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."
But rememeber, you can fix a lot of things but you cant fix stupid
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
If this submission was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it's trying a bit too hard.
A woman needs horoscopes like a fish needs a bicycle.
"Kinky sex involves the use of duck feathers. Perverted sex involves the whole duck." - Lewis Grizzard
Not at the office it isn't. Spirituality is not compatible with the scientific method.
Outside of work, no problem.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I would give Astrology some merit if it weren't for the countless scientific studies that consistently found it to be without merit. Astrology, like Psychics, employs simple psychological tricks in order to get the believer to believe that the horoscope applies to them, when in fact what it says could really be applied to anyone.
Astrology isn't "spiritualism". We're not talking about religion or believing in a higher power. We're talking about parlor tricks. Even if the alignment of the stars and the planets did have an effect on the world (and it would be ignorant not to investigate the possibility, I'm certainly not saying that science has proven otherwise), astrology certainly has not demonstrated any such phenomenon.
Spirituality is fine, but can cause conflict in a relationship. Personally, I don't mind anything spiritual until they start talking in scientific terms. New Age religion is particularly notorious for this. Talking about energy levels, "baselines", and using words from every field that is even remotely sciency... anything from sociology to particle physics. I'm married, but when I was dating that would have been a big red flag. Even ghosts and goblins can get tiring, but when someone tries to measure your energy levels you need to get out of there quick. If she even MENTIONS a book like this, run. Even the font is irritating.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Most western societies include a schooling system that splits children up into 'years', dividing the years by birthday being before or after September. (Using the UK as an example, as that's what I know) Children start school the September after they're 5 years old. So someone born in September will be nearly 6 when they start school, while someone born in August will be just 5 when they start school. So at that early age, the September child is 20% older than the August child when they start. That makes a difference, in confidence, learning and social skills, physical strength, all sorts. While the proportional age differences diminish over time, the headstart is always there. The social structure of the school career gets fixed at a very early stage.
Does your birthdate have a big determination on who you are? I think it does, it just doesn't have anything to do with the sun or the moon...
Only if you define a shortcut as a much shorter route that gets you to the wrong destination.
/.'ers I imagine - you can appreciate someone who's put a lot of thought into their belief system and come to their own conclusion and is happy with it and the way it helps them live their life - systems of belief are an entirely human construct and are thus irrational by default :) But people who have convinced themselves that astrology exists and then try to subvert physics with claptrap about subtle variations in gravitic attractions and how it aligns iron particles in your blood which short-circuit synapses into taking certain descisions? All without a shred of proof? All without a shred of evidence, even? You're a moron and I'm incapable of respecting your intellect.
/asbestos long johns
:)
As an often-scientific athiest, I'm prepared to date people from any different religions, as long as we're both content to let one anothers belief systems not interfere with our love life. But I have difficulty talking to anyone who believes a few miniscule globules of rock millions of miles away can effect something as complex as our personalities and day-to-day activities. Same for alot of
Yes, I realise it's not their whole personality (don't get me wrong, I've met hundreds of lovely people who happened to believe in something ridiculous), but to me it's just like talking to someone with LIAR tattoed across their forehead and taking everything they say at face value.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
P.S. A prize of fifty points and a bowl of raspberry jelly to the first person who correctly guesses my relationship status
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I think some people are way too casual about having incompatible worldviews with a significant other, but then again, I'm a person with very firm Christian beliefs. Maybe if you are agnostic, for example, you can tolerate someone who believes something which, by your view, could potentially be correct.
But if your mate believes something which you see as patently foolish - like the idea that everyone born between certain dates each year will have the same personality/fate, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite a total lack of explanation as to how the position of stellar bodies relates to human events - I think this deep disagreement about how life works will lead to bitterness and problems. It's hard to conceal contempt.
And yes, I'm braced for the blind atheistic mockery of Slashdot.
Yeah, I thought the same. I suppose this is why it made it to the front page.
On topic, given that many MALE scientists believe in imaginary superbeings that were made up by some random illiterate guy some thousands of years ago, I don't think they are in any position to judge their girlfriends for basing their behaviour on what they read in magazines. God, free(as in freedom), Astrology, it's all the same. We are humans. Flawed machines.
