Astrology: What's Really in the Stars [Hardcover]

Joseph V. Stewart (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 1996

Rather than offering a blistering critique of astrology, Stewart reveals discrepancies within horoscopic astrology's own framework to let the reader decide whether there is any merit to this ancient scheme of things.

Editorial Reviews

Review

Astrology aids many and provides insights into personal futures - or does it? Stewart here examines history and astrological contentions to consider astrology's origins and the development of Western astrological systems. Original, ancient source material was translated for this text and chapters provide more than a cursory exami-nation of astrological roots and realities. -- Midwest Book Review

Product Details

• Hardcover: 156 pages
• Publisher: Prometheus Books (August 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1573920770
• ISBN-13: 978-1573920773
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.1 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 1.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,088,007 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Not an especially helpful book, March 3, 1998

By 

Robert Moore (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Astrology: What's Really in the Stars (Hardcover)

During the summer of 1997, I began reading extensively on the history of astrology. This is a challenging undertaking because there are virtually no historically sophisticated treatments of the subject. I turned to this one for help, and was sorely disappointed. Although I am as sceptical about astrology as the author, this one is marred by the author's desire to debunk astrology rather than recount its history. This is a problem with most books published by Prometheus Books. But even the purely historical sections are not especially strong.

If a person is interested in learning more about astrology, I can strongly recommend Jim Tester's A HISTORY OF WESTERN ASTROLOGY, which is the premiere history of astrology in English. Also first-rate is the section on astrology in Keith Thomas's extraordinary RELIGION AND THE DECLINE OF MAGIC, recently reprinted in a beautiful edition by Oxford University Press. Thomas's discussion is restricted to 16th and 17th century England, but what is there is superb. One other excellent book is Tillyard's THE ELIZABETHAN WORLD PICTURE, which deals not so much with astrology as with the entire intellectual apparatus of which astrology was an integral part.

1.0 out of 5 stars Pathetic, December 2, 2011

By 

Keeping It Real - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Astrology: What's Really in the Stars (Hardcover)

There are so many things wrong with this book that it's sickening. To be honest, I only skimmed through part one of the book, which is on the history of astrology. This section takes up the majority of the book but wasn't what I was interested in, as I already have many books on it's history. I was interested in his best shots to debunk astrology. Those shots were weak. Very weak.

For starters, he cites no references. Yes, there is a decent bibliography at the end of the book. However, none of his statements within the book are numbered to reference them to the bibliography. This means that his statements will be difficult if not impossible to follow up on. As we will soon see, his arguments NEED to be followed up on because he clearly didn't do enough research himself. The statements within the book are weak indeed. Here's an example of his proofs found on page 117/118:

"In 1960, a psychaiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania[....]measured changes in elecrtical potential in normal versus psychotic patients and found electrical potential increases around the new and full moons, as well as seasonal variations. Acutely disturbed persons showed the highest voltage increase. These studies have not been repeated or substantiated."

4 things to note about this, 1) We're expected to accept this as proof against astrology. 2) It says that the studies HAVE NOT BEEN REPEATED OR SUBSTANTIATED. That does not mean they have been disproved, it only means nobody has followed up on it. 3) It is a very short and lacks any details that would help readers understand either side of that particular argument. 4) There are no references to follow up with.

One of the few examples that he spent a tiny bit more time on is the Mars Effect as discovered by the Gauquelins. Those short paragraphs concluded that, "after painstaking research", CSICOP disproved the Mars Effect. Yes, he is correct that CSICOP put years of painstaking research into this. Why? Because the Mars Effect kept being vindicated in their work. Truth is, CSICOP lied, cheated and fired essential people in order to publish their "victorious" findings. J.V. Stewart, author of the book I am reviewing, didn't cite any sources, but I can give you one. It's a paper called "sTARBABY" by Dennis Rawlins. He was a founding member of CSICOP and the only actual scientist on the committee at the time. Look him up on Wikipedia to see the list of his impressive accomplishments. Then do a search for his article sTARBABY to read the truth of CSICOP's "debunking victory". They failed and fired Rawlins when his integrity as a scientist wouldn't cover up the truth.

There are so many other laughable assertions in this book but, to keep my review "short", I'll only add one more. On the one hand, Stewart appears well educated about astrology. In parts of the book he seems to understand that traditional astrology is far more complex than the popularized "sun sign astrology" that we are all familiar with. When people say that they are a Scorpio, for example, it means that the sun was in the sign Scorpio when they were born. On page 132 he recounts an incident with a friend of his. His friend told him that he always easily identified with his sun sign Scorpio. Here's what happens next:

"One day he told me his birthday. I laughed and told him he was not a Scorpio but a Sagittarius. He was silent. "Really?" [...] I offered to draw up a horoscope. Sure enough, he was a Sagittarian: three planets in Sagittarius, ONLY THE SUN IN SCORPIO". (emphasis mine)

Well, if his sun is in Scorpio, that makes him........ A SCORPIO! That's what defines sun sign astrology - SUN placement. Doesn't he even understand that much? Pathetic.