Should Scientists Date People Who Believe Astrology? 1181
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."
Sure, provided they are hot (Score:5, Insightful)
Sediment cores (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, if there was anythig to astrology I'd have gotten laid Friday night. I look at horoscopes for the humor value, and one Friday said "a home cooked meal will provoke a romp in the sack". Too damned bad astrology is bullshit!
You might as well ask if a Catholic should date a Muslim.
Date or marry? (Score:1, Insightful)
If its dating and sex then its fine, hell use it to your advantage by lying about your date of birth thus making sure you are always "perfect" for the gorm who believes in this crap. You can then use your superior education and knowledge to get laid more often...
If its marriage then forget it as you'll end up being convicted of murder.
Oh really? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this submission was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it's trying a bit too hard.
A woman needs horoscopes like a fish needs a bicycle.
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure, provided they are hot (Score:5, Insightful)
What scientists should really do is. (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the question is bigoted since you are trying to say what a whole group should or should not do.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at the office it isn't. Spirituality is not compatible with the scientific method.
Outside of work, no problem.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Astrology isn't "spiritualism". We're not talking about religion or believing in a higher power. We're talking about parlor tricks. Even if the alignment of the stars and the planets did have an effect on the world (and it would be ignorant not to investigate the possibility, I'm certainly not saying that science has proven otherwise), astrology certainly has not demonstrated any such phenomenon.
Ahh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a scientist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Well.... there could be some truth in it (Score:3, Insightful)
Does your birthdate have a big determination on who you are? I think it does, it just doesn't have anything to do with the sun or the moon...
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Mental shortcut? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an often-scientific athiest, I'm prepared to date people from any different religions, as long as we're both content to let one anothers belief systems not interfere with our love life. But I have difficulty talking to anyone who believes a few miniscule globules of rock millions of miles away can effect something as complex as our personalities and day-to-day activities. Same for alot of
Yes, I realise it's not their whole personality (don't get me wrong, I've met hundreds of lovely people who happened to believe in something ridiculous), but to me it's just like talking to someone with LIAR tattoed across their forehead and taking everything they say at face value.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html [badastronomy.com]
P.S. A prize of fifty points and a bowl of raspberry jelly to the first person who correctly guesses my relationship status
Re:Sure, provided they are hot (Score:3, Insightful)
Comtempt is not compatible with love (Score:4, Insightful)
I think some people are way too casual about having incompatible worldviews with a significant other, but then again, I'm a person with very firm Christian beliefs. Maybe if you are agnostic, for example, you can tolerate someone who believes something which, by your view, could potentially be correct.
But if your mate believes something which you see as patently foolish - like the idea that everyone born between certain dates each year will have the same personality/fate, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite a total lack of explanation as to how the position of stellar bodies relates to human events - I think this deep disagreement about how life works will lead to bitterness and problems. It's hard to conceal contempt.
And yes, I'm braced for the blind atheistic mockery of Slashdot.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
On topic, given that many MALE scientists believe in imaginary superbeings that were made up by some random illiterate guy some thousands of years ago, I don't think they are in any position to judge their girlfriends for basing their behaviour on what they read in magazines. God, free(as in freedom), Astrology, it's all the same. We are humans. Flawed machines.
Human females deserve you treat them as equals. Maybe then you'll get a date.
Depends. . . do you want to fight all the time? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you want a wife who is going to do something downright stupid because her horoscope/astrologer/tarot card/tea leaf reader told her she should do it? Do you want to have to try to convince her why it's a bad idea, even though it should be obvious to anyone with some common sense why it's a bad idea? Do you want her raising your kids to believe that stuff?
Seriously, if you're just trying to get laid, then I guess it doesn't matter what the person you are dating believes (as long as they believe one-night stands or short-term relationships are ok), but if you are looking for a longer-term relationship, these things really matter.
It can be the difference between every big decision (should we buy a house now? Should I take this new job offer? Should we get a new car? Have a kid? 2 kids, 3 kids. . ?) being an ideological fight, or a simple matter of discussion based on a common set of shared 'foundational' beliefs.
