Jan 13th, 2007
Astrology vs String Theory
The scientific method requires good scientific theories to build theories based on observations/experiments that make specific predictions about the outcomes of future observations/experiments. It’s okay if we don’t currently have the technology to make an observation. Theories are perfectly capable of sitting on shelves waiting to be proven right or wrong. What matters – what makes the theory science – is that the theory is eventually provable (or disprovable).
For instance, what makes astrology not science is that it doesn’t make specific predictions that are testable. For instance, for my 12/12 birthday I find the following horoscopes for the day that has already transpired:
From Horoscope.com
The ability to be thankful for our position in life is a rare gift, but a valuable one. Today you will feel particularly aware of all the small things that may not be much on their own but add to make you the person that you are. This will give you a wonderful boost of optimism to help with any difficulties that appear today.
From Astrology.com
Pursue your goals with fierce determination. Distractions have no place in your life at this moment; all you can think about is the desired outcome. With that kind of attitude, success is pretty much assured.
From MSNBC.com
Today there are many areas that you can shine in, dear Sagittarius. You need only be yourself to win over the hearts of others. There is a graciousness about your manner that draws people close to you, whether you’ve ever noticed it before or not. Realize this, and know that it is not a fluke. You need not take much action; everything you need today will come to you.
What was today actually like? Well, I slept in late, stayed home, putzed online, and recorded Astronomy Cast. I then went out for Chinese and to an art opening with close friends. I don’t see the science of Astrology specifically predicted any of this.
A favorite student activity I’ve seen people do with students is to hand out a bunch of horoscopes and have them guess which is their horoscope. There is a 1/12 chance they will get the right one, and indeed, about 8% of the students get a match. But, if astrology was predictive, we’d expect something other than a random match. After all, hindsight is 20/20. And, if you go back to horoscopes for 9-11-01, death wasn’t predicted for a large section of New York City. “Stay home from work – it will be good for your health” would have been a valuable command to anyone reading the papers that day. But, that command wasn’t there. (For a skeptic discussion on 9-11 and astrology, see this article at Skeptico.
So, it is easy for me to, as a scientist, say that astrology does not meet the standards required of a science. It is a theory, but it does not make specific predictions, and it doesn’t match specific past observations. Q.E.D.
But, lurking in physics departments are people called string theorists who write theories on string theory that are published in peer-reviewed physics journals. These theories do match past observations/experiments. Unfortunately, while they make predictions, to my knowledge they do not all make testable predictions (although some do make predictions in particle physics).
Now, I have to admit that I am not smart enough to understand the differences between flavors of string theory. I do not understand the details of their mathematics, and I have to rely on the translation of others. But, as near as I can tell from my reading, string theory is not always predictive.
So, is it science?
Lurking in physics department there are also people who work on things like inflationary multiverses and the cosmic landscapes. Again, these are theories that require brilliance to understand, that match the current universe, but don’t make predictions.
Is this science?
I don’t know. Logically – no. They aren’t. I used to think of them as pretty mathematical art work, but I’m told by people who do theoretical math that they aren’t even that. They are just math.
And this leaves me in an uncomfortable place. I work really really hard to teach my students what makes good science. Do I teach them these are not science and thus fall in the same bin as astrology? Or…?
Until I understand more, I’m going to simply say, “here be dragons” and wait and hope for predictions to be made.
Image credit: Hoover Archives
16 Responses to “Astrology vs String Theory”
Leave a Reply
Building Community, One A** Grab at a time? » »
The current lack of testable predictions is why I don’t like to call string theories “science”. This is an aspect that they currently share with ID as well as astrology. As a result, I’ve taken to calling string theories “proto-science” as the theory folks are at least trying to find testable predictions to subject them to.
I appreciate you search to understand what is scientifically verifiable. Unfortunately, your understanding of Astrology is even more shallow that string theory. That is unfortunately the result of readong Sun Sign horoscopes as if they were what Astrology has to offer. They are like listening to a meteorologist report a sunny day on the continent of North America. Well, somewhere it’s sunny but now where I live.
From my view Astrology’s purpose is not to predict what you will do today. That’s a function of freewill. Wouldn’t you find more value in information that could tell you what the energies might be today - frustrating, joyful, or boring - which could allow you to plan what would be your best course of action.
You really ought to get a REAL astrological information by consulting a Certified Professional Astrologer before you debunk it. And as far as it being a science, well, it is based on accurate astrolomical data, but goes beyond that to an understanding of the synchronicity created when planets form geometric angles to one another. It then becomes an art.
Would you call the field of psychology a science? It is little more provable than Astrology, but somehow has gained recognition as an important contribution to modern living. Legitimate certified professional Astrologers seek the same regard as psychology has as a tool for modern living. Why do I know? I am one.
Dianne, I am arguing simply that astrology is not a precise science that can make specific predictions. I have actually taken a class on astrology to see what the background was and had complete readings done to see what astrology had to offer so that I could be fair. What I learned is that no matter how much information an astrologer is provided, they can not offer predictions that when sealed in an envelope to be openned after a day has passed, can be seen to precisely narrate any aspect of the day in question.
There are many things that offer people hope and guidance that are beyond the realm of science. The human mind is not a 100% rational-logical thing. There is, for some people, an interplay between astrology and their life that helps them. But, that does not make astrology science.
