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."
Which method? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Funny)
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:Just lie about your birthdate and see what happ (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just lie about your birthdate and see what happ (Score:4, Interesting)
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:4, Informative)
' 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: (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
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.
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Which method? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:Which method? (Score:4, Informative)
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 remedial geography on your report card.
Re:Which method? -- How about being well informed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Which method? -- How about being well informed? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:4, Informative)
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.
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: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: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?
Re:Which method? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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:4, Informative)
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? (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.
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.
Sure, provided they are hot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure, provided they are hot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure, provided they are hot (Score:5, Funny)
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)....
Yes. (Score:4, Funny)
This...IS....SLASHDOT! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This...IS....SLASHDOT! (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes?
Re:This...IS....SLASHDOT! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
It depends (Score:4, Funny)
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:Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
Astrology is just plain wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Offense (Score:5, Funny)
I have to take offense to this. Couple of years ago, the local paper's astrological peice listed for my birthday, 'If today is your birthday, you gonna get lucky today.' Now, yes I was dating the lady who was incharge of editing that section at the time; but by God, it was correct.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Think of the children (Score:4, Funny)
Ahh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ahh... (Score:4, Funny)
Astrology != Spirituality or Religion (Score:5, Informative)
Try this page for a start:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html [badastronomy.com]
Re:Astrology != Spirituality or Religion (Score:5, Informative)
Carl Sagan was the best.
I am not a scientist (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Only if she's a Water Sign (Score:3, Funny)
Oh man... (Score:5, Funny)
From the comments on TFA:
(note, this is not even on /. !)
Which begs the question: Should anybody date someone who recommends taking a look at a 68k Mac software in 2008 ?
I'm a Scorpio. (Score:4, Funny)
I'm more concerned (Score:3)
Excuse me? (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Multiple Choice (Score:5, Informative)
a) Stupid
b) sexist
c) offensive
d) all of the above
Re: (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
Astrology Chick (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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:Comtempt is not compatible with love (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting - you believe in salvation through a holy zombie despite a total lack of explanation as to how the reanimation of dead bodies relates to human events ?
Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love (Score:5, Funny)
We're talking Goa'uld Sarcophagus or Ancient Healing Device here, not a zombie virus.
Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love (Score:5, Insightful)
How to find a spouse (Score:5, Funny)
H: I heard you got married. Congratulations! How did you decide?
M: Well, this was not easy. I had three candidates and I conducted a test. I asked the first one:
"What's 2+2?".
She said "4".
I though to myslelf, that's good, the woman is smart.
The second one said: "Well, it depends. It can be 4, but sometimes it can also be 3 or 5."
That's even better, the woman is cunning.
I asked the third one the same question and she says "I don't care. Whatever my husband says it is".
I thought to myself, this woman surely will respect her husband. This is good.
H: So, which one did you take?
M: Oh. The one with big tits, of course.
I don't think that scientists are THAT different to other men.
"believe?" or enjoy (Score:3)
It sure does seem to be accurate in some cases though. I enjoy it and I consume and process it even though I'm completely aware of how ludicrous it really is. Any system that's sufficiently complex will seem to have meaning. It's the human condition.
Should you date someone that "believes" in it? It's no more silly than believing a Prophet died for your sins 2000 years ago and is deeply concerned about your private sexual morality. I say, date the Astrologer. They're probably literate and that's pretty good.
Only if (Score:3)
Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually if mary matalin and james carville can get along any thing is possible.
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.
Oh my. (Score:5, Funny)
Astrology for scientists. (Score:5, Funny)
Now for some good news: by following the above steps, you will develop a mathematically sound personality that society actually needs, and, more to the point, every one of the linked personalities gets laid and so will you. Study your personality, make the set of behaviors etc. your own, and date only people who have an astrological sign that complements the one you've chosen using the above steps! When faced with a choice, read the astrology section of a trusted newspaper, and just do whatever is prescibed for your chosen personality. The only caveat (and really it is the only one) is not to mention your true birthday, only one that fits in with your chosen sign, if anyone asks. This is just to keep from having to explain the science behind your choice every time you mention it. If the relationship gets to be very serious, just invent a story about a botched birth certificate, for why your identification doesn't show your "true" birthday... As with nicknames, people will understand that you have a different "official" birthday.
FAQ.
Why is this better than a traditional horoscope?
The traditional way of determining astrological signs for selecting a personality is flawed because there is an unequal distribution of births by month. (It's not the only thing true about birth months, incidentally! Check out these studies linking lifespan and month of birth [google.com]!) Also, your physical birth month will be a function of, how can I put this delicately, your parents' mating habits, so it's less than scientific...
But won't twins have the same checksum?
Duh. It's an astrological sign. You know, normally based on birthdate...
But won't people cheat and just keep picking different checksum schemes until they get the "
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.
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: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)
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
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: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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:4, Funny)
And a confusing life it is! But finally, I understand why so many scientists have problems with time management...
Re:Science is 24/7 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
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:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Talking about energy levels, "baselines", and using words from every field that is even remotely sciency.
That was always the breaker for me. Back in college, I found myself at more than a couple of parties where somebody passionate about their own particular slant on the afterlife would learn (either from me directly or from someone who I'd shared the same discussion with previously) that I didn't believe in souls or any literal afterlife. The typical attack was in line with "You're an EE - You should know about energy. If there's no heaven [reincarnation/ghosts/whatever], what happens to a person's energy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What scientists should really do is. (Score:5, 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?).
You can choose your beliefs? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 tid