Is a difference in belief also going to be a constant source of friction with relatives? I know in the US the popular belief is fall in love with the person, worry about the relatives later. That can work sometimes. It can't work if the relatives believe some radical ideology that justifies them kidnapping your children in order to 'raise them right' instead of letting you raise them (that's an extreme example, and I don't think applies to astrology, but I'm just throwing that out as an example of the general concept).
Ultimately, whether a person who's fundamental world-view is based on science should date someone who's worldview is based on astrology comes down to those individuals, and how they can work it out (I suppose there could reasonably be a person who's scientific, but also can believe that there might be something to astrology, and can harmonize the two).
Still, having some beliefs in common can be a very good thing for the relationship.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What scientists should really do is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Multiple Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
I checked the "d)" answer. Also, it makes the false assumption that more scientists are men than women.
What about women scientists ? Should they date someone who spends money on gambling, and who actually believes he has a chance ?
Re:Multiple Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, most scientists
Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually if mary matalin and james carville can get along any thing is possible.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried arguing the point a couple of times, but eventually learned that arguing just made it more likely that the topic would come up in future get-togethers. When somebody starts throwing sciency stuff at faith issues, just finish your beer and go home.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can choose your beliefs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What scientists should really do is. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty open in my thinking and yet quite knowledgeable in some areas. If someone starts talking to me about how gremlins ate their cat, I'm going to think they're funny or nutty. If someone tells me that 480p looks better than 1080i, I'm going to tell them they're an idiot. If someone believes we might live inside something portrayed in the Matrix, they're free to do so, I can't prove them wrong, nor does it matter.
Why take personal offense to others disagreeing or thinking differently? Why be so bigoted? I'm no peacenik but I can't say I understand this need some people have to convert everyone to the "way of logic" (Spock much?).
Residents of Glass Houses Should not Throw Stones (Score:3, Insightful)
As a scientist there is much we have to "believe" in for our universe to work. We are awfully good at looking at the trees through the prism of the Scientific method but as far as looking at the forest, "Not so good". For instance, let's take the Big Bang. We all know Newtonian's laws and the modifications of the space time required for relativity as formulated by Einstein. All things work well until we wind down to the beginning. Then everything goes to hell. We can't explain what was before, why it collapsed, how the forces we know now broke down and why it exploded. We have to have a lot of "faith" and it's not understood.
I've been around enough to hear about how close the Grand Unified Field theory is and how close Quantum Mechanics is to being figured out with larger accelerators. The Higgs Boson ties it all together but we haven't found it yet. Without it we can't even explain mass or gravity. Understanding black holes, why the universe is not at Absolute zero and thus not moving, etc. requires a lot of "Then a miracle occurs" kind of logic.
So as scientists we're really good at the what and the description, we have a mixed record on the how and we're really lacking in the why.
Astrology is pretty determinant on the why and how and not so predictable on the what.
So as far as dating someone with different beliefs, look in the mirror. Other than your hubris, are you emperor wearing any clothes.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is 24/7 (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong, quite frankly.
People seem to think that being a scientist is like working a day job, 9 to 5, then leaving it at the office. It'[s not. Science is a 27/7 way of life. You think it would be OK for your local pastor to go home and give up offerings to Zeus? Then why should it be OK for an astronomer to go home and read horoscopes.
Spirituality, outside of very general and non specific "feel good" pastimes, has no place in the life of a scientist. Belief in myths and superstitions shows a lack of rational thought and critical thinking, and suggests a poor understanding of the scientific method. Anyone applying for a scientific position who put something like homeopathy, astrology, UFO or werewolf hunting, or new age paganism on their list of hobbies would make me seriously reconsider their application. And yes boys and girls, saying you go to church every Sunday would have the same effect.
