Science and non-science

I was somewhat concerned the other day to discover that my eldest son was confused about the difference between astronomy and astrology. It always makes me chuckle when people reveal their belief in astrology as if it were an indication of their intelligence and learning, without realising that it is actually an admission of the exact opposite. For one thing, you only need to believe in something if it doesn’t exist in reality. Nothing truly scientific needs to be believed in for it to exist. If there were no humans left on the planet, science would have no problem carrying on running the show, because it doesn’t exist in the human imagination.

Secondly, the stars are arranged arbitrarily in the universe, so any patterns and pictures that people see are only a consequence of the angle we happen to view them from the earth, combined with the power of imagination. What-is-more they are actually constantly moving, but imperceptibly slowly in the context of human time. So, astrology clearly has no foundation of truth, much like anything else that needs to be believed in to exist. In short, no one needs to believe in astronomy, and that is the essential difference between a science and a pseudoscience.

Of course, the reason why this pseudoscience persists in modern civilizations is that it still fulfils a desire in certain people to feel that there are external explanations for events in their lives. It is an abdication of responsibility for their own behaviours and choices. It feels good to pass the buck and blame things on the alignment of the stars. What-is-more, astrologers are necessarily ambiguous in their predictions to ensure that believers can always interpret their words in any way they wish. “So it is, that astrology continues to both infuriate and satisfy different people across the globe” I explained, impartially and without bias. Being the dutiful husband and father can be like that, don’t you find?

By Gerard Cheshire