Is Astrology logical?

Show me a person who does not want to know what the future has in store?  Astrology therefore commands a universal fascination.  I often wonder why this ancient art has not yet acquired the status of a “shastra” & also how, without having demonstrable and provable hypotheses, it is being taught as a subject in some universities?  

The horoscope which shows the planetary positions at the moment of a child’s birth is in itself a scientific document (this is “astronomy", though). This forms the basis of all astrological predictions. What appears irrational is the claim made about the effect that these planetary positions are supposed to have on the life of an individual. Which of the following should be taken as the “time” for preparing the horoscope? [a] the moment at which the child was born or [b] the moment at which it was conceived. If one opts for the former (as is usually done) then one has to conclude that (1) the distant planets have no say during the nine months that the child is in the mothers’ womb and (2) one can determine ones destiny by deciding the time of ones birth. 

 But let us leave all this aside for a moment; let us presume that present day science is not advanced enough to explain the effect that planets have on ones destiny. 

All sciences started off as empirical set of rules. This means that in given circumstances, some conclusions were so consistent that they were called “rules” or “theorems”. Like when Newton noticed that every time he let go of an object, it fell down. So this became a rule, without his knowing why it so happened. Explanations for the event were found later. Another example was the movement of the sun. While it was noticed that it always rose in the East and set in the West, it was realized much later that this was because of the earth's’ rotation around the sun. 

It is not necessary for all scientific findings to be 100% consistent. Medical science has many examples of the same treatment producing different results in different persons.  For a set of empirical rules or theorems to acquire the status of “science”, it is similarly not necessary to be 100% consistent. There are statistical techniques which will prove a hypothesis with a certain “degree of confidence”. If this degree is sufficiently high, then the hypothesis is accepted as a scientific law. There are “perfect sciences” like Physics or Chemistry where this degree of confidence is indeed 100% but there are other “softer sciences” like Psychology where the degree of confidence is lower and yet these hypotheses are widely accepted. 

Does astrology have such hypotheses, which can be proved with an acceptable, statistical “degree of confidence"??   

Suppose we work backwards and note down known events like marriage, death, monetary position, vocation, family size and many others, in the life of a large enough sample of individuals. Statisticians will tell us how large a sample size is required to validate the findings of this experiment. Astrologers could now demonstrate how a certain planetary position at the time of birth could have consistently forecast this known event to occur when it actually did.  This exercise could be expanded to test a number of astrological hypotheses on the basis of known events.  If all these could be proved with an acceptable “degree of confidence”, well, astrology would get the status of an empirical “science”. 

Presently we have three distinct groups of individuals in society. 

 The first is of course the one which swears by astrology but which would not subject its beliefs to any scientific scrutiny (education and designations have no role to play here  - we have Prime ministers as well as beggars in this group). They will cite example after example to demonstrate how astrology predicted something correctly. 

 The second group comprises of those who are vehemently opposed to what they think is so much “mumbo – jumbo”. They will cite numerous examples about how astrology could not predict something correctly and how ridiculous even the basic assumption of planets affecting someone's’ destiny is.  Incidentally the doctor standing near the child during its birth exercises a higher gravitational pull on the child than any planet does. Shouldn’t the doctor also therefore determine the child’s destiny?

 

 There is a third and the largest group of persons who are “sitting on the fence”. They surreptitiously read astrological predictions but outwardly show that they do so for the sake of entertainment. They hope against hope that the good predictions come true and the bad ones don't. Many websites, magazines and newspapers publish astrological predictions regularly to attract clients. 

It may be of great interest to readers that according to the famous Reader’s Digest BOOK OF FACTS, (Page 395), two 20^th century French researchers Michel Gauquelin and his wife Francoise spent 20 years of their lives investigating this very subject, and I quote hereafter: 

QUOTE:

They examined the birth data of more than 40,000 people throughout Europe to try to find correlation between birth signs, jobs and personalities. Their computerized findings were published in 1983 and their rejection of astrology was total.  There was not one piece of evidence, they concluded, to show that it was anything but a sham – despite the efforts of astrologers to prove otherwise. It is now quite certain stated Gauqueline that the signs in the sky which preside over our births have no power whatsoever to decide our fates, to affect our heredity or characteristics, or to play any part, however humble, in our lives. UNQUOTE

Astrologers should either undertake a scientific study to prove their hypotheses or gracefully abandon the pursuit of what the rationalists have always derided. Why Life Insurance companies and police departments all over the world do not take the help of astrology  has always remained a mystery.