It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I find astrology to be very silly and annoying, so much so that back at the beginning of 2003 when I discovered that the BBC was hosting an online community for astrology enthusiasts within the context of a broader feel-good site called 360, I felt obliged to wade on in and question their validity. What really galled me about it was that is was that 360 was a spin off from another community project known as h2g2, a site inspired (and cofounded) by the late Douglas Adams. For those who don’t know, Adams was an atheist and huge fan (and friend) of Richard Dawkins— In fact I believe that it was Adams who introduced Dawkins to his now wife Lalla Ward (Romana #2 from Doctor Who). What I’m basically getting at is that he didn’t suffer fools gladly and held little regard for the supernatural.

What follows below the fold is the full transcript of my ensuing discussion with at least one bona fide astrologer. I saved a copy of this conversation for posterity, since it represents a collection of the most thoughtful arguments I have taken the time to make against what I and many others would describe as classic psuedo-science. Since it was so long ago (and the original site no longer exists) I don’t feel too bad about republishing it here.

My initial comment is given as a response to the topic introduction: Astrology - Try it for Yourself. Unfortunately I no longer have the content of this intro, but it was basically a blurb about how positive and useful astrology can be in our lives. Some choice quotes appear below. On only a few occasions does the conversation become petty, and by and large I feel that I conducted myself in a reasonable fashion— ok, I do get quite snarky towards the end, but I can’t help it because it’s insane that people can take something like astrology seriously… oh just read on and it will be pretty clear what I think…

__________

Transcript from January 12, 2003. (Names changed to protect the innocent)

Me: (as "Researcher 215038")

Before I start, I should point out that one reason I feel compelled to write here is because of the "change the world" concept being pushed on the front page, and if the world is going to be nudged in any direction it disturbs me that it should be nudged [further] along the axis of the irrational. Also my post here is very much a direct response to the "Astrology - Try it for Yourself" blurb, with the 3 quotes all being drawn from the same paragraph.

BLURB: "Modern science scoffs at the idea that we may be affected by the movements of the planets…"

That is true, but Modern Science also "scoffs" at every other set of beliefs which can’t be tested/verified in a controlled manner.

It’s not as though scientists aren’t willing to expand into new areas. Scientists didn’t much like relativity and quantum theory when they were first bandied about early last century, and yet they accepted both within decades because both theories made unambiguous (and useful) predictions about the universe which were borne out by experiment! Astrology has been around for centuries (or millenia?) and yet has never been widely accepted. Now ask yourself why.

A fairly logical (but unromatic) hypothesis might be that our ancestors were in fact incredibly ignorant compared to us today, and therefore the systems they invented to understand the world were woefully inadequate, based on guesswork and superstition.

Guesswork is not necessarily a bad starting point, but without rigorous testing and refinement, such theories are not worth the column inches they’re printed in.

BLURB: "…but this Universe is exquisitely designed to work in unity as an holistic entity."

This kind of language is *exactly* why a scientist might scoff at astrology. The ease with which the astrologer can invent a cause to explain an effect is astounding. Even if there were demonstrable links between the time of one’s birth and events of one’s life, there are much more obvious [and less spurious] explanations to be investigated. Try annual seasonal variation for a start. The foods a mother eats (or fails to eat) during gestation will almost certainly affect foetal development. It seems reasonable to expect that climate will also have some influence, affecting the levels of various fatty acids and associated nutrients. Until fairly recently in human history the foods that we had access to were largely determined by the season. It would not surprise me to learn that these effects combine to have a measurable influence on the mental and physical development of the child. But oh no, that’s far too boring isn’t it? It’s much more exciting to attribute things to the exquisite holistic design of the universal entity.

BLURB: "All things are connected; from the smallest sub-atomic particle, through ourselves, the planet on which we live, the Solar system and all the way out to the depths of space beyond the edge of the Universe."

If it were not for science, and the scientific method, we would have no knowlege at all of sub-atomic particles, or the nature of the universe. We might still believe that matter was continuous and the earth to be at the center of the universe.

