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."

29 of 1,181 comments (clear)

  1. Which method? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Which method? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Which method? by Imsdal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Which method? by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Which method? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to have missed a course in logic. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. It is comparable to you not believing that there is an invisible pink aardvark sitting in the chair next to you. According to your logic, you bear the burden of proof for proving to the rest of us that the chair is indeed empty. We're waiting...

      It's always amazing to me that you superstitious folks seem to think that you get to define my beliefs. I don't try to tell you what Christians believe. Please have the same courtesy.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    5. Re:Which method? by 2short · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Which method? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A) The phrase is "cue up", not "queue up".
      B) While the Wired article wasn't focused on men vs. women, Slashdot naturally had to put that twist on it. I mean, what kind of scientist would be a woman? What a silly concept! (As though huge numbers of men don't believe in all sorts of kooky things. No, it's apparently only weak-minded women who fall for pop-culture nonsense.)

      Yes, more women believe in astrology then men -- but not by a huge margin. Women are a mere 5% more likely than the population as a whole to believe in astrology. On the other hand, men are 9% more likely than women to believe in UFOs. And why stop at gender? There's a much stronger correlation between being a Democrat and believing in astrology (14%) than being a woman and believing in astrology. Should we have framed the question in terms of political parties? Was the goal to be insulting?

      Lastly, while we're talking about pseudoscientific delusions designed to make people feel better, they give a free pass to people who believe silly things that are "religious beliefs". As a society, we always defer to that. But why? A delusion is a delusion. It's not as though religious beliefs are harmless or anything, judging from history -- quite the opposite, really. Why are we saying it's okay to believe as they do -- to think you have an imaginary friend in the sky who loves you very much, and when you die, you get magically transported to a happy place to live with him -- simply because there are so many of them in the US?

      Yes, I dared mentioned the elephant in the room.

      --
      Aptera: Most expensive Star Trek prop ever.
  2. This...IS....SLASHDOT! by Internet+Ronin · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:This...IS....SLASHDOT! by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Funny

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


      Sometimes?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  3. Astrology is just plain wrong by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. Offense by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. Ahh... by nickos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Astrology != Spirituality or Religion by glpierce · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  7. lets get one thing straight by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Multiple Choice by rueger · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Multiple Choice by JohnFluxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      Uh, most scientists /are/ men.

  9. How to find a spouse by romanm · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:Well by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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! :)
    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. Re:What scientists should really do is. by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Oh really? by SuperDuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    --

    "Kinky sex involves the use of duck feathers. Perverted sex involves the whole duck." - Lewis Grizzard
  13. Re:Sure, provided they are hot by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, it's arrogant. Sounds like perfectly normal behavior. For a Leo...
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  14. Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love by erlehmann · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 ?
  15. Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  16. Re:Well by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    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;
  17. One man's "stupid"... by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)....

  18. Astrology for scientists. by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 5, Funny
    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:
    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 "

  19. Re:Science is 24/7 by mr_josh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Science is 24/7 by 15Bit · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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".

  21. Re:Well by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?