Astrologers Taking a Swipe at Brian Cox

[MG1]

science is based upon speculation that is then investigated through rigourous process...tested and either proven or disproven...an expanding body of knowledge that is constantly refined, added to, improved etc....

astrology is just based upon conjecture, and faith... not digging faith here as many find it important and a source of strength, but for the rational and enquiring mind science can not loose. Even when science is wrong, the rigour with which it is developed is right and false positives all add to the development and furtherance of the field.

Although Im guessing the only real reason we're sore about astrology is because we feel we need to be recognised and defined apart from a 'faith' because that association offends our rational nature.

Each to their own...we all need a little faith now and then (btw, faith is quite distincy in this context from religion!) but maybe we just need to get better at communicating this to the public.

[JamesM]

I'm not speaking here to defend astrologers. However, I am struck by the amount of criticism they appear to get from people who at best, are expressing (as usual on many topics) an opinion of what they believe or what they think, rather than on what they actually know or have found out. Take for example horoscopes that appear in daily newspapers. Astrologers will be the first to tell you that the information contained in those columns is as valid as someone assuming, that if you are born in a certain part of the country and have remained living there up to the present time, that it will say something about who and what you are as a person - the answer of course is rubbish and they would agree. What appears in newspapers is so general to be of no use what's so ever. Again I'm not here to defend their theories but I am opened minded enough to find out what it is about and how it works.

As stated in my earlier comments, science is a means of investigation that contains within it, its own means of reference and validation. Science only proves what science does. Science contains many exponents that carry their own torch which is fuelled by selecting only the evidence that supports their flame, only to be replaced by another's bomb fire when fashion dictates.

I would rather keep an open mind on all of it to be honest until my personal experience says otherwise.

James

[MG1]

personally i would rather listen to others personal experiences as I am aware of the limits of my own....otherwise I would be belive that USA didn't exist because I've never seen it.... although I belive that technique works with the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal and hence why I never leave home without my towel...

BTW, yes I am pulling yr leg...

[george7378]

It's great how people like astrologers get all tied in a knot when anyone so much as hints that they are talking rubbish, but real scientists just ignore them and get on with it. Personally, I would love to go on TV and tell them all to stop ruining good science for the rest of us, regardless of how much they would hate me afterwards!

[Dellis]

You would think the astrologers would have seen it coming.

The old ones are always the best....

...or so they say

Dave

[Macavity]

I suppose, out of necessity (Forum terms and conditions?) one has to ignore the "Elephant in the Room": Religion. Not terribly "provable" either, but not such a soft target as Astrology... or the "New Age" generally?

But seriously, are "Rip-off Astrologers" more prevalent than Rip-Off Builders, Charlatan Psychotherapists, Dodgy Ebay Sellers, Astro-Suppliers who don't supply etc. etc. Do they bring more, or less, misery per capita...

Of course, I grateful to the legion of astronomers protecting me from "false gods" etc. But, in all honesty, I don't feel *overly* threatened by Astrology.

In more-serious vein: I begin to miss the days when scientists (amateur astronomers too!) were my REAL heroes. When I didn't know their (often dodgy?) opinions on religion, politics, "global warming", whatever. When I hadn't seen their holiday snaps, read their spouses', slightly cringe-making blog etc.

Above all, I still hope noone has to wear a "tin hat" for holding unpopular opinions here.

[RobH]

Science works.

If it didn't, then we wouldn't be able to post our opinions on forums like this, or watch TV, or drive cars ( or tractors), or anything at all. We'd still be completely at the mercy of nature in the way that we were in the middle ages.

Science makes predictions and then goes through a rigorous process of testing, and only the fittest (so to speak), make it through.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

Astrology also makes predictions, and not one of them has ever stood up to rigorous testing, and even the astrologers don't agree.

This is not the same as scientists with different opinions testing their respective theories and hypotheses. They often disagree, but this is part of the testing process, and is healthy.

Science produces verifiable results, astrology does not.

Plain and simple.

[iamjulian]

While I do share the opinion that astrology is rather daft, I don't understand the way astronomers have such a hatred of it and feel the need to bang on about it all the time. The more threads I see like this, the more I think there must be more to it. Like boys in the playground pinching the girls and calling them names, were you all secretly astologers to being with?

[brianb]

I don't understand the way astronomers have such a hatred of it

Hatred? Nope, it's great entertainment when people take astrological advice & come a cropper ... and astrology is neither more nor less wrong than any of the other faith-based belief systems.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The explanation is simple: we too often are called astrologer.

[Quatermass]

Interesting conflict but saying on national TV that Astrology is rubbish was bound to cause upset. If I believed in astrology that comment would make me angry as well. I dont as it happens but if you want to miff people off that was good way of doing it. Lets avoid slagging off astrologist's and just get on with our interests.

[Macavity]

The explanation is simple: we too often are called astrologer.

True Enough. I saw both astronomer and astrologer in the SAME article in the (online) Daily Mirror.

[John]

Interesting conflict but saying on national TV that Astrology is rubbish was bound to cause upset. If I believed in astrology that comment would make me angry as well. I dont as it happens but if you want to miff people off that was good way of doing it. Lets avoid slagging off astrologist's and just get on with our interests.

Interesting viewpoint but I don't see why astrology should be protected from being debunked just because it is popular. I'm pleased to see science standing up for itself on a range of issues and personally I'd like to see more of it. More than 40% of Americans don't believe that Humans evolved from animals so no doubt they might (and do !) get upset at suggestions to the contrary but that does not mean that science should remain mute on that topic either, it must not in fact, in my opinion

[NickMilner]

We've had enough debates about [climate change] that have just ended up getting heated in the past.

