# Why is astrology foolish but astronomy real science? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 10, 2005, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987 "2005-01-10T03:47:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/1 "2005-01-10T03:47:43Z")
Great, I imagine I’ve gotten the attention of all the James Randi wanna-bes here. Naturally, I’m not some new-age freak who is going to claim that horoscopes are genuine. I want to know the answer to the above question from an etymological point of view. The suffix -ology is used mostly to refer to serious study of a discipline, from biology to geology to ornithology to genaeology to etymology. Now, I imagine that way back when, the study of the heavens may have been intrinsically linked with attempts to divine the future therefrom. But when Galileo and Kepler and the like began to create a distinction between superstitious study of the heavenly bodies and physical study of the heavenly bodies, how did the -ology become the property of Nostradamus and his ilk, leaving the real science discipline to find itself a different suffix, -onomy? And what’s with that suffix anyway? Wouldn’t an astronomer be someone who _names_ stars? I imagine the scientists did name a lot of stars, but was the popular perception that that was all they did? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/2 "2005-01-10T03:56:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Why is astrology foolish but astronomy real science? More than one astronomer can agree about the analysis of a heavenly body. Rarely does more than one astrologer agree with another. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/3 "2005-01-10T04:10:16Z")
**Mr. Blue Sky** , the question regads the _names_ of the studies, not their relevance to reality. It is an etymological question, not an epistemological one. * * * Astrology (or its Greek and Latin forebears) was the general name for the study of the stars. Well before the _science_ of astronomy departed from the _art_ of astrology, the word astronomy had been applied to that _branch_ of astrology (all the study of stars) that was concerned with the arrangement and naming of the constellations. As the two studies began to drift apart, the name for the more limited study remained with it as the emerging science while the older word followed the (at _that_ time) broader sense of studying and making practical application of the stars’ locations. By the time that astrology and divination were recognized to have no scientific foundation, the names for the seeparate disciplines were firmly established. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/4 "2005-01-10T04:10:27Z")
Not an answer in and of itself, but some help from the OED: > [@](#): > > 4- astrology. > > ``` > 1. gen. Practical astronomy; the practical application of astronomy as an art to human uses; esp. (in later usage) to the prediction of events natural or moral. > > ``` > > The original distinction between Astronomy the science, and Astrology the art, is clearly expressed by Gower Conf. III. 105-135. Chaucer’s Treatise on the Astrolabe was a work of ‘astrology,’ i.e. practical astronomy. > ‘Astrology’ was of two kinds: a. Natural Astrology: the calculation and foretelling of natural phenomena, as the measurement of time, fixing of Easter, prediction of tides and eclipses; also of meteorological phenomena. Obs. > > 1375 BARBOUR Bruce IV. 693 Astrology, Quhar-throu clerkis…May knaw coniunctione of planettis. c1391 CHAUCER Astrol. Prol. 3 A gret part of the general rewles of theorik in astrologie. 1570 DEE Math. Pref. 23 Astrologie, is an Arte Mathematicall. 1649 BP. HALL Cases Consc. III. ii. (1654) 178 Naturall Astrology, when it keepes it selfe within its due bounds is lawfull. 1669 WORLIDGE Syst. Agric. (1681) 264 The use of this part of Astrology…by the Farmer as by the Sayler. > > This sense (exc. in Hist.) became obs. in 17th c., all the regular physical phenomena passing into the domain of ASTRONOMY, and those that concerned the presumed influence of the moon and planets on the weather, etc., being called ASTRO-METEOROLOGY. b. Judicial Astrology: the art of judging of the reputed occult and non-physical influences of the stars and planets upon human affairs; star-divination, astromancy. (The only meaning of ‘Astrology’ since end of 17th c.) > ‘Judiciary or Judicial Astrology, which we commonly call simply Astrology, is that which pretends to foretell moral events, i.e. such as have a dependence on the free will and agency of man; as if that were directed by the stars.’ CHAMBERS Cycl. 1727. > > [1393 GOWER III. 107 Assembled with astronomy Is eke that ilke astrology, The which in jugements accompteth Theffect, what every sterre amounteth.] c1560 G. GYLBY (title) An Admonition against Astrology Judiciall, and other curiosities that reygne now in the World [transl. Calvin]. 1597 BP. HALL Sat. II. vii, Thou damned mock art, and thou brain~sick tale Of old astrology. 1649 Cases Consc. III. ii. (1654) 179 That other Calculatory, or figure-casting Astrology is presumptuous and unwarrantable. 1652 W. ROWLAND (title) Judicial Astrology judicially condemned. 1765 TUCKER Lt. Nat. II. 466 Astrology is the pretended knack of telling fortunes by the stars. 1845 J. SAUNDERS Pict. Eng. Life 175 In astrology…the heavens were divided into twelve parts or houses. 1869 Daily News 9 Dec., Yesterday…a curious action for trespass was brought by a herbalist and astrologer…illustrating the manner in which astrology flourishes in London at the present time. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/5 "2005-01-10T04:12:46Z")
(And if I could afford the electronic version of the OED, I wouldn’t have to paraphrase it.) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/6 "2005-01-10T04:13:32Z")
We also have _agronomy_. The suffix _-nomy_ refers to (Merriam-Webster) “a system of governing or the sum of knowledge regarding a (specified} field.” Astronomy is a perfectly legitimate name for the science. ---
**Author:** ![carterba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@carterba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carterba)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/7 "2005-01-10T04:16:44Z")
Before the scientific method came along, astrology and astronomy were the same. According to the [etymology dictionary](http://www.etymonline.com/), “astrology” comes from Greek _astrologia_ “telling of the stars”, while “astronomy” comes from Greek _astronomia_ = _astron_ + _nomos_ = “star” + “rearranging, regulating”. On preview… what **tomndebb** and **samclem** said. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/8 "2005-01-10T04:48:38Z")
Roughly speaking, the root “nom” has to do with laws and not names. You see the same root in the word economics. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/9 "2005-01-10T05:03:49Z")
