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."
Which method - radiocarbon or by slicing thenm and counting the rings?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
But rememeber, you can fix a lot of things but you cant fix stupid
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Beggars can't be choosers....
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Seeing as this is Slashdot, lemme just say, you should probably take what you can get. Astrology, piercings, fetishes, just be glad a girl's talking to you and not asking you to do her math homework. Seriously though, sometimes breasts are big enough to make other things not important.
Why not? If you're only going to date people who agree with you on everything then you're likely to die alone.
That said, if there was anythig to astrology I'd have gotten laid Friday night. I look at horoscopes for the humor value, and one Friday said "a home cooked meal will provoke a romp in the sack". Too damned bad astrology is bullshit!
You might as well ask if a Catholic should date a Muslim.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
What's they're sign? If you two are incompatible according to the stars then you can forget about being compatible on Earth.
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
As a Marxist, I have no time for pseudoscientific concepts that claim to explain the workings of human nature in their entirety while offering no evidence or falsifiability.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I have to take offense to this. Couple of years ago, the local paper's astrological peice listed for my birthday, 'If today is your birthday, you gonna get lucky today.' Now, yes I was dating the lady who was incharge of editing that section at the time; but by God, it was correct.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Understand that judging groups of people is as a rule wrong. It is called bigotry.
Even the question is bigoted since you are trying to say what a whole group should or should not do.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
Think of the children... No, seriously, think of the children.
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.
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
I'm not a scientist, but I won't date women who buy astrology. I deal with enough ignorance at work, thank you. I won't date devoutly religious women, either.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
As a scientist I am likely to disregard most attempts at serious conversation on the subject of astrology.
That said, I would not, and I believe, nor would any other normal scientific single chap, turn away a hot chick just because she was pondering my star sign or wanting to read my palm. In most cases It's just another vector into a conversation anyway.
Duh.
From the comments on TFA:
(note, this is not even on /. !)
Which begs the question: Should anybody date someone who recommends taking a look at a 68k Mac software in 2008 ?
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
I'm a Scorpio, Scorpios don't believe in astrology.
About people using 'normative' when 'normal' would do perfectly well. That for me would set off more alarm bells in the dating department.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Judging someone to be undateable because of her spiritual beliefs is somehow wrong? Why, because it would hurt her feelings? I'd say a woman's spiritual beliefs, especially if they are wholly incompatible with common sense (as so many of them are), are reason enough to not want to waste time trying to develop a close relasionship with.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
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...
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
I once went out on a date with a girl who was in an English PhD program at Lehigh University so she was no dummy, but she believed in astrology. I didn't realize she was serious at first so I started picking on her about it. She got really offended and tried to rationalize it by explaining that when you're born the stars in the babies star sign have a gravitational effect on its' brain. I tried to explain to her that the TV in the delivery room would have more of an effect. Her eyes glazed over at the term "Gravitational Constant" so I figured it was a lost cause and just gave up.
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
I can see that, for example, babies born in the Winter might tend to have a different personality to babies born in the Summer. So you might find some correlation between star signs and personality types. That's different from thinking that the constellations can effect your life though.
Who ordered that?
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.
There's an old Bosnian joke about how Mujo decided which girl he should marry. He discussed about it later with his friend Haso:
H: I heard you got married. Congratulations! How did you decide?
M: Well, this was not easy. I had three candidates and I conducted a test. I asked the first one:
"What's 2+2?".
She said "4".
I though to myslelf, that's good, the woman is smart.
The second one said: "Well, it depends. It can be 4, but sometimes it can also be 3 or 5."
That's even better, the woman is cunning.
I asked the third one the same question and she says "I don't care. Whatever my husband says it is".
I thought to myself, this woman surely will respect her husband. This is good.
H: So, which one did you take?
M: Oh. The one with big tits, of course.
I don't think that scientists are THAT different to other men.
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.
Some of do happen to work at Christian Porn Astrology Scientific Testing Labs, LLC.
Astrology has a scientific pedigree. Ptolemy's Almagest does not make the modern distinction between Astronomy and Astrology.
