From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page

Ways of knowing
A swim in the shark-infested waters dividing science and spirit

Geoffrey Dean

A slightly expanded version of an article in Pulsar 8, 2-8, Winter 1991-92.

Abstract -- A simplified and nontechnical exploration for the general reader of the divide between science and spirit, and of ways of knowing. Most astrologers claim that astrology encompasses both the material and spiritual planes. The spiritual approach removes doubt because none is possible, which to some people is comforting. By contrast, the scientific approach demands tests and emphasises doubt, which to some people is far from comforting. There are several recognised ways of knowing (intuition, experience, authority, deduction, induction, and science). The trick is to distinguish between knowledge and belief, which are not the same, just as facts and values are not the same. Astrologers tend to look at astrology from a value viewpoint and conclude that it works. Critics tend to look at astrology from a factual viewpoint and conclude the opposite. Beware the difference. 12 references.

Some fools employ all their lives in writing nonsense,
and others all theirs in trying to make sense of it.
Anon, quoted in James Wilson's Dictionary of Astrology 1819:305

What in astrology turns you on the most? Practical matters such as relationships and vocation? Or spiritual matters such as potentials and transcendant meaning? Do you soothe your clients with "you have career difficulties"? Or do you sock it to them with "your task is to find your ego -- the father within rather than the father outside"?

Whichever kind of astrologer you are, you probably see other kinds like distant relatives raised on garlic, to be greeted from upwind but never invited to lunch. As one of the other kind hovering downwind, I now invite you to lunch, albeit not necessarily yours, for we are about to swim in the shark-infested waters dividing blithe science from blithe spirit. We start from the lush tropic shores of the latter.

Blithe knowledge
To the philosopher, spiritual astrology ("it shows us reality as a whole") raises the same problems as religion ("God is a loving heavenly father"). Namely, does it say anything that could be true or false? For religion, Blackstone (1963) summarises the views of many contemporary philosophers as follows:

(1) When is a statement religious? Answer: When it provides an all-pervasive orientation and an object of devotion, such as "The Lord is my Shepherd".

(2) Are religious statements capable of being true or false? Answer: Many religious statements (but not all) are intended to be true or false, such as "it is incorrect to think of God as transcendant". But in reality they will not be true or false unless some data could verify or falsify them.

(3) What qualifies as knowledge? Answer: Knowledge must meet three criteria. It must be true (we cannot know what is not true), we must be sure it is true (we cannot know if we are unsure), and our certainly must be justified by data obtained via reliable methods (no data = no knowledge). Excluded are systems based on formal postulates, such as Euclidean geometry, which are valid or invalid rather than true or false.

(4) Do religious statements qualify as knowledge? For example "God exists". Answer: Because there is no way of publicly distinguishing this from "God does not exist", the answer is no. To qualify as knowledge it must be supported by reliable evidence. As you might expect, sophisticated theists avoid the kind of statements that, if disconfirmed, would require them to give up their beliefs. For example "if God exists then the world will end tomorrow".

Be safe -- be nonfalsifiable
The above arguments show that between religion and science, as between astrology and science, there can be no conflict provided religion and astrology stick to nonfalsifiable and unverifiable statements. To put it another way, if like Einstein (who was both deeply religious and arguably the most famous scientist of his time) we see science as concerned not with values but with finding out what is, and religion as concerned with super-personal values that neither require nor are capable of rational foundation, then conflict between the two becomes impossible.

But it is not that simple! In practice no person uses religion as the ultimate authority for moral reasoning. In reality we pick whatever suits us (like the requirement to love thy neighbour) and ignore the rest (like the requirement to stone adulteresses). So we have some other authority, and that authority is "what most people think is moral", which of course can change over time. Similarly, some religious claims (like angels exist or souls survive bodily death) are also scientific claims that are therefore not outside the domain of science. But such complications do not upset my argument.

Some astrologers do indeed restrict astrology to super-personal values. Like Paracelsus they may be committed to a "metaphysick" or Grand Scheme of Things which happens to be conducive to astrology, yet reject certain of its claims (in this case mundane astrology), just as Hindus can be committed to a concept of God and reject certain claims of Christianity. But most astrologers claim that astrology has the unique advantage of encompassing both the material and spiritual planes. For example, Dennis Elwell (1987:4) says "astrology is the best and maybe the last hope of religion, because it offers a meeting-ground for the scientific and religious views of reality, reconciling many of their differences". No matter that both sides show no interest in astrology.

Now for the bad news
Invoking spiritual values does not elevate astrology beyond criticism. Indeed, it may be the death of it. Let me explain.

To start with, an astrologer who seeks spiritual fulfillment rather than truth will usually toss inconsistencies and falsifying data out the window. For example, Gregory Szanto (1985) claims that the astrological symbols in our birth chart help us align our outer physical expression (where we have free will) with our inner spiritual nature (which is set by God) to achieve harmony with the universe. He then claims that only intuition can reveal the inner nature shown by the birth chart. So the meaning must be allowed to rise spontaneously from the unconscious (where he claims meaning resides), for example by using the birth chart as a crystal ball. Note the problem -- there is nothing here that could be true or false. Worse still, the problem of how to resolve opposing intuitions (which, given that astrologers show no useful agreement on what a given birth chart shows, is the rule rather than the exception) is simply ignored. In these warm enticing waters we have met our first shark.

