Message from the stars: astrology is “rubbish” and “nonsense”
BHA Distinguished Supporter Professor Brian Cox and comedian Dara O’Briain are in the ascendant! The world of sky magic practitioners has been shaken to its foundations after Cox and O’Briain said bad words about astrology on BBC2′s Stargazing Live. Astrology is “rubbish”, said O’Briain, and “nonsense” Cox agreed. The Astrological Association of Great Britain, which is a real thing, have started a petition which, astrologers predict, the BBC will later spend license-payers’ money having to reply to.
Martin Robbins of the Lay Scientist blog moves into alignment:
The section of the program that caused the fuss has been described in truly harrowing terms by ‘respected astrologer’ Angela Cornish, in an e-mail that was published by the SkyScript blog:
“If you didn’t happen to see it, there were two presenters, Professor Brian Cox and Dara O’Briain. All was going well until they got to a part where they had models of the planets in our solar system on a table and Dara was explaining that all of the planets orbit at different speeds and distances away from the Sun. He said only the earth orbits the Sun in 365 days and returns to its own place, showing that horoscopes are nonsense. He then went on to add “Let’s get this straight once and for all, Astrology is rubbish”The other presenter, Brian Cox, then agreed and said “in the interests of balance on the BBC, yes astrology is nonsense.”
Shocking stuff, I think you’ll agree.
This is not the first time that Brian Cox has waded into the astrology controversy that has raged in science for literally almost none of the last couple of centuries. The hackles of Britain’s astrologers were raised last year, when Cox took a moment during his Wonders of the Solar System series to explain to the public that “astrology is a load of rubbish,” a statement which pretty much echoes the scientific consensus on the matter, which says that, “astrology is a load of rubbish.” It’s a position that was first reached by Islamic scholars at least 650 years ago, and has been studiously ignored by such great minds as Jonathan Cainer ever since.
Ephemeris: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/jan/24/1
See Brian Cox deliver the BHA’s Voltaire Lecture 2010 on “The Value of Big Science”.
I always knew it was a con. An absloute disgrace that the likes of Russell Grant and Jonathan Camer get paid for producing such utter drivel.
I’m going to stick with the tea leaves and the crysral ball.
Am I BHA’s only astrologer? I have no esoteric belief system, and understand why scientifically-minded people assume astrology is rubbish because it looks as if it must be – I have no idea how it works. I’m not going to give up reading people’s birth charts, though, because they make too much sense. I don’t need astrology for income, or as an existential or psychological prop, still less to tell the future or to fill up a sad, empty life. I’ve lived with myself for sixty years and I know who I am. It’s bloody uncomfortable finding sense and meaning where there ‘should’ be nonsense, but I’m damned if I’ ll stop just to give myself a reassuringly consistent worldview or to fit in with the views of other humanists. Similarly I can’t adopt an esoteric worldview, past lives and all, just to agree with some of my astrologer friends or to make certain birth chart features easier to read.
I’m interested in the whole question of how we make meaning and was hoping to find lively, open minds to discuss the issue from many angles. Have I joined the wrong club?
Well, although I would never tell anyone that they aren’t a humanist, I would certainly find it difficult to explain how a humanist could believe in astrology. It is a pseudoscience, it doesn’t hold up under rigorous scientific testing. It shares features with religious and supernatural explanations of events/human existence. If you are interested in meaning making, I would recommend investigating the field of psychology- heuristics, cognitive dissonance etc. I think you will find lively discussion here, offering many different views on a wide variety of subjects… however I don’t think you can expect most people here to accept views that aren’t based on scientific principles.
In response to Nascita, it is well known why astrology “works”. It is often a matter of confirmation bias (http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html). Every correspondence in astrology can always be interpreted in at least two opposite senses. The tendency is to take the interpretation that fits in with what you already know about the person whose birth chart you are studying. There is also the human capacity for seeing patterns in random arrangements, as for example in the pictures seen in the constellations. Coincidences do occur.
