Astrology as a science subject

EVER SINCE the University Grants Commission (UGC), the statutory government body that regulates and funds higher education, has come up with the proposal to introduce astrology as a regular science subject in the university curriculum, a vigorous debate is on, both in favour and against this proposal.

Rationalists oppose astrology as a belief rooted in fear and insecurity in the human psyche and believe the predictions as smart guesswork. Many established scientists are opposing astrology as a science subject as its methodology and accountability don't fit into the established norms of scientific research and teaching. Supporters of the proposal believe that astrology can actually predict future and a proper study of astrology at university level will lead to better prediction. Since the basic hypothesis is based on planetary motions or some biological features, the predictions involve mathematical calculations and since some of the predictions do turn out to be true, they believe that astrology qualifies to be a science subject.

Different approach

Two recent articles (May 1 and June 12) of Prof. B. M. Hegde have followed a very different approach to rebuff the criticism of the UGC proposal. Many believe that these two articles have correctly exposed the opposing scientific community and established that astrology is as good a subject as any other science subject currently taught at university level. The article on June 12 makes a case for astrology by undermining major achievements of all branches of modern science. Since Prof. Hegde is the Vice- Chancellor of a deemed university and the article analyses broad fields of science, it gives an impression that Prof. Hegde is an extremely learned person of science, therefore has the ability to compare existing science subjects with astrology. A careful reading of the article suggests the exact opposite.

A clear difference exists between scientific research and its use. Research done at universities, institutions and labs is not always carried out with commercial intention. Scientists like everybody else would like to be useful to society and want their research to help mankind. Like others they also seek fame and awards.

However, major scientific achievements are mainly due to the passion, dedication and hard work to understand natural phenomena. The achievements are judged by the success in understanding the phenomenon and advancement of knowledge. Rare insights and explanations help quick progress and prevent wasteful research. Since the task is set by society and benefits society, acknowledgement of the achievement through an award like the `Nobel Prize' is natural. To say that Einstein did not deserve the prize for inventing `energy' because energy was always there is to miss these points.

Moreover, neither did Einstein invent energy nor did he get the Nobel Prize for that! Einstein got the Nobel Prize for explaining `Photoelectric Effect', which could not be explained in terms of the existing knowledge of his time. The ideas of quantum theory of light put forward by him not only explained this simple unexplained experiment, but led to rapid progress in modern physics and quantum mechanics that eventually led to the invention of most of the electronic gadgets people use today.

Totally unscientific

Modern science has already converged to a clear classification of science and non-science based on the method of study. Most scientific research is now quantitative and verifiable. Science societies publish journals in which every research paper is first examined by specialists of the field and then either published or rejected. Once published, other scientists further verify the work. After many years, sometimes decades, when no experiment to the contrary is reported, the research work finds its way to textbooks at the university level. One such topic in chemistry textbooks explains why two gases oxygen and hydrogen with volatile property combine to form a non-volatile liquid like water. Chemistry, like any other science subject, limits itself with just the understanding. Any moral judgment of sort ``the whole need not be the sum total of the bits always'' from this phenomenon is totally unscientific. At sub-atomic level each substance consists of the same particles, but in different numbers, which justify the different properties. Laws of Physics only explain physical properties of natural phenomena. Contrary to the claim of Prof. Hegde, First law of Thermodynamics does not decide whether science should branch out to specialised fields or remain holistic.

Chaos theory

Prof. Hegde's overenthusiasm for the sub-field of science `CHAOS' is totally misplaced and based on the premise that it supports astrology. A natural system could either be regular (clear knowledge of evolution in time, therefore completely predictable) or stochastic (no relation of subsequent events in time, therefore unpredictable). Chaos theory shows that some complex systems whose behaviour looks chaotic are actually deterministic. Many popular books have just picked up this concept as it appeals to the common man who would like everything to be known and predictable. However, the basic property of systems governed by deterministic chaos is ``extreme sensitiveness towards initial conditions''. An insignificant disturbance in atmosphere at one place can cause a storm miles away, an effect known in chaos theory as ``Butterfly Effect''. This is why advanced weather predictions are not so accurate. Only those chaotic systems, which are governed by only a small number of known independent events, can be predicted on short timescale and IMPOSSIBLE to predict as time passes. It actually makes a case for total rejection of astrology!

The results of science, once established, can be used for commercial or military purposes. Society, through governments, formulates and regulates the eventual use of science. Neither the methods of science nor the scientists are responsible for any wrong use. Rather, scientists are the most vocal opponents of misuse of science and the methods developed by them help governments to prosecute fraudulent companies misguiding the people. Overemphasising the misuse and undermining the achievements of established science subjects does not help in making a case for a less evolved subject like astrology.

Science is now universal and the editorial boards of science journals have scientists from all countries. Journals like Science and Nature publish important science articles from every field of science. Astrology cannot become science unless astrologers get their theory verified and published in such journals. Very few practising astrologers bother to update themselves with current knowledge in planetary research, mathematics and computational methods. Relying on Vedic methods, making predictions based on data from ancient times and claiming a conspiracy that western science is against Vedic science may find support of a government rooted in similar belief, but will not help in developing it as a science subject at university level.

Organisation of a syllabus

A much more important issue is the organisation of a syllabus for teaching astrology at the college and university level. Only students with science subjects at school level can take admission in a science subject at college level and then at university level. The science syllabus at school level teaches the basic concepts of established scientific theories. Students conduct practicals to have first hand experience of some of these simple natural laws. It is difficult to understand how such a student will accept a completely probabilistic subject like astrology. How would he react when a theory and predictions taught to him fail with no convincing explanation? At the college level students are never taught that scientific predictions can work sometimes and fail sometimes! A three-year degree course involves nearly 1,800 hours of classroom study. Does astrology have that much of established and organised knowledge?

Who will teach this subject when it is introduced? Basic qualification of a lecturer at college level, stringently set by the UGC, is an M.Sc. in the respective subject and qualifying NET conducted by the UGC. These conditions will have to be relaxed for appointing the first few batches of teachers in astrology. This will be an injustice to many students who do not find jobs in colleges even after doing a Ph.D. It is impossible to wind up a department opened in a government educational institution. Once introduced, astrology automatically becomes an official science subject in India for all time to come!

Unlike existing science subjects taught in the colleges, astrology is a professional subject. People will rather prefer to pay college students of astrology for making their horoscopes than a roadside astrologer.This can neither be prevented nor regulated. When students of existing science subjects go through years of uncertainty in their careers, their friends studying astrology can earn thousands while studying at college level. The UGC even plans to issue a certificate to students of astrology just after one year of undergraduate study. Once universities churn out degree holders in astrology, there will be the demand that the government allow them to practise astrology.

Real danger

Academicians play a significant role in the formulation of government policies. Astrology claims that major events of human life are predefined. For example, timing and cause of death is covered under these predictable events. Astrologers regularly claim successful prediction of death of important personalities. A death can also happen due to a crime, negligence or natural disaster. Modern society, through scientific methods and social institutions, tries to minimise these. A government having ministers and advisers believing in astrology can never be sincere in this effort. This is the real danger that we shall face as astrologers penetrate universities and social institutions.

B. BISWAL

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Cultivating scientific spirit
Next     : Chief Minister appointment - Governor sole judge