FROM newspaper horoscopes to seaside fortune-tellers, the pseudosciences have long proved impervious to scientific attack. Again and again, a whole range of such soothsayings have been debunked by earnest inquirers. Again and again, the scientists find that merely showing that such predictions have no basis in fact does nothing to diminish the popularity of the charlatan鈥檚 art. The usual moral drawn from this is that 鈥渢he public鈥� is hopelessly unscientific and irrational.
For example, the British zoologist Richard Dawkins has written that: 鈥淕ullibility of the kind exploited by astrologers, evangelists, and other charlatans may be normal and healthy in a child, but it is unhealthy and reprehensive in an adult鈥� (Skeptical Enquirer, vol 19, no 1, p35). There is also a tendency for scientists to conclude that if there were more scientific education, the pseudosciences would wither and die. For example, the American astronomer Carl Sagan has claimed: 鈥淓very newspaper in America has a daily astrology column. How many have even a weekly astronomy column? And I believe it is also the fault of the educational system. We do not teach how to think鈥� (Skeptical Enquirer, vol 12, no 1, p46). In short, he is saying that the pseudosciences flourish in space that should rightfully belong to science itself. And to quote him again: 鈥淚f science were explained to the average person in a way that is accessible and exciting, there would be no room for pseudoscience.鈥�
Pardon me if I sound heretical, but I would like to suggest that the earnest scientists have missed something important. I鈥檓 not saying that debunking should stop. I鈥檓 certainly not arguing that fraudsters who make money from the vulnerable and sick should be treated with anything less than contempt (and receive prison sentences where appropriate). But I am saying that the earnest debunkers should not be too distressed if their demonstrations that astrology 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 work鈥� do not lead to a drop in the popularity or numbers of astrologers.
Advertisement
You see, the earnest debunkers assume that people believe that astrology is true and that if they could only convince them it were not, people would immediately cease to pay it any attention. That it what I think has been missed.
Most people who read their horoscope in the morning tabloid know perfectly well it is not true. Because of this, no amount of debunking will make any difference. If anything, debunking will only increase people鈥檚 attachment to their horoscopes.
Look at it this way, if horoscopes were real they would be a constant source of anxiety. Life would be ruled by forces that we had no control over and which could destroy us at any time. Well, economics is a force we can鈥檛 control and which, even if it can鈥檛 physically destroy us, can at least make life easier or harder. Does anyone seriously imagine that horoscopes are read 鈥� by the vast majority of their audience 鈥� in the same way the financial pages are?
No. Horoscopes are safely fictional and can be read for fun, playing the game of 鈥渨hat if鈥�. Their layout is short and punchy and 鈥渆ntertaining鈥�, there are no in-depth analyses such as those that lurk on the financial pages. 鈥淔inancial matters will be a worry to you,鈥� says the horoscope. The financial page may start off in the same vein, but soon immerses itself in the details of alleviating that worry. If horoscopes were treated in the same way, they too would contain detailed explanations of how to avoid that minor misfortune which could befall you next Tuesday morning. Indeed, back in the days when astrology was considered to be true, I鈥檓 sure that the future had to be read with great care.
Astrologers had to be careful that they did not prophesy anything which might be held to be their fault if it came true. It鈥檚 not surprising that all the astrologers predicted that Henry VIII鈥檚 second child would be a boy (it turned out to be a girl 鈥� Elizabeth I). Astrology was a nervous business for its practitioners in those days. I wonder if the increasingly litigious trends of society will bring the spectacle of astrologers being sued over the outcome of their predictions, as doctors are increasingly sued for medical mischances? Then astrology would once again become a nervous business, which could bring some fascinating changes to the art of soothsaying.
Just like scientists, astrologers themselves appear to have missed this truth 鈥� that people don鈥檛 really believe their horoscopes. Perhaps they are among the tiny minority of people who are fooled by the stuff, or maybe they simply think their audience is. In any event, horoscopes are so bland in content that they may almost prove a turn-off for the audience. 鈥淔inancial matters are a worry to you 鈥︹�� Why not something really thrilling? In this respect, the 鈥減sychic鈥� who regularly liven up the press in the New Year 鈥� at least in the US 鈥� with predictions that California will fall into the sea, the president will be abducted by aliens and some film star will give birth at the age of 65, evidently understand their audience better than the astrologers.
Anyway, I think it is one of those age-old features of humanity that we like fictions. They brighten up a drab world, and their very unreality means that we need not worry about them. At other places and other times, the fictions have been ghost stories and fairy stories delivered in penny-dreadfuls and Hollywood films. Horoscopes and extraterrestrials are just a variation on an old theme.
Unfortunately, we humans also have an immense capacity for blurring the distinctions between fiction and reality. Some people do believe that horoscopes work. Some believe what they see on television. Credulity of this sort is what scientists should be fighting, not harmless fun that fools no one. There鈥檚 only one problem with this: if we teach people not to be credulous, will they believe the pronouncements of earnest scientists any more?