Assessing the Epistemic Value of Astrology: A Comparative Analysis with Other Sciences

Abstract

This research paper aims to critically evaluate the epistemic value of astrology in comparison to other scientific disciplines. Astrology has long been a subject of fascination and controversy due to its claims of predicting human behavior and destiny based on celestial positions and relationships. However, its credibility as a scientific field remains a topic of intense debate. The study employs a comparative analysis approach to assess the highness of astrology in relation to other well-established sciences. By examining key criteria such as empirical evidence, testability, falsifiability, explanatory power, and predictive capacity, we aim to determine the epistemic strength of astrology relative to other scientific disciplines. Our findings reveal that astrology falls short in meeting the rigorous standards of scientific inquiry when compared to disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology. The lack of empirical evidence supporting astrological claims, combined with the inability to generate reliable and consistent predictions, limits its validity as a scientific field. In contrast, other sciences have demonstrated significant advancements through experimental verification, peer review, and the development of robust theories and models. They have consistently produced reliable results, contributed to technological advancements, and expanded our understanding of the natural world. While astrology may hold cultural and historical significance, its highness in the realm of science remains questionable. This study emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning when evaluating scientific claims. Furthermore, it highlights the need for rigorous scientific methodologies in distinguishing between pseudoscience and legitimate scientific disciplines.