What do you think?
Rate this book
The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction
David Berlinski explains the power of humanity's oldest predictive system in this stunning and original new book. Astrology began at the dawn of time and over the centuries became a complex system with gifted seers often achieving results of eerie accuracy. For most of recorded history, astrologers have been found at the elbows of the rich and the powerful. However, Newton's system of the world put an end to one aspect of the astrological tradition. As a result, a method once widely used has become widely discredited, especially by scientific critics with little knowledge of astrology itself.
With a genius for storytelling and penetrating analysis, Berlinski explains how astrology works and how astrological ideas, although disguised, have reappeared in modern scientific theories.
.
With a genius for storytelling and penetrating analysis, Berlinski explains how astrology works and how astrological ideas, although disguised, have reappeared in modern scientific theories.
.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published October 13, 2003
10 people are currently reading
128 people want to read
About the author
David Berlinski
34 books274 followersDavid Berlinski is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
Recent articles by Berlinski have been prominently featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, “On the Origins of the Mind” (November 2004) and “What Brings a World into Being” (March 2001), have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005, edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.
Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.
Recent articles by Berlinski have been prominently featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, “On the Origins of the Mind” (November 2004) and “What Brings a World into Being” (March 2001), have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005, edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.
Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 9, 2014
I must admit that I enjoyed reading this imaginative reconstruction of the lives and work of astrologers (mostly) and some astronomers over some four thousand years of history. Berlinski’s style is beguiling, with a touch of literary aloofness, so it tends to read more like a novel than a history. It should be obvious to the reader that, in order to cover such a vast amount of time within 285 pages (including the endnotes), Berlinski has had to be very selective in his choice of representatives (he chooses those he believes to be the most memorable/successful/notorious); and also, since most of that time has been dominated by astrology (the most astonishing developments in astronomy have been accomplished only over the last hundred years or so), it should come as no surprise that the work is heavily biased towards the most colourful astrological characters of the past.
It could be argued that astronomy developed from astrology in various ways; but it is also clear that the earliest work in this area was more astronomical and scientific in nature, concerned with identifying, naming and describing various patterns and movements of the objects seen in the heavens. By the time of Claudius Ptolomy, the most accepted cosmological system was earth-centred, with all the other elements of the solar system (at least) existing in separate spheres about the earth, with the stars occupying the outermost sphere. This geocentric universe concept dominated thinking right throughout the Middle Ages, until the Renaissance. It remains the core concept of modern astrology, as is revealed when one examines astrological charts.
The astrological aspect (i.e. where specific patterns were eventually interpreted as significant in understanding life on earth) is most readily understood, perhaps, by the movements of the sun — essential for “understanding” day versus night; and the seasons of the year; all significant to how life on earth “works”. This lead to the idea that, as the movements of the heavens were predictable, and so essential for life, whatever happened in the sky was “significant” for what happened on earth. So far, so good. No one knew just how that influence occurred, but speculated that it must. It was all the influence of the “gods” (the sun, moon and planets were all personified for starters, deified, then given specific qualities) and when various elements of these formed specific aspects (e.g. conjunction; opposition; trine; square; etc) in specified locations (houses, determined in various ways), the understanding was that they would have corresponding influences on people on earth.
Initially, this might be considered a very general concept that was more cosmological in nature, but eventually it became linked to specific individuals, and what might be in store for them. The influence on leaders, chieftains, kings, etc. was obviously most important; and this personal desire to know what best to do in certain circumstances fitted in neatly with previous (and often coexisting) superstitions and practices such as auspices, oracles, and other such divinations (e.g. in the cracks of heated tortoise shells; the fall of various types of dice; the alterations in the entrails and livers of specifically slaughtered animals; the chance fall of stones or sticks; etc.).
Of course, this resulted in serious philosophical problems, particularly in relation to the connection between destiny or fate (a form of predestination) and the problem that created if one believed that all people have a free will. The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, objected (it needs its doctrine of free will in order to justify its very existence) but it was somewhat mollified by the suggestion that “the stars incline but do not compel”. This and other philosophical and scientific concepts are lightly dealt with by Berlinski; but I will not go into them here (one would need more than just a review to do them any sort of justice!) I mention them here because, unless one is careful, it could lead (as it does Berlinski) to not-quite-so consistent conclusions.
At page 254, Berlinski talks about the specific problem of the value (or not) or prediction. He refers to a paradoxical argument: insofar as the future is known, it cannot be changed; but insofar as the future can be changed, it cannot be known. Berlinski continues: “This argument having been grasped, it is entirely possible that nothing of classical astrology remains. But if this is so, much besides astrology perishes with astrology, and in particular any attempt to bring free human action under the control of a scientific system of belief must be accommodated as an illusion.”
