Astrology: Ancient and Outdated

Arvind Pillai

Science is completely real; since the era of caveman, it has been the driving force of civilization. Various forms of science have come and gone since then: think alchemy, the science of transforming simple metals into gold, or eugenics, the inherently racist science. However, there is one such “fake” science that will just not leave the minds of humanity: astrology.

Astrology is a “science” based on the cosmic dominion above us, better known as the zodiac. To understand what astrology is based off of, you have to understand the zodiac, as it is easily the most recognizable part of the pseudoscience (or fake science). Basically, our visible universe is the zodiac, and there are twelve notable constellations each occupying a symmetrical area. These twelve signs are the constellations Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces – which may sound familiar to you if you have ever read horoscopes. This pseudoscience is ancient: the earliest records of its’ existence come from Indo-European people in the 3rd millennium BC who attempted to interpret celestial patterns they viewed as possible communications from a greater power. It then later became prevalent in other legendary societies of the past, such as Ancient Rome and Greece, the Babylonians, and Hellenistic Egypt. Back in those days, astrology (or astronomy, as it was referred to) was one method for philosophers and peons alike to make greater sense of the universe around them and the behaviors of their peers. But we’re in 2019 now, and in my opinion, astrology has transformed from a legitimate structure of beliefs to something of a ponzi scheme.

For starters, I do have to clarify something: horoscopes aren’t theoretically il-minded. For the most part, they are good fun, and very little people probably take them seriously. What I am more concerned about is people that use astrology and horoscopes as a way to guide their everyday actions through reading about them online or through downloading apps. Remember, astrology is not a real science. There is no scientific basis yet to have been discovered – astrology simply existed in ancient times as humankind did not have any better mediums to interpret as higher powers.

Even worse, people are actually paying for astrological readings despite them having no scientific basis. Check out – their website has a “Live Psychics” section, where you can pay an exorbitant sum of money (upwards of $5 a minute – possibly due to the lack of customers) to talk to someone who has “inherited psychic, empath, and intuitive abilities.” Where is the proof that these psychics have inherited these abilities? These online sessions are fake advertising: judging by the reviews, they are probably closer to therapy than they are to astrology; considering that these psychics are “trained”, this is also probably not very good therapy at that. This brings me to conclude that online astrology is simply overpriced and lower quality than other ways of consultation.

Along with this, also offers a plethora of horoscope-esque books for the coming year. Unlike the horoscopes we get on the Pingree Newspaper, these ones actually cost money. As you are not being read by an actual person, these reading books have no inclinations of what you are seeking advice for, which of course could mean that you may not get any pertinent advice from the money you spent. Once again, if you are feel that you need some advice, you could always consult a therapist or someone that you trust without a bigger price tag or a gambling factor.

My problem with astrology is not that it is a pseudoscience. As I said earlier, astrology can be legitimately useful to people who are in need of another opinion. To those of you that are spending money on “tarot” or “empath” readings, consider this: is it really worth the money to consult online astrologists or buy online books to be guided when you could spend the money on therapy, something more cost effective and actually scientifically proven to be useful?