The core intuition works this way: "We can see that the sphere of the Sun has a distinct effect on our daily lives. When it's overhead, it's warm and light, when it's on the other side of the Earth, it's cold and dark. When it is in a certain part of the sky, it's winter, and another part, it's summer. The moon has a more tenuous effect on the the Earth, but one we can sense: the tides, for example, seem connected to the phase of the moon, and perhaps people too. Therefore, the spheres of the other five planets should likewise have a thin affect."
The core intuition is, of course, wrong, but there's a ton of scientific literature built on the subject. Most modern astrologers, however, ignore the thousands of years of careful reflection and study, and prefer to pull crap out of their asses.
It sure does seem to be accurate in some cases though. I enjoy it and I consume and process it even though I'm completely aware of how ludicrous it really is. Any system that's sufficiently complex will seem to have meaning. It's the human condition.
Should you date someone that "believes" in it? It's no more silly than believing a Prophet died for your sins 2000 years ago and is deeply concerned about your private sexual morality. I say, date the Astrologer. They're probably literate and that's pretty good.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
he wants to lower his chances of getting laid.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
...if they put out....(rimshot)
Actually if mary matalin and james carville can get along any thing is possible.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
I tried arguing the point a couple of times, but eventually learned that arguing just made it more likely that the topic would come up in future get-togethers. When somebody starts throwing sciency stuff at faith issues, just finish your beer and go home.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
The "3 card monty" approach would probably be the key give away. While genuine
astrology might have some interesting elements to it, astrology as most people
are exposed to it is little more than a carnival scam. Believing in proper
astrologers probably is less unreasonable than falling for the generic sort of
crap that gets published in newspapers.
The problem isn't so much that astrology is bunk but that it's "pop astrology"
to begin with. It's like "Hollywood physics". Both have a similar relationship
to their corresponding genuine article.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
News to me.
Religion is not falsifiable. Astrology makes certain predictions: generally stated, the date of your birth influences your personality and fate. I did a study on this a few years ago, using a database of prominent people from the past couple hundred years, with their birth dates (converted to sun sign via Astrolog) and professions. No correlation. The artists, scientists, political leaders, etc were distributed evenly by sign. Astrology debunked, as far as I'm concerned.
You cannot do the same with religion. Sure, you can debunk certain things (pi is not exactly 3), but the core spiritualism is inherently safe. We can argue, as many have done, that claims are worthless without evidence. But that's about it.
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;
Unfortunately for all of us Astrology is one of those concepts that can't be proven/debunked over night or even over a year or 10 years. If it could be done in a reasonable amount of time - we don't have the technology or the science to do it. You are correct about it not being *spiritualism* though I wouldn't relegate it to parlor trick status either... in the same way that electricity or magnetism was probably once thought of as a parlor trick - but wasn't.
We all know that the moon does in fact have an effect on us (the easiest scientific theorem is that since we are 90+% water there should be a tidal effect and then there is the eerie connection with a women's menstrual cycle). Also it is quite obvious that the sun has an effect on us (radiation, solar flares, etc.) and that our proximity to it due to the earth's elliptical orbit can change the amount though imperceptible in day to day life unless you're looking for it.
So given these examples, why would the other planets not have an effect upon us? or better yet, specific alignments of these forces which act upon us in concert? Especially significant would be the effect any forces might have on our developing psyche during our gestation period and immediately after our birth... environmental factors can have a huge impact on a child in the infant stage.
So I'm agreeing with your statements but attempting to provide more evidence that reality may be closer to the "astrology does measure a significant effect" side of things than not.
Now OTOH the individuals who claim to practice Astrology would likely be sacrificed on an altar for fraud if we lived in the Druidic or Mayan societies (the Druids less likely - they'd probably let the misinformation enhance their mystique). Point being that there are very very few people alive today, possibly none, who actually practice Astrology the way it has to be practiced... every day for your entire life and the lives of your ancestors, recorded in perpetuity so as to establish a statistical model of events. I highly doubt that any such records still exist without there being a huge 200-500 year gap up to the present day.