Personally, if I have experiences that don’t seem to have some rational explanation, I would go to some lengths to seek to resolve the question. I have studied astrology myself, and attended meetings of an astrological society, to try to assess how the people there thought, so I don’t think I can be accused of being closed minded. But it is reassuring “to have a consistent worldview”. I see nothing wrong with that, even if one is accused thereby of being “small minded”.
There are stil many issues that I have not resolved and where I find myself often in disagreement with the views of other humanists, though astrology is not one of them.
In my dark night of the soul (if I may use that word on this site) I greatly appreciate the responses I’ve had. The current state play is: Astrology seems to be a practice based on magical thinking. I don’t believe in magic. I have confidence in the astrology readings I do and the way they help me understand myself and others. Non sequitur. Bother. I haven’t yet studied the kind of psychology recommended and, thanks to your prompting, Sarah and George, I now have access to a very useful-looking battery of tools with which to deconstruct this confidence and shall use them to attempt some rigorous self-monitoring. In a different tool-set I have a very apt astrological configuration for the nature, degree and timing of this personal crisis. However…
I haven’t meant to offend humanists (whom I still stubbornly regard as fellow humanists) by accusing you of closed-mindedness. I’m a bit tetchy at the moment (see above) and was feeling somewhat defensive when I first wrote – the stakes are high for me on either side of this debate.
Sarah, thanks for your comments – they were helpful and seemed helpfully offered. One question about the grounding of humanism in scientific principles:
A key statement on the BHA website is:’ Humanists believe that people are naturally good.’ As it stands this looks to me like a triumph of faith over observation. I’d probably define humanists as people who believe in people and I count myself in this group; however, when I read the news or political history I sometimes wish I belonged to another species. One can define the terms and provide a bit of backing by saying that people have an innate capacity for empathy and co-operation, otherwise we’d never have survived and developed as we have. But if you want a monument to our other capacities, look around. You can’t blame it all on religion.
George, many thanks also to you for your contribution. I hear a lot of bias-confirming talk among astrologers (not just that, and not just among those people) so I have already some sympathy for your view although it doesn’t convince me that that’s all there is to it.. If you have the time I’d love to know what took you to the study of astrology, what you found and what took you out again.
All the best to you two and others, including those who gave me the thumbs down – hard thinking’s worth more than hard feelings!
Nascita
Hi again Nascita,
Yes, I believe that is how I would qualify the statement that humans are naturally good (and I believe it is how the BHA would too). From my educational background (psychology) and through lots and lots of first hand experience in my profession (teacher), I know that the experiences we have in our childhood and throughout our lives affect the way we behave and the way we treat each other.
Of course there are innate problems that can occur, ongoing research may help us better understand the role of genetics in character traits such as aggression. From the research I’ve seen, it looks like positive life experiences may be able to overcome these genetic tendencies to some degree.
When thinking about the negative aspects of human behaviour, I always find it helpful to reframe the question. Instead of wondering why there is so much crime, ask why there isn’t more. For example, all of us could personally benefit from theft and are regularly presented with opportunities to steal valuable items, sometimes with very little chance of being caught. So why don’t we do it?
Another point that helps me think about this issue is that the idea of what is ‘good’ is a purely human concept in the first place. The things we think are ‘good’ are ‘good’ because they are helpful to us.
For me, the most important principle of humanism is that man-made problems can be solved with man-made solutions. We are completely in control of our own future in that regard.
I am glad my comments were taken as helpful suggestions. That is certainly how I intended them.
I don’t know about astrology but there are certainly ways of using tarot cards that don’t presuppose the universe is personal to me in some way that can be divined. To see what meanings are projected onto a particular card or spread, and for creative/lateral problem-solving – 78 ways of looking at any given situation just waiting to be drawn at random. And the decks do tend to be impressive works of art.
