Question 1

1.    Why astrology is a pseudo-science?

Posted by Shikha

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The concept of pseudoscience rests on an understanding that scientific methodology has been misrepresented or misapplied with respect to a given theory, but many philosophers of science maintain that different kinds of methods are held as appropriate across different fields and different eras of human history. The popular ‘demarcation problem’ in philosophy of science is used to indicate how and where to draw lines around science and distinguish it from non science (like astrology).

Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. It gained grounds in history as a subject to predict our daily horoscopes and the increasing reliance on it in present times is evident. It is an ancient practice to predict our future on the basis of zodiacs, position of sun, moon, stars and other ascendant influences. The essential tension between science and astrology (classic example of pseudoscience) has its roots in 1970’s. Although astrology lost its hold to quite a large extent in the 18^th century, when it was attacked by Enlightenment figures like Voltaire and Swift, from early 1900’s it has regained its popularity. Today people do not leave their houses before reading the predictions about their day, captured in every local newspaper or magazine. It has turned into a huge business, where every event from the birth of the child to the time for cremation is decided based on the position of stars and planets.

Leonid Kurochkin's classifies, astrology is a pseudo-science, because it randomly combines scientific astronomy facts with absurd myths. Vitaliy Ginzburg claims that in the past astrology has been a science without any pseudo- prefixes. But unfortunately it was based on an incorrect hypothesis, stating relations of a man's personal luck to celestial bodies' turnover. After absence of such relations became clear, false idea exploitation has turned astrology to pseudo-science.

According to Austin Cline, the eight basic qualities which characterize scientific theories and which are mostly or entirely lacking in astrology are

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Astrology originated as part of the magical world view with a strong connection between humans future and relationship to the distant stars. In Bok’s view, Astrological tests are a waste of time unless it is demonstrated that astrology has some physical foundation. It is also attributed with a psychological explanation, that it is a result of our desperation to seek solutions to some serious problems of our life. Jerome asserts that astrology is more a system of magic than science. It fails not because of an uncertain magically hypnotized past, but also because the predictions and interpretations are rooted in the ancient magical world. It is vaguely testable and fails to make any precise predictions about the events it claims to explain. As Popper puts it, astrologers keep their claims so vague that they can never be refuted.  One of the pioneers in the area, M.Gauquelin, discovered that there is no correlation between the careers and the sun signs, moon sign or ascendant sign, while trying to make some statistical connections to strengthen the credibility of astrological predictions.

There has always been a considerable disagreement not just in terms of qualitatively different predictions but also in the ways of progressions through which these predictions are made. This confusion is not a sign of intense debates to upgrade or establish coherence within this system but a general lack of shared understanding and ignorance on the ways to reach some predictive outcomes. One thing that has made astrology quite popular is not the evidences but considerable inroads to advertising. An interpretation of the rules laid down by astrologers demands the existence of an unimaginable mechanism of action. They have not provided us with sound hypothesis which form the basis of their speculations. Bok and Mayall (1941) assert, Scientists would feel justified in considering astrology as a legitimate field of scientific enquiry if astrologers could claim that its basic rules had been established through a rigorous study of correlations. But such a study has not been made. Astrologers frequently claim an observational basis in the experience of forgotten generations far back in antiquity, but pure superstition can claim as sound a basis.

All these arguments indicate that astrology is not scientific. With the premise that there is still a need for us to prove astrology a pseudo science, Paul Thagard, goes a step beyond to formulate his own set of criteria post- analyzing critiques from Bok to Popper. According to him, the principles which clearly render astrology a status of pseudo science can be deduced in terms of its progressiveness. He affirms that astrology is essentially unprogressive i.e. it has remained unchanged over the years adding no further explanations to itself right from Ptolemy’s time. This, however, doesn’t concern the astrologers and they remain unconcerned to make any serious attempts to provide the required explanations. They are not keen to evaluate their own theories in relation to others, nor do they respond to emerging outstanding problems or questions raised on the credibility of their theories, which remain obscured in the mystified world of stars. Thagard, also states that now that we have better, organized and valid psychological theories to explain human behavior, personality; there is no need to resort to the false and vague assertions of astrology.

However, he cautions us not to ascribe astrology with the status of pseudoscience historically. This provenance should be relativised so that the distinction and relation between pseudoscience and astrology can be located in the context of time.    

References:

1. Thagard, P; Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience, Philosophy of Science Assocoation, Vol 1, 1978, pp223-234

2. Bok, B & Mayall, M, Scientists look at Astrology, The Scientific Monthly, Vol.52, No3, March, 1941, pp233-244

3.  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_astro_sci_pseudo.htm

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

Posted By: Anveshna Srivastava

       Defining Pseudo-science:
                   The term ‘pseudoscience’ is derived from a Latin word “Scientia”, meaning “Knowledge”, with a Greek prefix “Pseudo”, meaning “false” or “pretending”. So the literal meaning of the the term is pretending knowledge.
                    This term was first reported to be used by French physiologist Francois Magendie, in 1843. As defined by Wikipedia Encyclopedia- “Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence, or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status”.
                   According to Northern Journal of Medicine, 1387, 1844, “that opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudoscience, composed of merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles”.
                   As clear from above definition, pseudoscience refers to those disciplines which are “inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science”. The main characteristic of such disciplines is “the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than on refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development”.

Qualities of Scientific theories: Lacking in Pseudoscience:
                    There are eight basic qualities which characterize scientific theories and which are mostly or entirely lacking in pseudoscience:
•    Consistent (internally and externally)
 Internal consistency: all of its claims must be consistent with each other.        
 External Consistency: unless there are good reasons, it must be consistent with theories which are already known to be valid and true.
    Astrology contradicts what is known in physics. This wouldn't be such a problem if astrologers could demonstrate that their theories explain nature better than much of modern physics, but they can't - as a consequence, their claims cannot be accepted.
    It is certainly true that astrologer themselves regularly contradict each other and that there are different forms of astrology which are mutually exclusive - thus, in that sense, astrology is not internally consistent.
•     Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanation)
In science, to say that theories must be parsimonious means that they should not postulate any entities or forces which are not necessary to explain the phenomena in question.
    Astrology is also not parsimonious because it postulates unnecessary forces. For astrology to be valid and true there must be some force which establishes a connection between people and various bodies in space. It is clear that this force cannot be anything already established, like gravity or light, so it must be something else. However, not only are astrologers unable to explain what this force is or how it operates, but it isn't necessary to explain the results which astrologers report. Those results can be explained much more simply and readily through other means, such as the Barnum Effect and Cold Reading.
For astrology to be parsimonious, the astrologers would have to produce results and data which cannot readily be explained by any other means but a new and undiscovered force which is capable of creating a connection between an individual and bodies in space, of influencing a person's life, and which is dependent upon the exact moment of his or her birth. However, despite the millennia which astrologers have had to work on this problem, nothing has been forthcoming.
•     Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
In science, the claims made are verifiable in principle and then, when it comes to experiments, in fact. In pseudoscience, there are extraordinary claims made for which incredibly insufficient evidence is provided. This is important for obvious reasons - if a theory is not based upon evidence and cannot be empirically verified, there is no way to claim that it has any connection with reality.Carl Sagan coined the phrase that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What this means in practice is that if a claim is not very strange or extraordinary when compared to what we already know about the world, then not a lot of evidence is needed in order to accept the claim as likely to be accurate.
On the other hand, when a claim very specifically contradicts things which we already know about the world, then we would need quite a lot of evidence in order to accept it. Why? Because if this claim is accurate, then a lot of other beliefs which we take for granted cannot be accurate. If those beliefs are well-supported by experiments and observation, then the new and contradictory claim qualifies as "extraordinary" and should only be accepted when the evidence for it outweighs the evidence we currently possess against it.
    Astrology is a perfect example of a field characterized by extraordinary claims. If distant objects in space are able to influence the character and lives of human beings to the degree alleged, then fundamental principles of physics, biology and chemistry which we already take for granted cannot be accurate. This would be extraordinary. Therefore, quite a lot of very high-quality evidence is required before the claims of astrology could possibly be accepted. The lack of such evidence, even after millennia of research, indicates that the field is not a science but rather a pseudoscience.
•     Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Scientific theories are falsifiable, and one of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that pseudoscientific theories are not falsifiable (Karl Popper) either in principle or in fact. To be falsifiable means that there must exist some state of affairs this, if it were true, would require that the theory is false.
Scientific experiments are designed to test for exactly such a state of affairs - if it occurs, then the theory is false. If it doesn't, then the possibility that the theory is true is made stronger. Indeed, it is a mark of genuine science that practitioners seek out such falsifiable conditions while pseudoscientists ignore or avoid them entirely.
    In astrology, there does not appear to be any such state of affairs - that would mean that astrology is not falsifiable. In practice, we find that astrologers will latch onto even the weakest sorts of evidence in order to support their claims; however, their repeated failures to find evidence are never allowed as evidence against their theories.
It is certainly true that individual scientists can also be found avoiding such data - it is simply human nature to want a theory to be true and to avoid conflicting information. However, the same cannot be said for entire fields in science. Even if one person avoids unpleasant data, another researcher can make a name for herself by finding and publishing it - this is why science is self-correcting. Unfortunately, we don't find it occurring in astrology and because of that, astrologers cannot claim that astrology is consistent with reality.
•     Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Scientific theories are based upon and lead to controlled, repeatable experiments, whereas pseudoscientific theories are based upon and lead to experiments which are not controlled and/or are not repeatable. These are two key characteristics of genuine science: controls and repeatability. Controls means that it is possible, both in theory and in practice, to eliminate possible factors which might be affecting the results. As more and more possible factors are eliminated, it is easier to claim that only one particular thing is the "real" cause of what we see.
For example, if doctors think that drinking wine makes people healthier, they will give test subjects not simply the wine, but drinks which contain only certain ingredients from the wine - seeing which subjects are healthiest will indicate what, if anything, in the wine is responsible.
Repeatability means that we cannot be the only ones who arrive at our results. In principle, it must be possible for any other independent researcher to try to perform the exact same experiment and arrive at the exact same conclusions. When this happens in practice, our theory and our results are further confirmed.
    In astrology, however, neither controls nor repeatability appear to be common - or, sometimes, to even exist at all. Controls, when they do appear, are typically very lax. When controls are sufficiently tightened to pass regular scientific scrutiny, it is common that astrologers' abilities no longer manifest themselves to any degree beyond that of chance.
    Repeatability also does not really occur because independent investigators are unable to duplicate the alleged findings of astrology believers. Even other astrologers prove unable to consistently replicate the findings of their colleagues, at least when strict controls on the studies are imposed. So long as the findings of astrologers cannot be reliably reproduced, astrologers cannot claim that their findings are consistent with reality, that their methods are valid or that astrology is in anyway true.
•     Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
In science, theories are dynamic - this means that they are susceptible to correction due to new information, either from experiments done for the theory in question or done in other fields. In a pseudoscience, little ever changes. New discoveries and new data do not cause believers to reconsider fundamental assumptions or premises.
    There is precious little evidence of astrologers making any basic shifts in how they approach their subject. They may incorporate some new data, like the discovery of new planets, but the principles of sympathetic magic still form the basis of everything astrologers do. The characteristics of the various zodiac signs are fundamentally unchanged from the days of ancient Greece and Babylon. Even in the case of new planets, no astrologers have come forward to admit that earlier horoscopes were all flawed due to insufficient data (because the earlier astrologers were not taking one-third of the planets in this solar system into account).
    When ancient astrologers saw the planet Mars, it appeared red - this was associated with blood and war. Thus, the planet itself was associated with warlike and aggressive character traits, something which has continued down to this day. A genuine science would have only attributed such characteristics to Mars after careful study and mountains of empirical, repeatable evidence. The basic text for astrology is Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios, written about 1,000 years ago. What science class uses an 1,000 year-old text?
•     Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Progressiveness is a matter of the success of the theory in adding to its set of facts explained and problems solved (Lakatos, Imre, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes."  p. 118; cf. [26], p. 83).
    Astrology is dramatically unprogressive; it has changed little & has added nothing to its explanatory power. Problems such as the precession are outstanding. There are alternative theories of personality & behavior available. The community of astrologers is generally unconcerned with advancing astrology to deal with outstanding problems or with evaluating the theory in relation to others.
•     Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
In genuine science, no one argues that a lack of alternative explanations is itself a reason to consider their theories correct and accurate. In pseudoscience, such arguments are made all of the time. This is an important difference because, when properly performed, science always acknowledges that the current failure to find alternatives does not indicate that a theory in question is actually true. At most, the theory should only be regarded as the best available explanation - something to be quickly discarded at the earliest possible moment, namely when research provides a better theory.
    In astrology, however, claims are often framed in an unusually negative manner. The aim of experiments is not to find data which a theory can explain; instead, the aim of experiments is to find data which cannot be explained. The conclusion is then drawn that, in the absence of any scientific explanation, the results must be attributed to something supernatural or spiritual.
Such arguments are not only self-defeating but specifically unscientific. They are self-defeating because they define the realm of astrology in narrow terms - astrology describes whatever regular science cannot, and only that much. So long as regular science expands what it can explain, astrology will occupy a smaller and smaller realm, until it finally disappears.
Such arguments are also unscientific because they move in the exact opposite direction of how science operates. Scientific theories are designed to incorporate more and more data - scientists prefer fewer theories which describe more phenomena rather than many theories which each describe very little. The most successful scientific theories of the 20th century were simple mathematical formulas which describes wide ranging physical phenomena. Astrology, however, in defining itself in narrow terms as to what cannot otherwise be explained does just the opposite.
This particular characteristic is not as strong with astrology as with other beliefs such as parapsychology. Astrology does exhibit it to some degree: for example, when it is alleged that a statistical correlation between some astronomical event and human personalities cannot be explained by any normal scientific means, therefore astrology must be true. This is an argument from ignorance and a consequence of the fact that astrologers, despite millennia of work, have so far been unable to identify any mechanism by which its claims could be caused.