Personally I like to compare it to Meteorology... you're attempting to study a highly dynamic and chaotic system of interrelationships but you don't even have doppler radar or satellites working for you, it's like trying to guess at weather based on geography and historical event modeling alone.... so you might get some general trend information out of it but nothing concrete about what IS going to happen - just what might happen based on where you live and what has happened to others who lived there before you... and as stated earlier, this data is sketchy at best for the last couple centuries. Good luck with that Astrologists.
Disclaimer - I am a Pisces. I work as am Interactive Director in a creative agency, I tend to go with the flow but won't let anything stop me once in motion, I am slightly bi-polar and a romantic idealist (though i cover it up with a veneer of pragmatism). OTOH I am an Earth Horse in Chinese zodiac so that explains a lot as well.... or does it?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Actually, I'd find that a rather fascinating, creative delusion.
I can think of lots of different types of "stupid" and my guess is that you probably wouldn't find all of them stupid. Compare:
1. A mentally retarded person who is optimistic and happy. Seeing a pretty flower makes him happy even though he has no idea what it is called, or how it grew where he found it.
2. A genius level intellect who is always unhappy and irritated. There is nothing he can see which could make him as happy as person #1.
I find them both stupid in kind of orthogonal ways, and I am convinced there are many more dimensions of possible stupidity (your example being kind of stupid in the "reality" dimension, I suppose)....
And a confusing life it is! But finally, I understand why so many scientists have problems with time management...
Astrology is sort of a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world.
So's religion, or any conventional dogma. Many of them can be inordinately useful in understanding people and their motivations. Or motivating people and their understanding, for that matter.
illegitimii non ingravare
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.
I am an atheist, proud and true. I do not believe in *anything* that can't be proved. Unfortunately, I have to accept a lot of things as "probably true" barring evidence to the contrary. My wife is a catholic who reads the horoscope, go figure.
It is a good marriage. Every now and then, however, when we talk about those who have passed away or deeper meanings of life or what have you, it forces a reconciliation between philosophies. Sometimes a fight, sometimes a a discussion, either way, it can work.
So, should scientists date "believers of things?" Sure, but you have to be ready to "accept" the person "as-is." If you can't do that then it won't work.
Guys, if any women are actually reading this, we are collectively sooooo not ever getting laid.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Now for some good news: by following the above steps, you will develop a mathematically sound personality that society actually needs, and, more to the point, every one of the linked personalities gets laid and so will you. Study your personality, make the set of behaviors etc. your own, and date only people who have an astrological sign that complements the one you've chosen using the above steps! When faced with a choice, read the astrology section of a trusted newspaper, and just do whatever is prescibed for your chosen personality. The only caveat (and really it is the only one) is not to mention your true birthday, only one that fits in with your chosen sign, if anyone asks. This is just to keep from having to explain the science behind your choice every time you mention it. If the relationship gets to be very serious, just invent a story about a botched birth certificate, for why your identification doesn't show your "true" birthday... As with nicknames, people will understand that you have a different "official" birthday.
FAQ.
Why is this better than a traditional horoscope?
The traditional way of determining astrological signs for selecting a personality is flawed because there is an unequal distribution of births by month. (It's not the only thing true about birth months, incidentally! Check out these studies linking lifespan and month of birth!) Also, your physical birth month will be a function of, how can I put this delicately, your parents' mating habits, so it's less than scientific...
But won't twins have the same checksum?
Duh. It's an astrological sign. You know, normally based on birthdate...
But won't people cheat and just keep picking different checksum schemes until they get the "
How can this be something of any interest to us - this is not Hello Magazine. It's not our business, telling others who they want to see.
Apart from that - scientists may not have much confidence in the validity of astrology, but however little reason there may be, scientifically, to believe in it, it is not something we are able to definitely prove false. Just like that other far fetched superstition, Christianity.