A lot of people will probably think I'm a bigot. There's not a lot I can do about that. I feel justified in my views here, and I don't hold anyone to any standard I would not keep myself. I don't think it's a lot to ask. A scientist is not defined by the experiments they run or the papers they write, but by the way they observe and explain their world. Any scientist who has a "spiritual experience" will not ascribe it to some transcendental force or mythical being. They will instead ask why they felt that way and look for the underlying, falsifiable causes and effects which explained what happened to them.
If you're not willing to do this, not willing to live your own life to the same standard as your professional logic, you're not a scientist. You're a Cargo Cult Scientist [wikipedia.org]. You walk the walk, talk the talks, run the experiments and write the papers. But you only have the form and lack true understanding and willingness to espouse the scientific method.
But anyone can change, at anytime, and anyone can be a scientist. The first step, is a healthy dose of skepticism.
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Insightful)
If she were to start paying for that kind of stuff, I'd start having a problem, but until then, she can do whatever makes her happy.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you let yourself be prey. Man, when did things get turned around so backwards? It is supposed to be the other way around. You gotta go into it with the attitude that you don't care if she stays or leaves, 'cause there are plenty more out there you can replace her with. No one is worth getting all upset and obsessed over....go, date, have fun, but, if she starts acting in ways that make you unhappy, tell her to hit the street, and go find another one.
Remember, there is no real need to get married, unless you want to have kids, but, that's a WHOLE other topic than dating like this article talked about.
And for the record...sure, scientists should date people that believe in astrology. It is a date, go have fun...go get laid.
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
useful (Score:3, Insightful)
So's religion, or any conventional dogma. Many of them can be inordinately useful in understanding people and their motivations. Or motivating people and their understanding, for that matter.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but it's not inherently incompatible either; they deal with nonintersecting domains. Science is concerned with that which can be empirically tested. Spirituality is handy for things that can't.
When people try to apply "belief" to things which can be empirically tested, however, that's not spirituality, it's stupid.
Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course you understand, then, why non-Christians may feel some of the tenets of Christianity seem patently foolish to them. We've considered the world using the evidence and mental faculties available to us and have come to the conclusion that Christianity doesn't add up. I have even talked with one particularly erudite Christian who pretty freely admitted as much, but he continues to practice and defend his faith -- with faith being the key word. He has figured out where the boundaries are between the sacred and the profane (i.e., non-sacred).
I think you're onto the right thing, that respect is key. Whether it's one's spouse or a fellow citizen, we need to get beyond feeling contempt for people who don't believe what we believe and accept their right to hold a different opinion. If you don't, then the relationship is doomed.
Re:lets get one thing straight (Score:2, Insightful)
The earth's magnetic field is on the order of 10uT, which dwarfs anything we might see from other bodies 90% of the time. I'm not sure what the definition of "strong magnetic field" is in the papers you read, but I'm quite sure that 10uT isn't it. Unless everyone has sex next to a permanent magnet, astrology is bullshit.
Re:lets get one thing straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Your hypothesis is interesting. Now it is time to work through some numbers to determine whether it is plausible. What is the magnitude of the magnetic field present within the womb due to Jupiter? What is the magnitude of the magnetic field present within the womb due to the CRT in the ultrasound scanner? How many orders of magnitude difference are there between the two?
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly there haven't been millions or billions of eye witnesses for seeing God - perhaps you mean billions of people who say they've experience God, but the same goes for astrology and so on too.
Astrology (Score:3, Insightful)
How can this be something of any interest to us - this is not Hello Magazine. It's not our business, telling others who they want to see.
Apart from that - scientists may not have much confidence in the validity of astrology, but however little reason there may be, scientifically, to believe in it, it is not something we are able to definitely prove false. Just like that other far fetched superstition, Christianity.
I don't think most astrologers believe that the planets somehow directly and physically influence what happens here on Earth; they do, however, believe that it is something that can be observed, even if they can't explain why it works, and to tell the truth, there hasn't yet been much serious, rigorous, scientific work on the subject. I can understand that; there are so many other subjects that are much more likely to produce valuable results - but believing in religion doesn't in itself make a person stupid. One has to keep an open mind - there is a story about Niels Bohr: Once, Heisenberg came to visit Bohr in his office in Copenhagen, he noticed that there was a horseshoe hanging over the door, and he asked him: "Surely you don't believe in that sort of nonsense?" - And Bohr answered: "Of course not; but I am told it works even if you don't believe".
