Astrology versus Science:
How we know what we thought that we know?
Glenn Perry the astrology rests in the affirmation of which there are observable correlations regularly between the celestial phenomena and terrestrial ones.
The main one of them is the isomorphism between psique and the cosmos; this is, that the astrologers allege that the structure of psique is revealed in the structure of the Solar System at the moment of the birth Of the paradigm to the method in the astrological investigation the methods derive from the paradigms, and serve as appropriate instruments to investigate in the type of questions that have sense within a given paradigm.
In this article I affirm that the methods derived from the mechanist paradigm of modern science are unsuitable for the astrological investigation and therefore inadequate to provide support to the astrological hypotheses.
A paradigm is the conception of the world within which one tries to include/understand certain phenomenon. Theories like the astrology are based on paradigms that are like the steel rods of a skyscraper.
If a theory removes from the paradigm that naturally supports it, the theory will be transformed into ininteligible. Piston” without a model of the motor of internal combustion is like wanting to include/understand the concept “.
I maintain that the astrological theory is intelligible within an organicistic paradigm, but not in one mechanist one.
Of this one concludes that the methods used in the astrological investigation must necessarily be consistent with the organicistic vision of the world.
The problem of the credibility the astrology rests in the affirmation of which there are observable correlations regularly between the celestial phenomena and terrestrial ones. The main one of them is the isomorphism between psique and the cosmos; this is, that the astrologers allege that the structure of psique is revealed in the structure of the Solar System at the moment of the birth. It must not have doubts that if similar affirmation were certain, the value of the astrology would be enormous.
To have an instrument that it details invisible structure arquetípica of psique human, that clarifies to patterns of growth and development, that the essential meaning of certain experience or phase of the life reveals, that determines periods of crisis and shows its approximated duration, that it facilitates empathy, that exposes sincronicidades that binds the objective and subjective reality, that fortifies and deepens the spiritual understanding, and that provides with a species of pleasing aesthetic descriptible as the most elevated form of science and art, is a high ambition, without a doubt.
Nevertheless, between the professions that can be conceived that they make – medicine better, psychiatry, psycotherapy and counseling familiar the astrology is conspicuamente absent.
Virtually it does not take place in our universities, it is scorned by virtually all the compartments of the modern knowledge, and most of the scientists they consider mere Mediocre talker.
In the number of September of 1975 of The Humanist, a declaration attacking and discrediting to the astrology was signed by 186 scientists of forward edge, including 18 Nobel prizes.
Considered as divine art and worthy study of names like Galileo and Kepler, the astrology has been reduced to which a scientist once one talked about like “absolute silly thing”.
The loss of prestige in which the astrology between the scientific and academic elites of our culture has fallen contrasts noticeably with the raised status which it enjoys between those who practice it.
It is a peculiar and almost esquizoide division in psique collective.
How we can exceptionally give account of the discrepancy between under status of the astrology and the phenomenal defenses that their exponents do of her?
I believe that the answer to this puzzle rests in the paradigm notion. In the mechanist paradigm of the modern science, widely it is accepted that the method to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis is the experimental method.
But they were indeed the empirical and quantitative methods of modern science those that took to repudiate the astrology in century XVII – not because these methods demonstrated the dissability of the astrology, but because the application of the experimental method forced to the astrology in a coat of experimental force of which it could not leave.
Empirical science is based on certain Metaphysical assumptions that that comes up to one to see any truth to him except which they fall within the previous point of view of that method. But the astrology is not adapted to that way to know.
Therefore their truths will be either invisible, or will seem to be refuted.
While the astrologers create that the only way to vindicate its model is by the route of the experimental method of mechanist science, they will be imprisoned in an impasse: the astrology is due to adapt to the experimental method to be accepted, but the experimental method is intrinsically incompatible with the astrology. Luckyly, there is an alternative paradigm within which to see and to testear the truths proclaimed by the astrology.
It is the organicistic paradigm of the prescientific cultures that today re-is emerging under the title of “postmodern science”.
In the last years it has happened a radical change in the philosophy of the science that allows its medical instructors to embrace truths that a century ago were considered magic.
The importance of this change cannot be overestimated, since it was of the magicians, organicistic conceptions of the world of the prescientific cultures, that the astrology grew and bloomed. She is my to seem that a greater acceptance and opening to the astrology will more probably come from a shift of paradigm, that of experimental science within the old paradigm.
This new emergent paradigm not only is able to provide a climate with more hospitable knowledge to the astrology, but also to provide methods with agreed interrogation and search with the type with knowledge that the astrology professes.
The nature of the paradigm a paradigm can schematically be defined as the vision of the dominant world of a culture. More indeed, it is a constellation of concepts and theories that, meetings, form a particular vision of the reality.
Within the context of a given paradigm, certain values and practices are shared so that they are transformed into base of the ways in which the community organizes itself to itself. A paradigm, shortly, is a system of beliefs that maintains together to a culture.
Thomas Kuhn (1970), in his classic structure of the scientific revolutions, explains that a paradigm is a set of shared beliefs, or of work premises that “during a time provide problems and solutions model to a community with paracticantes”.
Invariably, nevertheless, there are certain class of problems and methods to solve problems that fall outside the borders of a given paradigm. “A paradigm, – Kuhn- writes down, it does not need, and in fact never it does, to explain all the facts with which it can be confronted”.
In effect, a paradigm is as a filter that not only dyes the data that enter (i.e., giving a particular interpretation them), but that even determines what class of data to enter. Whereas a paradigm helps to see certain things us, also it blinds with respect to others – those things to us that would not have sense within that interpretativo framework. An investigator never has independent access to the reality.
The character of which one knows and the categories according to which forms the experience are functions of the paradigm that one has inherited. As Wittgenstein (1968) aimed, only one can see through opaque crystals of the cognitivo apparatus of certain vision of the historically conditional world. The belief that our theories provide a true and correct description with the reality is a projection. He would be more exact to say than our theories construct a reality that works for us.
The best example is the mechanist paradigm that has dominated our culture during last the two centuries. In the context of this fantastic paradigm advances in technology and medicine have taken place. Nevertheless, in our attempts to reduce the reality to their material substratum, everything a rank of phenomena that cannot be included/understood in mechanist terms either is ignored, or not explained – creativity, freedom, will, intuition, clarividencia, precognition, telepathy and astrology.
According to Kuhn (1970), once a paradigm is accepted and provides solutions that work for different puzzles, the paradigm can “isolate the community of those important social problems that they are not reductibles to the forms of those puzzles, since they cannot settle down in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools that the paradigm contributes”.
When anomalous findings begin to emerge in the course of the studies within a paradigm, the implications of those anomalies at the outset are resisted.
Manufactures, exageraciones discard like possible errors, or simply the label like “anomalies” that do not fit in the formal framework, and thus can be maintained separate healthfully until someday they fit. Kuhn explains: “When assuring that the paradigm will not be collapsed so easily, the resistance guarantees that the scientists easily will not be stunned, and that the anomalies that lead to a shift of paradigm will not penetrate the existing knowledge until the heart”.
Within the context of the mechanist paradigm, the astrology is considered either a manufacture, or an anomaly; this is, either its proposals are fraudulent, or the astrology constitutes a so radical apartment of the regulated knowledge that simply is considered too much is strange like investigating it.
The point is that the astrology has been rejected by modern science not because has been proven its falsification but because by principles it does not have to work.
The astrology simply does not fit in the type of universe that science is able to see.
Books to avoiding specially not to lose time, one recommends to avoid specially any thing predictiva based on the solar signs that one sees written in the newspapers or magazines. Simultaneously, the whole literature that takes titles(degrees) of the type ” The signs of the zodiac and the love ” or ” Know his(her,your) future with the astrology ” it is a garbage in pure condition(state).