I don't think most astrologers believe that the planets somehow directly and physically influence what happens here on Earth; they do, however, believe that it is something that can be observed, even if they can't explain why it works, and to tell the truth, there hasn't yet been much serious, rigorous, scientific work on the subject. I can understand that; there are so many other subjects that are much more likely to produce valuable results - but believing in religion doesn't in itself make a person stupid. One has to keep an open mind - there is a story about Niels Bohr: Once, Heisenberg came to visit Bohr in his office in Copenhagen, he noticed that there was a horseshoe hanging over the door, and he asked him: "Surely you don't believe in that sort of nonsense?" - And Bohr answered: "Of course not; but I am told it works even if you don't believe".
How many people really take this seriously? I may be demonstrating the no true Scotsman fallacy, here, but how many people who read astrology actually believe it any more than they believe in four-leaf clovers or knocking on wood? I suspect that, for most people who believe in astrology, their daily horoscope or astrological sign is in no way relevant to them. They read the horoscope, laugh about it if it comes true, and in no other way let it affect their lives.
The principal point should be whether the stars says that you two are made for each other, of course.
It's hard enough to get a date as it is without pre-rejecting everybody who believes something beyond that which can be proven. Besides, show me a scientist who believes nothing beyond that which can be proven and I'll show you a liar.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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.
I also have problems reconciling science and faith. It does seem to me that a profound life-defining belief in something which cannot be proved to exist is incompatible with the scientific method of a rigorous and logical evaluation of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. However, i have many friends who do seem able to reconcile this, and despite their beliefs are (by any metric) excellent scientists. Apparently the logic goes something like - god created the earth/universe etc, and made it conform to a bunch of laws. We are discovering and understanding those laws to the best of our abilities, using the curiosity that god gave us. The use of scientific method provides us with the means to do it, and its ok because god doesn't intend us to live through eternity in the mud saying to each other "oh, god did that, we don't need to know about it".
How about we petition the mods to change the terms of service making anything posted to /. free to duplicate for non-commercial use? =)
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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
You're implying that even though a religious scientist may write good papers and conduct reliable experiments, their output is somehow unexplainably and unquestionably inferior to the output of real scientists.
Unexplainably and unquestionably... Do you know what that sounds like?
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
As to aliens, I believe in them with metaphysical certainty. As an atheist, I feel the probability that life hasn't formed on other planets to be so remote as to be impossible. (Remember, blind, mindless cavefish on another planet are just as much aliens as little, green men.)
I also believe faster than light travel is impossible, so none have ever, or will ever, visit Earth.
Also since supernatural beliefs are by their nature not scientifically falsifiable, positing the idea that the natural world is part of a universe that also has a "supernatural" part that is not governed by natural law, I'm not sure that you can say someone is a poor scientist just for having them. Certainly a lot of good scientific work has been done by religious folk, such as Gregor Mendel. I don't think it makes sense to believe in something you can't measure, but as long as it doesn't affect your approach to the things you can measure, I don't care about it.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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
By your logic, someone who has been an atheist since 2nd grade when he threw a fit because he couldn't understand why God would let his dog die, and who doesn't know Leibniz from Anselm of Canterbury would somehow have better critical thinking skills than a theist who actually bothered to examine the evidence.
I also suggest that you stop using all those flawed scientific theories that theists surreptitiously introduced into science. No more calculus (Leibniz and Newton) for instance -- are you sure you still want to be an "ObsessiveMathsFreak"?
We should follow you for a whole day and see if you practice what you preach. I hope, for your sake and that of your loved ones, that you don't.
To sum it up, you're the worst kind of atheist: the arrogant one who thinks that he's so smart that he knows everything, but usually ends up making an utter fool of himself when he encounters a knowledgeable theist. Scientists are good at what they do, i.e. science. When it comes to philosophy (even philosophy of science), theology, or history, they don't fare much better than the average person, and might even do worse, since they tend to transfer, as you did, their attitudes to areas where they are irrelevant. If you don't understand why science cannot tell you whether, say, a resurrection is possible or not, then you're a hopeless case and, were I to evaluate *your* job application, I'd propably put you at the bottow of the stack. Who would want an obnoxious self-proclaimed "skeptic" telling everyone how irrational they are because they don't happen to subscribe to his scientism? "Skepticism" and scientism, with the close-mindedness that usually accompanies it, are not one and the same.