Human females deserve you treat them as equals. Maybe then you'll get a date.
10 little-endian boys went out to dine, a big-endian carp ate one, and then there were -246.
While I can agree that you shouldn't look for someone who is identical to you their beliefs, there is a lot to be said for having some common ground at least on some of the deeper/bigger belief systems.
Do you want a wife who is going to do something downright stupid because her horoscope/astrologer/tarot card/tea leaf reader told her she should do it? Do you want to have to try to convince her why it's a bad idea, even though it should be obvious to anyone with some common sense why it's a bad idea? Do you want her raising your kids to believe that stuff?
Seriously, if you're just trying to get laid, then I guess it doesn't matter what the person you are dating believes (as long as they believe one-night stands or short-term relationships are ok), but if you are looking for a longer-term relationship, these things really matter.
It can be the difference between every big decision (should we buy a house now? Should I take this new job offer? Should we get a new car? Have a kid? 2 kids, 3 kids. . ?) being an ideological fight, or a simple matter of discussion based on a common set of shared 'foundational' beliefs.
Is a difference in belief also going to be a constant source of friction with relatives? I know in the US the popular belief is fall in love with the person, worry about the relatives later. That can work sometimes. It can't work if the relatives believe some radical ideology that justifies them kidnapping your children in order to 'raise them right' instead of letting you raise them (that's an extreme example, and I don't think applies to astrology, but I'm just throwing that out as an example of the general concept).
Ultimately, whether a person who's fundamental world-view is based on science should date someone who's worldview is based on astrology comes down to those individuals, and how they can work it out (I suppose there could reasonably be a person who's scientific, but also can believe that there might be something to astrology, and can harmonize the two).
Still, having some beliefs in common can be a very good thing for the relationship.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's called stereotyping. And if the characteristics being stereotyped are relevant to the judgement, say like a belief in astrology indicates some degree of ignorance, gullibility, or even stupidity, then it's not bigotry. Another example, I wouldn't let an ex-felon (especially one convicted for embezzlement or fraud) near large amounts of money in a business. It's just common sense.
> Also, it makes the false assumption that more scientists are men than women.
/are/ men.
Uh, most scientists
I'm sorry, I thought Cosmo _is_ pervasive transgenerational indoctrination.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
What I find just as disturbing is how people who claim to be scientific feel so personally harmed, offended or scared by persons of alternate beliefs. Thinking someone is stupid is fine (although rude), but disregarding them as a human being is just ignorant.
I'm pretty open in my thinking and yet quite knowledgeable in some areas. If someone starts talking to me about how gremlins ate their cat, I'm going to think they're funny or nutty. If someone tells me that 480p looks better than 1080i, I'm going to tell them they're an idiot. If someone believes we might live inside something portrayed in the Matrix, they're free to do so, I can't prove them wrong, nor does it matter.
Why take personal offense to others disagreeing or thinking differently? Why be so bigoted? I'm no peacenik but I can't say I understand this need some people have to convert everyone to the "way of logic" (Spock much?).
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
As a scientist there is much we have to "believe" in for our universe to work. We are awfully good at looking at the trees through the prism of the Scientific method but as far as looking at the forest, "Not so good". For instance, let's take the Big Bang. We all know Newtonian's laws and the modifications of the space time required for relativity as formulated by Einstein. All things work well until we wind down to the beginning. Then everything goes to hell. We can't explain what was before, why it collapsed, how the forces we know now broke down and why it exploded. We have to have a lot of "faith" and it's not understood.
I've been around enough to hear about how close the Grand Unified Field theory is and how close Quantum Mechanics is to being figured out with larger accelerators. The Higgs Boson ties it all together but we haven't found it yet. Without it we can't even explain mass or gravity. Understanding black holes, why the universe is not at Absolute zero and thus not moving, etc. requires a lot of "Then a miracle occurs" kind of logic.
So as scientists we're really good at the what and the description, we have a mixed record on the how and we're really lacking in the why.
Astrology is pretty determinant on the why and how and not so predictable on the what.
So as far as dating someone with different beliefs, look in the mirror. Other than your hubris, are you emperor wearing any clothes.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
My Girlfriend of five years has some spiritual belielfs (Stuff like Tarot cards, runes, spirit guides, etc) and although I don't believe in that kind of stuff, if she wants to, who really cares? She knows that it's not my thing, so she does it with her mom. It's harmless stuff, and really, bogus or not, there is some good advice that can come out of it.