This conclusion is not quite justifiable: the “argument”, such as it is, is paradoxical, and as such, it cannot be “grasped”, precisely because its two propositions negate each other. Berlinski seems to want to argue that both options of the paradox produce valid conclusions, whereas in fact those conclusions still remain paradoxical; and the final statement, with all its underlying unproven assumptions (e.g.: “all human actions are free”; “a scientific system of belief seeks to control”; only such scientific systems “attempt to… control”; and that all such attempts at controlling human action “must be accommodated as an illusion”) are not sustainable arguments.
This book is really a threnody — a lament at the “passing” of “classical” astrology, and Berlinski presents it much as a bewailing of the passing of the innocence of childhood. When it comes to the value of predictability, however, instead of sneering at, or at best being condescending towards, the inevitability of the rise of the scientific method, the great irony is that science is, so far, the most efficient and effective predictor mankind has yet developed. The scientific method ensures that the inter- and infra-structures of cities, for example, are, for all intents and purposes, predictable and practical; ditto in chemical reactions, and in the scientific disciplines associated with medicine and health in general (including the still just emerging world of neuroscience), and, indeed, in all the material, physical, chemical, biological, astronomical, mathematical and other worlds science has opened up for us.
Instead of mourning the so-called death of astrology, Berlinski should be praising its replacement by science; and when it comes to astronomy, the clever but inaccurate concept of spheres about an earth that is the centre of the universe, pales into complete and utter insignificance when the wondrous and mind-boggling discoveries of the immensity and majesty of the known universe as revealed by modern astronomy is far more spectacular than anything astrology has to offer.
It could be argued that astronomy developed from astrology in various ways; but it is also clear that the earliest work in this area was more astronomical and scientific in nature, concerned with identifying, naming and describing various patterns and movements of the objects seen in the heavens. By the time of Claudius Ptolomy, the most accepted cosmological system was earth-centred, with all the other elements of the solar system (at least) existing in separate spheres about the earth, with the stars occupying the outermost sphere. This geocentric universe concept dominated thinking right throughout the Middle Ages, until the Renaissance. It remains the core concept of modern astrology, as is revealed when one examines astrological charts.
The astrological aspect (i.e. where specific patterns were eventually interpreted as significant in understanding life on earth) is most readily understood, perhaps, by the movements of the sun — essential for “understanding” day versus night; and the seasons of the year; all significant to how life on earth “works”. This lead to the idea that, as the movements of the heavens were predictable, and so essential for life, whatever happened in the sky was “significant” for what happened on earth. So far, so good. No one knew just how that influence occurred, but speculated that it must. It was all the influence of the “gods” (the sun, moon and planets were all personified for starters, deified, then given specific qualities) and when various elements of these formed specific aspects (e.g. conjunction; opposition; trine; square; etc) in specified locations (houses, determined in various ways), the understanding was that they would have corresponding influences on people on earth.
Initially, this might be considered a very general concept that was more cosmological in nature, but eventually it became linked to specific individuals, and what might be in store for them. The influence on leaders, chieftains, kings, etc. was obviously most important; and this personal desire to know what best to do in certain circumstances fitted in neatly with previous (and often coexisting) superstitions and practices such as auspices, oracles, and other such divinations (e.g. in the cracks of heated tortoise shells; the fall of various types of dice; the alterations in the entrails and livers of specifically slaughtered animals; the chance fall of stones or sticks; etc.).
Of course, this resulted in serious philosophical problems, particularly in relation to the connection between destiny or fate (a form of predestination) and the problem that created if one believed that all people have a free will. The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, objected (it needs its doctrine of free will in order to justify its very existence) but it was somewhat mollified by the suggestion that “the stars incline but do not compel”. This and other philosophical and scientific concepts are lightly dealt with by Berlinski; but I will not go into them here (one would need more than just a review to do them any sort of justice!) I mention them here because, unless one is careful, it could lead (as it does Berlinski) to not-quite-so consistent conclusions.
At page 254, Berlinski talks about the specific problem of the value (or not) or prediction. He refers to a paradoxical argument: insofar as the future is known, it cannot be changed; but insofar as the future can be changed, it cannot be known. Berlinski continues: “This argument having been grasped, it is entirely possible that nothing of classical astrology remains. But if this is so, much besides astrology perishes with astrology, and in particular any attempt to bring free human action under the control of a scientific system of belief must be accommodated as an illusion.”
This conclusion is not quite justifiable: the “argument”, such as it is, is paradoxical, and as such, it cannot be “grasped”, precisely because its two propositions negate each other. Berlinski seems to want to argue that both options of the paradox produce valid conclusions, whereas in fact those conclusions still remain paradoxical; and the final statement, with all its underlying unproven assumptions (e.g.: “all human actions are free”; “a scientific system of belief seeks to control”; only such scientific systems “attempt to… control”; and that all such attempts at controlling human action “must be accommodated as an illusion”) are not sustainable arguments.
