|
|
 |
Why Astrology Doesn't Work |
In this collection of essays I hope to show that the belief
that planets have an influence over human behaviour is a myth of the most
ignorant kind.It is true that the planets have an insubstantial gravitational
influence,but the effects that they are supposed to elicit in terms of
conjunctions or auspicious occasions due to relationships with the 12
constellations cannot be true for the following reasons.
Barnum Statements
There are multiple ways of showing astrology is bunkum.Not least is the
Barnum statements
method,where astrological readings are shown to be statements that could
apply to anybody and still be true. "You would like to get on with people
more,but there are some things you would prefer to keep private.Although
capable of dealing with confrontation at a pinch,you would like to avoid
it if you can.In company sometimes you find being the centre of attention
uncomfortable and feel the need to let others take the lead" Just stick the
birth sign of your choice over the top and give it to someone as a reading.Hey
presto! Accurate most of the time,but not at others!
In Principle
There's the IN PRINCIPLE objections.The planets cannot possibly have any
effect because any force they apply is too weak to counteract the force applied
by the mass of the doctor present at birth.If only astrologers understood
Newton's Mass/Gravitation laws,they would realise what claptrap they were
spouting.
Statistics
Then there is the STATISTICAL method.There are as many people who are typical
TAUREANS or whatever as not,thus showing that the
12 houses are irrelevant.
Astronomical objections
Then there is the ASTRONOMICAL method,whence OPHIUCUS becomes the 13th sign
of the zodiac,because the astrologers don't understand what they are dealing
with.Plus the fact that the constellations of the zodiac aren't real
constellations,they only look that way to us now. Some of the stars are light
years away from each other in 3D space,and because of the time that the light
takes to travel to us,some of the stars don't even exist.So how can a none
existent star affect anyone huh? Go figure.
In the following article a scientist was chastised for taking issue with
Astrology, what follows is a rebuttal from an advocate,followed by a retort
of David Whitehouse the original orator.
Are Scientists prejudiced against astrology?
In short scientist's scoff,because like all pseudoscientific
pursuits no proof is ever forthcoming and as soon as any scientific work
is done that shows the belief up for what it is-a belief and not fact,those
who adhere to the belief through conviction or an act of faith continue in
their belief,rather than update their views accordingly. Scientists get annoyed
with this,because they have to update their views,no matter what they would
like to believe,when faced with facts.The basic lack of understanding and
unwillingness to follow the esoteric symbols of mathematics and the physical
laws,means that astrologers and their pseudoscientific counterparts never
come to terms with real facts, instead they surround their own beliefs in
their own symbols and claim it is just as good for being shrouded in as many
symbols. Strangely they are always quick to accommodate new advances in science
and integrate them in a half understood mix of mysticism,belief,and ignorance.The
historical ascent and decline of astrology is annotated here by Philip J
Davis and Reuben Hersh in "The Mathematical Experience" which shows why anyone
with an ounce of understanding has intellectually dispensed with
it.
The Mathematical Experience - Astrology
One might wonder what astrology is doing in a mathematics book.Of
course the natural philosophers of yore,studied all kinds of things,even
Newton studied alchemy,this is often used a rouse to validate astrology
or the pseudosciences, by saying that if some of the things that were studied
in the past are still workable today ,then they all are!
Of course,this tends to suggest that there is no way of telling which
things work and which don't and it is merely up to an individual to
decide what works for them or that one system is as good as another.The claim
is often made that science is just one discipline and that other forms of
enquiry have as much validity,in the following article Jacob Bronowski author
of "The Ascent of Man" explains the history and development of science and
its antithesis the mystic view which claims that we
are as flotsam and jetsam and scientific knowledge is relatively useless,whilst
proferring a view which controls nature. As he shows far from trying
to subvert nature,scientists seek to work within it,it is mystics that try
to get nature to do their bidding,by praying,chanting or casting spells or
runes or indeed,looking to the planets and thinking that they have anything
to tell us with auspicious portents of the future.
As Jacob Bronowski says contrary to what some people might suggest,
presuming that the stars are a means to diving the future is not just a "bit
of fun".For there are those who once it is put to them that astrology is
bunk,shrivel and say "Well,I never thought there was anything in it anyway,it's
just a bit of fun isn't it?".This is an obnoxious and insidious idea. It
means that those who ply these things as truths have an audience,and that
some people even President's may make world changing decisions upon an authority
with no basis.It also means unelected people have control over representatives
in authority,and advise them according to their own misguided beliefs,that
a certain day can be a "good" or "bad" for them,negating the fact that good
and bad are value judgments and what might seem like a "good" day for an
astrologer can be seen in a quite different light by those with greater vision.In
the following article Richard Dawkins explains what is wrong with this meddling
with things that are thought to have influence upon people,and why it is
wrong to say "It's just a bit of fun".