If she were to start paying for that kind of stuff, I'd start having a problem, but until then, she can do whatever makes her happy.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Why would the burden of proof be with the guy who refuses to believe the religious crap? For astrology, crystals, healing, tarot cards and the idiotic things some women believe, most everyone agrees that it's all nonsense and that the burden of proof is on them. For the idiotic things that some men believe, i.e. organized religion, the burden of proof is on the atheists? WTF?
No, but it's not inherently incompatible either; they deal with nonintersecting domains. Science is concerned with that which can be empirically tested. Spirituality is handy for things that can't.
When people try to apply "belief" to things which can be empirically tested, however, that's not spirituality, it's stupid.
But believers in astrology would claim that there is large amounts of anecdotal evidence from people who say it worked, or even personal experience that it worked for them! I don't see how this is different to religious or any other kind of supernatural belief.
Clearly there haven't been millions or billions of eye witnesses for seeing God - perhaps you mean billions of people who say they've experience God, but the same goes for astrology and so on too.
-- QED
Like astrology, Newtonian physics is a model that has been proven wrong. I'm convinced that it is a more useful model than astrology, but that's a matter of opinion. And, it's good enough for me to understand what my pen is doing and, in this circumstance, the flaws don't matter.
I think that the questions at stake are:
* How flawed can her model be before the annoyance outweighs the things you like about her?
* If you're pursuing a long-term relationship that may involve kids, are you willing to expose the kids to that model?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You seem to have missed a course in logic. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. It is comparable to you not believing that there is an invisible pink aardvark sitting in the chair next to you. According to your logic, you bear the burden of proof for proving to the rest of us that the chair is indeed empty. We're waiting...
It's always amazing to me that you superstitious folks seem to think that you get to define my beliefs. I don't try to tell you what Christians believe. Please have the same courtesy.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
No, I don't think you're a bigot. I think you're someone who has turned science in to a belief system because of your passion for the idea that humanity is "advancing". Humanity, and all organic systems, is changing. We don't get better, we get different. You're out to find the path to true enlightenment, that's cool, everyone is, through spirituality or science, it's all the same passion for finding real happiness. It's all just driven by curiosity and an ingrained inherent motivation to be "better" than what we are. Something that, realistically, just doesn't happen. Better is relative and counts humanity as significantly more important than the natural world around us. That is, of course, a very close-minded, human, non-scientific point of view. The concept of something being better -rather than different- is unfortunately nihilistic but at the same time, serves the concept of evolution much more accurately than does some passion-fueled rant that seems to scream, "If we're ever going to get anywhere, we have to drop organized religion." I assure you, friend, we ARE getting somewhere. Mankind, all life, doesn't sit around. It may be frustrating that you won't see it in your 85 year lifespan, but rest assured, humanity is indeed changing all the time. It may not be changing in a manner that's positive for YOU, but evolution will always give some biological group a chance in the limelight, so maybe you'll get lucky.
So based on your post, Isaac Newton was not a scientist.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
There are elements to astrology that might have scientific explanations, even if the causal model provided by astrology is wrong. For example, according to astrology Leos often act as if they have something to prove. Well, in the West, Leos are usually the youngest in their school class, and at the age at which they start school that's a big difference; they're a *long* way behind their "peers" so it's hardly surprising if they learn behaviours that make them look "big". Nothing to fo with where the stars were when they were born, but (possibly) a significant observation nonetheless. Just because astrology teaches it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I've heard the whole "tidal effect" thing so many times and it really does annoy the hell out of me.
I'll let you do the maths - but just to get you started, compare the force of gravity exerted on you by Mount Everest to the amount exerted on you by Saturn. Then compare either of those to the amount exerted on you by the moon, and then by the sun. After that, tell me if you really think the distant planets could have ANY meaningful effect.
Or, if you want to think about things other than just gravity, take a look at the different kinds of things that actually reach you from the planets. In general, far MORE of these same things come from the much further distant stars, yet those are never accounted for.