This book is really a threnody — a lament at the “passing” of “classical” astrology, and Berlinski presents it much as a bewailing of the passing of the innocence of childhood. When it comes to the value of predictability, however, instead of sneering at, or at best being condescending towards, the inevitability of the rise of the scientific method, the great irony is that science is, so far, the most efficient and effective predictor mankind has yet developed. The scientific method ensures that the inter- and infra-structures of cities, for example, are, for all intents and purposes, predictable and practical; ditto in chemical reactions, and in the scientific disciplines associated with medicine and health in general (including the still just emerging world of neuroscience), and, indeed, in all the material, physical, chemical, biological, astronomical, mathematical and other worlds science has opened up for us.
Instead of mourning the so-called death of astrology, Berlinski should be praising its replacement by science; and when it comes to astronomy, the clever but inaccurate concept of spheres about an earth that is the centre of the universe, pales into complete and utter insignificance when the wondrous and mind-boggling discoveries of the immensity and majesty of the known universe as revealed by modern astronomy is far more spectacular than anything astrology has to offer.
April 10, 2008
Narrative history, perhaps--you need to be a particular sort of person to read Berlinsky: Reject science but be fascinated by it. Be obsessed with our collective memory loss, the certainty that came about only forty years ago that we've conquered superstition and now all embrace empirical, objective science.
If you're that sort (I am, quite), you might enjoy this. I did, but i also still believe in fairies.
If you're that sort (I am, quite), you might enjoy this. I did, but i also still believe in fairies.
April 23, 2020
In twelve chapters-ordered, and named by the zodiac signs- recounts the history of astrology, typically through a person, and/or an event of that era of its history that demonstrate a use of astrology, and how it was used.
There are points in the writing that are florid, and joyfully emotive; that transport the reader to a time, and place. Overall, it is a rather enjoyable way to absorb a few high points in the progression from Babylonian roots of our Western system, to how the information traveled to Greece, and then on to the Arab world, and finding its way into European promience after the Crusades. The tales reaches its cresendo when Tycho Brahe, and Johannes Kepler both advance astronomy, and astrology, as William Lilly gains prominence in early Enlightenment England.
The book, however, doesn't end there. The remaining chapters balther on, rather painfully, about mathematics, biology, and the role of probability. This leaves me with an appreciation of the sudden, and rare flourishes to prose that he offers, apparently, in exchange for much content in the text itself.
There are points in the writing that are florid, and joyfully emotive; that transport the reader to a time, and place. Overall, it is a rather enjoyable way to absorb a few high points in the progression from Babylonian roots of our Western system, to how the information traveled to Greece, and then on to the Arab world, and finding its way into European promience after the Crusades. The tales reaches its cresendo when Tycho Brahe, and Johannes Kepler both advance astronomy, and astrology, as William Lilly gains prominence in early Enlightenment England.
The book, however, doesn't end there. The remaining chapters balther on, rather painfully, about mathematics, biology, and the role of probability. This leaves me with an appreciation of the sudden, and rare flourishes to prose that he offers, apparently, in exchange for much content in the text itself.
April 6, 2018
3.5 Stars. Though some of the chapters were a bit of a slog, I found the sections reflecting on how objects can effect each other at a distance to be fascinating. Also the comparisons between astrological understandings of the world and science were insightful. Astrology was such a fixture of how humans thought the cosmos worked for so long that its cultural eclipse after the work of Newton begs for more explanation.
July 18, 2022
A book better than the majority of modern books combined yet a struggle between the politically correct editors and the contrarian author a struggle in which the author had to yeild to some degree.
March 27, 2024
Interesting premise, strong begging and end, lost some steam somewhere in the middle
September 14, 2010
The cultural and developmental history of astrology presented here are fascinating, but this book takes quite a while to get to its point. Berinski spends the entire book treading a fine line between not discrediting astrology and not validating it. He alternates between seeming to take sly shots at astrologers, and saying, "then again..." It isn't until the last chapter that his true intentions become clear. He uses the word "Darwinist" to describe evolutionary biologists, for Pete's sake! That's a dead giveaway, that is. David Berlinski is one of those wishy-washy "yes, but" creationists. He says science is true...as far as it goes, but takes great pains to point out that there are questions science cannot answer. Therefore there must be more. His "God of the gaps" argument takes us all the way down to the spaces between atoms, where he claims to see divinity. Unfortunately, David Berlinski is a mathematician, not a chemist, or a biologist, or a physicist, and his lack of a deeper understanding of the physical sciences lets him down here. The things he claims scientists believe are nothing more than poorly constructed strawmen. Even I, with no post-secondary science education to speak of can see the "gaps" in his arguments. In the end, I was mostly disappointed by the fact that this book wasn't really about astrology at all. the title was just a cheap lure to allow him to spout his ignorance to a new audience. Give it a pass
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews