DWill wrote:
You have professed a limited belief in astrology that appears to be based largely on the work of Michel Gauquelin. Because of a predisposition towards astrotheology, did that study serve as the permission for you to say you believe? Were you asking yourself, "Can I believe astrology?" and were you therefore searching for the first piece of evidence that would justify belief and afford you the relief of keeping it? I, on the other hand, would approach astrology from the direction of "Must I believe this?"
These are basic questions in epistemology, and the astrology example is a good one to clarify the issues. My thinking on these matters has changed over the years, but I think I have always applied the same logical principles.
EO Wilson in his book Consilience suggests a hierarchy of epistemic weight which makes good sense to me. At the first level are claims that are plausible, but which lack evidence. Stronger claims he describes as persuasive, and the strongest, those which are claimed as scientific knowledge, he calls compelling.
The point here is the need to apply scientific method to the assessment of claims. I believe that Gauquelin presents some plausible suggestions which indicate merit in further astrological research. However, he has not convinced scientific audiences, he has not explained any plausible mechanisms, and there are doubts about his methods, so it would be wrong to describe his claims as persuasive or compelling.
The issue here is the application of scientific method in assessing frontier ideas. The first challenge is to formulate a coherent hypothesis. Then, in designing and conducting a study for it, analysis of findings has to continually stay within the boundaries of what the evidence shows, and should also seek to support inductive evidence with deductive reason.
My attitude to astrology is more about what I consider to be plausible hypotheses than claims I would dogmatically defend as personal beliefs. Part of the problem here is that many people rule out suggestions in advance because of a basic misunderstanding, for example the common wrong assumption that astrology postulates emanations from distant stars. Some hypotheses can just be ruled out straight away for being completely outside the realms of scientific possibility, such as the idea that unconnected groups of stars influence the earth. But the hypothesis that these star groups are markers for points in the solar year is not similarly impossible, and can be the starting point for a scientific research program.
These issues get back to the conflict between politics and science. Politics is all about beliefs and values, while science is all about knowledge and facts. The result is that where people have ulterior political motives to ignore scientific findings, they characterise the science as merely belief rather than knowledge.
In the astrology case, a better question than 'can I believe it?' is 'could it be true?' 'Could it be true?' is a question that can be assessed scientifically, posing the issue as one of reason rather than emotion or intuition. If a claim can readily be shown to conflict with the laws of science, then no one should believe it. But of course many people do believe impossible things, which is why astrology has such a bad reputation, like religion.
Only people with a specific interest in new research would take an interest in the 'could it be true?' type of question. People such as yourself without the time and interest for such research are perfectly justified to stick with the consensus view that there is no evidence for any astrological claims, and to only change this stance when compelling evidence is provided. The same thing applies to all science - with the Higgs Boson, before the recent announcement there was no compulsion for anyone to say they must believe in it, as the deductive logic had not been matched by confirmed observation.
At the frontier of scientific research, especially with a topic like astrology that deals with complex historical paradigms and cultural conflicts, assent to unproven claims should only ever be hypothetical. When people cross the line to say they believe an uncorroborated claim is true, they depart from scientific method. But such statements can sometimes just involve provocative speculative poetry, aimed at exploring possibilities.