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."
lets get one thing straight (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I would not, and I believe, nor would any other normal scientific single chap, turn away a hot chick just because she was pondering my star sign or wanting to read my palm. In most cases It's just another vector into a conversation anyway.
Excuse me? (Score:4, Interesting)
Astrology Chick (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh really? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not married to a "fashionista [wikipedia.org]", I guess?
He's right you know. (Score:3, Interesting)
The core intuition works this way: "We can see that the sphere of the Sun has a distinct effect on our daily lives. When it's overhead, it's warm and light, when it's on the other side of the Earth, it's cold and dark. When it is in a certain part of the sky, it's winter, and another part, it's summer. The moon has a more tenuous effect on the the Earth, but one we can sense: the tides, for example, seem connected to the phase of the moon, and perhaps people too. Therefore, the spheres of the other five planets should likewise have a thin affect."
The core intuition is, of course, wrong, but there's a ton of scientific literature built on the subject. Most modern astrologers, however, ignore the thousands of years of careful reflection and study, and prefer to pull crap out of their asses.
Re:Well (Score:2, Interesting)
You cannot do the same with religion. Sure, you can debunk certain things (pi is not exactly 3), but the core spiritualism is inherently safe. We can argue, as many have done, that claims are worthless without evidence. But that's about it.
Re:lets get one thing straight (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Magnetic fields can have an effect on DNA, as observed in a laboratory setting by exposing embryos to strong magnetic fields.
2. Stars, planets, and other astronomical bodies exert a magnetic field on the earth, and all animals, plants, and humans on it.
3. I hypothesize that personality differences observed by astrology (such as certain signs have certain personality traits) might very well be attributed to the influence of magnetic fields on human embryos at an early stage of development. Different stellar bodies exerting magnetic fields at the time of fertilization/early gestation of an embryo might very well affect it's DNA which could affect personality in the adult.
It is not out of the question that both science and astrology can exist in a reasonable mind. Astrology might just be the layman's way of explaining why certain people born at different times of the year have certain personality traits. Modern science can't yet explain how magnetic fields affect us, but we do know that they affect most living animals significantly.
I don't think it's unreasonable to allow your girlfriend/wife/significant other to believe in astrology while keeping a firm scientific method in your own thought process. Issuing ultimatims like "I'll never date someone that believes in astrology," or whatever ultimatim you might want to project, is just a way of being divisive and generating conflict with others around you.
As geeks and scientists we should attempt to communicate with others. We don't convince others of the things we know in our mind by shutting them out completely.
Re:Astrology != Spirituality or Religion (Score:-1, Interesting)
have you ever taken psychedelics??
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Interesting)
The preceding was the only part of the parent post that shows any resemblance of intelligent thought. There is a big difference between a non falsifiable belief system, and one that does claim to make very specific predictions. I have no problem with a belief system that can not be proven or disproven and causes people to lead better lives. I do have a problem with people that believe that human behavior is influenced or predetermined by objects, but reject any knowledge about these same objects that was scientificly determined.
And yes, I did break up with a girlfriend because of this.
One man's "stupid"... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can think of lots of different types of "stupid" and my guess is that you probably wouldn't find all of them stupid. Compare:
1. A mentally retarded person who is optimistic and happy. Seeing a pretty flower makes him happy even though he has no idea what it is called, or how it grew where he found it.
2. A genius level intellect who is always unhappy and irritated. There is nothing he can see which could make him as happy as person #1.
I find them both stupid in kind of orthogonal ways, and I am convinced there are many more dimensions of possible stupidity (your example being kind of stupid in the "reality" dimension, I suppose)....
We are all perfectly flawed people (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a good marriage. Every now and then, however, when we talk about those who have passed away or deeper meanings of life or what have you, it forces a reconciliation between philosophies. Sometimes a fight, sometimes a a discussion, either way, it can work.
So, should scientists date "believers of things?" Sure, but you have to be ready to "accept" the person "as-is." If you can't do that then it won't work.
How many people take this seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hard to get a date (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:5, Interesting)
I also have problems reconciling science and faith. It does seem to me that a profound life-defining belief in something which cannot be proved to exist is incompatible with the scientific method of a rigorous and logical evaluation of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. However, i have many friends who do seem able to reconcile this, and despite their beliefs are (by any metric) excellent scientists. Apparently the logic goes something like - god created the earth/universe etc, and made it conform to a bunch of laws. We are discovering and understanding those laws to the best of our abilities, using the curiosity that god gave us. The use of scientific method provides us with the means to do it, and its ok because god doesn't intend us to live through eternity in the mud saying to each other "oh, god did that, we don't need to know about it".
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:2, Interesting)
You're implying that even though a religious scientist may write good papers and conduct reliable experiments, their output is somehow unexplainably and unquestionably inferior to the output of real scientists.
Unexplainably and unquestionably... Do you know what that sounds like?
Forget it (Score:-1, Interesting)
So there you have it. Almost all women believe in astrology, and when they say that they don't, they really mean that they find it exciting, and that they would like to know more about it. This is why I've just chosen to accept belief in astrology. Maybe women of age 30+ are different in this regard, but I doubt it.
By the way, by far the most sexy response a woman could give me would be a big smile and then something like "oh come on! there is no such thing as a PhD in astrology. PhDs are for science and astrology is hocus pocus. You're trying to pull my leg, aren't you?" Haven't found one like that yet
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole basis of the scientific method is that the "observations" used to lend strength to a hypothesis are repeatable. If one person sees the Flying Spaghetti Monster on top of a mountain, but can never summon Him for others to observe, then that observation is worthless.