First let me say, not all us ladies read those pieces of crap magazines.
;-)
Second let me say, not all scientists are lonely men. (My sister is a chemist, happily married. Yes, there are other, single women in her lab. No, you can't have the number.)
Third, let me say that the horoscopes in said mags, or newspapers, are meant as entertainment, and of course are vague and could apply to anyone.
Astrology is not just another tool of divination, like tarot or I Ching or picking petals off a daisy. It is a system of looking at the flow of energy in the universe and how it affects you. You can use it superficially (like the horoscopes in the paper) or you can study the vast amounts of information available and discover that no, it's not meant to predict anything, it simply points out things that you are or are not prone to and YOU, as the master of your own destiny, can choose to use that knowledge to help yourself - or not.
Quantum theories about how all matter and energy is connected and interacts only help to prove to me that astrology is not so easily dismissed. If the moon can affect when I have my period, why can't Jupiter affect when I'll be in a good mood to throw a party?
Now last, let me say that there is more to a woman than titties. Well, most of us, anyway.
Sheesh. Where are all the other geek girls in here when you need 'em?
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
So, yes, if you take the type of person who is likely to be attracted to a life of contemplation & meditation, and allow them to do so, they're often going to reach the same result. But which is the simpler theory - they are all being affected by various external supernatural agencies, or the structure of the human mind tends to the same result from different starting conditions?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
It depends. That time I met the girl who liked to be pooped on ... well, that was a deal breaker for me.
The problem comes when you have otherwise intelligent scientists trying to reconcile their beliefs with actual science, believing things such as the Grand Canyon being created by Noah's flood. Reaching at straws to justify things. I use that as an example because a friend of mine is a good geologic engineer for an oil company otherwise. I have no idea how he lives with realizing that oil is under the earth, and he knows how to find it, but he still believes the world was created 6000 years ago. The cognitive dissonance must be exhausting...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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 atheistic 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 needs to be "saved" by believing a Jewish prophet rose from the dead to wipe away the sin of a woman eating a piece of fruit because a snake told her to do so, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite a total lack of explanation as to how the cherry-picked oral histories of disparate societies written 2000 to 4000 years ago 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 Christian hypocrisy of Slashdot's low-modded fundamentalist users.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
No, stay with me. I don't believe in hocus pocus.
I once did a teaching course, as I was teaching basic IT skills in an evening class. One of my fellow students was teaching astrology (I was rather glad to hear that it wasn't subsidised in the same way as the IT classes were). So I got to learn a little bit about it.
He was completely dismissive of magazine horoscopes, and said that a proper horoscope involved far more detailed plotting based on the exact date, and a dialogue between the astrologer and the client. It soon became apparent to me that the star stuff was pretty much just a starting off point for some self-examination, coached by the consultant. You can make the same argument for tarot -- the cards you get are arbitrary, and their meanings are deliberately ambiguous, meaning you can use them to kick off some rather productive brainstorming.
I see this as a basic problem of economics and supply/demand.
... and really like sex.
See, I'm a scientist (male). I would prefer it if women, including those who believe in astrology, preferred to date male scientists, especially in my age range, and that male scientists didn't want to date women.
That way demand for me is high and supply of me is low, making it fairly easy for me to date cute women.
Oh, and they should be rich too
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Astrology is a technique, or maybe a set of loosely linked techniques. A technique is a process or method used to accomplish a given task or to achieve some desired result. There is no point in saying a technique is "right" or "wrong" ; the only relevant criterion is whether it works or doesn't work. If it manages to produce the desired effect, then it "works". Otherwise, it "doesn't work".
I did give a try to astrology, and my conclusion is that it doesn't work. But i don't see any point in being dogmatic about that. Most paradigm shifts in human knowledge were initiated by challenging ideas that were considered "obvious" in their local cultures. Just make up your own mind.