A glimpse at how science works:

If I invent a brand new theory, which predicts exactly 2 things, namely (a) that all objects with mass attract all other objects with mass, and (b) that light is always measured at the same speed for all observers, my lovely theory will be completely ignored. It will not be ignored because of scientific closed-mindedness, or because of anti-me bias, or for being incorrect. Rather it will be ignored for being redundant and useless, because it fails to tell us anything we don’t already know. A theory which says, "all the complicated stuff in the world happens because of the complicated nature of the universe, and there are patterns everywhere" is not an incorrect theory, it is just a stupid theory, a no-brainer.

Both science and witch-doctory begin with the same thing: a wild guess at why something incomprehensible happened. Why did my baby die? Why didn’t it rain this year? What are those white dots in the sky at night? The difference between the 2 methodologies is that the witch-doctor simply decides that gods/magic/stars are responsible, and then invents plausible reasons why the gods/magic/stars might have caused the thing to happen.

In contrast, the scientist makes predictions based on his hypothesis, and then when those predictions fail, as they almost always do, [s]he simply accepts that his hypothesis was complete rubbish, and starts all over.

To those who would say "hey guy, astrology is not an exact science, it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, it’s just a way of looking at ourselves that works for us, so there’s no need to attack it", I argue that a belief in astrology betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method, which is tantamount to a deficiency of reason, that same reason that has delivered us in the past from various minor superstitious inanities through to horrors like religious persecution and human sacrifice, and the same reason that will hopefully prevail in coming times of conflict and uncertainty. Surely a truly reasonable human has no use for astrology.

Thanks for reading this far.

TShijaviRao:

I find that astrology is not an exct science,but many people use it for fixing auspicious timings for marriages,religious functions and for starting new ventures in business and so on.
When people are facing serious problems,they resort to astrological predictions to manage their life and hope that they have to lie low until more fortunate times arrive.
we find that they indicate some trends but we may not blindly believe in them when contraindications are visible to a logical mind.
so we can use astrology to a limited extant so long as it serves our purpose without causing much damage.
In india,it is believed that astrology has a curse from Goddess Parvathi who proclaimed that about half of the predictions may materialise while the other half may fail.
If astrologists can maintain statistics about their predictions and indicate the percentage of successes and the failures and study the reasons to improve upon their methodology of predictions,perhaps they can make better claims on the reliability of their subject so that they can certainly make it fully scientific and useful to solve the problems of mankind.
Prof.T.Shijavi Rao

Margy:

I’m sure you’ll get plenty of replies on this - and thanks for posting.

I’m Margy and I’m the site’s producer, so welcome along.

However it’s much easier to talk to a name rather than a number! Would you go to your preferences (to the left) and let us know your name and, preferably a little about yourself. Otherwise it’s like tilting at windmills.

To enter the debate anyway: I do think that a lot of people condemn astrology and other ‘non-rational’ subjects without investigating them properly. I could just as well say that chemotherapy doesn’t work - because very frequently it doesn’t. But you won’t find many doctors dismissing it because of that. It might just be that chemo only suits certain people - but science has not found out just who it benefits and who it doesn’t yet.

Astroguy:

Researcher 215038,

I would add my voice to that of MaggyW when she says ‘give us a name.’

Now, you say you don’t want to see the world pushed further along the axis of the irrational. But just how much of what goes on in the world is rational anyway?

Me: (screen name changed to MarkP)

Nickname should now appear correctly, apologies for the numerical handle.

Regarding the question of how much of the world is irrational, I would say, without exaggeration, almost all of it! There is no rationality driving:

1) Earthquakes
2) Disease
3) Animals, plants and insects
4) All other non-human things not previously mentioned

The only place for rationality is with humans. Us. We are the only entities we know of which are capable of reason. Other animals can demonstrate learning, but they cannot (as far as we can tell) hypothesize, or ask questions.

As much as one can ascribe purpose to any phenomenon, I believe that our purpose in life is to use our unique abilty to reason to understand ourselves and the universe in which we live. In so doing we may hope to make life a more pleasant experience for ourselves and the other creatures with whom we share this world.

Me:

Hi Margy,

Thanks for your welcome,

A really good link on where to start investigating astrology [specifically the methodology] would be most welcome. I am interested to know if there is consensus among astrologers on the interpretation of planetary positions on a chart? Given the same set of rules, would I come up with the same readings as an astrologer?