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
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. And, it's good enough for me to understand what my pen is doing and, in this circumstance, the flaws don't matter.
I think that the questions at stake are:
* How flawed can her model be before the annoyance outweighs the things you like about her?
* If you're pursuing a long-term relationship that may involve kids, are you willing to expose the kids to that model?
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Multiple Choice (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What scientists should really do is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? What does that even mean? And who said anyone was doing it, in the first place?
If someone believes we might live inside something portrayed in the Matrix, they're free to do so, I can't prove them wrong, nor does it matter.
And when they decide to, say, deny their children medical treatment because they feel the Agents will come along and fix their child's tuberculosis by editing their code, thus endangering the health of both their child and those their child come in contact with, what then?
My point is, sometimes, it really does matter. Hell, just look at how the US government is run (for example, their "approach" to sexual education and STD prevention) to see how dangerous unchecked religious beliefs can be.
In short, your rights end where mine begin. And you can be damned sure I'm going to defend my rights if I feel you're overstepping your bounds. The real problem is that, now that atheists have started fighting back, the poor, Christians choose to cry foul, claiming their being unfairly attacked, despite having done the same damn things the past 50 years or so.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll let you do the maths - but just to get you started, compare the force of gravity exerted on you by Mount Everest to the amount exerted on you by Saturn. Then compare either of those to the amount exerted on you by the moon, and then by the sun. After that, tell me if you really think the distant planets could have ANY meaningful effect.
Or, if you want to think about things other than just gravity, take a look at the different kinds of things that actually reach you from the planets. In general, far MORE of these same things come from the much further distant stars, yet those are never accounted for.
That's the short version, but in essence, I think it's completely fair to say that astrology is complete and utter bunk.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
When was Newtonian physics proven "wrong?"
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:2, Insightful)
As to aliens, I believe in them with metaphysical certainty. As an atheist, I feel the probability that life hasn't formed on other planets to be so remote as to be impossible. (Remember, blind, mindless cavefish on another planet are just as much aliens as little, green men.)
I also believe faster than light travel is impossible, so none have ever, or will ever, visit Earth.
Also since supernatural beliefs are by their nature not scientifically falsifiable, positing the idea that the natural world is part of a universe that also has a "supernatural" part that is not governed by natural law, I'm not sure that you can say someone is a poor scientist just for having them. Certainly a lot of good scientific work has been done by religious folk, such as Gregor Mendel [wikipedia.org]. I don't think it makes sense to believe in something you can't measure, but as long as it doesn't affect your approach to the things you can measure, I don't care about it.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love (Score:-1, Insightful)
i love how religious nuts always try to cast people who ask questions as being "blind". sweetheart, *faith* is blind- and it's blind because if it opened it's eyes, it would immediately realize how much of a chump it is. we get it- you think ignorance is bliss. i'm fine with that- just stop trying to convince other people that you can see things with your eyes closed.
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:2, Insightful)
By your logic, someone who has been an atheist since 2nd grade when he threw a fit because he couldn't understand why God would let his dog die, and who doesn't know Leibniz from Anselm of Canterbury would somehow have better critical thinking skills than a theist who actually bothered to examine the evidence.
I also suggest that you stop using all those flawed scientific theories that theists surreptitiously introduced into science. No more calculus (Leibniz and Newton) for instance -- are you sure you still want to be an "ObsessiveMathsFreak"?
We should follow you for a whole day and see if you practice what you preach. I hope, for your sake and that of your loved ones, that you don't.
To sum it up, you're the worst kind of atheist: the arrogant one who thinks that he's so smart that he knows everything, but usually ends up making an utter fool of himself when he encounters a knowledgeable theist. Scientists are good at what they do, i.e. science. When it comes to philosophy (even philosophy of science), theology, or history, they don't fare much better than the average person, and might even do worse, since they tend to transfer, as you did, their attitudes to areas where they are irrelevant. If you don't understand why science cannot tell you whether, say, a resurrection is possible or not, then you're a hopeless case and, were I to evaluate *your* job application, I'd propably put you at the bottow of the stack. Who would want an obnoxious self-proclaimed "skeptic" telling everyone how irrational they are because they don't happen to subscribe to his scientism? "Skepticism" and scientism, with the close-mindedness that usually accompanies it, are not one and the same.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
The line between agnostic/atheism is not really clear cut, especially because people use the words incorrectly. Like Hacker/Cracker.
I'm pretty sure that there is no god, but i'd be willing to change my opinion if i observe otherwise.
I'm also pretty sure that currently no raccoon with rabies is demolishing my appartment, but i'd be willing to change my opinion if i observe otherwise.
I also think that the second thing is far more likely to happen. And we don't have any raccoons here.
People in glass houses... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think some people are way too casual about having incompatible worldviews with a significant other, but then again, I'm a person with very firm atheistic beliefs. Maybe if you are agnostic, for example, you can tolerate someone who believes something which, by your view, could potentially be correct.
But if your mate believes something which you see as patently foolish - like the idea that everyone needs to be "saved" by believing a Jewish prophet rose from the dead to wipe away the sin of a woman eating a piece of fruit because a snake told her to do so, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite a total lack of explanation as to how the cherry-picked oral histories of disparate societies written 2000 to 4000 years ago relates to human events - I think this deep disagreement about how life works will lead to bitterness and problems. It's hard to conceal contempt.
And yes, I'm braced for the blind Christian hypocrisy of Slashdot's low-modded fundamentalist users.
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the aardvark is invisible, it does not reflect light in the correct wavelength in order to appear pink. Thus there is not an invisible pink aardvark. QED. Right, now that's out of the way...
The question of whether the universe has an external creator that can observe and affect the universe (in much the manner that a debugger can observe and affect a running C++ program) is more philosophical in nature, however. Atheists commenting on slashdot generally do not "simply not believe" but make assertions about "the burden of proof", effectively stating not just that you don't believe God exists, but that you believe it is philosophically wrong to believe that God exists (a much bigger statement). That is especially true of atheists on slashdot.
Ironically, the difference is not generally one of evidence at all, but one of the philosophical axioms you should start from in your reasoning, and the question that you start by asking.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody, somewhere, must have improperly uttered a similar phrase, instead of the more accurate, "Newtonian mechanics have proven to be an incredibly useful simplification of a greater theory." Even if Newton had come up with relativistic quantum mechanics, it would still be necessary to distill classical physics out for practical purposes.
Ahh, but there's the kicker. It makes plenty of testable predictions every day. And they're published every day too. Of course the predictions are often themselves contradictory, but that doesn't mean they're untestable. It just means that it's impossible for them not to be proven wrong.
Actually, come to think of it, astrology is a lot like chiropractic and homeopathy.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hypothesis: Does belief in Astrology affect the size of a girls tits or how good a hummer she gives?
Experiment: The fun part in this case.
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Insightful)
This just does not makes sense.
Trying to apply science principles to religion, is like trying to apply science to relationships. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
The reason that people perceive that prayers does not work is they are treating prayer as a mechanism to obtain whatever they wanted, and since they don't get it, then the conclusion it is that it does not work. Try to treat your girlfriend like that... wait! this is /. chances are you don't have one.
But prayer need to start by recognizing that the other end is smart and has free will too. But what is more important, start by dropping the arrogant belief that if it works, it means that we can get whatever we are asking for.
Yes there is a lot of suffering in this world, but most of it is self inflicted. And by 'self' I mean we as humanity. We need to learn to get along between ourselves first. No help from above.
Sorry for going too high in theological arguments, but I hope that I stopped on time.
Actually, I'll put an example at the level of the /. crowd:
One of the basic for science say that the same experiment, repeated under the same circumstances must produce the same results. Predictability of the theory.
Theory: Woman get stimulated by massaging their crotch (I hope that you all have some experience that prove that it does works sometimes). Experiment... try to do it in the bus... Did it work? Rarely? can't talk right now because she is busy extracting your tonsils without anesthesia? Yup. The theory ignores something called "relationship". And if you tell me that the theory can be modified by adding as requirement that a good relationship must exists, and the mood, and the location, etc; then I can tell that you haven't been in a long enough relationship. If any.
Same thing with prayer... can't go around just asking and complaining that it does not work, but ignoring a relationship with God (or whoever you worship), or ignoring taking responsibility for fixing your own mess. Of course it will not work. But it is like claiming that the telephone does not work because the other side is not giving you the answers that you want to hear and in the way that you want to hear them.
Speaking as an old married guy... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're making dating decisions based on strictly rational/demonstrative criteria, you're likely to have a long and lonely life. You should date someone because you're INTERESTED in them. If you keep it up long enough, you may end up falling in love with someone who likely disagrees with you on certain issues. Astrology may be one, or religion, education, politics, or porn. Guess what? PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT! You have to learn to get along, and decide AS YOU GO whether the differences add to your relationship, are tolerable, or irreconcilable.
Shopping for a date with a checklist seems to be a symptom of a society that is increasingly unable to actually interact in person. Do people talk to strangers on the bus anymore? Generally not unless they're insane dust-lickers, and that's a pity. Human interaction is good for us all.
My advice to finding a healthy relationship: Quit looking for dates that meet certain criteria. Then quit looking for dates. Start talking to people. Make friends. Cook supper for some people. Maybe you'll find someone in that process, and maybe you'll end up with them for the rest of your life. Maybe not, but you'll at least have had a richer life than the person shopping for a perfect match on the internet.
(Although various forms of "modern" dating--internet dating, speed dating, and so forth--can certainly work for some people.)
Re:Depends. . . do you want to fight all the time? (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple fact that someone might follow astrology may make them no scientifically rigorous, but face it... we're ALL illogical about things. Not all things, either way, and not all people are the same level of rationality. but we are all irrational.
The question is entirely what form does a person's irrationality take; how extreme is it; how does it conflict with your own irrational aspects.
On the scale, "believe in astrology but makes fairly sound decisions" might, for instance, rank a fair bit higher than "Studies quantum physics but has no ability to consider anyone's feelings but her own". Both are irrational. One is functionally broken and one is merely "quirky".
consider irrationality is a basic requirement for us to function as autonomous, sentient beings. Then decide how quickly you really want to discard people who fail to meet some arbitrary standard... before really getting to know them. Some standards are easier than others (do you eat people? no? good) and only you can set your own. But I would encourage you not to set them too high.
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't scissors and chainsaws just tools for cutting wood? Aren't lotteries and mutual funds just ways of (potentially) doubling one's money?
Some "flawed mental shortcuts" are more useful for understanding the world---and making decisions within it---than others. The difference is in a person's ability to distinguish which ones give useful answers a significant portion of the time, and which ones give useful answers no more often than answers chosen at random.
Re:Which method? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One man's "stupid"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rephrasing the question makes it even easier (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to answer, once you phrase it like this: Should you continue to date someone you can't respect?
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [rickross.com] 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 [foxnews.com]. 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.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which method? (Score:2, Insightful)
ii) If women are "only" 5% more likely than the *population as a whole* to believe in astrology, while men are 9% more likely than *women* to believe in UFOs, who's the more deluded? What do you think the "population as a whole" is made up of? How different do you think the numbers might be if you made a fair comparison?
Lies, damned lies etc.
iii) Who is this "they" who are giving away free passes? Where do I get one?
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Insightful)
This applies to religion as well.
The slashblurb that references the article says "Astrology... is a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world... so is disregarding someone because of their spiritual beliefs" and then, in a glorious fit of politically correct snake-eats-tail, it says "smart people can convince themselves of silly things."
