Astrology; The Evidence of Science.

Book Review of “Astrology; The Evidence of Science”, by Percy Seymour (Lennard Publishing, £12.95).

This seems to be the book for which we have long waited, the blurb on the front cover says "Orthodox science has always held that astrology can not work. Now for the first time a scientist argues that it does." We are led to believe that both accounts of astrology working and a reasonable mechanism will be provided. Moreover, the writer's credentials look good enough; a PhD from the University of Manchester in astrophysics and now lecturing in astronomy at Plymouth Polytechnic. He says that astrologers will hail his book as providing the scientific validation for their beliefs and no doubt they will, desperate as they are for approval. Whether the scientific community needs to tremble is less certain. For when we examine it in detail it turns out to be less than convincing.

Firstly, then, what evidence for astrology does Spencer provide? Disappointingly, this turns out to be nothing more than the results already published by Gauquelin. Spencer has to admit that Gauquelin found no evidence for claims involving Sun-signs and that the positions of the planets made no difference to people's personalities. This last point is most important since nowadays astrologers seem to be making fewer claims to foretell the future but more that they can provide counselling to those in distress. Seymour has to concede the Gauquelin claimed no more than that some of the heavenly bodies (The Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn but not Mercury, Uranus, Neptune nor Pluto) when at certain points in the sky had certain effects on eminent people in certain professions. Note that there was no precision in stating where these crucial points were, sometimes they were rising, sometimes at their highest point, sometimes setting, sometimes at their lowest point. The Gauquelin results are discussed in the Spring, 1983 issue (vol. VII, no. 3) of the Skeptical Inquirer. It must be said that even if you accept it as a real effect it is nothing to get very excited about. For example, it merely claims that 22% of champion athletes were born when Mars was in a certain position against a random expectation of 17%.

Secondly, Seymour gives an explanation for astrology that goes like this: we know that the Moon's gravity can cause tidal effects in the magnetosphere of the Earth. These affect the Earth's magnetic field by inducing electric currents in the atmosphere. These changes in the Earth's magnetic field will occur at regular times and there are neural circuits in the human brain which can resonate with these. Now it is true that the moon can affect the Earth's magnetic field and this effect can be measured. However such measurements are at the limit of sensitivity of our magnetometers, easily masked by changes caused by variations in the solar wind. Moreover these effects are miniscule compared to the magnetic effects of household appliances like washing machines and television sects. Thus we have an immediate test of Seymour's hypothesis, the Gauquelin effect should be much more evident in children born in countries without all these sources of magnetism. Seymour now has to go much further into the mire. He has to assume that a similar effect will exist for the other planets for which the Gauquelin effect works and will not exist for the other planets for which it does not work. Such an effect has only been detected for the moon; if it does exist for the other planets concerned, it would be in strength in the same ratio as for the sea tides. Just as only the Sun and Moon affect the tides on the sea shore, so we can be sure that only the Moon could possibly cause the Gauquelin effect. After all, if the foetus is so sensitive at picking up these extremely weak magnetic fields, why can not our magnetometers? The only redeeming feature of the theory is that it does assume that the effect works throughout the whole period of pregnancy and not just at the time of birth as do other explanations.

There is one more point, and the most damning of all. Seymour's explanation depends on there being a resonance between the neurons in the brain of the foetus and the periodic changes in the magnetic field of the Earth due to the planets concerned. But seen from the Earth, the planets do not move with constant speed; at times they seem to move faster, at others slower and at times even move backwards. For example, the period between Jupiter rises changes by 92 seconds during the year; there is no possibility of a resonance. Surely Seymour, as a graduate astrophysicist, must have known this; why did he not mention it? It follows that the book fails utterly in its appointed task. We can be sure however that astrologers will hail it with rapture.