13
The two articles don't change what scientists think about astrology but does show the difference between critiquing and ridiculing.

For the sake of balance, I think that the Ophiucus article on our site had named names, homo phonics and synonyms and some anger which could trigger a rather different response.



PD

14
It's unfortunate that the author of the article calling for a need to be informed of someone?s position before attacking it (in order to make appropriate criticisms), is now being criticised within the members of her own circle for 'not getting it'. One example is here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... ttarii.php

Having seen quite a few of these similar reports and their typical blog-responses now, the overwhelming view of those who feel strongly enough to speak out about astrology boils down to a few themes that are being repeated over and over and over:

1) Do not even try to dialogue with astrologers, or show any respect for their views. The subject is rubbish and must be ridiculed and insulted. It would be nice if dialogue worked but it doesn't make them 'go away', so do not even go there; stick to ridicule and insult: it's the only thing that works.

2) Refer to astrologers as quacks and charlatans when being polite; use foul language when being informal.

3) Imply that they are wool-brained idiots who have no intelligence or critical reasoning.

4) But also make it clear that they are greedy and manipulative; making themselves rich by feeding off the insecurities of the vulnerable.

There are others but these are the main ones. I don't know how astrologers will ever find the opportunity to express the true nature and motivation of our work when every attack made against us as a collective, is dismissed by the number one rule of 'don't engage in discussion; don't listen to their answers; just stick to the ridicule because this is the only effective way of dealing with them'.

It's depressing; but all the more reason to be cheered by the lone voice of reason that belongs to Rebekah Higgit. Let's be clear, this woman is a SKEPTIC; but that is why her balanced and intelligent call for understanding what astrologers are saying and what they do argue, getting informed about the subject, and therefore applying appropriate criticisms, is so rare and precious, and so worthy of admiration as a stand against the oppressive and intolerant attitude of many of her colleagues. . (Her point, of course, is not about respecting astrology (since she is a skeptic), but the wider principle of not attacking a subject of which you are ignorant and uninformed; but to get informed in order to issue more reasoned and powerful arguments!).
The link, again, to her Guardian article, is below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-l ... 1/jan/28/1
Last edited by Deb on Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

15
Deb, I thought these were excellent articles!!!!

I would encourage any astrologers prone to bashing science or scientists as a whole, however, to be equally as reasonable as they wish scientists to be towards us. Science is what takes place in the lab, in the field, in the observatory, or on the computer. Scientists are typical human beings; who outside of their specific research venue are about as likely to engage in derision, "shooting from the lip", and misconception as the average person. Then there is scientism, the indefensible belief that science holds all of the answers.

The hallmark of science is supposed to be keeping an open mind. Great scientific advances are made when someone questions the "common knowledge." Scientists as human beings may fall short of this mark, however; certainly in their daily lives when the white lab coat comes off. This is what Higgitt pointed out so clearly in her excellent article.

Rather than criticizing scientists qua scientists, I think the key astrological critique is that they are not being scientific enough: i. e., not keeping an open mind. And it is fair to ask them to do so. Of course there is good science and bad science, just as there is good and bad astrology or anything else.

Hopefully astrologers as a body will learn more science. We could all benefit from a science-like demand for intellectual rigour (I include myself as needing more here!) For one thing, in the world marketplace of ideas, science has gained tremendous authority and respect because of its ability to produce concrete, demonstrable results. Bashing science or scientists in light of their track record just further gives the impression that astrologers are not rational thinkers.

This doesn't mean that spiritually inclined astrologers need see astrology in scientific terms, or that statistical tests of astrological predictions are necessarily required. Highly spiritual people take advantage of scientific advances all the time--the science of optics that enables the production of their eyeglasses is one example. Where astrology is making inroads in universities today is in the humanities disciplines of history and literature.

16
Aside from that, what's KILLING me is the 'they're all rich idiots' being repeated over and over.

Michael Erlewine found out the hard way when he went to a bank to take out a loan for his software company that astrologers are only marginally above migrant farm workers in income.

I looked this up - the last US Census has migrant farm workers averaging an income of just over $11,000 US per year.

Pretty much consonant with what the average successful astrologer with clients makes, in my experience. Let's not forget all the money spent on books, or doing translations as a labour of love, because you're not going to make money off of it.

OW.

The rest of the points are well-taken, too, but this 'all astrologers are rich and lack conscience, they're just out to fool the gullible' is starting to drive me crazy.

