It is a part of everyone’s conversation. A 1984 Gallup poll showed that 55 per cent of Americans believe in it and we talk about it almost all the time — yes, the trans-science of astrology. Since schedules in Reagan’s White House were arranged again and again based on predictions from a San Francisco-based astrologer, the incident and many similar ones have given the science of astrology widespread attention and public acceptance. This article offers quick responses to an astrologer’s claims.

The doctrines of astrology are very simple. A person’s character and destiny can be understood from the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the moment of birth. Using charts called horoscopes, detailing the heavenly positions of Sun, Moon and nine planets, astrologers claim to be able to predict and explain the course of one’s life and also help people, governments, companies and nations with policy decisions of great importance.

Although astrology as a practice came up probably 1,000 years ago when mankind’s view of the world was dominated by magic and superstition and people eagerly searched for heavenly signs of what the gods would do next, even in the 21st century, despite so much emphasis on science education, astrology’s appeal has not diminished. The view that planet Venus is a red hot cloud-covered desert is less attractive than seeing the planet as an aid in deciding whom to marry.

A good way to look at the trans-science of astrology is to see it from a skeptical view and ask some interesting questions that test and question its logical claims. First, why is the moment of birth and not moment of conception, crucial for astrology? The discipline sounds scientific, as it depends upon the person’s date and time of birth. But today, any doctor would agree that birth is the culmination of a process of nine months of continuous development of life inside a woman’s body where many aspects of a child’s personality are set long before the actual birth. Presumably, a suspicious reason for astrologers sticking to time of birth has little to do with the astrology theory, and more to do with the fact that it is easy to get to know a person’s date and time of birth and very difficult to identify the exact moment of conception.

The second question to ask is that if astrologers are as good as they claim to be, why aren’t they richer? Some astrologers might argue that they can explain the broad phenomena but not the specifics involved. But, even if astrologers could forecast the general stock market trend or the general product commodity failures in industries with precision, they would have amassed billions of dollars.

Another interesting question is whether all horoscopes done before the discovery of the three outermost planets are incorrect? Many astrologers would agree to the fact that the Sun sign alone is an inadequate guide to explain the effects of the cosmos and argue that the influence of all major celestial bodies is necessary and must be taken into account. This includes Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which were not discovered until 1781, 1846 and 1930, respectively. What about horoscopes before these times? And why didn’t the inaccuracy of horoscopes made before these times enable astrologers to deduce the presence of such planets long before the astronomers discovered them with the telescope?

One question relates to condemning astrology as a form of bigotry. When people think that discrimination based on sex, colour, religion or accidents of births is bad, isn’t refusing to date a Scorpio or hire a Virgo (like me) as bad as refusing to date a Christian or to hire a person of black origin? Again, why do different schools of astrology disagree so strongly with each other? Disagreement on whether to take into account the precision of the Earth’s axis, how many planets and other objects to consider in calculations and which personality trait goes with which cosmic phenomena, abound. If astrology is a science, why aren’t its proponents and supporters converging on a consensus theory after so many thousand years of data gathering and interpretation?

On another count, if astrological influence is carried by an unknown force, as the proponents of the science might expound, why is it independent of the distance? All the long-range forces we know of, their effects get weaker as the objects get farther. As you might wonder, in an Earth-centered system designed thousands of years ago, astrological influences are independent of distances. The influence of a planet like Venus would be same whether it is on the same side of the Sun as the Earth or on the other side. If physics knew of a force like those astrologers predict, which did not depend upon distances, it would be the most revolutionary discovery for mankind after Einstein’s theory of relativity.

One might finally ask if astrology’s predictions are indeed independent of distances. Why is there no astrology of stars, galaxies and quasars? The famous astronomer Jean-Claude Pecker has pointed out that it was very unworthy of astrologers to limit their craft to the confines of our solar system. Theoretically, billions of stars and objects of cosmos should be added to the miniscule effect created by Sun, Moon and the nine planets in an astrological analysis. Is a client, whose horoscope omits the effect of the Crab pulsar and the M31, getting a complete reading or is he or she being cheated?