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."

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 [badastronomy.com]

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:Well

[jedidiah]

The "3 card monty" approach would probably be the key give away. While genuine
astrology might have some interesting elements to it, astrology as most people
are exposed to it is little more than a carnival scam. Believing in proper
astrologers probably is less unreasonable than falling for the generic sort of
crap that gets published in newspapers.

The problem isn't so much that astrology is bunk but that it's "pop astrology"
to begin with. It's like "Hollywood physics". Both have a similar relationship
to their corresponding genuine article.

Re:Beliefs Are A Choice So It's Not Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would you want to be with?

The one who puts out.

Re:Multiple Choice

[deglr6328]

oops you forgot one: probably somewhat true [harrisinteractive.com].

Re:Well

[foniksonik]

Unfortunately for all of us Astrology is one of those concepts that can't be proven/debunked over night or even over a year or 10 years. If it could be done in a reasonable amount of time - we don't have the technology or the science to do it. You are correct about it not being *spiritualism* though I wouldn't relegate it to parlor trick status either... in the same way that electricity or magnetism was probably once thought of as a parlor trick - but wasn't.

We all know that the moon does in fact have an effect on us (the easiest scientific theorem is that since we are 90+% water there should be a tidal effect and then there is the eerie connection with a women's menstrual cycle). Also it is quite obvious that the sun has an effect on us (radiation, solar flares, etc.) and that our proximity to it due to the earth's elliptical orbit can change the amount though imperceptible in day to day life unless you're looking for it.

So given these examples, why would the other planets not have an effect upon us? or better yet, specific alignments of these forces which act upon us in concert? Especially significant would be the effect any forces might have on our developing psyche during our gestation period and immediately after our birth... environmental factors can have a huge impact on a child in the infant stage.

So I'm agreeing with your statements but attempting to provide more evidence that reality may be closer to the "astrology does measure a significant effect" side of things than not.

Now OTOH the individuals who claim to practice Astrology would likely be sacrificed on an altar for fraud if we lived in the Druidic or Mayan societies (the Druids less likely - they'd probably let the misinformation enhance their mystique). Point being that there are very very few people alive today, possibly none, who actually practice Astrology the way it has to be practiced... every day for your entire life and the lives of your ancestors, recorded in perpetuity so as to establish a statistical model of events. I highly doubt that any such records still exist without there being a huge 200-500 year gap up to the present day.

Personally I like to compare it to Meteorology... you're attempting to study a highly dynamic and chaotic system of interrelationships but you don't even have doppler radar or satellites working for you, it's like trying to guess at weather based on geography and historical event modeling alone.... so you might get some general trend information out of it but nothing concrete about what IS going to happen - just what might happen based on where you live and what has happened to others who lived there before you... and as stated earlier, this data is sketchy at best for the last couple centuries. Good luck with that Astrologists.

Disclaimer - I am a Pisces [wikipedia.org]. I work as am Interactive Director in a creative agency, I tend to go with the flow but won't let anything stop me once in motion, I am slightly bi-polar and a romantic idealist (though i cover it up with a veneer of pragmatism). OTOH I am an Earth Horse in Chinese zodiac [wikipedia.org] so that explains a lot as well.... or does it?

Re:Astrology != Spirituality or Religion

[Jonny_eh]

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

Carl Sagan was the best.

Re:Multiple Choice

[CheshireCatCO]

Wow, sexism *and* illogical assumptions all in one post. Well done.

It is a fact that there are more scientists that are men than women, by a very large margin.

Not really. There is a gap, but it's shrinking (albeit more slowly than many of us would like). The last statistics I saw indicated that more women than men got bachelors degrees in natural sciences and around half of all PhDs. Note that this varies quite a lot by field, however. Physics, for example, is much lower at around 20-25% women earning advanced degrees.

Women are simply not interested in being scientists or engineers.

This is also untrue. Girls are lower levels of education are quite interested in studying science. It's only when sexist jerks start telling them that they it's un-feminine to be a scientist and that they can't do it (overtly or subtly) that they back off. This was the crux of the issue around Larry Summer's comments a few years ago. He, like you, was pretending like data doesn't exist on this matter, preferring his own assumptions instead.

While there are a reasonable number of women in the medically related sciences, few study engineering or physics related disciplines.

20-25% of the total fraction of physicists seems as if it's pushing the meaning of "few", doesn't it?

You clearly have a) not attended a major university and studied a scientific discipline and b) likely received a liberal arts education that focused excessively on perpetuating the myth of egalitarianism.

And you clearly need to get out more and stop hanging out with the same guys who share your sexist views. I actually *did* receive a liberal arts education. My alma mater has shown that women both want to be physics majors and are capable of it by sustaining the highest number graduated in the country (apart from Bryn Mawr). Perhaps *you* attended the wrong school?

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?

[mrseth]

Religion generally falsifies itself. The Old Testament does so in the 1st chapter where there are two contradictory genesis stories. By the way, the Judaic religions are all based on astrology anyway and are largely plagiarisms from previous religions. Here is an excellent and brief treatment of this subject:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1543831119879192379&hl=en [google.com]

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: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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love

[nawcom]

I agree with the point that you are making 100%.

