What are two reasons why Astronomers question the validity of astrology?

Question

I can't find the answer anywhere in my textbook or lecture notes :/
Help?

Answer 1

Most Astronomersj

1. have IQ's above room temperature.

2. scientists know phony when they see it

Answer 2

Astronomers know that distant stars have NO effect on Earth. There is no energy that can travel thousands of light years from a star and affect or control a human's life.



Astrology was never based on science - it is based on the myths and stories around the apparent shapes of the random arrangement of stars in the sky. The stars in any constellation have no relationship to each other, except that they looked like some shape to someone thousands of years ago.



There is no scientific evidence of any kind to support any of the claims that where the sun supposedly appeared in the sky at the time of your birth has any influence on your life - especially since astrologers have completely neglected the fact that the sun has actually moved one full constellation west since the astrology followed in the west was set 2000 years ago (I was born in June, so supposedly I am a "Gemini", but the sun was actually in Taurus).



Pluto was not even known about when astrology was formed, but when it was discovered in 1930 it was suddenly a planet that influences people's lives. What about the thousands of years before, didn't it influence lives before?

And now that it isn't even labelled a planet anymore, but is a dwarf planet, why is it still part of astrology? And if dwarf planets are "planets" in astrology, why aren't the other dwarf planets (Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris) also influences on people?

Answer 3

(1) Astrologers do not make testable or false-afiable statements. Pretty much anything stated by any astrologer will either be so generic/general as to apply to virtually anyone (you should beware of travel today. ... You have an opportunity to make money.) or they are based on information that the astrologer has scammed out based on the *person*, not on their astrological chart (ummm... the stars tell me you have a son.... named ..umm.. Matt or Mark... (ah Mark, thank you) and Mark is coming to visit you this weekend...) (Look into 'cold-reading' and 'social engineering')



(2) There is no viable hypothesis for how 'astrology' *would* work - - The gravitational influence of even the largest of the planets is a good deal less than what you experience from a pair of socks in your dresser. Start looking at the gravitational influence of even the *closest* of the stars of any constellation, zodiacal or not, and it fades to about the influence that you experience from a single grain of sand on a beach in Hawaii... (or in Australia if you happen to live in Hawaii). And there are no other detectable modes of influence.



Its all just mystical hand-waving and gibberish.

Answer 4

The answer above me really is the main reason. Astrology isn't scientific because, if used to develop hypotheses, those hypotheses are falsified when data is collected.



If a horoscope is true, it has to be true for everyone with that sign on that day. 1/12 of the world's population is not having the same day.

Answer 5

* Its predictions are either too general to be testable, or of no better accuracy than random guessing.

* a lack of correlation between the zodiac and the actual constellations. If you are born Aug 7, you are said to be a Leo, but the Sun was actually in Cancer. Precession of equinoxes shifts the stars relative to the calendar, while astrology holds the zodiac static.

Answer 6

1. it's not science - it's not repeatable or falsifiable

2. it does not make sense to a rational person



It's not in textbooks for much the same reason that cookery books don't include instructions on how to juggle eggs

Answer 7

Because the position of the stars has no effect on whether or not your boyfriend will break up with you

Answer 8

They don't bother questioning its validity. That would be wasting time on bullshit.

Answer 9

Gravity and Point-of-View.