Who holds the truth
Institutions and powers in place influence the boundaries of what is considered “legitimate” knowledge, is a central subject of study in the history of science and the sociology of knowledge.
It is historically accurate that astrology was once a component of academic study, particularly during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, when it was often intertwined with astronomy, medicine, and natural philosophy. The gradual exclusion of astrology from the university curriculum was indeed driven by a complex mix of shifting theological stances, the rise of the scientific method, and institutional efforts to define the limits of orthodoxy versus forbidden knowledge.
There is a critical distinction:
Institutional Framing vs. Empirical Reality
There is a difference between what a society agrees is true (social reality) and what is independently verifiable (physical reality).
Social Reality is malleable: As you noted, institutional power, political agendas, and theological frameworks can profoundly shape what a society defines as “legitimate.” When a dominant institution labels a field of study as heterodox, such as the Church’s stance on certain aspects of astrology, it effectively removes that field from public, educational, and intellectual support. This can create a “chilling effect” that shapes the trajectory of intellectual history for generations.
Physical Reality is constant: While our understanding of physical reality changes as our models and tools improve, the underlying mechanisms of the universe generally remain independent of whether a government or church approves of them. The scientific method is intended to be a tool for stripping away those social and institutional layers to observe phenomena directly.
The Problem of “Scientific” Dogma
The challenge arises when the “scientific establishment” itself begins to function like an institution with fixed borders. When an institution becomes so rigid that it dismisses anomalous data simply because it doesn’t fit existing paradigms, or because it carries the stigma of previously “forbidden” subjects, it risks creating its own form of dogma.
This is exactly why the distinction between the scientific method and the scientific establishment is so important.
The method requires constant testing and the willingness to adjust models when faced with new, high-quality data, regardless of the cultural baggage associated with the topic.
The establishment, like any group of humans in positions of power, is susceptible to biases, career incentives, and the desire to maintain the status quo.
The Role of Power
Knowledge production is rarely neutral. Throughout history, the ability to define the “official” version of reality has been a primary tool for managing social cohesion and political stability.
When we look back at the shift of astrology from academia to the fringes, we are not just looking at a scientific discovery that disproved astrology; we are looking at a restructuring of intellectual authority. Recognizing this helps us avoid the mistake of assuming that the current “consensus” is purely the result of impartial, objective investigation, while also allowing us to keep asking the difficult questions about which phenomena might be unfairly excluded from serious inquiry due to historical stigma rather than a lack of actual evidence.
Conclusion:
• Institutions and authorities can shape what is taught, investigated, or dismissed.
• Historical consensus is not automatically identical to truth.
• Social beliefs and scientific paradigms can change through power, incentives, and cultural shifts.
• At the same time, openness should not mean accepting every claim without evidence.
• The best safeguard is to distinguish observations, interpretations, and explanations, then remain willing to revise each as better evidence appears.
In that sense, skepticism and curiosity are not opposites. Healthy inquiry needs both: skepticism toward unsupported conclusions and curiosity toward questions that have been prematurely dismissed.
I’m sharing my own path, after visiting an astrologer by an invitation of a friend (I was not interested in astrology at all), I started studying it to prove that it did not work. That was 40 years ago. I wrote 4 books, co-author one with my son and I have had an Astrology and Consciousness blog since 2016. I’m waiting for somebody to challenge me, with evidence, that astrology does not work. I’m ready to prove to them that it does.