Spiritual sharks for sale
Those with a taste for shark will find a gourmet feast among the claims of the late Dane Rudhyar, perhaps the best-known proponent of the broad spiritual approach, spiritual being the word preferred by him (Rudhyar 1975:49). What follows is largely a condensation of a detailed analysis due to Kelly and Krutzen (1983) and Kelly, Culver and Loptson (1989). Rudhyar's claim comes first in italics, then their analysis:

Astrology deals with individuals, science does not. According to Rudhyar (1936/1970:460), "modern science is obliged to ignore the individualness of every living entity" whereas astrology "deals essentially with the individual". But science does not ignore individuals. In fact a major focus of psychology is the study of individual differences. If a theory does not stop bedwetting, or cure fear of spiders, or identify ability, or help Gladys learn better, then we reject it or revise it. Rudhyar has set up a straw man.

Astrology's truths are not empirical. Rudhyar (1936/1970:459) denies that astrology gives empirical truth, that is, truth which can be confirmed by observation. Thus the birth chart reveals a person's potentials but does not indicate what will actualise these potentials. To paraphrase Eysenck's (1985:195) critique of Freudian theory, this presents us with a difficulty. What if the potentials are merely speculations that are actually untrue? How can we tell? Tests have shown that astrologers generally disagree on what a given chart indicates, so how can we tell who is right? Thus even if we accept astrology as a source of insight, we still need criteria for deciding its truth or falsity -- and none are provided.

Astrology sees man and the universe as a whole. This requires the assumption that it is meaningless to examine any part in isolation. Just as a note has meaning only as part of a melody, so life can be understood only as part of the universe, and astrology "if it is properly used" is the best way of finding your place (Rudhyar 1977). If you disagree, then astrology "is not being used properly". Compare this with faith healing -- if you have faith you will be healed, but if you ain't healed then you have insufficient faith! By invoking holism astrology is thus made nonfalsifiable and is elevated beyond criticism. The impossibility of examining the whole is conveniently ignored. Furthermore, even the supposedly "whole chart" of 10 planets is still a microscopic "part" of the universe of over 10²² stars, so by Rudhyar's own argument the birth chart is necessarily meaningless.

Ultimately Rudhyar (1980) defines astrology as being beyond inquiry: "To reduce astrology to a practice susceptible of...[objective analysis] is to me to repudiate its very special character as a discipline of understanding -- a path to broad psycho-spiritual wisdom." This would seem to absolve astrology from any responsibility to establish the truth of its claims. Thus the real foundation of spiritual astrology is that no belief about anything could be false, and its defence against criticism is nonfalsifiability. The problem of course is that, if you believe it is all foolish nonsense, then by its own rules you are right. In the long run the difference between surviving and being devoured by sharks is largely a question of knowing, coming up next.

Ways of knowing
Knowing requires sufficient evidence. When evidence is not sufficient, we can, in order of increasing difficulty and decreasing popularity, either (1) believe, (2) suspend judgement, or (3) try to find out. There are several recognised ways of knowing, as follows:

Intuition (Ideas directly intuited to the mind, traditionally much trusted but highly unreliable, how do you resolve opposing intuitions?). Experience (much used but will not indicate how to compute square roots). Authority (acceptable only if the source is reliable). Deduction (from the general to the specific, if all green apples are sour then this green apple is sour, not a source of new knowledge). Induction (from the specific to the general, if this green apple is sour, then all green apples are sour, not infallible). Science (the art of looking carefully, not what is done but how).

If our warm spiritual seas contain too many sharks for comfort, it is little better in the cold demanding waters of science. Let me show you what I mean.

Scientific sharks
The scientific approach developed gradually over many years and has proved to be an excellent method for understanding the natural world. It provides no ethical pronouncements, no alternative religions, just a good pair of eyes and ears. It proceeds by having ideas, testing them rigorously, then fitting them into a coherent overall pattern. The assumptions are events have causes, the relationship exhibits at least some order, and the relationship can be discovered by observation.

If events are beyond observation, they are beyond scientific investigation. This does not mean that events cannot be approached in other ways, eg by introspection. But without independent tests that give them public verification, such approaches carry little weight in science. Life is short, and speculations are ten a penny.

Avid shark watchers will note much in common with the spiritual approach. In each case every detail is seen as part of nature's plan. Many people prefer the spiritual approach because, like instant coffee, it is richer and more satisfying. It removes doubt because none is possible. By contrast, the scientific approach demands tests and emphasises doubt, which to them is as comforting as having their teeth drilled. The sharks here are of a different kind.

Sharks out for a duck
In his account of quackery in twentieth century America, Young (1967: 427) comments "The quack can erect a beautifully logical structure on the basis of one false but plausible premise. Countless intelligent and educated men have missed the premise, admired the logic, and been trapped." Can countless intelligent and educated astrologers be wrong?

A scientist usually tests ideas by conducting an experiment. The results are critically examined by other scientists, who conduct further experiments, and so on, until consensus is reached. The scientific approach thus has three features: it is collaborative, it is impartial, and it is self-correcting. At least in principle. In practice, human fallibility introduces hiccups, but not serious ones. In the long term, as the history of science shows, truth in science has always prevailed over prejudice. This makes science almost unique among human endeavours.

For example, suppose the idea is that astrology is explained by "as above, so below". The questions that a scientist might ask, together with the answers as far as we presently know, would be: Is this explanation correct? (don't know). Is it compatible with existing knowledge? (no). Are there other explanations? (yes). What would prove each explanation wrong? (research). Here the research would consist of tests of hypotheses based on each explanation. The last question is a potent corrective to woolly thinking. But in cold waters the sharks run deep.

Sow the wind, reap the shark
The scientific approach is unlikely to produce results unless the variables are uncomplicated (at least to start with), and the variables can be measured (otherwise it is impossible to keep track of what is happening).

These points apply in the physical sciences, where the behaviour of a gas or a pendulum can be predicted in detail using only a few variables. They do not apply in the social sciences, where countless variables (most of them imperfectly understood) can interact in complex ways, so that the behaviour of a rat or a person is currently beyond all but the broadest prediction. To make matters worse, measurement, control and replication are more difficult, and the mere existence of an observer may change everything.

Despite these difficulties, great progress has been made to the point where systems just as complex as astrology have been investigated with appreciable success. Examples are Freudian ideas and phrenology, whose untestability when they were invented steadily disappeared as methodology improved. So it cannot be claimed that modern methods are inadequate for research into astrology. Imperfect, yes. Inadequate, no. Even sharks are entitled to a fair Trades Description.

Shark lovers unite
Central to our noble natatorial navigations is how we view our experiences in terms of values vs facts. If our experience happens to be based on values then facts tend to be irrelevant, because if it feels right then it is right. Thus the idea of Santa Claus is uplifting even though he does not exist. But if our experience happens to be based on facts then values tend to be irrelevant, because it can feel wonderfully right and still be wrong. Thus smoking is harmful even though smokers say it feels good.

The distinction between values and facts explains why some things can be strongly accepted by some people and strongly rejected by others. Thus a certain religious or superstitious idea may be strongly accepted by millions of people because it has value, and equally strongly rejected by millions of others because it has no factual basis. For example Roman Catholics before AD 1000 were forbidden to believe in witches flying through the air (= no factual basis), whereas 500 years later they were forbidden to disbelieve (= value for increasing power of ruling class). The distinction values vs facts is explored in more detail as subjective vs objective in the Phillipson interview of researchers on this website under Doing Scientific Research.

By definition there is only one viewpoint based on facts. But there are many viewpoints based on values -- in principle as many as there are people -- each supported by the slogan "it's true for me!". Those seeking a value viewpoint are thus confronted not with a single neat package but with bewildering confusion.

To a shark trying to decide which restaurant has the best view, the point is not which view is best, but that the views tend to be incompatible. Thus rating an experience in terms of value will not be acceptable to a shark who insists on facts, and vice versa. The more value-oriented the viewpoint, the less relevant science becomes, because the issue is increasingly not about facts but about values. As we fall flailing between the Scylla of sharks and the Charybdis of sharks, we get one final insight into this conflict of swimming rights by looking at the distinction between knowledge, ignorance, and belief.

Jaws and the meaning of life
For convenience I define knowledge, ignorance, and belief as follows: Knowledge = Testable ideas that have been verified (the Earth is round, malaria is spread by mosquitoes). Ignorance = Testable ideas not yet verified (there is a planet closer to the Sun than Mercury, meditation helps you levitate). Belief = Untestable ideas impossible to verify (angels feel no pain, we are here to help others).

Knowledge is not necessarily more helpful than belief. Believing that we fly in our sleep may make life more meaningful than knowing we do not. Knowledge is not even necessarily more helpful than ignorance, as when ignorance (but not knowledge) is bliss. So if we prefer values to facts, it is not important for ideas to be verified, or for astrology to be scientific -- at least not up to the point where our belief leads us to jump off cliffs. Whatever our preference, constructive debate is unlikely unless we observe two golden rules:

(1) Knowledge, ignorance and belief are not the same, just as values and facts are not the same. Do not parade one in the guise of the other, especially in front of those about to jump off cliffs. Be aware also that each side may have its own perspective on these matters, so watch out for misunderstandings.

(2) Astrologers tend to look at astrology from a value viewpoint and conclude that it works. Critics tend to look at astrology from a factual viewpoint and conclude the opposite. Beware the difference, especially as each side tends to be unaware of the other's viewpoint.

Ultimately the question is whether astrology is to be applied for the good of people, for the good of astrologers, or for the good of sharks. As they used to say on BBC's Blind Date, the choice is yours.

References

From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page