Demarcation

Under the criterion of falsifiability, first proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper, astrology
is a pseudoscience.[107] Popper regarded astrology as pseudo!empirical in that it appeals to
obser"ation and e#periment, but ne"ertheless does not come up to scientific standards.
[10$]%&& 'n contrast to scientific disciplines, astrology has not responded to falsification through
e#periment.[10(]%)0* 'n contrast to Popper, the philosopher +homas Kuhn argued that it ,as not
lac- of falsifiability that ma-es astrology unscientific, but rather that the process and concepts of
astrology are non!empirical.[110]%&01
+o Kuhn, although astrologers had, historically, made predictions that categorically failed, this in
itself does not ma-e it unscientific, nor do the attempts by astrologers to e#plain a,ay the failure
by claiming it ,as due to the creation of a horoscope being "ery difficult. .ather, in Kuhn/s eyes,
astrology is not science because it ,as al,ays more a-in to medie"al medicine0 they follo,ed a
se1uence of rules and guidelines for a seemingly necessary field ,ith -no,n shortcomings, but
they did no research because the fields are not amenable to research,[111]%$ and so they had no
pu22les to sol"e and therefore no science to practise.[110]%&01[111]%$ 3hile an astronomer could
correct for failure, an astrologer could not. 4n astrologer could only e#plain a,ay failure but could
not re"ise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful ,ay. 4s such, to Kuhn, e"en if the stars
could influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific.[111]%$
Philosopher Paul +hagard belie"ed that astrology cannot be regarded as falsified in this sense
until it has been replaced ,ith a successor. 'n the case of predicting beha"iour, psychology is the
alternati"e.[11)]%))$ +o +hagard a further criterion of demarcation of science from pseudoscience
,as that the state!of!the!art must progress and that the community of researchers should be
attempting to compare the current theory to alternati"es, and not be selecti"e in considering
confirmations and disconfirmations.[11)]%))75))$ Progress is defined here as e#plaining ne,
phenomena and sol"ing e#isting problems, yet astrology has failed to progress ha"ing only
changed little in nearly )000 years.[11)]%))$[116]%7&( +o +hagard, astrologers are acting as
though engaged in 8ormal science belie"ing that the foundations of astrology ,ere ,ell
established despite the many unsol"ed problems, and in the face of better alternati"e theories
9Psychology:. ;or these reasons +hagard "ie,ed astrology as pseudoscience.[11)][116]%))$
;or the philosopher <d,ard 3. =ames, astrology is irrational not because of the numerous
problems ,ith mechanisms and falsification due to e#periments, but because an analysis of the
astrological literature sho,s that it is infused ,ith fallacious logic and poor reasoning.[11&]%6&
3hat if throughout astrological ,ritings ,e meet little appreciation of coherence, blatant
insensiti"ity to e"idence, no sense of a hierarchy of reasons, slight command o"er the conte#tual
force of critieria, stubborn un,illingless to pursue an argument ,here it leads, star- nai"ete
concerning the effiacacy of e#planation and so on> 'n that case, ' thin-, ,e are perfectly ?ustified
in re?ecting astrology as irrational. ... 4strology simply fails to meet the multifarious demands of
legitimate reasoning.
@<d,ard 3. =ames[11&]%6&