Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!
Science is not an entity with certain capabilities to do certain things. It is more a process, a process that tries to explain the world around us as best as possible. The process includes such things as, but not limited to, observation, data gathering, analysis, et al. It is indeed true that there are many unexplained phenomena that scientists are working on. But, when it comes to the claims of Astrology of any kind, there is enough scientific tools and processes available to study its claims. The people who make these claims have the obligation to use these scientific tools and establish scientific validity of Astrology.
Professor, I understand what science is, having been practicing it myself. I have never claimed that Astrology is a science, in the sense of science in modern times. I have said that astrology is an art, practiced based on various postulates, but based on the actual movements of the physical planets around the zodiac, which now part of science. These complex postulates, when applied by a skilled and gifted person seem to work. My experience (I have said I am self trained and not gifted) with this discipline is that it works amazingly well at the empirical level. If some folks are claiming astrology to be a science, then I agree with you. But again, to my knowledge, there is no systematic study of the results from predictions done with the most renowned vedic astrologers. If such a study is undertaken, I am sure it will be found that there is a strong correlation between the predictions and the outcomes.
If claims of validity are made without proof, then those claims are indeed bogus. The burden of proof for a claim rests on those who make the claim, not others. Individuals work on what interests them, and if they are smart and fortunate enough to make new discoveries that can be verified and repeated, then such discoveries get recognized as valid knowledge. Often scientists start with a hunch, or pet theory, and work on proving those theories. Sometimes even after a life time of work they may not be able to establish their theory. But, they do not get to claim that his/her theory is valid, and let someone else prove it, and until that time my theory must not be rejected as bogus. That wouldn't be science.
Again, I am not calling astrology as science in the modern sense. But to me, what is valid is what works. I don't know why it works, but it does! It is definitely not random, as I have seen and experienced the results from applying this discipline.
When it comes to the question of what "science" is, there is this problem of demarcation. There is no clear line that separates everything neatly into two groups, "science" and "non-science". The nature of science is such that there is no universally recognized accrediting body that gets to make this classification for all. Anybody can claim anything as science. Homeopathy is one such. Their own theory makes some of their remedies impossible to even prepare. But they blissfully claim it is science. The funny thing is, things that are really science get recognized as science by its very nature without the person having to make a claim to science!
I think that this confusion arises, because from ancient times, certain disciplines were followed without understanding why something works and this knowledge is now completely lost. Most of our Hindu tradition followed the oral tradition and as you say quite often, the Brahmins horded the knowledge - hence the analytical part is lost and only the empirical part remains. I think that people who do not understand the rigorous proofing mechanism demanded by modern science call any discipline followed as 'science'. In this agree with you.
Cheers!
p.s. Wish you get well soon...
