Bengt Gustafsson: There are no reasons to take astrology seriously

With the growing beklämning I read Sara Martinssons article (DN 2/1), where she tries to highlight the astrologins position in our time. ”Pseudoscience, or the eternal wisdom?” she asks. Both interpretations seem equal, when of the to see this ”ancient systems to gain new ground in modernity shortcomings”. Despite a rich catalogue of various market players in the field, she manages to avoid a few of the concepts that would be adequate for a konsumentupplysande journalist": false marketing, geschäft, and superstition.

Despite repeated tests lack scientific support for astrological predictions of events and characterizations of the personalities would hold (see the current Wikipedia article astrology). Nor do we know of any reasonable mechanism which would make it possible for the planets, such as Neptune, which is highlighted in the DN article, to affect our characters and actions. The force of gravity is said to be the most powerful effect Neptune can have on us.

imagine would be through the light, but it is ten times weaker than the light from the faintest stars we can see with the naked eye. Neptune lies so far away that the gravitational attraction of the planet on our bodies is less than the pressure from a very small breadcrumb that we put on the head. This will be thoughts on Neptune's effect on us can not be justified with the ”ancient” or ”eternal” wisdom: the planet was first discovered in 1846 (although Galilei is said to have mistaken it for a fixed star in his telescope already in 1612).

But also the other things make Martinssons article, and the astrologers, and other ”experts” she refers to, grossly misleading.

When astrology flourished during the middle ages seemed the planets move regularly, and whimsically, across the sky. The planet Mars, for example, could be seen to be going according to plan, from right to left, up among the stars, but then turn around and go in the opposite direction for a time, and then turn again. There was thus both systematic and temporary patterns of movement up there in the sky. This mixture of the regular order, and the unexpected events was challenging, yes, mysterious. Perhaps, in its mixture of the expected and the unexpected, a picture of human life.

It is a poor view of man and society which is here presented as something strange and ”mystical”.

Galileo and Kepler changed out the Earth from the Sun in planetsystemets centre got the motions of the planets natural explanations: we saw in the sky both the results of the planets own movements around the sun and the apparent movement as the earth changes position in its orbit. And with Newton's efforts in the 1600 century, it was planetsystemets movement a kind of simple movements, yes, one of the simplest mechanical systems in nature.

today, it is actually so that a reasonably talented person in his teens quite easily make a computer program that precisely calculates the planetary positions and movements hundreds of years back or forward in time. To believe that this movement would influence or even control our lives is the most primitive, mechanistic view of humans I know. So far from being a ”mysterious” notion of man you can think of. We believe instead that we are completely controlled by our genetic programs, which I am not, nor do, it is at least a much more sophisticated and fairer humanity.

Martinssons article helps to promote an image of astrology, fundamentally, is completely misleading in the day. It is a poor view of man and society which is here presented as something strange and ”mystical”. And also on the orediga grounds.

It is not better to Martinssons article makes a clear link to concerns about climate change and that it is claimed that ”girls and ickebinära” in comparison with guys would be ”more transparent” and ”sympathetic to its environment” and, therefore, easier would be attracted to a faith that really makes us all to the mechanical puppets at the himmelsteatern. Also Martinsson himself claims to have been drawn to this faith. But to hope that it is ”open” for the solutions of our time's central problem, is self-deceiving. Rather eat it as an escape into irresponsible unawareness, locked in a sterile and unrealistic tankefigur.

Read more: Therefore, we turn to the stars for answers