Astrology and Science. Margarita Referee

      Pico della Mirandola wrote his book "Disputations Against Astrology" (Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem) in the last years of his life and, judging by its shortcomings, did not have time to complete it. This "long and unwelcoming book" with its "ragged presentation and reliance on so many obscure and technical sources" was published after the author's death, in 1496.29

      Thorndike wrote in his fundamental multivolume work "A History Of Magic And Experimental Science":30

      “After the first book it is difficult to discern any logical arrangement or orderly sequence in Pico's work and argument. Little reason is apparent either for the way in which the books and chapters succeed one another or for the chopping up of the text into these. Pico seems to have written as things occurred to him and not to have minded if he touched on a topic again in a later book or chapter. The work is rambling and ineffective so far as orderly presentation and cumulative argument are concerned.”

      Astrology of the "Endarkenment" Era

      The more scientific discoveries were made, the more mocking and cynical some scientists were about astrology. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), an American inventor, publisher, and statesman, whose portrait is depicted on a hundred dollar bill, was one of the prime examples of Modern history critics of astrology.

      For nearly a quarter of a century, Franklin published the astrological Poor Richard's Almanack under the pseudonym Richard Saunders. He borrowed this name from an English astrologer and physician of the 17th century, a famous author of astrological almanacs, and the book “The Astrological Judgement and Practice of Physick” (1677).

      The 1751 edition of the almanac began with an address by Saunders-Franklin to courteous readers about astrology:31

      “Astrology is one of the most ancient Sciences, had in high Esteem of old, by the Wise and Great. Formerly, no Prince would make War or Peace, nor any General fight a Battle, in short, no important Affair was undertaken without first consulting an Astrologer, who examined the Aspects and Configurations of the heavenly Bodies, and mark’d the lucky Hour. Now the noble Art (more Shame to the Age we live in!) is dwindled into Contempt.”

      But don't be fooled by the praise of these speeches. There is duplicity and hypocrisy behind it. Benjamin Franklin was one of the active activists of the Enlightenment in the United States and, like the entire intellectual elite of that time, did not take astrology seriously.32 However, astrology was common in popular culture, astrological almanacs were in demand, and Franklin cynically used it to his advantage. The circulation of some issues of the Franklin almanac (in addition to astrological information there were everyday tips, riddles, etc.) reached ten thousand copies.

      The 18th century was lost to the development of astrology. Traditions, ideas, and principles that can be traced in astrology from the 5th century BC were reduced to naught in the Age of Enlightenment. It was only in the 19th century that the revival of astrology began. For this reason, the historian of astrology Robert Hand views the 18th century (in terms of astrology) as the era of "Endarkenment".33

      Why Do Pseudo-skeptics Need a Pseudo-problem?

      In the 19th century, when people began to gradually get tired of the hopeless materialism of the new science, astrology began to revive and gradually regain its authority. The Theosophical movement played a significant role in this. In the 20th century, Alice Bailey's books, which described the idea of the coming Age of Aquarius, or New Age, and the astrological writings of Dane Rudhyar led astrology to become phenomenally popular in the West from the middle of the century.

      Science also did not standstill. Since the 1920s, philosophers of science have tried to define what science and the scientific method are, and how to separate science from other methods of cognition. The question of defining the boundaries of science has received a special name – the demarcation problem.

      Scientists were especially concerned about disciplines that called themselves scientific and enjoyed the authority of science, but in fact, did not apply scientific methods and did not give out reliable knowledge. On such disciplines, scientists began to hang the stigma of pseudoscience.

      And all would be fine, but an unforeseen difficulty arose: the demarcation problem could not be solved in any way. The longer scientists tried to separate science from non-science/pseudoscience/parascience/protoscience/etc., the clearer it became that it was impossible to draw a clear line between them. Scientists had to admit that the problem of demarcation is a pseudo-problem. It means that there is no need or opportunity to single out science in a separate clear category.

      However, some scientific skeptics and adherents of scientism are still trying to hang the stigma of "pseudoscience" on various disciplines, including astrology. Why are they doing it? Because it is a question of power over minds and the struggle for the authority of science, and because it is a question of politics and financing of scientific activities from the state budget. This is confirmed by the example of the Russian Commission for Combating Pseudoscience, created under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1998.

      ***

      Some scientific skeptics and scientists were so hasty in denouncing "pseudosciences" that they went so far as to deny individual theories, without providing any evidence for their claims at all. To describe the activities of such skeptics, a special term was coined – pseudo-skepticism.34 In the next chapter, we will look at how one of the loudest statements of pseudo-skeptics against astrology was smashed to smithereens by the last great philosopher of science.

      Feyerabend against the Witch Hunt

      The New Age wave was so powerful and all-consuming in the West that scientists sounded the alarm in the mid-1970s. In 1975, The Humanist magazine published a letter signed by 186 scholars in which they criticized astrology in a typical pseudo-skeptic, authoritarian way.

      Three years after the publication of this letter, the American philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend published the book “Science in a Free Society”, wherein one of the chapters he analyzed in detail the statement of 186 scientists, denouncing them in, to put it mildly, dubious methodological grounds for their criticism of astrology.35