Back to the debate, I’d like to take up your example of chemotherapy, starting with some made up figures:

Let’s just say that only 5% of cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy make a full recovery. And let us also assume that of all the predictions that astrology makes for a person, 50% of predictions are roughly true, and perhaps another 10% are clearly true.

On first impression it might seem that these figures clearly support astrology as useful and good, whilst condemning chemotherapy as pretty ordinary. This is about the level of analysis I normally expect from the evening news. It is important for people to realize that no such interpretation can be made from these figures alone! We need to ask a few more questions first…

What if studies (based on statistics from large numbers of real world examples) demonstrate that of cancer patients who *don’t* undergo chemo, only 3% of them recover. This means the therapy does work a little bit, but just not all the time. Still, it works a predictable [and still significant] amount of the time, enough to make informed decisions about when it should be administered.

Fine, we say, Chemotherapy *works* a little bit of the time, and this makes it worth having (and worth refining). But astrology is correct much more often, so it must be well worth having, right? This is still a specious argument, because we still haven’t asked enough questions…

What if it turns out that while 50% of what astrology predicts for us may be true-ish, 45% of those predictions also turn out to be true-ish for people of different star signs? Suddenly that fabulous correctness factor doesn’t look so amazing. And what if the evaluation of the trueness of the predictions is left to the people whom the prediction is about? Will this not bias the outcome of any serious evaluation? Don’t people have a strong [often useful] tendency to interpret things as relevant to themselves?

If there is a measurable relationship between the time of one’s birth and future events in one’s life, I think it is very important that such links be closely scrutinised, with an aim to broadening our understanding of this world and our place within it. I simply don’t see the logic in accepting dramatic (basically "magical") explanations about the role of the planets, because with no coherent theory linking the one to the other [gravity can be ruled out, for reasons I am willing to discuss further], such thinking stymies real advances in our knowlege.

Analice:

Hey Mark. Welcome to 360. You will find some good quality debate here.

Quote from the December edition of the New England Medical Journal:

"A recent randomized trial of treatment for stage 1 multiple myeloma by Riccardi and colleagues (British Journal of Cancer 2000;82:1254-60) showed no advantage of conventional chemotherapy over no treatment."

The main difference in this discussion of astrology-chemotherapy (forgive me Margy if I am overstepping you here because I have read your postings elsewhere) is that chemotherapy frequently kills; even more frequently debilitates and leads to deaths from other causes which happen because the immune system is depleted.

It is often applied without the doctors knowing enough about side effects so they are unable to deal with them when they occur.

The psychologically trained among us, including myself, view the effects of chemotherapy when it works as generally due to its debilitating affect, in that it stops the person’s habitual lifestyle and makes them look again at how they are living their life.

The public accept chemotherapy often because they want to live and it is because their doctor tells them is best. They do not have time or will to investigate it for themselves and would prefer (as taught nowadays) to rely on others. At least you appear to be willing to investigate astrology. Those who do, realise that it is a discipline and tend to realise that there is something in it and stop deriding it.

Me:

Hi Analice,

The fact that there *was* a randomized trial (and there will be many many more), and that the [depressing] results were still published, illustrates why I still would rather live in a world without astro than a world without chemo. That trial will be open to criticism by peers, and any dispute over claims made can be taken to other doctors/scientists/statisticians. This is why science is good! When a theory or practice turns out to be harmful (or useless), attention can be focused on it in a controlled manner, and the harmful theory/practice dispensed with. It may be that chemo for this type of cancer is indeed totally pointless, and if this were demonstrated to be so, I believe that use of chemo for this cancer would be phased out. [At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work ; ) ]

The public do by and large rely on others to tell them what works. They have to! There isn’t the time for every person to investigate the risk/benefits of every option available to them. We build heirarchies of trust, and by and large these seem to work pretty well. My own leanings are towards those who demonstrate (and encourage) critical thinking. This is a rough definition of a skeptic. When a skeptic tells me that something is so, [s]he doesn’t use flowery language or terminology from fields of science that aren’t even recognised as such. And so, I am much more likely to believe him/her. A skeptic is more likely to perform thought experiments, in order to find ways to disprove that which [s]he has been told.

