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."

Comments

Which method?

[Bloke down the pub]

Which method - radiocarbon or by slicing thenm and counting the rings?

Re:Which method?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to slice them to count the rings - just look at any hippy chick's fingers and you'll see plenty ;-)

Re:Which method?

[ld a,b]

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.

Re:Which method?

[m.ducharme]

I'm sorry, I thought Cosmo _is_ pervasive transgenerational indoctrination.

Re:Which method?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

We are humans. Flawed machines. Human females deserve you treat them as equals. Maybe then you'll get a date.

The preceding was the only part of the parent post that shows any resemblance of intelligent thought. There is a big difference between a non falsifiable belief system, and one that does claim to make very specific predictions. I have no problem with a belief system that can not be proven or disproven and causes people to lead better lives. I do have a problem with people that believe that human behavior is influenced or predetermined by objects, but reject any knowledge about these same objects that was scientificly determined.

And yes, I did break up with a girlfriend because of this.

Re:Which method?

[snowraver1]

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.

Re:Which method?

[Imsdal]

I await with anticipation your testing model for this hypothesis.

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?

Re:Which method?

[rubycodez]

treat them as equals? walk into work, pound them on the back and yell, "hows it hangin', asshole? feel good?, well ya look like shit" Nah, maybe should treat them better than an equal would be treated.

Re:Which method?

[mdwh2]

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.

Re:Which method?

[Hognoxious]

given that many MALE scientists believe in imaginary superbeings that were made up by some random illiterate guy some thousands of years ago

George Lucas isn't that old.

Re:Which method?

[ukemike]

For astrology, crystals, healing, tarot cards and the idiotic things some women believe... Was this article designed to elicit thoughtlessly sexist comments from /.ers, or did it just turn out that way?

Re:Which method?

[gnick]

Astrology is sort of a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world Aren't all scientific models / theories just (potentially) flawed mental shortcuts for understanding the world? Astrology just happens to be more flawed than most. When I drop my pen, it accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s. I realize that neglects air resistance. I realize that rounds off acceleration due to gravity. I realize that ignores my distance from the center of the earth. I realize that ignores relativistic effects.

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?

Re:Which method?

[Alpha830RulZ]

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.

Re:Which method?

[crashfrog]

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.

Re:Which method?

[The Great Pretender]

That's a short queue on /.

Re:Which method?

[Sarutobi]

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.

Re:Which method?

[2short]

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.

Re:Which method?

[Skim123]

The problem is that the believers DO have some evidence: they have observed that whatever they believe in works (in some sense, often the way that it works is that it adds some sort of meaning to their life or puts them at ease in some way).

The whole basis of the scientific method is that the "observations" used to lend strength to a hypothesis are repeatable. If one person sees the Flying Spaghetti Monster on top of a mountain, but can never summon Him for others to observe, then that observation is worthless.

Although calling anyone an idiot is not a good way to start a discussion (especially one centering on faith).

Re:Which method?

[lukas84]

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.

Re:Which method?

[Imsdal]

OMG. OMFG. That has to be the most hilariously stupid link ever posted on /. And yes, I understand that the competition is quite stiff.

It just boggles the mind that anyone could fall for that crap. And it's even more surprising how anyone could fall for that crap, yet claim that astrology is somehow false.

Re:Which method?

[langelgjm]

Religion generally falsifies itself.

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.

Re:Which method?

[williamhb]

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..

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.

Re:Which method?

[Just Some Guy]

Observing positions of various constellations is not one way to keep track of seasons?

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.

Re:Which method?

[wpiman]

Use the scientific method...

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.

Re:Which method?

[jorgeleon]

Neither prayer nor any other supernatural or religious belief has ever been observed to be efficacious (corrected the spelling for you)

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.

Re:Which method?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Aren't all scientific models / theories just (potentially) flawed mental shortcuts for understanding the world?

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.

Re:Which method?

[Rei]

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.

Re:Which method?

[jacksonj04]

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.

Re:Which method?

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Which method?

[fyngyrz]

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

Re:Which method?

[EvilNTUser]

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.

Re:Which method?

[dwye]

> Should we have framed the question in terms of political parties?

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.

Sure, provided they are hot

[Registered Coward v2]

But rememeber, you can fix a lot of things but you cant fix stupid

Re:Sure, provided they are hot

[sm62704]

You can't fix stupid but you CAN fix ignorant. Thinking someone is stupid because they believe something patently false is stupid.