(Yes, we do exist on /.!)
If you're making dating decisions based on strictly rational/demonstrative criteria, you're likely to have a long and lonely life. You should date someone because you're INTERESTED in them. If you keep it up long enough, you may end up falling in love with someone who likely disagrees with you on certain issues. Astrology may be one, or religion, education, politics, or porn. Guess what? PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT! You have to learn to get along, and decide AS YOU GO whether the differences add to your relationship, are tolerable, or irreconcilable.
Shopping for a date with a checklist seems to be a symptom of a society that is increasingly unable to actually interact in person. Do people talk to strangers on the bus anymore? Generally not unless they're insane dust-lickers, and that's a pity. Human interaction is good for us all.
My advice to finding a healthy relationship: Quit looking for dates that meet certain criteria. Then quit looking for dates. Start talking to people. Make friends. Cook supper for some people. Maybe you'll find someone in that process, and maybe you'll end up with them for the rest of your life. Maybe not, but you'll at least have had a richer life than the person shopping for a perfect match on the internet.
(Although various forms of "modern" dating--internet dating, speed dating, and so forth--can certainly work for some people.)
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
One of my ex girlfriends was all into making my "chart" to see what was rising in what sign, and all sorts of other BS. So I lied - told her I was born on Feb 30 (there is no Feb 30 - ever). Got a "reading" of all sorts of things that she thought I was like - "See it fits you"
Then told there is no Feb 30, was born on March 2 (another lie) - got a similar reading (cause my stars were still closely aligned).
Finally told her my real birthday was in August. She got mad and didn't want to do any more horroscope crap around me again, AND we still went out for over a year, before broke up w/ her. She wanted to plop out some kids, and I wanted grad school - so I said later.
Mesg is - just put up with it. It's a harmless thing they do, as long as they aren't making serious life decisions because of it. If they won't buy a house, cause the stars are wrong, or want to buy 10,000 shares of a stock 'cause of the stars, then dump them.
..........FULL STOP.
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
I'm more inclined to think that it's the attitude of humility which might arise as aspects of the universe are revealed.
In terms of the subjective experience, it's not important whether the revelation comes from science or through some other means. As a species, we seem to be wired to yearn for it, and a fair subset of the population gets to experience it, if only in brief glimpses.
But those glimpses have a profound effect on individuals. They come away with the conviction that the universe is bigger than we can imagine it to be. And, well, that's a correct perception, given that we have brains the size of cantaloupes with which to model this very large and complex environment. It makes a refreshing contrast to our common error of going around arrogantly thinking that we've got it all figured out.
But then we do an odd thing. Having just tasted firsthand the revelation of how vast and wondrous this universe really is, we immediately start reducing the experience to something we can model. It would be more appropriate to hold the matter open, completely open. Instead, we typically let it collapse back into whatever cognitive framework we happen to favor.
But if we were obliged to reduce a transcendent experience to some kind of finite model, then I think science produces a much more coherent model than any belief system based on faith. One good thing at least about science, in a spiritual context, is that it provides a constructive common ground for people who want to compare their transcendent experiences. Lacking that common ground, what we would have instead would be a Tower of Babel.
I think this account also explains why nonscientific people can hold on so tightly to their alternate beliefs despite their internal contradictions, lack of falsifiability, and uncertain predictive power. A transcendent experience feels a lot like blind faith, only more so. It exists, compellingly and infinitely, as its own explanation. So when you come back to earth again, it can seem like your blind faith has been vindicated, and you may well hold onto it more tightly and defend it more vigorously thereafter. And, sadly, many traditional religions have learned to exploit this effect.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it
Uh... that's kinda sexist.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
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.
oh, right rule out dumb girls, when exactly was the last time you hooked up with someone?
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Actually, there was a February 30th in 1712 in Sweden.
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
On the other hand, I think that lying to her about his birthday would be enough reason to dump him right there. Not because it's dishonest or because it's secretive... but because he's being a contemptuous prick.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/