That's the short version, but in essence, I think it's completely fair to say that astrology is complete and utter bunk.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Astrology is a flawed mental shortcut for NOT understanding the world.
Astrology is not a more-flawed model; it's not a model at all.
Scientific models account for the evidence available to them; they provide correct predictions over their domain, within calculable error.
"Like astrology, Newtonian physics is a model that has been proven wrong. I'm convinced that it is a more useful model than astrology, but that's a matter of opinion."
It is not a matter of opinion; it is indisputable. The entirety of modern engineering is built on Newtonian mechanics, which has never been proved wrong, because it is not wrong. Newtonian mechanics describes how things in the physical world behave with extraordinary precision. There are other considerably more complex, harder to use models that describe certain extreme case with more precision, notably quantum mechanics and relativity. None of these models are "right"; they are more or less precise, and more or less useful in different cases. Sorry, but the "Newtonian mechanics proven wrong" meme bugs the hell out of me almost as much as astrology.
Astrology is not a model, and can't be proven wrong as it is not evidence based, and makes no testable predictions.
Sure, there are militaristic atheists and they're usually on the same level as religious zealots.
The line between agnostic/atheism is not really clear cut, especially because people use the words incorrectly. Like Hacker/Cracker.
I'm pretty sure that there is no god, but i'd be willing to change my opinion if i observe otherwise.
I'm also pretty sure that currently no raccoon with rabies is demolishing my appartment, but i'd be willing to change my opinion if i observe otherwise.
I also think that the second thing is far more likely to happen. And we don't have any raccoons here.
As the aardvark is invisible, it does not reflect light in the correct wavelength in order to appear pink. Thus there is not an invisible pink aardvark. QED. Right, now that's out of the way...
The question of whether the universe has an external creator that can observe and affect the universe (in much the manner that a debugger can observe and affect a running C++ program) is more philosophical in nature, however. Atheists commenting on slashdot generally do not "simply not believe" but make assertions about "the burden of proof", effectively stating not just that you don't believe God exists, but that you believe it is philosophically wrong to believe that God exists (a much bigger statement). That is especially true of atheists on slashdot.
Ironically, the difference is not generally one of evidence at all, but one of the philosophical axioms you should start from in your reasoning, and the question that you start by asking.
Hypothesis: Does belief in Astrology affect the size of a girls tits or how good a hummer she gives?
Experiment: The fun part in this case.
This just does not makes sense.
Trying to apply science principles to religion, is like trying to apply science to relationships. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
The reason that people perceive that prayers does not work is they are treating prayer as a mechanism to obtain whatever they wanted, and since they don't get it, then the conclusion it is that it does not work. Try to treat your girlfriend like that... wait! this is /. chances are you don't have one.
But prayer need to start by recognizing that the other end is smart and has free will too. But what is more important, start by dropping the arrogant belief that if it works, it means that we can get whatever we are asking for.
Yes there is a lot of suffering in this world, but most of it is self inflicted. And by 'self' I mean we as humanity. We need to learn to get along between ourselves first. No help from above.
Sorry for going too high in theological arguments, but I hope that I stopped on time.
Actually, I'll put an example at the level of the /. crowd:
One of the basic for science say that the same experiment, repeated under the same circumstances must produce the same results. Predictability of the theory.
Theory: Woman get stimulated by massaging their crotch (I hope that you all have some experience that prove that it does works sometimes). Experiment... try to do it in the bus... Did it work? Rarely? can't talk right now because she is busy extracting your tonsils without anesthesia? Yup. The theory ignores something called "relationship". And if you tell me that the theory can be modified by adding as requirement that a good relationship must exists, and the mood, and the location, etc; then I can tell that you haven't been in a long enough relationship. If any.
Same thing with prayer... can't go around just asking and complaining that it does not work, but ignoring a relationship with God (or whoever you worship), or ignoring taking responsibility for fixing your own mess. Of course it will not work. But it is like claiming that the telephone does not work because the other side is not giving you the answers that you want to hear and in the way that you want to hear them.
Aren't scissors and chainsaws just tools for cutting wood? Aren't lotteries and mutual funds just ways of (potentially) doubling one's money?