Certain people with wacky scientific theories in the past, like evolution, or the heliocentric model of the solar system, have had to endure great derision. In time the public [mostly] came to accept their ideas, because there were so many things that made so much more sense within the context of these new theories. As mentioned in the blurb here, astrology is an ancient art, once taken very seriously by kings and military leaders… and yet instead of becoming more accepted, it has become less so. How can this be?

Some final questions: Having had so many centuries over which to mature, why hasn’t astrology been refined into a remarkably accurate and useful tool? Why hasn’t it helped us discover and experimentally verify the forces which link us to the stars? Why is it that most peoples contact with astrology is marginalized to a few column inches in their local rag?

Tam:

Hello MarkP the Skeptic

I think Astrology becomes less accepted as a cause of being cheapened and popularised for the masses. It is so because they love it that way.

There is little religious belief now but people do still wish for mystery and magic in their lives. They want witchcraft and magic. This is sad but true. And the media will give them what they want.

I don’t know if you’ve searched the BBC sites for their astrology. Most of it is sun-sign tat. This site is the only one which tries to look at it properly. I think that’s admirable.

Astrology could be potentially dangerous - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is an art/science which requires years of study to practice properly. There are associations which do this and specific courses to follow. Study only a little astrology and you could start making inaccurate predictions which could hurt or frighten people. But there will always be people who want to use that power and they give things a bad name too.

I suggest that you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. A good astrologer could be as good as a good doctor. He or she can tell you your psychological strengths and weaknesses; how your behaviour affects your life and how to address that. A doctor can tell you about your physical strengths and weaknesses and advise you on how to live and eat. The same but different.

I do not wish to sound elitist but you can learn to understand how the planets’ energies work but it would mean studying esoteric discipline which is hard work and would take years. Also, as the combination of energies is the key thing - where they interact on the individual - you could never come up with, say, one research document saying "This is It". You could spend your life learning it however.

Analice - very interesting about the chemotherapy. Dr Edward Bach’s nosodes theory (1930s I believe and still used today) is relevent here I think…because he showed that certain medicines/remedies work on people according to psychological type which is what led to his flower remedies.

Perhaps it would be an excellent idea to plot what chemotherapy to give according to someone’s astrological profile. Now who would fund that?

Tam

Margy:

Hi Mark,

Golly, so many questions…so little time to try and answer them!

This is going to be long….

To your query: "I am interested to know if there is consensus among astrologers on the interpretation of planetary positions on a chart? Given the same set of rules, would I come up with the same readings as an astrologer?"

Yes I think you would. The rules in astrology are fairly clear. The only difference, as in different branches of, say, Christianity, is whether you include this bit or that bit in as well.

For example, traditional astrologers use the planets Earth and its Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun. These are primarily used for specific questions (a branch known as horary)and are known as the personal planets. They were the only ones discovered before we had telescopes.

Modern day astrologers also use Uranus, Pluto and Neptune which are known as the ‘transpersonal planets’ and these have a different ‘effect’ on life, affecting whole generations.

Some modern astrologers also use moons of other planets and the asteroid belt especially one ‘planetlet’ called Chiron. They all still seem to get very similar results whether they stick to the basics or spend hours interpreting the ‘transiting gravel’

Predictive tools are ALWAYS going to be inaccurate. They can only show what is likely to happen if the person/people concerned act without any thought or consideration - ie Free Will. Our lives are not set in stone. I would say astrology is best used as a psychological tool,

There is no way that sun sign columns in the papers can be accurate. They are just fun/silly/represensible according to your point of view. But as Tam said, people love them so they’re going to get churned out.

I take the view that astrology actually has very little to do with stars and planets at all. It’s just one way that the ancients plotted the energies and mathematical systems that keep the Universe going. The system works; whether it has to do with ten or twenty actual planets is sort of irrelevant. It’s part of the Universal design/plan; we can only interpret it with tools we can understand.

Oh..I meant to ask…why do you want everything to be rational? Just a simple question…but what’s the advantage to us in everything being rational? I actually can’t see one but I’d be interested to hear your view!

Astroguy:

"The public do by and large rely on others to tell them what works. They have to! There isn’t the time for every person to investigate the risk/benefits of every option available to them."