Some famous views on Astrology as a pseudoscience
    Paul Feyerabend, for example, disputes whether any meaningful boundaries can be drawn between pseudoscience, "real" science, and what he calls "protoscience", especially where there is a significant cultural or historical distance.
    The popular ‘demarcation problem’ in science in philosophy of science is used to know about how and where to draw lines around science and distinguish it from non science, pseudo science and religion.
     Richard McNally states that "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and that "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific.
    Karl Popper, an infuential 20th century philosopher of science, thought that the fundamental difference between science and non science is the criteria of falsifiability. A falsifiable (or scientific) theory would be one which is not compatible with every course of experience. According to him examples of pseudo science are Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and Marx theory of capitalism.
    Astrology According to Leonid Kurochkin's classification, astrology is a pseudo-science, because it randomly combines scientific astronomy facts with absurd myths.
    Vitaliy Ginzburg claims that in the past astrology has been a science without any pseudo- prefixes. But unfortunately it was based on an incorrect hypothesis, stating relations of a man's personal luck to celestial bodies' turnover. After absence of such relations became clear, false idea exploitation has turned astrology to pseudo-science.


References:

1. Thagard, Paul R. “Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience,” Philosophy of Science Association, 1978-Volume 1.
2. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_astro_sci_pseudo.htm

Posted by Jeenath Rahaman

It is a generally agreed fact that astrology is a pseudo science and even most philosophers and historians have varied argument over why it is a pseudoscience. Astrology is a broad field, it is not just the daily horoscope found in newspapers etc.. which is mainly based on sun signs in which the whole sky is divided into twelve parts and are represented by the signs of Zodiac e.g, Gemini, Leo etc. and for a particular person the part of the sky occupied by the sun at the time of their birth determines their sign. However the full horoscope is one that includes the “influences” also of the moon and the planets which are considered to have their influence in a special sphere of human ,as well as taking into account of the ascendant sign and other matters and thier various combinations allegedly results in different personality, behaviour,fate etc.

In 1975, Bart Bok, Lawrence Jerome and Paul Kurtz drafted a statement against astrology which raises three main issues:

*astrology originated as part of a magical world view,

*the planets are too distant for there to be any physical foundation for astrology, and

*people believe it merely out of longing for comfort.

However Paul R Thagard have proved that these theories are not correct enough to show that astrology is a pseudoscience. First, scientific status is not decided by its origin for e.g. chemistry have came from alchemy, Medicine has the occult beginning even many great scientists work were influenced by mystics. Secondly the lack of physical foundation does make a theory to be unscientific because when Wegener proposed the continental drift, no mechanism was known, again links between smoking and cancer has been statistically established through carcinogenesis still to be discovered. Finally the psychological issue is also irrelevant because to believe or not to believe is up to the person. Thus the three issues does not mark astrology as a pseudoscience.

On considering the criteria of verifiability and falsifiability for astrology to be pseudoscientific, A. J. Ayer's attempt to articulate this principle made him to rule out many principles as unscientific, or to rule out nothing. Also the theory/observation distinction has increasingly come into question. On considering testability as a mark of scientific theories, we know that astrology is vaguely testable and is less able to make precise predictions because of the multitudes of influences resting on tendencies rather than laws. Astrology is verifiable by statistical techniques, thus this technique does not prove astrology as pseudo science. Falsifiability criteria also doesn't make astrology as a pseudoscience because in principle it is replaceable by another theory.

Paul R Thagard demarcated Astrology on the basis of three elements: theory, community, historical context. Theory includes familiar matter of structure, prediction, explanation and problem solving, but theory alone cannot satisfy astrology to be pseudoscience.

We must consider the community of practitioners of astrology which requires first the agreement of the practitioner with the principle of the theory and the approach of the problem solving in that, secondly their concern about explaining the anomalies and comparison with other theories, third the practitioners should actively involved in attempts at confirming and dis confirming their theory.

The historical context also includes comparing the success of a theory with others. According to Kuhn in general a theory is rejected when it has faced deviation for a long time and challenged by another theory. Thus the relevant demarcation factors are the record of a theory is able to explain new facts and dealing with deviations, and the alternative theories. Thus a theory is Pseudoscientific iff  (1)it is less progressive then alternative theories for a long period of time and unable to solve many problems, and (2)the community of practitioners makes little attempts to develop the theory for solution of problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.