The one thing I find interesting is that your statement in the second paragraph is somewhat hypocritical of your first - believing in something that can't be proven due to its absence and stating that following the stars, something all major religions including Christianity *cough*3 magi*cough* believes in, is foolish.

The last time I spoke to an agnostic person, he said that there is obvious skepticism in all judeo-christian religions, which are and have been patriarchal. The reason he defines himself as an agnostic - aka a skeptic of religion, and not an atheist, is so he is not as hated by his workers, and the community. He doesn't want to lose his job from the school board - and that's just sad. "In God We Trust."

Gahh.. now that Lovin' Spoonful song "Do you Believe in Magic?" is stuck in my head. Oh wells.

Offended on all counts

[The Queen]

First let me say, not all us ladies read those pieces of crap magazines.

Second let me say, not all scientists are lonely men. (My sister is a chemist, happily married. Yes, there are other, single women in her lab. No, you can't have the number.)

Third, let me say that the horoscopes in said mags, or newspapers, are meant as entertainment, and of course are vague and could apply to anyone.

Astrology is not just another tool of divination, like tarot or I Ching or picking petals off a daisy. It is a system of looking at the flow of energy in the universe and how it affects you. You can use it superficially (like the horoscopes in the paper) or you can study the vast amounts of information available and discover that no, it's not meant to predict anything, it simply points out things that you are or are not prone to and YOU, as the master of your own destiny, can choose to use that knowledge to help yourself - or not.

Quantum theories about how all matter and energy is connected and interacts only help to prove to me that astrology is not so easily dismissed. If the moon can affect when I have my period, why can't Jupiter affect when I'll be in a good mood to throw a party?

Now last, let me say that there is more to a woman than titties. Well, most of us, anyway. ;-)

Sheesh. Where are all the other geek girls in here when you need 'em?

Re:lets get one thing straight

[NeutronCowboy]

Another way this approach was discredited: at the place of birth, the gravitational field of the delivering doctor is greater than the gravitational field of Neptune.

Re:Science is 24/7

[PitaBred]

The problem comes when you have otherwise intelligent scientists trying to reconcile their beliefs with actual science, believing things such as the Grand Canyon being created by Noah's flood. Reaching at straws to justify things. I use that as an example because a friend of mine is a good geologic engineer for an oil company otherwise. I have no idea how he lives with realizing that oil is under the earth, and he knows how to find it, but he still believes the world was created 6000 years ago. The cognitive dissonance must be exhausting...

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 [amazon.com] for a strong historical-critical overview of the Old Testament.

Re:Which method?

[Compholio]

It is comparable to you not believing that there is an invisible pink aardvark sitting in the chair next to you.

It's an invisible pink unicorn [wikipedia.org], not an aardvark.

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.

Down to earth

[DigitalContradiction]

Astrology is a technique, or maybe a set of loosely linked techniques. A technique is a process or method used to accomplish a given task or to achieve some desired result. There is no point in saying a technique is "right" or "wrong" ; the only relevant criterion is whether it works or doesn't work. If it manages to produce the desired effect, then it "works". Otherwise, it "doesn't work".

I did give a try to astrology, and my conclusion is that it doesn't work. But i don't see any point in being dogmatic about that. Most paradigm shifts in human knowledge were initiated by challenging ideas that were considered "obvious" in their local cultures. Just make up your own mind.

Re:Which method?

[fluffman86]

"Inadequate" is probably a better term. Newtonian physics are indeed correct for certain instances and areas and perspectives that are "normal" for earth, but they start to break down as we approach C. Given that, per slashdot last summer, our galaxy could be accelerating faster than others as we careen toward a massive black hole, our velocity could indeed eventually approach the speed of light, and newtonian physics would begin to break down, at least from a frame of reference larger than that of the earth.

hope that made sense...

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?

[bjorniac]

How DOES this tripe get modded informative? The whole point of relativity is that only relational quantities matter (going all the way back to Galilean relativity here - the original GR ;-) ). The statement "our velocity could indeed eventually approach the speed of light" makes no sense here - with reference to what?

Locally there will be no problem with Newtonian physics still describing exactly what it did before. Locally, with reference the earth, Newtonian physics will remain a good approximation REGARDLESS of how we move relative to other planets (let alone galaxies!) You can keep dropping apples and watching them fall to the ground, keep pushing and object with a force and seeing a momentum change described by F=dp/dt.

Re:Which method?

[2short]

You could test the ability of Astrologers to make predictions people are likely to rate as corresponding to their lives, but that's not quite the same as testing the predictions.

Regardless, whether you could study Astrologers predictions scientifically or not, Astrologers do not.

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.

Silly little heads

[RomulusNR]

Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it

Uh... that's kinda sexist.

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 [wikipedia.org], 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 [newyorker.com], but are apparently sincere.

And of course, astrology subjects are unwittingly complicit in this. Confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] plays a big role, as do other cognitive biases [wikipedia.org]. 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.