Sorry, Mark, but when something is important enough to become a life-threatening or life-enhancing question then each person should make the time to find out all they can about it rather than basing their decision on ‘advice’ from a third party. One is personally responsible for one’s life and the decisions made in that life. You say that we build heirarchies of trust and that they work ‘pretty well’ - but when something goes wrong the lawsuits start flying around. That isn’t taking personal responsibilty!

Critical thinking. Hmmm. I am a sceptic (and you are an American, by your spelling ) especially where astrology is concerned. I’m careful about what I take on board where astrological information is concerned. A new astrological technique or interpretation is tested until I am satisfied that it works. Likewise, I do my best to avoid flowery language and jargon unless it is absolutely necessary, in which case I explain what I’m talking about. That’s why my services are billed as ’simple, understandable astrology.’

"Having had so many centuries over which to mature, why hasn’t astrology been refined into a remarkably accurate and useful tool?"

It can be an accurate and useful tool in the right hands. It cannot, though, be tested by the ’scientific method’ because (1) its patterns are non-repeating and (2) they operate in the psychological, rather than the physical world.

"Why hasn’t it helped us discover and experimentally verify the forces which link us to the stars?"

Just as soon as science sorts out a mechanism by which those links, if they exist, can be measured, your question will be answered. Also see the answer (2) to your question above.

"Why is it that most peoples contact with astrology is marginalized to a few column inches in their local rag?"

Those who want to investigate astrology will do so and will start with the newspaper columns - that, in my opinion, is the extent of the usefulness of Sun-sign columns. Those who don’t want to investigate astrology won’t.

Analice:

<roundofapplausesmiley>

TShijaviRao:

Madam,
I have studied Astronomy during my training as a civil engineer and I am connected with some astrologers who are academicians and not professionals as they are working as teachers in the University.
One day I casully went to my friend Dr.M.S. who was an Assistant professor in Chemistry and was making good predictions.I wanted to consult him in April 1959 to know when I am likely to get promoted as a Professor as many of my colleagues were opposing my elevation as I will supersede them by virtue of my Specialisation in Environmental Engineering and the post was earmarked for it.
I was expecting that since the meeting of the syndicate of the University was fixed in the third week,as usual the interview was to be fied one or two days in advance.Dr.M.S. looked into the chart and told me that I would not get the elevation at that time and predicted that I will succeed in the first week of May,1969.I asked him for the reasons.He told me that unless the Saturn in my chart gets activated by the moon,I cannot get promoted.I was worried if the planets have so much of influence.
Surprisingly,the president of India died at that time and the syndicate meeting was postponed.I was really surprised.Later on the meeting was fixed on 2-5-1969 and my interview was conducted on the morning of 2-5-1969 and I was promoted in May 1969 as professor.
Last year I found that my grand daughter was being badly treated by her parents for being not upto the mark in her studies.I consulted my astrology friend Dr.P.G.K.who told me that because of the conjunction of Saturn and Mars in her chart make her dull to some extent and by the beginning of 2002 she will be alright.As predicted,I was constantly encouraging her and as predicted,the girl did well in the examinations in March 2002 and secured first class to their surprise and of couse I was also giving pranic healing for success.
But,the people who intrepret the charts must be again detached and in a calm state of mind to make sure that the predictions become true.
I feel that the predictions may be taken as guide lines to chart our own course of action and to reason out why we are facing some problems at a particular point of time so that some remedial measure sc an be taken to set the house in order.However,Astrologers have to maintain statistics to prove that it is scientific as many fake astologers make moneyby providing improper predictions and cheat the gullible people.
Prof.T.Shijavi Rao

Me:

Hi Tam,

"There is little religious belief now but people do still wish for mystery and magic in their lives. They want witchcraft and magic. This is sad but true…"

I’m glad you point this out. I think this is sad too, only as you can probably gather, I consider astrology to be just another kind of witchcraft.

"…you could never come up with, say, one research document saying ‘This is It’ "

But if there was any real basis for It, you could strive for a document saying "This is the underlying mechanism which enables It". Is anyone undertaking this reseach?

Me:

Hi Margy,

"Modern day astrologers also use Uranus, Pluto and Neptune which are known as the ‘transpersonal planets’ and these have a different ‘effect’ on life, affecting whole generations."

