'Astrology is unscientific'

Mr. T. Jayaraman, the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, CIT Campus, Chennai, writes:

I would like to make the following points regarding the intemperate letter of Ms. Gayatri Vasudev in support of astrology (April 20).

First of all, Sir C.V. Raman's views on astrology are very much everyone's business when someone in a position of power and responsibility, like the Chairman of the UGC, erroneously states that the distinguished scientist's personal stance is ``pro- astrology'' (when, in fact, his opinion was diametrically opposite), and attempts to use this ``belief'' in support of his own manifestly pro-astrology stand.

Ms. Vasudev is completely wrong in assuming that scientists are unaware of the possible differences of opinion between Sir Raman and his wife, Lokasundari Raman, on various matters. Prof. S. Ramaseshan's biographical note in the volume titled C.V. Raman: A Pictorial Biography, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore in 1988, states clearly on page 13: ``Unlike most Indians, he (Sir Raman) was not at all superstitious and he despised rituals. On the night of his death, his wife asked him to take the name of God. He was dying but he said, `I believe only in the spirit of man' and talked of the Mahatma, the Christ and the Buddha and then made a request. `Just a clean and simple cremation for me, no mumbo-jumbo please'.''

It is evident from this that ``the nephew'', as Ms. Vasudev slightingly refers to Prof. Ramaseshan, is entirely aware of the possibility that Sir Raman and his wife differed in their opinions on these matters. The above quotation was reproduced in entirety in the scientist's statement referred to in the article on April 19. The point made in the statement was about Sir Raman's views. Ms. Vasudev's account of a purported visit by Lokasundari Raman to the astrologer, Dr. B.V. Raman, is thus completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The parallel drawn by Ms. Vasudev between the scientific criticism of astrology and the Nazi attacks on Einstein and his theories does not merit the dignity of a rebuttal. But here too one may clarify the well-known historical record. Einstein's theories were tested experimentally well before the era of Nazism, though many of its implications were still unclear and under investigation. Those Nazi scientists who attacked Einstein did so not because of any conflict between their work and that of Einstein but purely through the motivations of anti-Semitism.

Ms. Vasudev's statement that scientists have not studied astrology in detail is besides the point. No one needs to study astrology in all its detail for an extended period to come to the conclusion that it is unscientific. The fundamental premise of astrology is that heavenly bodies exert influences on the daily lives and behaviour of human beings on Earth. This is simply not true and the evidence of such a connection is completely lacking. Whether they are earthquakes, floods, other natural calamities, great political events, events in the lives of individuals or other such phenomena, there is no evidence of any systematic connection between these and the motion, position or other characteristics associated with any heavenly body. All the phenomena listed above are actually coherently explained to varying degrees of accuracy by a variety of sciences ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and related disciplines like psychology. Where the level of accuracy is not extremely high, the phenomena continue to be the subject of ongoing investigations.

There are to be sure accidental conjunctions between events on Earth in the lives of human beings and events associated with heavenly bodies. But there is no evidence at all of any systematic mechanism of interaction that would produce such conjunctions. Without evidence of such a systematic mechanism, the claims of astrology to be a science are unfounded. Science is not merely a listing of the conjunctions between different phenomena. It is also the study and uncovering of the mechanisms and interactions that produce such conjunctions. For instance, the fact that a `roti' left in the open becomes mouldy is no evidence that the `roti' produces the mould. Systematic investigation reveals that it is the spores in the air that settle on the `roti' and reproduce there to produce the mould.

Indeed given the state of scientific knowledge for the last several centuries we can assert that there can be no such interaction between heavenly bodies and human beings that would provide a foundation to astrology. The heavenly bodies exert no force that can affect individual behaviour. Nor is there any likelihood that future developments in science will discover such a force. The existing fundamental laws of nature are too well tested to be modified in the way they need to be if astrology has to have a scientific basis. Any modification of these laws of nature will be in situations that are largely irrelevant to human behaviour.

Scientists must have minds that are open to new ideas. That is the sine qua non of their profession. But they must not have minds that, as the witticism goes, are so open that their brains fall out! Astrology is very much a case in point.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : S.C. ruling on grant of divorce