I can empathize with what Nascita says about other astrologers – being in a tarot association surrounded by people who did believe in a personal universe felt like slow suffocation. (that might even have had something to do with why I joined the BHA, usually I say that reading The God Delusion mobilised me in my atheism)
Nascita asks: “If you have the time I’d love to know what took you to the study of astrology, what you found and what took you out again.”
What happened was that I met two members of a science fiction group in Leicester who were also members of the local astrological society. However before that I was already interested in all forms of strange beliefs, including Tarot, I Ching, Runes and so on, particularly those involving some mathematical or games aspect, and I wanted to see if there was any element of truth to be found in them.
There is of course an element of truth in astrology in that the Sun influences the seasons and the Moon the tides, and these in turn influence biological life in various ways. Kepler, who was obliged by his employers to cast horoscopes, thought there might be something in it, but could never profess to be certain of anything. (I recoment Arthur Koestler’s biography of Kepler in his book “The Sleepwalkers”.) But science has moved on since his day, and the idea that the positions of the planets at one’s birth influence one’s mental proclivities has been shown to be just nonsense. Nevertheless the symbolism and terminology of the subject remains attractive and influential.
Now that BHA Distinguished Supporter Professor Brian Cox and comedian Dara O’Briain state Astrology is “rubbish”, I can safely sleep in bed at night. Never mine that they have haven’t done any research on Astrology or interviewed professional Astrologers, we will have to take their word for it!
It’s nice to know that license fee money is being paid to 2 intelligent men who display perfect prejudice and bigoted.
They really should be pleased with themselves, all those years spent studying for paper qualifications and they are capable of such intelligent talk. To quote Dara O’Briain, “Let’s get this straight once and for all, Astrology is rubbish.”
It might be for the ignorant like yourself, but what right do you have to use a BBC programme for your prejudice? Professor Brian Cox should know better, but shows a complete lack of impartiality. Could this lack of judgement be blamed for why the UK university system is falling behind better overseas universities?
So, Brian Cox main motive for science programmes is to repeat that Astrology is rubbish? He really does need to grow up. Professorships do require responsibility and to hold to a standard. If this is what is uttered from a UK professor, we need to raise the bar.
Jonathan Cainer is a media/entertainment Astrologer. This should not be confused with a professional Astrologers.
Neil Duran writes:
>Jonathan Cainer is a media/entertainment Astrologer. This should not be confused with a professional Astrologers.
I thought “professional” astrologers had to include a legal disclaimer about their service being provided for “entertainment purposes only” in order get insurance, so yeah, at least one of us is confused.
But yeah, I don’t see anyone rushing to dig out citations about how perceived accuracy of predictions is completely uncorrelated with the astrologer being passed the correct birth-data (via a double-blind).
All professional services have some sort of legal disclaimer, so Astrology shouldn’t be outside this constraint.
All businesses have to have some insurance when dealing with the general public, the confusion is your own.
Astrology, yes can be used to entertainment but also for self discovery. To use for prediction involves too many variables.
Instead of focusing on the accuracy or falsehood of Astrology, maybe you could look in the opposite direction for clues.
The so called skeptics using under hand methods and lies, to promote their own agenda.
If you have made up your mind about Astrology, that’s ok by me. Just have a look at the so called truth seekers who
have debunked Astrology, ask yourself a question.
Are these debunkers being honest?
Astrology can be used for self discovery, yes. So what? Absolutely anything can be used for self discovery!… and the theory behind the thing can still be rubbish and nonsense. Self discovery is none-the-less good, what is not good is the corrosive worldview astrology promotes in which the universe treats us in a personal way (because these personal things about us are written in the stars) – this way of looking at things is completely without descriptive power, unlike the worldview in which everything in the universe interacts in the same objective impersonal fashion, which has led to all the science and technology that we possess.
The point about the legal disclaimer was to show that your distinction between entertainment and “professional” astrologers is a false distinction.