Re:Sure, provided they are hot

[gnick]

No, it's arrogant. Sounds like perfectly normal behavior. For a Leo...

Yes.

[Sir.Cracked]

Beggars can't be choosers....

This...IS....SLASHDOT!

[Internet Ronin]

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.

Re:This...IS....SLASHDOT!

[Registered Coward v2]

Seriously though, sometimes breasts are big enough to make other things not important.


Sometimes?

Re:This...IS....SLASHDOT!

[Mikkeles]

Yes, "sometimes"; else you may be faced with this!

It depends

[insertwackynamehere]

What's they're sign? If you two are incompatible according to the stars then you can forget about being compatible on Earth.

Oh really?

[SuperDuck]

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. By your line of reasoning (if I can call it that), women are easily swayed by what they read in fashion magazines.

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. ;-)

Re:Oh really?

[SuperDuck]

women are easily swayed by what they read in fashion magazines. Not married to a "fashionista", I guess? Not any more, fortunately. She was *so* yesterday. ;-P

Astrology is just plain wrong

[Malevolent Tester]

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.

Offense

[Stormcrow309]

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.

Re:Well

[Shakrai]

Is spiritualism of any kind NOT for scientists?

Not at the office it isn't. Spirituality is not compatible with the scientific method.

Outside of work, no problem.

Think of the children

[dougoxley]

Think of the children... No, seriously, think of the children.

Re:Well

[garett_spencley]

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.

Ahh...

[nickos]

so is disregarding someone because of their spiritual beliefs

There's your problem - a growing number of people are realising it's fine to disregard someone if they believe in supernatural nonsense. Especially if they're beliefs include doing nasty things to women, homosexuals and non-believers.

Re:Ahh...

[geminidomino]

Especially if they're[sic] beliefs include doing nasty things to women, homosexuals and non-believers. Hey now. My beliefs include doing nasty things to women, and I've gotten nary a complaint...

Astrology != Spirituality or Religion

[glpierce]

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

Re:Astrology != Spirituality or Religion

[Jonny_eh]

And here's Carl Sagan explaining Astrology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iunr4B4wfDA

Carl Sagan was the best.

lets get one thing straight

[rucs_hack]

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.

Oh man...

[o'reor]

From the comments on TFA:

check this 68k mac software does statistics on astrology.

http://dragonflypower.com/HSReadme.htm

(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 ?

I'm a Scorpio.

[xs650]

I'm a Scorpio, Scorpios don't believe in astrology.

Excuse me?

[PriceIke]

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.

Re:Well

[MightyYar]

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.

Well.... there could be some truth in it

[jareth-0205]

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...

Multiple Choice

[rueger]

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

Re:Multiple Choice

[JohnFluxx]

> Also, it makes the false assumption that more scientists are men than women.

Uh, most scientists /are/ men.

Astrology Chick

[leroybrown]

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.

Mental shortcut?

[MrNemesis]

Only if you define a shortcut as a much shorter route that gets you to the wrong destination.

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 /.'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.

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 /asbestos long johns

P.S. A prize of fifty points and a bowl of raspberry jelly to the first person who correctly guesses my relationship status :)

Comtempt is not compatible with love

[Nerdposeur]

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.

Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love

[erlehmann]

I'm a person with very firm Christian beliefs.

Interesting - you believe in salvation through a holy zombie despite a total lack of explanation as to how the reanimation of dead bodies relates to human events ?

Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love

[Eli Gottlieb]

OK, let's at least get this clear: the resurrection of Jesus (you know, the fictional one) did not involve zombies. Jesus did not hunger for the flesh of the living. Instead, he actually came back to life.

We're talking Goa'uld Sarcophagus or Ancient Healing Device here, not a zombie virus.

Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love

[Dzimas]

I'm going to call you on this one. "Very firm Christian beliefs" is a meaningless motherhood statement. That little detail aside, haven't you ever found it convenient that the "right" religion is usually the one we're indoctrinated with since childhood, or the church just down the street? I suspect precious few people in somewhere like Omaha Nebraska have ever woken up one morning and realized that the Shinto study of Hatsumiyamairi is the true path to enlightenment. Nope, people get sucked into the tried and true. ;)

How to find a spouse

[romanm]

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.

Depends. . . do you want to fight all the time?