Some "flawed mental shortcuts" are more useful for understanding the world---and making decisions within it---than others. The difference is in a person's ability to distinguish which ones give useful answers a significant portion of the time, and which ones give useful answers no more often than answers chosen at random.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's easy to answer, once you phrase it like this: Should you continue to date someone you can't respect?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
A) The phrase is "cue up", not "queue up".
B) While the Wired article wasn't focused on men vs. women, Slashdot naturally had to put that twist on it. I mean, what kind of scientist would be a woman? What a silly concept! (As though huge numbers of men don't believe in all sorts of kooky things. No, it's apparently only weak-minded women who fall for pop-culture nonsense.)
Yes, more women believe in astrology then men -- but not by a huge margin. Women are a mere 5% more likely than the population as a whole to believe in astrology. On the other hand, men are 9% more likely than women to believe in UFOs. And why stop at gender? There's a much stronger correlation between being a Democrat and believing in astrology (14%) than being a woman and believing in astrology. Should we have framed the question in terms of political parties? Was the goal to be insulting?
Lastly, while we're talking about pseudoscientific delusions designed to make people feel better, they give a free pass to people who believe silly things that are "religious beliefs". As a society, we always defer to that. But why? A delusion is a delusion. It's not as though religious beliefs are harmless or anything, judging from history -- quite the opposite, really. Why are we saying it's okay to believe as they do -- to think you have an imaginary friend in the sky who loves you very much, and when you die, you get magically transported to a happy place to live with him -- simply because there are so many of them in the US?
Yes, I dared mentioned the elephant in the room.
Aptera: Most expensive Star Trek prop ever.
This applies to religion as well.
The slashblurb that references the article says "Astrology... is a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world... so is disregarding someone because of their spiritual beliefs" and then, in a glorious fit of politically correct snake-eats-tail, it says "smart people can convince themselves of silly things."
Political correctness, that social disease where people are encouraged to ignore the dragon* in the room for the sake of harmony and at the expense of everything else no matter how critical, is the operating mechanism here. Honestly religious people are gullible at best, and simply bewildered at worst. They're in precisely the same boat as the astrologically inclined, the homeopaths, and a long and depressing list of others.
When it comes to who one should date, I suspect that comes down to what one can tolerate, and that in turn is likely to be related to the length of the relationship. I could spend an evening with someone who thought almost anything. Sometimes you end up doing so as part of a larger group rather than by any kind of informed choice. Likewise, you can't always know what someone thinks about such issues without talking to them for a while unless your social style is more similar to interrogation than conversation (and in which case, you probably don't get to date very often.) Some people may be easily talked out of delusions; they may have simply been victims of the school systems and their peers. It seems to me that for these reasons, dating isn't a very practical place to draw a line in the sand.
For my life partner, however, I very carefully chose a declared and demonstrated strong atheist and skeptic; she took considerable effort to find, but it was absolutely worth the candle. For me, in such a relationship, beliefs like astrology, religion and so forth would be like acid eating away at the foundations. I have a strong conviction that looking at the world in as similar a way as possible brings the ever-elusive goal of perfect harmony a good deal closer. That, and a healthy mutual dose of lust. :)
* Not an elephant -- elephants are real
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Since when is trying to convince someone that they're wrong oppressive?
If reasonable people never stand up for their beliefs because they don't think it's their place to influence others, every single person who can't think for themselves will end up misled by charlatans.
My Sig: SEGV
Well, as a non-Astrology-believing Republican male, I am fine with that, too :-)
> Was the goal to be insulting?
Duh. Of course it was. Just as your goal in the last two paragraphs was to be insulting to religious believers, especially ones in the USA. After all, no anti-religious person, like Stalin or Pol Pot, ever had anyone killed who didn't deserve it.
As to the original posts assuming scientific men and astrology-believing women, you seem to be expecting mature behavior from a group that has been isolated from girls, and is mostly barely beyond "boy" in age, especially expecting it from ALL of them. There is a standard meme for this, and it is not about welcoming overlords or the ownership of bases, nor sharks.
Finally, your initial spelling quibble. The OP might have even meant form a FIFO (OK, a line) for those jokes (this IS Slashdot), in which case he is right even in the USA (it is still "Queuing Theory" here). For that matter, I have seen the billiard ball spelled as "queue" in British publications, let alone an other sense of those homophones.