That will have been the medieval warm period. (Sorry!)

[Moonshane]

well, as RobH said it would, this debate is getting 'otter and 'otter......

[John]

well, as RobH said it would, this debate is getting 'otter and 'otter......

Doh ! - I'll get your coat Shane

[Tim]

Some of the comments are priceless.

This one made me smile... actually most of them did!!!

Too funny that one Ant

[sbooder]

I'm not speaking here to defend astrologers. However, I am struck by the amount of criticism they appear to get from people who at best, are expressing (as usual on many topics) an opinion of what they believe or what they think, rather than on what they actually know or have found out. Take for example horoscopes that appear in daily newspapers. Astrologers will be the first to tell you that the information contained in those columns is as valid as someone assuming, that if you are born in a certain part of the country and have remained living there up to the present time, that it will say something about who and what you are as a person - the answer of course is rubbish and they would agree. What appears in newspapers is so general to be of no use what's so ever. Again I'm not here to defend their theories but I am opened minded enough to find out what it is about and how it works.

As stated in my earlier comments, science is a means of investigation that contains within it, its own means of reference and validation. Science only proves what science does. Science contains many exponents that carry their own torch which is fuelled by selecting only the evidence that supports their flame, only to be replaced by another's bomb fire when fashion dictates.

I would rather keep an open mind on all of it to be honest until my personal experience says otherwise.

James

Would you like to offer some further reading on the topic that is grounded in science?

[Moonshane]

Doh ! - I'll get your coat Shane

TAXI!!!!

[Peter Drew]

What always puzzles me is where did this constellation SCORPIO come from?

[bish]

Hatred? Nope, it's great entertainment when people take astrological advice & come a cropper ... and astrology is neither more nor less wrong than any of the other faith-based belief systems.

Quite right. It's a bit of fun taking mickey out of this nonense. No point worrying too much as it seems to be human nature to believe made up rubbish as a way of easing the strain of everyday life. Didn't somebody say that most people live in quiet desparation. This may not be true of most but explains why alot of people like to hang onto anything they can.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I'm not speaking here to defend astrologers. However, I am struck by the amount of criticism they appear to get from people who at best, are expressing (as usual on many topics) an opinion of what they believe or what they think, rather than on what they actually know or have found out. Take for example horoscopes that appear in daily newspapers. Astrologers will be the first to tell you that the information contained in those columns is as valid as someone assuming, that if you are born in a certain part of the country and have remained living there up to the present time, that it will say something about who and what you are as a person - the answer of course is rubbish and they would agree. What appears in newspapers is so general to be of no use what's so ever. Again I'm not here to defend their theories but I am opened minded enough to find out what it is about and how it works.

As stated in my earlier comments, science is a means of investigation that contains within it, its own means of reference and validation. Science only proves what science does. Science contains many exponents that carry their own torch which is fuelled by selecting only the evidence that supports their flame, only to be replaced by another's bomb fire when fashion dictates.

I would rather keep an open mind on all of it to be honest until my personal experience says otherwise.

James

I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said: keep an open mind, but be sure your brain does not fall out. If someone shows experimental proof that astrology of any particular kind actually works, as a scientist, there are two options open to me: (i) accept the validity of the results, and therefore change the foundations of my view of the cosmos, or (ii) try to find the error in the experiment, data, statistics, etc. The latter course of action is the more likely one for me, because, as is often said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is much evidence that astrological theory and practice is wrong (did some experiments myself, if only to wind up the Latin teacher at school).

When you say scientists use only the evidence that suits them, you are talking about lousy scientists. These exist: science is a human endeavour, fraught with all humanity's weaknesses, and strengths.

Do not tar other scientists with that brush.

What is key to science is that, as Feynman put it, doubt is its major strength. When you think of a theory that explains some phenomenon, the first thing any good scientist does is to try to disprove it. As a former colleague in the dermatology department used to say: "Kill your darlings!!" Science does not make statements that can be verified (read Popper), but that can be falsified. The number of attempts at disproving a theory survives is a measure of its strength.

[Moonshane]

they heard about it on Granada

[R2-ditt0]

we owe a lot to astrologers.....afterall,it is from their observations over millenia that the science of astronomy was born....the constellation names we use were born of astrology...that being said its still hocus pocus

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

we owe a lot to astrologers.....afterall,it is from their observations over millenia that the science of astronomy was born....the constellation names we use were born of astrology...that being said its still hocus pocus

I took a course called "The History of Cosmological Thought" by John North at the University of Groningen once. He explained that initially, it was all about predicting optimal crop-planting times (think of the first sighting of Sirius in Egypt, which predicted the flooding of the Nile). It was effectively about getting your calendar right. The efficacy of this process lead to the belief you could predict more from the stars. Our word disaster literally means bad star, and these originally a name given to comets in particular.

The Babylonians have the reputation of being great astrologers, but they were much more astronomers in the modern sense. They did not, according to North, expect the fate of ordinary mortals to be written in the stars. King, emperors, whole countries, OK, but not every person in the world. The assumption was that gods had better things to do. The constellations came later, and were generally derived from Greek mythology (whereas the names of stars are mainly Arabic), and probably arose from story-telling under a non-light-polluted skies (ah, the bliss). North also stated that it was the rational Greeks that were very hot on astrology (in the modern sense) and believed that any individual's fate was written there.

So both astrology and astronomy grew from good observations, and testable predictions. The difference is that astronomy kept on that course, whereas astrology refrained from rigorously testing its assumptions, or even the positions of the actual stars in the night sky. That is the reason it no longer makes any sense.