[JSBiff]

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.

Re:Well

[MightyYar]

I can see that, for example, babies born in the Winter might tend to have a different personality to babies born in the Summer. Ahh, your horoscope would be totally off if you changed hemispheres! :)

Re:What scientists should really do is.

[khallow]

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.

Re:What scientists should really do is.

[MikeBabcock]

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?).

Residents of Glass Houses Should not Throw Stones

[jumping jeff]

Irregardless of whether Astrology is "true" or not it is a belief. So practitioners as human beings more than temporary assemblages of H, O, Si, etc. deserve respect for their beliefs. What about Omnists for Terry Pratchett fans, they have rights too.

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.

Re:Well

[Hal_Porter]

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

Here let me refer to a very interesting letter, recorded by Helen Dukas, which Einstein wrote to a child who asked him whether scientists prayed.

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive His 'spirit' is the actual laws that govern the universe as far as I can tell. In physics it would be a complete, consistent theory of everything. We don't have this yet, but we could possibly discover (and you'll note I didn't say invent) it. We do have various approximations of this uber theory though, relativity for big stuff and quantum mechanics for small. It's an odd idea actually - it reminds me of Plato's Theory of Forms. By analogy, the spirit would be the True theory, and our current approximations would shadows of it. All of which is obvious very science friendly.

One man's "stupid"...

[Mathinker]

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)....

Re:Science is 24/7

[Imsdal]

Science is a 27/7 way of life

And a confusing life it is! But finally, I understand why so many scientists have problems with time management...

Re:Well

[CrazyBrett]

Spirituality is not compatible with the scientific method.

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.

We are all perfectly flawed people

[mlwmohawk]

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.

Oh my.

[TrebleJunkie]

Guys, if any women are actually reading this, we are collectively sooooo not ever getting laid.

Astrology for scientists.

[3-State Bit]

Astrology for scientists.

1. Sequence your DNA.
2. Compress it and take the hex checksum. You can use any compression scheme and any checksum algo (but use a real one, don't just make one up ad hoc) to get the hex result, it doesn't really matter. However, you have to go with the first one you pick, you can't pick a different one just because you didn't like the results.
3. Take the last hex digit of your checksum that isn't a C, D, E or F. (If your whole checksum consists of just these letters, add 1 to your compressed DNA and checksum again (repeating if necessary). Use the following guide to picking an astrological sign:
   • 0 - Aries
   • 1 - Taurus
   • 2 - Gemini
   • 3 - Cancer
   • 4 - Leo
   • 5 - Virgo
   • 6 - Libra
   • 7 - Scorpio
   • 8 - Sagittarius
   • 9 - Capricorn
   • A - Aquarius
   • B - Pisces
4. Next, read the linked Wikipedia article (and any mainstream sources too if you want, for example in newspapers and magazines), and:
5. Start acting in accordance with your selected personality. That's it!

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 "

Re:Science is 24/7

[mr_josh]

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.

Re:Science is 24/7

[15Bit]

Ok, disclaimer up front - i'm a research scientist and am currently godless, so to speak.

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".

Re:Science is 24/7

[Cornflake917]

So based on your post, Isaac Newton was not a scientist.

Re:Well

[digitig]

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.

Re:Well

[YttriumOxide]

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.

Re:Well

[florescent_beige]

His 'spirit' is the actual laws that govern the universe as far as I can tell.

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.

Not entirely nonsense.

[slim]

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.

Just lie about your birthdate and see what happens

[spineboy]

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.

Rephrasing the question makes it even easier

[Cajun Hell]

It's easy to answer, once you phrase it like this: Should you continue to date someone you can't respect?

Re:Just lie about your birthdate and see what happ

[operagost]

So I lied - told her I was born on Feb 30 (there is no Feb 30 - ever).

I think that her not knowing there is no February 30th would have been enough to dump her right there. I have to say that dating her for another year might not have been the greatest decision on your part!

Re:Which method? -- How about being well informed?

[Bloke down the pub]

What emerged was a type of psychological langauge framework that describes how certain planetary positions influence living systems including people and animals, possibly through DNA influences at the quantum level.

My bullshit meter just redlined!

Re:Which method? -- How about being well informed?

[dubl-u]

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.

Re:Just lie about your birthdate and see what happ

[stuffman64]

Actually, there was a February 30th in 1712 in Sweden.