Political correctness, that social disease where people are encouraged to ignore the dragon* in the room for the sake of harmony and at the expense of everything else no matter how critical, is the operating mechanism here. Honestly religious people are gullible at best, and simply bewildered at worst. They're in precisely the same boat as the astrologically inclined, the homeopaths, and a long and depressing list of others.
When it comes to who one should date, I suspect that comes down to what one can tolerate, and that in turn is likely to be related to the length of the relationship. I could spend an evening with someone who thought almost anything. Sometimes you end up doing so as part of a larger group rather than by any kind of informed choice. Likewise, you can't always know what someone thinks about such issues without talking to them for a while unless your social style is more similar to interrogation than conversation (and in which case, you probably don't get to date very often.) Some people may be easily talked out of delusions; they may have simply been victims of the school systems and their peers. It seems to me that for these reasons, dating isn't a very practical place to draw a line in the sand.
For my life partner, however, I very carefully chose a declared and demonstrated strong atheist and skeptic; she took considerable effort to find, but it was absolutely worth the candle. For me, in such a relationship, beliefs like astrology, religion and so forth would be like acid eating away at the foundations. I have a strong conviction that looking at the world in as similar a way as possible brings the ever-elusive goal of perfect harmony a good deal closer. That, and a healthy mutual dose of lust. :)
* Not an elephant -- elephants are real
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it?
Belief in astrology implies that the person is incapable of critically examining evidence. It's a symptom of deeper issues, though perhaps by itself it's not as harmful as said issues (sort of like religion in general). However, astrology specifically exists to give people advice about life decisions. If people believe it to be effective and treat its advice as valid, I'm not too sure you can call that harmless.
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Insightful)
If reasonable people never stand up for their beliefs because they don't think it's their place to influence others, every single person who can't think for themselves will end up misled by charlatans.
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, as a non-Astrology-believing Republican male, I am fine with that, too :-)
> Was the goal to be insulting?
Duh. Of course it was. Just as your goal in the last two paragraphs was to be insulting to religious believers, especially ones in the USA. After all, no anti-religious person, like Stalin or Pol Pot, ever had anyone killed who didn't deserve it.
As to the original posts assuming scientific men and astrology-believing women, you seem to be expecting mature behavior from a group that has been isolated from girls, and is mostly barely beyond "boy" in age, especially expecting it from ALL of them. There is a standard meme for this, and it is not about welcoming overlords or the ownership of bases, nor sharks.
Finally, your initial spelling quibble. The OP might have even meant form a FIFO (OK, a line) for those jokes (this IS Slashdot), in which case he is right even in the USA (it is still "Queuing Theory" here). For that matter, I have seen the billiard ball spelled as "queue" in British publications, let alone an other sense of those homophones.
Re:Multiple Choice (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a) stupid because the truth is the other way around: magazines and newspapers put in such crap because there's a demand for it. I see all-too-often people who just assume this stuff is true without ever reading these magazines. They love these concepts, and, guess what, these people are all women. I have never met a man who was as enamoured with this stuff. I have also met cool women who don't believe it, but that's not the point. The point is: the demand for such superficial thinking is far greater amongst the female population. The magazine editors are merely the suppliers.
Of course, many people are going to call what I have said sexist, and will do anything to ignore reality. To you, I have one question: what's more superstitious: astrology, or your hippie belief that men and women evolved identically-functioning brains?
Re:Just lie about your birthdate and see what happ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Insightful)
"But many ills simply would not exist without fervent religious beliefs driving them."
People rationalise the horrors they commit and endure, religion is a very flexible excuse. Take away religion and people won't change their behaviour, they will simply find a different but equally flawed rationale for it.
Speaking of rationality, it is no more irrational to belive there is a god than it is to belive there isn't, neither stance can be disproven. Specific beliefs that can be tested (such as a 4ky old Earth, predictive power of the stars, etc) can be disproven, these things are called dogma and are not essential for a belief in god.