Although calling anyone an idiot is not a good way to start a discussion (especially one centering on faith).
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Interesting)
It just boggles the mind that anyone could fall for that crap. And it's even more surprising how anyone could fall for that crap, yet claim that astrology is somehow false.
Re:How is fetishes bad? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Which method? (Score:3, Interesting)
It takes ten years of college to do original research in physics, but even middle school students can learn Newton's Laws. Are your universal principles written down anywhere in a simple form that everyone can agree on? What are the limits of these principles? What do they cover and what do they not cover? Why has there been no progress in thousands of years when every other field of human endeavor has seen great revolutions in thought? Why, if these truths are so compelling, is there still so much strife between religions?
I agree that atheists need to take a deeper approach to analyzing religions, but you don't need to be an expert to ask these sorts of questions and realize that you get more sensible and consistent answers if these beliefs are simply incorrect.
Not entirely nonsense. (Score:4, Interesting)
I once did a teaching course, as I was teaching basic IT skills in an evening class. One of my fellow students was teaching astrology (I was rather glad to hear that it wasn't subsidised in the same way as the IT classes were). So I got to learn a little bit about it.
He was completely dismissive of magazine horoscopes, and said that a proper horoscope involved far more detailed plotting based on the exact date, and a dialogue between the astrologer and the client. It soon became apparent to me that the star stuff was pretty much just a starting off point for some self-examination, coached by the consultant. You can make the same argument for tarot -- the cards you get are arbitrary, and their meanings are deliberately ambiguous, meaning you can use them to kick off some rather productive brainstorming.
Just lie about your birthdate and see what happens (Score:5, Interesting)
Then told there is no Feb 30, was born on March 2 (another lie) - got a similar reading (cause my stars were still closely aligned).
Finally told her my real birthday was in August. She got mad and didn't want to do any more horroscope crap around me again, AND we still went out for over a year, before broke up w/ her. She wanted to plop out some kids, and I wanted grad school - so I said later.
Mesg is - just put up with it. It's a harmless thing they do, as long as they aren't making serious life decisions because of it. If they won't buy a house, cause the stars are wrong, or want to buy 10,000 shares of a stock 'cause of the stars, then dump them.
Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm more inclined to think that it's the attitude of humility which might arise as aspects of the universe are revealed.
In terms of the subjective experience, it's not important whether the revelation comes from science or through some other means. As a species, we seem to be wired to yearn for it, and a fair subset of the population gets to experience it, if only in brief glimpses.
But those glimpses have a profound effect on individuals. They come away with the conviction that the universe is bigger than we can imagine it to be. And, well, that's a correct perception, given that we have brains the size of cantaloupes with which to model this very large and complex environment. It makes a refreshing contrast to our common error of going around arrogantly thinking that we've got it all figured out.
But then we do an odd thing. Having just tasted firsthand the revelation of how vast and wondrous this universe really is, we immediately start reducing the experience to something we can model. It would be more appropriate to hold the matter open, completely open. Instead, we typically let it collapse back into whatever cognitive framework we happen to favor.
But if we were obliged to reduce a transcendent experience to some kind of finite model, then I think science produces a much more coherent model than any belief system based on faith. One good thing at least about science, in a spiritual context, is that it provides a constructive common ground for people who want to compare their transcendent experiences. Lacking that common ground, what we would have instead would be a Tower of Babel.
I think this account also explains why nonscientific people can hold on so tightly to their alternate beliefs despite their internal contradictions, lack of falsifiability, and uncertain predictive power. A transcendent experience feels a lot like blind faith, only more so. It exists, compellingly and infinitely, as its own explanation. So when you come back to earth again, it can seem like your blind faith has been vindicated, and you may well hold onto it more tightly and defend it more vigorously thereafter. And, sadly, many traditional religions have learned to exploit this effect.
Re:Astrology != Spirituality or Religion (Score:-1, Interesting)
He shows astronomy with 3-d computer graphics, and astrology as drawings from ancient books. Yep, our science is so solid we still need to play amateur psychologist. I know it's a TV show, but what if there was a TV show that made astrology look good and astronomy look bad with special effects? Was he saying we were supposed to believe whoever has the best special effects? It's not hard to make science interesting without this hand-waving crap; other PBS shows did a decent job at it.
Yes, newspapers have daily "astrology" columns. As he noted himself, they're not consistent, i.e., they're just cute sayings, and not dependent on the stars and planets at all. That entire section of the newspaper is fiction. Do biologists get upset because Garfield doesn't look or act like a cat? Do historians get upset because the Wizard of Id doesn't accurately represent a medieval society? I would suggest that Carl should have written such a column himself, but you can't really put special effects in a newspaper.
Oh, and that Prometheus statue? Feel free to decorate your statues with pulsars. Tell me how that goes.
Re:Just lie about your birthdate and see what happ (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Which method? (Score:-1, Interesting)
Re:Which method? (Score:-1, Interesting)
But a UFO is just an Unidentified Flying Object. It's an object in the sky that you can't identify, which happens quite often and doesn't require you to 'believe' in anything. Poor eyesight would do it. In fact it reminds me of this [theregister.co.uk]
Now, if you are talking "Flying saucers" you may have a point.