Slashdot Mirror
Should Scientists Date People Who Believe Astrology?
YourAstrologer writes "Wired Science asks: Should scientists date people who believe in astrology? Apparently, the argument is quite complex. Astrology is sort of a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world, but so is disregarding someone because of their spiritual beliefs. Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it even if they are otherwise highly logical. Smart people can convince themselves of silly things."
Astrology differs from most religion and "spirituality" in one very important way (especially to scientists): It is testable. While there is no way to prove or disprove most spiritual things (including the existence of any god or the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God), we know that astrology is 100% wrong. It has been studied scientifically (because it makes testable predictions and claims), and the results always come back the same.
Try this page for a start:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
G
Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it even if they are otherwise highly logical.
a) Stupid
b) sexist
c) offensive
d) all of the above
Three Squirrels
The problem is that the believers DO have some evidence: they have observed that whatever they believe in works
No, they haven't. Neither prayer nor any other supernatural or religious belief has ever been observed to be effecacious.
If I have a dream about something, that's not at all the same as having an observation about something. If I am mistaken about something, or imagine it, that's not observation, either. The believers have convinced themselves that they have evidence, but like their belief they have convinced themselves falsely.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Newton's model had not been proved wrong. It has only been proved incomplete. You can still demonstrate all of newton's work starting from relativity. Simply take the proper simplification: low speed, outside observer, etc.
Think about this: Axe and Dove are actually the same company. Vincent L.B.
Just to expand on that, Einstein pointed to Spinoza's God to explain what he believed.
Einstein:I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
First, contradiction is not falsification. If I say "grass is green" and "grass is purple," nothing has been falsified, and the contradiction does not imply that both statements are false. Falsification requires some contradictory observation, not just a contradictory statement. Contradiction might say something about the logical consistency of a set of beliefs, but in itself says nothing about their actual veracity.
The Old Testament does so in the 1st chapter where there are two contradictory genesis stories.By "1st chapter" I assume you mean first and second chapters. The stories are obviously contradictory (the attempts of literalists to reconcile them notwithstanding). However, my understanding is that they probably came from different original sources and were incorporated into the single text of Genesis later on, and that the compilers weren't so concerned with smoothing out the differences as simply recording the various stories. Trying to read the stories as history when they weren't written as history is obviously going to cause problems.
Finally, you link to "Zeitgeist: The Movie." I have not seen it, but from what I understand there is a great deal of criticism surrounding the arguments made in the film. According to Wikipedia, it argues in favor of the "Jesus myth hypothesis," in spite of the fact that "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion." So I'm not sure that "Zeitgeist" unequivocally qualifies as an "excellent and brief treatment of this subject." Personally, I'd recommend John Collin's Introduction to the Hebrew Bible for a strong historical-critical overview of the Old Testament.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Which seasons? Will the seasonal drop in daylight in, say, Dallas be the same as in London? Do you reverse the signs in Sydney, AUS? What about cities on the equator - do the ancient formulas handle them, too?
I see some biology and astronomy education in your stars.I see some remedial geography on your report card.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I disagree. You can't 'cue up' something, you can only 'cue' it. Not sure what's going on in the usage 3. in the dictionary entry, I've worked in venues involving large cue sets of video, audio, effects and actors and never once heard the term 'cue up'. You can 'cue
' most professional grade audio equipment (CD/MiniDisk/decks) ready for cueing later, although this may be a UK/US difference.
So, the jokes would be 'queued', as in placed into a queue for cueing later. He could 'cue the jokes' or 'queue up the jokes', but not 'cue up' the jokes.
And I think my brain is leaking from my ears.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Sorry, no. There are a number of systems right here on earth that can't be accurately described or modeled with the Newtonian approach. GPS is a significant example that a very large number of people use and depend upon; Almost anything to do with photons or electron flow serves as well, from transistors to lasers and so on. Newton's models -- not "laws" -- are flawed, just as is any model that fails to account for actual reality, and only accounts for a simplified or limited version. Relativity is flawed as well; ask anyone doing work with issues at the quantum level (or simply read Einstein's remarks on the subject.) Quantum mechanics too, the other way around. There is no set of "laws" as yet, there are just some approximations that work at various scales when one can honestly say that the failures of these models aren't significant.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
possibly through DNA influences at the quantum level [...] . Ignoramouses....
One, it's "ignoramus". Next time try "idiot"; it's shorter. Two, you should take your own advice, and read some actual science books. Ones with math. And problem sets. "Possibly through DNA influences at the quantum level" indeed.
I have had only one reading done in my life which was very interesting and informative.
And you know why that is? It has zero to do with planets, and everything to do with the complexity of the human mind. Which you are, alas, just blowing on by.
The astrologers I've talked to often have a deep intuitive understanding of human psychology, and so can say some pretty insightful things. But all the planet mumbo jumbo? That's the functional equivalent of ink blot tests. With a little structure and a little random noise, you can unlock the subconscious skills that were there all along.
Many are also skilled cold readers, which can give the impression of wisdom and knowledge without actually knowing anything. They need not be doing this intentionally. FBI profilers also don't know jack, but are apparently sincere.
And of course, astrology subjects are unwittingly complicit in this. Confirmation bias plays a big role, as do other cognitive biases. Derren Brown, a UK magician, did an astrological reading for three different groups of 5 people. After getting birthdates and one personal object each, he gave them a 4-page written document about their personality, history, and ambitions. 80% gave very high marks for accuracy, and were shocked at how detailed and personal the reading was. One person thought he had somehow gained access to her private journal. At the end, he revealed he had given everybody the exact same reading.
So I'd say that you should take your own advice, and learn something about the topic before running your mouth. If people think a fake reading is real 80% of the thime, then a personal anecdote about a supposed good reading tells us bupkis. And that's true even when somebody sprinkles some sciency mumbo-jumbo on top.