Neptune was only discovered in 1848 and Pluto in 1930! How long did it take astrologers to ascertain the generational effect of these planets? How much work has been done to filter out other "generational" effects of minor things like, say, unprecedented technological progress and social change? Here follows the kind of qualified statement that might encourage me to consider taking astrology seriously as a discipline.

"Over the next several hundred years, astrologers are hoping to determine what, if any, influence these more recently discovered planets have over our lives."

Also I think we differ somewhat on our understanding of the nature of the universe. You say the ancients built it, and I say I don’t know where it comes from. People who think like me [only much smarter] go to great pains to work out mathematical descriptions of the rules which appear to govern the behaviour and distribution of matter and energy. They write down these rules in an unambiguous manner that even people from completely different cultural backgrounds can readily understand. Nowhere do they discover evidence of intelligent design. They discover beauty and chaos, and unimaginable compexity, but no design.

Why is it so easy for people to believe that someone designed the universe, and at the same time accept that the designer[s] did not have to be created? Some people say the universe is too beautiful and complex to not have been designed, and yet they happily ignore the fact that any creator must therefore be even more beautiful and complex, too much so to not have been designed, ad infinitum.

Hmmm… maybe a bit off topic there, but does vaguely relate to your final question about wanting everything to be rational. I don’t want everyTHING to be rational, but I do want everyONE to be more rational. I reiterate what I said way up there somewhere that rationality is a property of mind. Rationality is what allows us to even have a debate in the first place, and if you dispense with it, you become a loony. I have no interest in conversing with loonies, I would rather talk to someone who can recognises the importance of logic.

I think perhaps too many people equate rationality with closed mindedness, or lack of imagination. I have been told many times that I am a rational person, and yet I am also considered a creative person. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. A rational person is someone who can help you make a decision, based on the evidence you provide to them. A rational person questions the motives of others. Think about it: wouldn’t you feel safer if George W was a little more rational in his decision making? And maybe if the US media were run by more rational beings, they would question the spurious reasoning that says that it’s time for war. If the US populace were more rational, they might ask themselves what the ulterior motives of their government might be.

I like to compare the word "rational" to "ratio" and "ration" [although they are not necessarily all from the same root]. "Ratio" relates to proportion, balance and perspective. "Ration" relates to careful measurement and avoiding excess.

Me:

Hi Astroguy,

You say you are a skeptic, [and I am Australian btw, I just like the ‘k’] but you don’t sound like a very enthusiastic one. Skepticism isn’t just about doubting the things you don’t like [which we all have a tendency to do] it is about doubting the things for which there is no hard evidence (and when there is hard evidence, it is about questioning the skills [and ulterior motives] of those who are charged with interpreting the evidence).

You say that astrology can be an accurate and useful tool, but at the same time it cannot be tested in scientific ways. Any process which introduces new information can be tested in scientific ways. To say that astrology cannot be tested scientifically is to say that astrology tells us nothing. It doesn’t have to be 100% right or wrong in its predictions, a small variation can still be measured and regarded as significant.

"It cannot, though, be tested by the ’scientific method’ because (1) its patterns are non-repeating and (2) they operate in the psychological, rather than the physical world."

1) There are lots of non-repeating patterns in this universe, and yet many of them can be described by remarkably simple equations. PI is an amazing number, and if you write it down you will be writing forever, and the digits will never repeat! And yet, there are [several] very simple methods for us to predict what those digits will be. The 3 body problem is another example of a non-repeating pattern, except that we can’t create a simple equation or algorithm to predict the state of the system after an arbitrarily long period of time. Does this mean we cant apply the scientific method to the study of 3 bodys interacting with each other? Nope. We can still understand the forces at work. We can still make predictions, about conservation of energy and momentum…

2) Are you saying that the scientific method is irrelevant to psychology?