Tricksters who exploit Crystal Balls
In this article we see how language is manipulated to make people
think there is something to it,by exploiting the technical sounding words
of science.One would have thought that if mystics and astrologers sought
to lend credence to their beliefs the last thing they would do is borrow
scientific terms.But no,they merely dumb down and warp scientific ideas to
suit their own ill-conceived views. In a all of this it may sound like only
spite and mistrust is talking and that there is some particular axe to grind
just because a scientific view finds it "hard to understand".This is not
so,as with other paranormal or pseudoscientific phenomena it would be remiss
of science it were merely overlooked as foolishness. Such things are studied
and have been, on an ongoing basis,but the result of experiment after experiment
is "There's nothing in it".At any other time,say,when investigating another
phenomena,a scientist would give up the ghost,so to speak,and just sees no
extra need to keep chipping away at something for which there is no evidence,or
for which evidence has been found which refutes the beliefs of the claimant.There
is little point in flogging a dead horse,and astrology,like God and all other
unprovable beliefs,is a dead horse.
The discipline of mathematics shares a heritage with astrology,being part
and parcel of the system that the natural philosophers used in their proto
astronomy and semi religious beliefs about the universe. Indeed,astrologers
use a fair amount of mathematics and computers in trying to lend credence
to what they do. Merely tacking on the trappings of science only serves to
shoot it in the foot and undermines an anti-scientific position.
One might,have thought then,that mathematics might be a good arbiter of the
legitimacy of astrologer,being both the basis of science and sharing a history
with mysticism. As "The Mathematical Experience" shows,astrology is not held
in intellectual repute,and no serious mathematician of any calibre would
lend it any credence,partly through understanding the laws of the universe.In
the next article,mathematician John Allen Paulos explains why pseudoscience
and astrology can be seen in terms of a basic innumeracy on behalf of advocates
and believers of a mystic persuasion.Invariably,such people have a very bad
understanding of
risk,chance,serendipity
and coincidence,and read things into situations,which are merely their own
emphasis on unrelated phenomena. You might think that the hieroglyph ridden
area of mathematics can say little about the psychology of people's acceptance
or denial of given circumstances,here John Allen Paulos shows that, on the
contrary,it has very much to say,and perhaps is even the foremost authority
when it comes to making sense of what we think is the
case.
Innumeracy - Coincidence and Pseudoscience
John goes on to explain the cultural and psychological reasons
why it is that there is such an affinity with pseudoscience,and a revulsion
of a scientific explanation, mostly citing the "cold hard mathematics" as
being the domain of a mundane technician,and the propensity of people wishing
to feel special or indeed not to be picked out. The UK lottery advert with
a finger saying "It could be you" perhaps exemplifies this message of people
seeing chance and likelihood playing parts in their lives.It is odd then
that they do not turn to the doctrine of chance- statistical mathematics
in order to familiarise themselves with it,but instead turn to purveyors
of speculation and misunderstanding for help.It is the blind leading the
blind.Moreover it is paradoxical,since a life ordained by the stars and decamped
into only 12 categories devalues individuality or the means to be special.It
actually makes a person just like others of their kind,and suggests that
a future is set in stone (contrary to the investigations of our most capable
intellectuals).Why then do people listen to the mumblings of people wearing
dayglo woolly jumpers or baubles trinkets and crystals,in preference to people
who have spent their whole lives in pursuit of knowledge? Perhaps this is
because of a basic distrust of science,perhaps based in
CP Snow's
"Two
Cultures"-the basically artistically creative person-the romantic,as
opposed to the trained rationalist.Perhaps many have a romantic side,an emotional
side,that finds hard truths unpalatable and offensive to their humanity,they
see explanations as diminishing.Maybe this is because they have been spoon
fed Reductionist science,which as much makes them a human automaton as does
astrology make them a "victim of venomous fate". Perhaps the mystic
has been brought up in a peer group of people who worship gods or nature
and see science as an antithesis by default.
Polly Toynbee reviews Everyman-Astrology
 |
| Chaos | Quantum | Logic | Cosmos | Conscious | Belief | Elect. | Art | Chem. | Maths |