Neil Duran accuses Brian Cox and Dara O’Briain of being bigoted and displaying perfect prejudice by simply calling astrology the rubbish that it is. Since they are both qualified physicists they are surely fully justified in their comments, assuming that they are referring to that aspect of astrology that maintains that the configurations of the planets have influence on human lives by some geometrical or physical means.
In my experience modern practitioners of astrology tend to play down the supposed astronomical influence, and treat the subject as a kind of psychological personality analysis, using the planets purely as symbolic of aspects of personality. In this way it becomes very similar to tarot or palmistry or casting of runes, or consulting the tea leaves or entrails, or any other form of divination. Really it should be called “astromancy”.
I should make it clear that I am totally sceptical of all such forms of divination, and indeed dubious also of more scientifically respectable forms of personality analysis, such as Freudian psychoanalysis.
“”Astrology can be used for self discovery, yes. So what?”"
Looks like you could need some!
“”The point about the legal disclaimer was to show that your distinction between entertainment and “professional” astrologers is a false distinction.”"
You know so little about Astrology that you criticise!
Brian Cox and Dara O’Briain can call Astrology rubbish, but in their own time and not be funded by the BBC, is my point.
Qualified physicists, but not wise enough to speak with any authority about Astrology.
No justification whatsoever with calling Astrology rubbish, this is a programme about astronomy. If they have a bigoted attitude against Astrology they can do it somewhere else.
History lesson for Cox, advancements in astronomy were funded by the study of Astrology in the 17th century. Michael Mosley made this point in a recent programme on the BBC, The Story of Science. Check it out!
Do you actually know anyone who is very knowledgeable about Astrology?
I suppose you would be sceptical of weather forecasts then?
I don’t know anything of Freudian psychoanalysis but am intelligent enough not to criticise it just in case it has valid points. Food for thought not just for yourself but also to Cox and O’Briain.
Neal Duran claims: “… advancements in astronomy were funded by the study of Astrology in the 17th century…”. I cited the case of Johannes Kepler in an earlier comment. At his time, and going back to Claudius Ptolemy and even the Babylonians, the distinction between astrology (star-study) and astronomy (star-law) was often unclear. Kepler served as Imperial mathematician and had quite a lot of trouble obtaining payment for his services. No doubt the horoscopes he was obliged to produce paid better! Such is the way of the world.
Neal Duran asks: “Do you actually know anyone who is very knowledgeable about Astrology?” Yes, the members of Leicester Astrological Society, as I mentioned earlier. Not that there’s anything much of substance to be known, since it is a pseudoscience, so anyone can place their own interpretation on it. I would be interested to know who you consider to be an authority.
The thing about psychotherapy is that in most attempts to measure it’s success, all the main approaches seem to score pretty much the same, which implies it’s the things they have in common that are important rather than what is unique to each one. (Wampold, B.E. (2001) The Great Psychotherapy Debate).
So this whole thing about astrology pails into insignificance for me if there are more reputable theories and models (the ones central to each psychotherapy approach) that presumably can’t be true.
Psychodynamic theories have moved on a bit since the original Freudian stuff George mentioned, but I really can’t get my head round why in the 21st century they’re still considered part of the mainstream in psychology.
Neil – I am listening to what you’re saying. I’m mainly hearing that you have a lot of respect for astrology and that it upsets you when people fail to show the basic minimum of respect you feel is appropriate (especially when TV license fee payers are footing the bill). Your last reply to me sounded a bit like you were saying that Antony is rubbish.
Hi
A bit late to this
I have met George before as he was looking into some of the things I am into, one being Astrology. (Hi George) and found him interested and polite.
I think that most astrologers have the strength of character to ride the wave of criticism where ever it somes from. That’s fine, criticise away but know that most people are doing it from a point of ignorance about astrology (not having the time, inclination or even good manners to look into something fully before they say it’s rubbish) and no matter how well qualified they are as physicist they still display unscientific behaviour.
