Science is a discipline that tries to model observations, frame laws that is the "best-fit" to these observations - much like a regression problem - with the sole intent of being able to predict similar observations in the future, given the same conditions. And in doing so, science makes assumptions regarding the unknown. However, every bit of observation is recorded, documented and on request, must be made available for demonstration. Science as we know it, is open and honest. Much to the extent that if any day a new observation invalidates the assumptions or predictions based on an accepted law, a new law is formed, albeit debated vigorously and finally accepted as a better fitting model for the observation. The invalidation of Newton's Laws of Motion by Einstien's Theory of Relativity in quantum space is one striking example from history.
Belief is a cognitive content that is held as true [1]. Often we can't say where we got a certain belief from. Though much of what we believe is not a result of scientific reasoning or experience, but rather from some idea lying about in our minds. [2]. One of the best examples is our belief in God. And quite noticeably our conviction, as well as the vast differences in the various forms of this belief is striking.
Science and Belief are thus two poles of our cognitive mind.
In our everlasting lust for reason, on one hand we practice science for everything we know and can prove through experiments.
On the other hand, we form and propagate notions and beliefs about why things are the way they are, and how the possible existence of a set of rules or power might help us understand the world better.
Hypothesis, in science, is a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations. This, according to me, is well comparable to a belief - a theory that has not been proved.
Pseudoscience is an activity resembling science but based on notions, beliefs and assumptions that have not been scientifically proven. Advocating pseudosciences, such as astrology, as being scientific is foolish and harmful.
Astrology is a belief that stars and planets around us influence our behavior and future. And that by understanding this relationship, it is possible to "predict" the future. In history, astrology was largely supported by the royals, which in turn helped flourish the science of astronomy. Much of our early and precise knowledge of the stars and planets, eclipses and tides and over-romanticized names for constellation owe their bit to astrology. I have no objection about either believing in God or believing in the false security of being able to predict our own lives. Our experiences and convictions make us all very different from each other, very humane and susceptible. I would love to see a day when we start believing in taking charge of our destiny, rather than wait for the mammoth planets and gigantic stars to dictate our meager future. I always think they are made for some grander things, such as creating a supernova spectacle or supporting the evolution of life from scratch. That aside, I do understand that the need to know the future is immense. Be it through science or astrology.
But the inability to separate what is right, from what feels good [3] is shocking. For astrology has not
- been able to prove the exact nature of influence of the heavenly bodies on our individual & immediate future
- opened itself up for scrutiny through more logical and scientific means
- been documenting predictions and outcomes, to make more conclusive and factual records of its success or failure
- grown over it's follies & limitations by opening up to criticism and rework
Objectionable and cheap to a great extent however is purporting astrology as science through violation of reason and through the use of weak sentiments around knowing the future.
Astrology is a non-scientific belief. And it is best to keep it that way.
3 comments:
When I read this article, I find a certain hurriedness towards the end. Think I should take some time to review and edit this piece.
Anand
andysen..what's this..you're commenting on your own posts :-))
You write well, but not often enough!
Its all based on 'perception' and its rarely that the majority is right.. again, very debatable.
Check out my blog post on this topic at
According to my definition in a probabilistic sense, it can be seen as a 'Science'. What you see depends on what eyes/ glasses you see through, which doesn't change the object being perceived.
Same way, what measure you use to define certain things, determine what buckets you put them into!
hi Sen-sational ;)
Good one, but saying that science and beliefs are opposite ends is not true. Science itself is belief driven though to a much lesser extent than the stuff you talked about. Same observations can be interpreted differently under different theories, so theories are a kind of belief system. Try reading the most famous book on this topic, Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
Post a Comment