Can astrology be made a formal course of study?

Technology forecasting and futurology are respectable, important fields of study. But they make their underlying assumptions and limitations transparent, and constantly try to improve their knowledge base and repertoire of techniques. The question, therefore, is not one of purpose but of rationale and methodology.

"When I want to know the future of India, I look not at the stars and the planets but into the eyes of little children. If their eyes are bright and full of joy and hope, the future of India is safe. If their eyes are full of tears and despair, there is no future for India." &151; Jawaharlal Nehru.

OUR CONSTITUTION wants the government to promote the scientific temper in our people. Whether teaching astrology will help this or not, I do not know, but the proposal to include it in the university curriculum has certainly ruffled the temper of many scientists!

Not being an expert in astrology, I cannot say whether astrology itself has a horoscope (assuming that someone knows the precise moment it was born) and what it foretells about its academic future!

First, there have been arguments against the proposal, which in turn have provoked arguments in its favour. Samples of both are given below.

Some arguments against are: Astrology does not use the methods of science such as repeated experimentation and attempted falsification, and does not, therefore, qualify to be called a science to be taught in universities. In fact, it has survived only because of unattempted falsification!

Teaching subjects like astrology will only produce quacks who will exploit the people and discourage them from exercising free will and accepting personal responsibility for their lives.

Some arguments in favour are: If astrology is not a science, so what? Sciences are not the only subjects to be taught in universities. Politics, we all know, is far from being a science. Yet it is not only taught but it is taught as political science!

There are Western universities where Vedic astrology is being taught. Subjects like medicine and psychology, though called and recognised as sciences, have large grey areas of ignorance and uncertainty.

It is the same with astrology. There are quacks in every field and not astrology alone.

All these arguments concentrate on whether astrology is true or not. No reliable large scale statistical test results are readily available for neither an objective evaluation nor does any serious researchers seem to be on this job.

Our beliefs about Indian medicine and yoga, are also on a similar not-so-firm footing and yet these are being taught in government educational institutions.

Moreover, man is a fair-weather rationalist. The moment he runs into trouble, he hangs on to some belief, rational or not, to gain some mental peace at least temporarily. However, for teaching subjects in academic institutions, the relevant issues are totally different.

Ideally speaking, in any matter not proved conclusively, the correct attitude is one of uncommitted agnosticism. In a free country, anyone can believe in, teach or study any subject irrespective of its truth or validity.

But the real question is: are we justified in spending public funds on promoting the study of a particular subject or certifying a certain proficiency in it without first having certain clear, objective/criteria for making it a formal course of study?

Broadly, three issues arise:

(i) Whether a field of knowledge is fit for research?

(ii) Whether a field of knowledge is fit for being taught?

(iii) If the answer to the above two questions is `yes', whether public funds and public institutions should be involved?

When is a subject ready or fit for formal pedagogy? Can we start teaching black magic, levitation or urine therapy simply because someone in authority or some academician thinks these are worth being taught in a university? Should subjects be selected based on whether there has been a long-standing belief in them?

If so, the practice of untouchability, sati, child marriage and the dowry system will all qualify to be taught as courses of study. Should the choice of subjects to be taught be decided democratically? In the U.S. 70 per cent of the parents in a school wanted the Bible-based Theory of Divine Creation to be taught to their wards! When an attempt is made to teach a subject formally, there should be an organised, consistent, well-accepted body of knowledge resulting from systematic, unbiased research, whose output has been debated, challenged and scrutinised by competent, independent-minded scholars over a period. (In fact, all the well-known, major disciplines now being taught have gone through this phase before they entered the curriculum.).

Thereafter, academic standards of pedagogy have to be evolved which cover questions like:

What is the student expected to know or be able to do after he completes the course?

How will he give evidence of such competence and be evaluated?

How will the competence of the teacher to teach the subject be evaluated?

Educational institutions have limited resources and time. It is, therefore, essential that our choice of a subject for teaching does not appear to be arbitrary, biased, idiosyncratic or wasteful of the students' time. In spite of its ancientness, astrology does not yet appear to be ready, in the light of the above criteria, to become the subject of a formal course of study in a university. Education is not the mere teaching of certain beliefs but of how to arrive at and defend one's beliefs objectively and convincingly, or if new knowledge so dictates, to change them.

Is any and every subject fit for research? Should scholars and universities be totally free to take up any topic they like for research? Is this part of the so-called academic autonomy? Professor R. S. Peters, a well-known educational philosopher, gives a very interesting hypothetical example.

If you were a Vice Chancellor and one of your professors wanted you to fund his research project on `The religious life of butterflies', would you agree or refuse? On what grounds will you agree or refuse? The question of doing research in astrology is similar: the issue is not whether it should be done or not, but on what grounds a decision should be taken. Prima facie, there should be freedom of enquiry and an individual should be free to undertake research on any topic, as long as he does not want anyone else, especially a public body to fund it or recognise it.

But if a body like a university is to be involved, Professor Peters is of the view that the Vice Chancellor is free to reject the proposal but only on one or more of the following three reasons:

(i) No widely accepted, objective criteria exist for evaluating the value and validity of the research findings;

(ii) The researcher is not qualified to do research in the field;

(iii) There are not enough funds after meeting other higher priority needs of the university. These would seem to apply to astrology as a subject for research in universities, with the caveat that this decision should be taken by a team of scholars with an unimpeachable reputation for objectivity and integrity.

Even if a subject satisfies the twin criteria of having a teachable, reliable, significant body of knowledge as well as academically acceptable and identifiable standards of pedagogy, it is not necessary that it should be straightaway taken up for study. Why is it so urgent to teach astrology as a formal course of study in universities especially when existing, major disciplines are starved of resources? Is the reason sentimental, vocational, cultural, political or intellectual?

Is it at all necessary that public institutions like the university should do this or should this be left to private initiative? Such questions have to be raised and answered dispassionately before a subject is included as a course of study. To sum up, before any subject is taught as a formal course of study in a university,

* There should be a research-created, reliable, well-accepted body of teachable knowledge.

* There should be relevant, enforceable academic standards of pedagogy.

* There should be acceptable norms of evaluation of students and teachers of the subject and

* The subject should enjoy priority, vis a vis, other academic priorities in the light of available resources.

* The above criteria should be applied by a body of academicians of unimpeachable integrity and competence, and not by a government-controlled body.

To try and predict the future is neither sin or superstition nor stupidity. In fact, this is precisely what most of the natural, social and management sciences are trying to do. Technology forecasting and futurology are respectable, important fields of study. But they make their underlying assumptions and limitations transparent, and constantly try to improve their knowledge base and repertoire of techniques. The question, therefore, is not one of purpose but of rationale and methodology.

In order to qualify as a discipline, a body of knowledge should develop a valid concept of its basic nature, possess unique methods, meet high standards of evidence and inference, and have substantial social/intellectual importance. These are the questions that we should ask before we make astrology the subject of an academic course of study. The protagonists of astrology accuse the scientists of not being open-minded towards astrology and accepting the possibility that it might be true. To be open- minded does not mean that every belief should be accepted till it is proved to be false. One is reminded of the story in which an imprisoned citizen appeals to the king saying, "Your Majesty, I shall make a prediction. If it comes true, you may release me, otherwise you may imprison me." The king agrees. The citizen says. "Your majesty will be able to fly in the air within one year." So the king postpones the sentence by one year. When he comes home, the citizen's wife asks him, "Why did you make such an unbelievable prediction?" The citizen says, "In one year anything can happen &151; the king may change his mind about punishing me, he may die, or who knows, he may even fly!"

P. K. DORAISWAMY

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Problem of landmines
Next     : Know your English