Thus the most unscientific things about astrology are

1. Astrology is dramatically unprogressive, it has changed little and has added nothing to its explanatory power since the time of Ptolemy.

2. problems such as the precession of equinoxes

3. there are alternative theories of personality and behaviour available. Now psychological theories are available to explain such phenomena which astrology explains in terms of heavenly influences.

4. the practitioners of astrology are not concerned to deal with outstanding problems or checking in relation to others.

According to Lakatos a theory is scientific if it is progressive but not always. A nonprogressive discipline is pseudoscientific unless it is maintained against more progressive alternative theories. According to Kuhn astrology misses the characteristics of normal science as paradigm-dominated puzzle solving activity. But Watkin suggested, astrologers do such puzzle solving at the level of individual horoscope. The feature of normal science doesn't make astrology as pseudoscience, but that its proponents adopt uncritical attitudes of “normal” scientists despite the existence of more progressive alternative theories.

These consequences made theories scientific at one time but pseudoscientific at another. Astrology become pseudoscientific with the rise of modern psychology, In the 17^th century immense growth of science contrasted with stagnation of astrology. Because of this social aspect, Paul R Thagard criterion might suggest a kind of cultural relativism. Thus by an alternative theory he means one generally available in the world. This assumes that there is some kind of communication network to which a community should have access and the onus is on individuals and communities to find out about alternatives which according to him is a general feature of rationality,it is at least enough to preclude ostracism as a measure from being considered as pseudoscientific.

1. http://www.jstor.org/stable/192639

Posted by Ranjana

Astrology is about systems and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. Astrology is an ancient practice and happens to begin its origin in chaldea, among the ancient Babylonians and their system of celestial omens which had started around the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate lacks scientific methods supporting evidence or plausibility hence lacks scientific status.

Now according to Paul.R. Thagard astrology divides the sky in twelve regions, which are denoted by diffrent zodiac signs. The sun sign represents the part of the sky occupied by the sun at the time of birth. Astrology underwent a gradual codification culminating in ptolemy;s Tetrabiblos. This work describes in detail the power of sun, moon, and planets and their significance in people's lives.

Reasons for astrology as pseudoscience:

1. Astrology originates as part of a magical world view,

2. The planets are too distant for there to be any physical foundation for astrology,

3. People believe it merely out of longing for comfort

Astrology is vaguely testable. Because of the multitude of influences resting on tendencies rather than laws, astrology is incapab1e of making precise predictions.The major findings and their interpretation are highly controversial, as subsequent studies in a similar context. Even if correct, they hardly verify astrology, especially considering the negative results found for the most important astrological categories.

Astrology can not be condemned as pseudoscientific on the grounds proposed by verificationists, falsificationists, or Bok and Jerome. But undoubtedly astrology today faces a great many unsolved problems. For eg: Michel Gauquelin, who examined the careers and times of birth of 25,000 Frenchmen. According to astrology people born under certain signs or planets are likely to adopt some specific occupations; for example, the influence of the warlike planet Mars tends to produce soldiers or athletes, while Venus has an artistic influence. Notably, Gauquelin found no significant correlation between careers and either sun sign, moon sign, or ascendant sign. However, he did find some statistically interesting correlations between certain occupations of people and the position of certain planets at the time of their birth. For example, just as astrology would suggest, there is a greater than chance association of athletes and Mars, and a greater than chance association of scientists and Saturn, where the planet is rising or at its zenith at the moment of the individual's birth.

Another is the problem of the precession of the equinoxes, which astrologers generally take into account when heralding the "Age of Aquarius" but totally neglect when figuring their charts. Astrologers do not always agree on the significance of the three planets, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto, that were discovered since Ptolemy. Studies of twins do not show similarities of personality and fate that astrology would suggest. Nor does astrology make sense of mass disasters, where numerous individuals with very different horoscopes come to similar ends. I have mentioned Gauquelin in order to suggest that through the use of statistical techniques astrology is at least verifiable. Hence the verification principle does not mark astrology as pseudoscience.

Most of the philosophers have diverse view regarding Astrology:

Karl Popper considered Astrology to be pseudoscientific simply because astrologers keep their claims so vague that they could never be refuted.

Paul. R. Thagard considers astrology pseudoscientific because its practitioners make little effort to develop the theory, show no concern for attempts to critically evaluate the theory in relation to others, and are selective in considering evidence. More generally, Thagard stated that pseudoscience tends to focus on resemblances rather than cause-effect relations

<!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->

submitted by shraddha