Star-Crossed Debates 
Should Astrology be taught in Indian universities and, in addition, should this subject earn government patronage when funds for other subjects are (already) scarce? Opinions are sharply divided on this question, and discussions involving it can easily descend into the unsavoury business of exchanging abuses. On the one hand, there are those who armed with the arsenal of Science launch their flaming torches at the dark forces represented by the superstitious and devious practitioners of Astrology. On the other hand, their redoubtable opponents reply that Astrology deserves a legitimate foothold in the Indian academy on the grounds that it is a genuine science. One reason why this intense debate soon reaches a stalemate is because it cannot be resolved simply by trading words such as 'superstition', 'progress', 'rationality', and 'science' across the gulf that separates the two sides, and this in turn is because the putative referents of these terms are rather mobile. Consider, for example, two subjects : Psychology and Sociology. In the year 1900, very few scientists would have accepted Psychology as a discipline with authentic scientific credentials, and yet in 2005 Psychology has solidly established itself as a science, especially through its branches such as neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurobiology. What about Para- or Trans-Psychology though? Is that a 'science' as well? By 2050, it might become accepted within the scientific canon; as for now, we can only keep our fingers crossed and wait. Now consider Sociology : there are some sociologists who believe that their discipline can be developed into a 'science' very much along the lines of subjects such as physics and mathematics, whereas other sociologists would hotly dispute this move. In other words, what counts as a 'scientific' enterprise is by no means a transparently clear matter even to those within the scientific community. Many of the currently held scientific beliefs (for example, in quantum theory) are extremely counter-intuitive, and history has shown that science has in fact progressed by shattering some of our preconceived 'common-sense' notions.
Does all of this allow us to declare that astrology may become established as scientific at some point in the future? Not quite. This question cannot be answered without grappling with (at least) four fundamental issues. (A) Firstly, as we have seen, we must tackle the thorny question of precisely what counts as a 'science'. What makes physics or chemistry a science? The reliability of its theories? The accuracy of its predictions? The universality of its laws? The empirical verifiability or the falsifiability of its statements? If these are to be regarded as the defining characteristics of a science (and there is much disagreement on these matters), Astrology is arguably not one. (B) This in itself will, however, not rule out Astrology from the Academy for even subjects such as Literature and History do not count as sciences. Consequently, if we wish to claim that Literature and History should be taught in spite of the fact that they are not sciences, we must be able to give adequate reasons as to why Astrology, a non-science, should not be given a place in the Academy.
Should Astrology be taught in Indian universities and, in addition, should this subject earn government patronage when funds for other subjects are (already) scarce? Opinions are sharply divided on this question, and discussions involving it can easily descend into the unsavoury business of exchanging abuses. On the one hand, there are those who armed with the arsenal of Science launch their flaming torches at the dark forces represented by the superstitious and devious practitioners of Astrology. On the other hand, their redoubtable opponents reply that Astrology deserves a legitimate foothold in the Indian academy on the grounds that it is a genuine science. One reason why this intense debate soon reaches a stalemate is because it cannot be resolved simply by trading words such as 'superstition', 'progress', 'rationality', and 'science' across the gulf that separates the two sides, and this in turn is because the putative referents of these terms are rather mobile. Consider, for example, two subjects : Psychology and Sociology. In the year 1900, very few scientists would have accepted Psychology as a discipline with authentic scientific credentials, and yet in 2005 Psychology has solidly established itself as a science, especially through its branches such as neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurobiology. What about Para- or Trans-Psychology though? Is that a 'science' as well? By 2050, it might become accepted within the scientific canon; as for now, we can only keep our fingers crossed and wait. Now consider Sociology : there are some sociologists who believe that their discipline can be developed into a 'science' very much along the lines of subjects such as physics and mathematics, whereas other sociologists would hotly dispute this move. In other words, what counts as a 'scientific' enterprise is by no means a transparently clear matter even to those within the scientific community. Many of the currently held scientific beliefs (for example, in quantum theory) are extremely counter-intuitive, and history has shown that science has in fact progressed by shattering some of our preconceived 'common-sense' notions.
Does all of this allow us to declare that astrology may become established as scientific at some point in the future? Not quite. This question cannot be answered without grappling with (at least) four fundamental issues. (A) Firstly, as we have seen, we must tackle the thorny question of precisely what counts as a 'science'. What makes physics or chemistry a science? The reliability of its theories? The accuracy of its predictions? The universality of its laws? The empirical verifiability or the falsifiability of its statements? If these are to be regarded as the defining characteristics of a science (and there is much disagreement on these matters), Astrology is arguably not one. (B) This in itself will, however, not rule out Astrology from the Academy for even subjects such as Literature and History do not count as sciences. Consequently, if we wish to claim that Literature and History should be taught in spite of the fact that they are not sciences, we must be able to give adequate reasons as to why Astrology, a non-science, should not be given a place in the Academy.
(C) At this stage of the argument, we may introduce the notion of 'causality'. According to most standard forms of astrology, there is some form of a causal connection between celestial movements and terrestrial events and especially incidents in the lives of human beings. One would therefore need to ask what kind of a determinism this world-view implies : is it a 'hard' determinism according to which every event in the future is inexorably fixed, or a 'soft' determinism which would state that the past merely influences the future without preordaining it? If our behavorial tendencies, mental dispositions, and subjective inclinations are governed by astral motions, where shall we 'locate' what we usually call free will, our common belief that our future is, in some way at least, 'up to us'? Are we bound (or 'fated'/'predestined') to become what we do, in fact, become? All of these are passionately contested topics in areas such as genetics, philosophy of mind, and neurophysiology (not to mention feminism, Marxism and cultural theory), and our views regarding the 'scientific' status of Astrology will revolve around our answers to these questions. There are a number of sophisticated view-points to the effect that our 'sense' of free choice is ultimately an illusion, and our acceptance of one of these may make us more receptive towards some version of Astrology. (D) At this stage, the debate will begin to stray into certain areas that come under the umbrella-term of 'History and Philosophy of Science', and instead of studying Astrology we will first have to examine the history of science in ancient India. What kind of traditions did we have in classical India of mathematical inquiry, scientific investigation, philosophical discussion, and logical reasoning? Was Astrology used by these traditions as a means for predicting or forseeing future events?
To summarise, then, whether or not Astrology is a 'science' is not a matter that can be settled by some governmental ukase. This question is only the tip of the iceberg that conceals a host of contentious submerged issues such as how we establish what subjects are to be included in the scientific canon, who polices the boundaries that separate the 'scientific' from the 'non-scientific', and how much of government funds are to be allocated to the different departments across the 'Humanities' and the 'Sciences'. What we lack in India today is a widely-shared common framework within which questions of this nature can be raised, debated and responded to by people from different educational backgrounds, but unless we are able to initiate some discussion on these, the ponderous matter of whether or not Astrology is a science will remain quite untouched.
To summarise, then, whether or not Astrology is a 'science' is not a matter that can be settled by some governmental ukase. This question is only the tip of the iceberg that conceals a host of contentious submerged issues such as how we establish what subjects are to be included in the scientific canon, who polices the boundaries that separate the 'scientific' from the 'non-scientific', and how much of government funds are to be allocated to the different departments across the 'Humanities' and the 'Sciences'. What we lack in India today is a widely-shared common framework within which questions of this nature can be raised, debated and responded to by people from different educational backgrounds, but unless we are able to initiate some discussion on these, the ponderous matter of whether or not Astrology is a science will remain quite untouched.
posted by The Transparent Ironist @ 7:46 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home