"Just as soon as science sorts out a mechanism by which those links, if they exist, can be measured, your question will be answered"

So you’re saying it’s the role of the scientific community to go searching for mechanism behind links it does not even recognise as existing? If I am reading your ‘tone’ correctly here you are implying that science is pigheadedly refusing to look in the ‘right’ direction? Don’t you think that perhaps it might be in the interest of astrologers to take a leaf out of the big book of science and actually introduce some discipline to their discipline? Do experiments, cut out the dead wood, give yourselves some credibility and you will either:

a) discover that there’s nothing in it.
b) discover that even after rigourous testing, double blind tests etc, there definitely *is* something in it. Then why not really try to discover what makes it all work, and stop muddying the water with made-up explanations for what it’s all about and why.

Astroguy:

This might sound unbelievably arrogant; it is not intended to be. It may also sound like a cop-out; that is not its function.

If science or scientists - or yourself - really want to know whether astrology works they have to study it. It really is that simple. Not easy, I know, but simple.

The thing is that science operates purely in the physical world. Astrology works in the psychological world. Physical instruments cannot be used to measure psychological effects. Astrology cannot be dismantled like some sort of machine, have its components examined and then be reassembled again.

Another point is that astrologers, the astrological community and those people who employ astrologers are quite happy that the system works. It’s only ’scientists’ and those who demand hard evidence - and who are not prepared to investigate for themselves - who expect astrologers to justify their calling and their methods.

Me:

Astroguy,

You say "if science or scientists… really want to know whether astrology works they have to study it". Surely there are a few scientists who believe in astrology? There are scientists who are christian, and yet christianity is generally seen as outside the realm of science. Some of them investigate archaeological findings as potential evidence of biblical events. Where are the scientists working to vindicate and expand the field of astrology? How are they going with it? Not so well, I suspect…

On your woolly comparison of physical vs psychological causality: If something can be seen to have an effect, that observation is tantamount to measurement. I agree that physical instruments cannot be used to measure psychological effects *directly*. But psychology directly affects our physiology and our decision making, and therefore by inference useful observations can be made.

"Astrology cannot be dismantled like some sort of machine, have its components examined and then be reassembled again."

The same thing was probably said about the human body at some point. How can you be so sure of your assertions? To make such unqualified claims about the nature of your field, is spite of having no hard evidence describing how it actually works? Are you SO sure that it can’t be unravelled? If you really believe in it, why aren’t you looking forward to the day that the field as you know it is revealed as a mere puddle compared to the ocean of knowlege that might be unlocked if serious effort was put into understanding it?

You know, I really don’t expect astrologers to justify their calling and their methods. And that is exactly why I also don’t expect to see astrology ever widely recognized as anything but a vaguely superstitious conceit.

—-

And now, a Quiz:

1) Which of the following was most responsible for dragging western civilization out of the dark ages?

a) Astrology
b) Religion
c) Politics
d) Science

2) Which of the following is the most self critical?

a) Astrology
b) Religion
c) Politics
d) Science

2a) Which of the following eagerly anticipates revolutionary reform?

a) Astrology
b) Religion
c) Politics
d) Science

3) Which of the following benefits least from people’s fears and insecurities?

a) Astrology
b) Religion
c) Politics
d) Science

Margy:

Mark, are you aware that you are continually demonstrating your own ignorance of astrology on this thread? If you care to take three months studying the subject yourself, your points would carry more validity. At the moment you just sound like a fundamentalist who has no interest in hearing or investigating other points of view.

If you look at the other discussions on 360 you will find that people on this site are generally open to examining other people’s thoughts and beliefs.

If you do not appear to be willing to move your opinion or even listen to concepts that you don’t curently understand - or like - other members of the community may decide that it’s a waste of time to debate with you - and that would be a shame.

Me:

Margy,

I have reread some of my posts here and I understand why people might be offended… that last one was a bit prickly.

I think it is probably best to end this particular discussion for now, since we are all probably starting to feel like there is a bit of an unbreachable wall here.

I will keep this post short (for once), but would like to point out that my intention here is not to be insulting… I merely wanted to argue the case for critical thinking, which in my opinion does include looking for hard evidence, and applying scientific principles to the maximum extent possible.

And, yes I am a fundamentalist in a way, because I believe that a small set of basic principles can and will help us [eventually] unlock all there is to know about the universe in which we live.

Anyhoo, warm regards to all, and thanks for your responses

MarkP

This entry was posted on Monday, September 10th, 2007 at 11:36 pm and is filed under Misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.