Their argument that astrology is rubbish is based on the fact of the precession of the equinoxes and implying that astrologers are not aware of this. Firstly, any astrologer worth their salt are aware of it and has been taught about it from the very first time that they took up their studies. secondly Vedic astrology make appropriate calculations so that it does use the constellations in the sky. Of course, neither Cox or O’Briain knew this because if they did they could not use the precession of the equinoxes as proof that astrology is no good. I mean, does that mean that they see vedic astrology being more valid than western?? probably not but they can’t accuse vedic astrology of being rubbish on the basis of the precession of the equinoxes.
I am happy for George to say that astrology is not valid in their opinion because of various scientific reasoning, but when I can talk to someone on the phone that I have never met before and explain what happened to them on a certain date because this is why they are calling me with no other information than the birth chart – I think it works and I can make that person see that this is part of a cycle they are going through and give them advice as to how they handle it and they go away feeling better and more incontrol of their life, then I think is’t useful,
Of course, astrology is not the only tool for this and people are free to use whatever tools they choose, so what I am saying is I don’t mind that in your opinion astrology is rubbish but but don’t use spurious and irrelevant scientific arguments to ‘prove’ it when all you know about astrology comes from others opinions that know nothing about astrology either.
Finally – I would just like to mention that in a televised lecture Brian Cox warned agains the hubris of scientists who think they know everything there is to know about the physical universe (or words to that effect)
Oh and just an aside about the petition, Mr O’Briain was soooo cool about it that he encouraged all 30, 000 followers on twitter to sabotage it. So much for free speech then!!!!!
“Their argument that astrology is rubbish is based on the fact of the precession of the equinoxes and implying that astrologers are not aware of this. ”
Mary, I’m struggling to make sense of your post. I regard myself as an educated man, but what on earth is “The precession of the equinoxes”? You say that you believe that Dara O’Briain and Brian Cox rubbished astrology because of this statement. I doubt they have even heard of it! I certainly haven’t. I think they rubbished it because they are well aware that there is no scientific foundation for astrology. I’m well aware of the vernal and autumnal equinox, when the length of day is exactly equal to the length of night but what on earth is a precession?
I’m surprised that any “educated man” has never heard of the Precession of the Equinioxes.
Perhaps Steven Whately is a victim of Snow’s “Two Cultures”?
Has he also never heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
I’m sure both Brian Cox and Dara O’Briain could give a seminar on the precession:
http://www.crystalinks.com/precession.html
It is in any case irrelevant to Astrology, because the Zodiac begins at the spring equinox,
which Astronomers still insist on calling “The First Point of Aries” even though it is no longer in Aries.
Why do Astronomers still use the constellations anyway? John Herschel said long ago
that the division of the sky into constellations was designed to be as awkward as possible!
My “Space Compass” would be much more rational.
I found this page easier to understand.
Thank you George – just to elucidate. Western astrology takes the ‘First point of Aries’ and splits the sky up into 12 divisions from there. Vedic astrology makes a calculation of about 51 degrees backwards to adjust for the precession.
You see – astrologers may be mislead in the opinion of some, but we can’t be accused of not being educated. We know more about astronomy than a lot of lay people and certainly more than most astronomers know about astrology. We have to know the basics of the solar system at least and because we are interested in astrology we are usually interested astronomy too. In fact in my case my interest in astronomy fired a curiosity about astrology.
Looking at numerous articles on the web, it appears Brian Cox lacks a basic understanding of particle physics!? Silly me? Brian Cox is a Professor of Particle Physics at Manchester University and is brilliant by all who see him?
The point I make! If Brian Cox doesn’t understand particle physics, PhD included I believe? How can he give an honest opinion on Astrology.? Message to Brian Cox. Learn your own subject first, be competent in that discipline and then grow up! Open your eyes to the universe and be a proper man. Question any subject, yes! Walk away from your self imposed ignorance and resist scientific stupidity.
Look at Astrology from a scientists microscope instead of being a know it all. Your never going to be a Einstein or Feynman. You will always be a third rate physicist.