Got it, thanks a lot. And, Mr. Blue Sky…gotcha! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/10 "2005-01-10T11:36:38Z")
A distinction between the two in Latin long predates any of the OED’s citations in English. The person who’s usually mentioned as an early “splitter” on the matter is Isidore of Seville in the seventh century. [Book III](http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/isidore3.html) of his _Etymologiae_ includes a discussion of astronomy; section 27 runs as follows: > [@](#): > > XXVII. DE DIFFERENTIA ASTRONOMIAE ET ASTROLOGIAE. [1] Inter Astronomiam autem et Astrologiam aliquid differt. Nam Astronomia caeli conversionem, ortus, obitus motusque siderum continet, vel qua ex causa ita vocentur. Astrologia vero partim naturalis, partim superstitiosa est. [2] Naturalis, dum exequitur solis et lunae cursus, vel stellarum certas temporum stationes. Superstitiosa vero est illa quam mathematici sequuntur, qui in stellis auguriantur, quique etiam duodecim caeli signa per singula animae vel corporis membra disponunt, siderumque cursu nativitates hominum et mores praedicare conantur. My Latin is pretty ropy these days (and there doesn’t appear to be a translation online), but he’s defining astronomy as the study of the rising and setting of the stars, _natural_ astrology as the study of the motion of the sun and the moon and _superstitious_ astrology to do with prophecy. This obviously isn’t quite the modern division, but there is aleady the notion here that astronomy is sensible while astrology is partly dodgy. That said, you did get most people using both terms (and others) to refer to what we’d now think of as astronomy for a long time afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/11 "2005-01-10T15:06:04Z")
It’s already been pointed out that “astronomy” and “astrology” were not necessarily always as separate as they are today - but remember also that many medieval scientists simultaneously studied real science and stuff we now recognize as pseudoscience. Newton, for instance, studied astrology and alchemy far more heavily than he studied real science. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/12 "2005-01-10T16:23:46Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Roughly speaking, the root “nom” has to do with laws and not names. You see the same root in the word economics. And David Simmons has already mentioned “agronomy”, but I thought that “nomology” (“The study and discovery of general physical and logical laws”–Ame.Her.Dic) would be good too. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/13 "2005-01-10T20:11:44Z")
And if you ever want to piss off an agronomist, call him an agrologer - one of those charlatans who claim to be able to predict the future of wheat prices. ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/14 "2005-01-10T21:00:23Z")
The Zodiac Houses were all established in about 1400 AD, right? Just a rough guess on my part, but I don’t think it’s too far off. Hasn’t the Sun shifted out of those initial constellations by now? Which means, for instance, since I was born in early May, I’m no longer a Taurus, but could very well be a Sagitarious. Or is there some “self-correcting” feature I can’t figure out? Not accommodating changes in the physical location of the center of your belief system sounds more like “foolish” instead of “science”. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/15 "2005-01-10T21:04:59Z")
> [@Sean Factotum](#): > > The Zodiac Houses were all established in about 1400 AD, right? Just a rough guess on my part, but I don’t think it’s too far off. You’re at least 1400 years off, and probably closer to 2400. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/16 "2005-01-10T21:20:43Z")
> [@Sean Factotum](#): > > Hasn’t the Sun shifted out of those initial constellations by now? Which means, for instance, since I was born in early May, I’m no longer a Taurus, but could very well be a Sagitarious. Or is there some “self-correcting” feature I can’t figure out? Yes, the vernal equinox was originally in Aries. It is now in Pisces. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/17 "2005-01-11T03:19:07Z")
> [@Sean Factotum](#): > > Not accommodating changes in the physical location of the center of your belief system sounds more like “foolish” instead of “science”. That has an interesting background. The Earth actually goes around the Sun in a little bit more than 365.25 days, but our calendar is based upon a system with an average length just a little bit less than 365.25 days, because we like to keep things orderly, and the same from season to season. So, the physical location changes, but we ignore it. Foolish? Depends. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/18 "2005-01-11T11:37:22Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Newton, for instance, studied astrology and alchemy far more heavily than he studied real science. Though the myth evidently shows no sign of going away, even in these parts, [Newton wasn’t particularly interested in astrology](http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/astrology/newton.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/19 "2005-01-11T14:05:41Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > Though the myth evidently shows no sign of going away, even in these parts, [Newton wasn’t particularly interested in astrology](http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/astrology/newton.htm). Ok, according to your link, it appears that perhaps he was interested in alchemy and theology (though it’s a rather occult-leaning, prophetic theology). I’ve certainly read before that he was an astrologer; if that’s indeed wrong, I apologize. I’ll have to find some more thorough discussion of it. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-astrology-foolish-but-astronomy-real-science/283987/20 "2005-01-11T16:31:38Z")
The standard academic reference on the myth of Newton and astrology is the old I. Bernard Cohen _Isis_ paper cited on that page. Newton was certainly deeply and obsessively interested in both theology and alchemy. Though I’ll note that what’s never mentioned when the “wasn’t Newton odd by our standards” argument comes up is that he seems to have become completely disillusioned with alchemy in the 1690s. While he continued to buy alchemical books as they appeared in the last 30 years of his life, he stopped writing about them or conducting any experiments. Both his theology and his alchemy - and how they tied into the rest of his thinking - have by now both been the subject of several substantial specialist studies and much academic debate, but as good a place to start would be _Never at Rest_ (Cambridge, 1980), the excellent biography by Richard Westfall. (Westfall has occasion to discuss astrology once in the course of 900-odd pages, when he mentions the story reported by Conduitt.)