Ethan Siegel's Argument Analysis

552 Words2 Pages

In this paper, I summarize Ethan Siegel’s argument that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the stars have an effect on people’s lives. Siegel lays out his argument by questioning if Astrology is a science and if it has any scientific merits. Through explaining that science needs to make predictions that can be tested through experiment or observation, Siegel concludes that it can’t be done with Astrology.
Siegel’s main conclusion is about explaining why Astrology does not have scientific merits. According to him, Astrology needs to have plausible predictions. These aren’t predictions that just sound reasonable. These predictions need to be able to go through testing and either be proven right or wrong by the process of observation and experimentation. Siegel argues that Astrology shouldn’t be blindly accepted just because it’s an idea that’s been talked about for a long time, it’s validated from an authority figure or even because we want it to be true. …show more content…

Siegel explains the usage of it and how different cultures have adapted it for their uses. The Chinese based their version of the year of people’s birth while Europeans based it on locations of the Sun, Moon and planets connected to different Zodiac signs (Siegel 2014). Nowadays, people turn to the Zodiac Table in finding some guidance into how to live their lives. Since the Zodiac table has been an idea accepted for a long time and is ingrained in many various cultures in the world, some people do not question its validity. As explained earlier just because Zodiac signs seem reasonable, it does not make Astrology a science to

Open Document