If you are going to read a horoscope, read the ones in the Onion It won’t be any less random than from any other source, but it will at least be funny.
I have always thought that a good argument against astrology and other forms of fortune telling is this…
Let us assume that you can use astrology (or other method) to predict the future with some degree of accuracy that is better than other methods. If that was true then some wiz-kid on Wall St would have figured out how to use that fact to make a lot of money. If this was true then you could open up the Wall St Journal and find adds for fortune tellers, but you can’t…
QED
As for string theory when I was an undergrad in physics I had a professor who used to call it “Quantum theology”. And while I can’t understand much of it, he was a particle physics type, so I assume he could.
PS I love astronomy cast!
“You really ought to get a REAL astrological information by consulting a Certified Professional Astrologer before you debunk it.”
For $150 or more? Thanks for the suggestion, but I’ll pass. It doesn’t cost a dime to learn specifically why astrological claims are untenable.
Sorry to interrupt. I searched for String theory and I found this blog.
I just want to say that I always liked physics. You know way? ’cause any thing seems undefeatable today maybe challenged and turn to be wrong tomorrow. This is improvement and I like it.
About astrology, I have no idea.
I came across this today after reading this entry regarding string theory. I thought you might enjoy this.
There are all kinds of math and science jokes on that site. Hopefully, your WP install won’t mind the two URLS.
Oops, I didn’t close the tag!
Hey Pamela.
I just came across this press release this morning, and thought you’d like to know about it…
Physicists Develop Test for ‘String Theory’
Who knows whether it will settle anything, but at least they are trying.
Your article is very informative and helped me further.
Thanks, David
Theoretically there are some ideas about basis of astrology… etc… at http://geocities.com/akxyz/
Predictions for dow jones and links to other predictions by the author at http://akxyz.blogspot.com
Regards !
Magazine comments are not astrology. Unless you understand astrology, you should not comment on it. Newton rebuked scoffers by saying that he had studied the subject while they had not.
Being born on December 12th of an unknown year says nothing that is predictable, via astrology or through any other art.
By knowing astrology, you presumably mean having studied it to the point of at least practising it. I strongly disagree. Astrology makes incredible claims which cannot be connected to any evidence based science. It continually fails all tests when the scientific method is applied to it. It is up to astrologers to provide clear proofs that it can predict anything to a standard that can be published in main stream scientific journals. Science has moved on since Newton, great as he was, by application of the scientific method which showed Einstein’s theories to better fit the data. Belief environments including astronomy show no such progress, conveniently ignoring new facts as they become known.
Such huge topics to try and prove or debunk with such a small space to write in and lack of knowledge on either subject. Both demand high ability to comprehend the abstract and calculate outcomes with so many variable that you’d probably blow a fuse just thinking about it. If I spent my whole conscious life working on astrology or string theory I would “probably” still be confused.
Well, astrology readings should be viewed as mere guides, not directing forces in one’s life.
The future is inherently unpredicable. If it is predictable, we become nothing more than cogs in the machine that is the universe. A predicatable universe means that free will cannot exist.
I consider myself to be a religious person in that I believe in the essence of my faith. However, I generate a lot of frustration with other religious people when I state that God cannot predict the future. That particular statement generates intense emotion in people. Most consider it to be blasphemy and reject it out of hand.
This is where their frustration comes in. Here we go….
If God can predict where I will wind up (Heaven or Hell), then I have no choice but to wind up there. To wind up in a place not predicted means that God’s prediction was wrong and therefore God is fallible. On the other hand, if God is not fallible, then his predictions will always be correct and I have no choice but to wind up where he predicted I would, in which case, what choice did I really have?
It does not matter how you phrase God’s knowledge of my future. I have heard it all. Bottom line, if it can be predicted, then my fate is sealed. I have no choice. All possible paths must lead to the predicted endpoint. I may be free to choose the path, but this is only an illusion of choice since the outcome is certain regardless of the path.
Don’t try the “You are free to choose, but God knows what choice your going to make” argument either. You can’t dance around it. If God knows what choice I am going to make, then that is the same as prediction and the same argument applies.
The frustrating part for most people is that a predicatable universe implies no free will, and an unpredicatable one implies that God’s power is limited. Both are unpalatable to most people.
I choose to look at it this way. God created a universe that was inherently unpredictable at its core so that we could make the choice to come to him of our own free will.
The best physics theory we have is Quantum Mechanics. It does not try to predict anything specific. It only predicts the probability that an observation O applied to a system in a state S, will result in the system being put into state S’. It does not matter why this happens, only that it does.
If, someday, we discover that there is an unerlying mechanism that, in principle, can be predicted, then we are reduced to the level of cogs in the machine. We are nothing more than part of an evolving system that we are powerless to change. Cogs in the machine.
Even if you are an athiest, is it not disturbing to you have no free will?
For my part, I am comforted by quantum mechanics. It reinforces the notion that I have free will. Thank you Werner Hiesneberg. Thank you Alain Aspect for doing that beautiful experiment.
Note that I am not saying that we should bury our heads in the sand and stop looking for the rules underlying the system. I am just saying that I hope the universe turns out like quantum mechanics and not like general relativity.