|
24.09.2002 | 1:32 p.m. I hate this class. I hate that Grieling is trying to give us "fun assignments" to ingratiate herself with us. I hate that 100 level classes treat me like I'm 12. I hate that I've learnt all of this before but Indian credits don't count. Hence,my vitriolic paper. ---------------------------------------- Ever since I was old enough to know what astrology meant, I have never completely understood it. I never did, and still don’t understand how the positioning of the stars and planets can have a direct influence on the happenings in my life. My friend owns a book called Sun Signs written by Linda Goodman. Reading through the ‘Scorpio Woman’ passages made me feel like my parents had been lying to me about my birthday. Scorpio women are supposedly conniving, jealous and mysterious. I don’t like to think I personify any of those traits. Moreover, it seems unlikely to me that everyone who is born around the same time as I am is going through similar events. In fact, the seriousness with which people take their horoscopes has always been a source of entertainment for me. So admittedly, I started this assignment armed with unusual amounts of cynicism. But at the end of it, my opinion hasn’t changed much.
Collecting horoscopes was an arduous task for me. The reason wasn’t because they’re hard to get hold of. On the contrary, they are ubiquitous. Being a student, though, I don’t have a newspaper or magazine subscription and hence, had to rely solely on the Internet. Needless to say, I checked my e-mail, read a few of my favourite websites and forgot completely about checking my horoscope. When I finally got down to collecting them, I realised why I had never bothered before. The predictions and the notes I scribbled behind them – they’re attached to this paper – prove that Astrology is nowhere even close to being a science. It seems to me like it is just another way to dupe people. The number of people I know who buy newspapers to check their horoscopes is depressingly high. According to my observations, the predictions are extremely generalised. The topics they discuss are those that are bound to affect people in their day to day lives, namely love, career and money. This often leads to the illusion that the astrologers are accurate; that astrology, indeed, is a science. However, it is clear that the reasons for believing this are essentially psychological. To illustrate my point more scientifically, I will discuss two experiments. The first one, as performed in class, entailed distributing sheets that listed groups of personality traits. Unknown to us, each group corresponded to a particular astrological sign. We were asked to choose the group that we thought described us most closely. After doing so, we were told which traits were supposedly characteristic of our signs. The number of people who chose their traits correctly was recorded. The most popular group was Group A which included traits like kindness, generosity etc – not surprisingly qualities that everyone would like to possess. On the other hand, according to the list, Scorpios should choose Group H, a group listing more negative traits such as jealousy and intolerance. Not surprisingly, not a single person in the class chose the group, showing that social desirability played an important role in our choices. Similarly, they were based on other such factors – mood, directions, prior knowledge, language, laziness, easy fit – which render astrology impossible of absolute accuracy.
There are several other ways to prove the incompetence of astrology. For instance, a number of subjects could be handed pieces of paper that have descriptions of the traits their signs supposedly impart. Without the knowledge of the subjects, they should all be handed the same descriptions. The person performing the experiment could ask those who found two or more personality traits that applied to them to raise their hands. Assuming a considerable percent of students respond affirmatively, it can be shown how generic the descriptions are. Astrologers assume that people fit into rigid categories. They exploit people’s credulity by very often catering to their fantastic needs. People try to make their horoscopes happen; they allow their fatalistic sensibilities to cloak their common sense. Instead of life dictating horoscopes the way it is supposed to, horoscopes dictate life. That alone shows that the reasons for horoscopes ‘coming true’ are purely psychological.
Another factor that definitely plays a role is sheer coincidence. The chances of a certain prediction coming true are fairly high taking into consideration the thousands of people that it supposed to apply to. One way or another, some part of the prediction will be realised for a certain number of people. The reasons for this are neither scientific nor psychological. It is nothing but chance. In that aspect, and that aspect alone, astrology is infallible. In the five days I collected my horoscopes, nothing seemed to correspond with what was happening in my life. If something pertained to the events of my life, it would be vague and contrived in the sense that I was consciously looking for similarities. If I continued collecting horoscopes for a longer time, I am certain that I would start making parallels between the predictions and the actual happenings of my life. Coincidence and chance would play their parts immaculately, coaxing me to believe in the scientific merits of clairvoyance. Psychological coercion is the fundamental tool used by astrologers, and successfully at that. To sum up the critique, it is vital to mention that no one has been able to sufficiently prove the scientific merits of astrology. Even the title ‘pseudo-science’ seems inappropriate for a subject that depends completely on personal interpretations. There ought to be tangible proof of its validity, something solid to establish that it is not simply another way to extort money from gullible audiences. Until then, I stick to my original opinion. Astrology has more to do with psychological manipulation than science. |
|
lex designs - diaryland |