Paul Thagard, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn have made on what a pseudoscience is to asses Astrology, which is the study of the positions and relationships the moon, stars, sun, and planets in order to judge its influence on human actions. I will also use examples of past studies that support my stance. The only plausible reason that seems to support astrology as a science is the fact that astrology uses the scientific method. The scientific method was developed by many philosophers and scientists including Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn and Einstein. It consists of many trials of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification to prove a given theory. As you may or may not know, astrology focuses on observing the location of the planets and the sun as well as their effect on people; this is the groundwork for astrological charts and thus satisfies the first condition of the scientific method.

French statistician Michel Gauquelin sent the horoscope of a French mass murderer to one hundred and fifty people and asked them how well it was suited to them; about 94% of them recognized themselves in the description. The actual verification of astrology may be difficult to achieve mostly because of how vague and generalized the readings are. Not only that, but while, astrology isn’t irrefutable, it has many ways around it. There can be many reasons for an astrological reading to go wrong, whether the astrologist made a mistake or the person getting a reading lied about their birth date. The long list of excuses however, doesn’t disprove astrology and there is no conceivable way for a controlled test to be taken. It is because of how easy it is for the “hypothesis” for astrology, can be explained that causes Kuhn and Popper to claim it irrational as well as its