I'm not talking about philosophy. I'm talking about theology, which like alchemy and astrology and demonology is not a legitimate field of study.
Like Ufology? Parapsychology?
I personally think that alchemy and astrology are fine subjects for the history of science. Necessary subjects actually, since nobody will understand the historical origins of astronomy or chemistry unless they study them.
I wrote this in another thread and it bears repeating here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-importance-of-pseudosciences.160141/page-7
I'm not convinced that science and astrology can be so cleanly distinguished. See this extraordinary book (link below), particularly chapter 4 (which begins on page 85 in this version) which discusses what the author calls the
"Prediction of Celestial Phenomena (PCP) Paradigm... It is to be distinguished from the EAE Paradigm [the earlier form of Mesopotamian divinatory astrology]
as it incorporates for the first time, I argue, methods whereby certain celestial phenomena can be predicted to a high level of accuracy." This kind of astrology/astronomy produced accurate predictions of astronomical events using algebraic techniques, in the form of lunar and planetary ephemerides, almanacs and what are termed mathematical-astronomical texts (MAATs). These people could predict eclipses (some of their entries say "to be looked for" and there are predictions of eclipses in parts of the world not visible from Mesopotamia.
"
Most important is the evidence that they intended to predict them,[planetary phenomena]
and that they felt confident enough to write to the king and tell him of their calculations. Their reputations were at stake when they did this. The Scholars were interested and capable of regulating the luni-solar year, and they had available to them both the accurate records of eclipses and planetary phenomena, and the characteristic periods after which they recurred. Their Letters and Reports show that some of them made predictions of planetary behaviour, using, at the very least, a characteristic period for Venus and some model of lunar velocity, and probably the Saros for eclipses."
https://www.scribd.com/document/354817791/David-Brown-Mesopotamian-planetary-astronomy-astrology-pdf
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
They made predictions, they informed the king of those predictions, and it would have been noticed in the palace if their predictions weren't accurate. But separating the astronomical aspects of what they were doing from the astrological is probably anachronistic. It would be reading our own distinction back into how they conceived of their work and
what motivated them to do it.
It's true that these ancient astrologers/astronomers didn't have a physical model of how the planets were moving up there in the sky. They were satisfied with 'saving the appearances', with predicting when planets would appear in particular places on the dome of the night sky (in various constellations or whatever).
The Greeks under Alexander the Great eventually conquered Mesopotamia and Greeks had a more geometrical and less algebraic sensibility. So the Hellenistic Greeks went to work trying to create physical models of how everything moved like clockwork so that everything would be in the right place at the right time. So they produced elaborate orreries and astronomical computers such as the Antikythera mechanism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
The Greeks also produced highly precise forms of mathematical geocentric astronomy, with its (in)famous heavenly spheres and epicycles. In the 16th century this kind of astronomy was still just as accurate as Copernicus' new heliocentric astronomy and for years astronomers felt that geocentric and heliocentric astronomy were basically equivalent, just alternative models for predicting astronomical observations. Even today, planetarium projectors are based on the old geocentric system. It's that accurate.
Today we are in essentially the same situation with quantum mechanics. We have several very accurate ways of predicting quantum measurement outcomes (Schroedinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics) but we still lack a physical model (a quantum mechanical
interpetation that permits us to understand what's actually happening down there on the microscale to make all the observations come out as they do.
Physicists today basically just trust their mathematics, they make observations, turn the mathematical crank, and predict further observations. It works very well. But today's physicists are once again in the position of the ancient Mesopotamian astronomer/astrologers, without the divination but with lots more quantum weirdness.
I'm most definitely not suggesting that we revive astrology. I'm just suggesting that it wasn't without value in its historical context and it wasn't totally irrational either. It's questionable whether the 16th and 17th century mathematical astronomy, and with it the scientific revolution, would have happened if it were not for astrology.