18
waybread wrote:
Hopefully astrologers as a body will learn more science. We could all benefit from a science-like demand for intellectual rigour (I include myself as needing more here!) For one thing, in the world marketplace of ideas, science has gained tremendous authority and respect because of its ability to produce concrete, demonstrable results. Bashing science or scientists in light of their track record just further gives the impression that astrologers are not rational thinkers.
I think the problem lies not so much in astrologers needing to learn more science (though you may be right, given what we've all seen on other forums), but that one thing astrology, science, and all fields of human endeavour could do with is a good dose of critical thinking.

God knows, science needs to get its own house in order in many ways - I follow some medical sciences still, mostly subspecialities in cell biology and metabolism, and some of the things I've seen published in academic journals have made me cringe when I looked at the study designs and methodology (and then the funding sources, and it all, sadly, clicked into place). But that's a conversation for a different forum entirely.

My voiced objections in this whole fiasco have been that the loudest scientists, the media darlings or the ones who want to be, are lying about the historical record - probably out of ignorance, and that the journalists involved are arguably worse, because they haven't bothered to check the facts. And that's just not on.

If they want to object to astrology - fine. But please don't tell me 'Ptolemy invented astrology 2000 years ago and it hasn't changed since', 'astrologers don't know about the precession of the equinoxes or constellations so astrology is rubbish', 'Islamic scholars refuted astrology as a load of bunk in the middle ages', etc., ad nauseum.

Because it's just not true. It has NO basis in fact.

Personal attacks against astrologers are also not on, and in other circumstances, resorting to ad hominem would be enough that most intelligent people would realise - this isn't a reasoned argument, it's just a rant. But I guess astrology is indeed an 'exceptionalist case', though not in the way you usually use the term.

Then again, in a world where Richard Dawkins is considered qualified to speak authoritatively on theological matters, what else can one expect? And before you jump on me for that, Mr Dawkins is entitled to hold any private beliefs he wishes to hold about God's existence or non-existence. What he's not allowed to do is to present himself as an authority on subjects of which he has an, at best, tenuous grasp. And I'm being kind there. The man doesn't know what he's raving about at all.

And given the census and economic figures, as well as banking statistics, I'd LOVE to know how the conclusion was arrived at that all astrologers are rich.

I haven't said a word publicly about the majority of scientists. I have worked with some fine ones in my day. But people ignore critical thinking and history at their peril.

19
I don't think the current furore is about science and astrology anymore (if it ever was).

We're not human beings in these people's eyes (the one's doing the abusive, irrational attacks, I mean). We're untermenschen.

H.

20
Then again, in a world where Richard Dawkins is considered qualified to speak authoritatively on theological matters, what else can one expect?
Exactly. Ever notice that whenever the media wants an authority on astrology in virtually all cases the last person they call on for information is a qualified astrologer? They jump on Geoffrey Dean, Dawkins, and holy of holies the late Karl Sagan. After all, he hosted a TV program about astronomy didn't he?

Years ago, they may still do it, Sky and Telescope Magazine, would periodically run anti-astrology articles as though it was their duty to do so. Yet time after time they ran the same nonsense about precession and 13th signs and Sun signs.

Psychological denial is seriously difficult to overcome. These people, by virtue of having letters after their names (Usually in their minds anyway those letters always spell GOD) can't be wrong about anything. Even the things they don't know anything about. And even when they do know something it is often tinged with blatant bigotry. Tamsyn Barton's, "Oh weren't these old people cute" attitude spoils an otherwise readable history of astrology.

OK energetic stupidity we can deal with, but then we have the James Randi's of the world whose complete lack of qualifications and blazing ignorance are considered authoritative by others who are equally ignorant, and therefore his attempts to crush anyone who dares disagree with him all in the name of public good, are valid. He is now an authority on astrology. Randi is a bigger fraud than those he accuses.

The best thing we can do is ignore them. They aren't going to change. They've adopted the position, "It can't be true so it isn't true" and with the power of the media behind them, we aren't going to penetrate. Let them spend themselves. We're only going to be misquoted anyway. They've had little success at suppression anyway.

21
Tom wrote: The best thing we can do is ignore them. They aren't going to change. They've adopted the position, "It can't be true so it isn't true" ... They've had little success at suppression anyway.
Word, Tom.
Gabe

22
Then again, in a world where Richard Dawkins is considered qualified to speak authoritatively on theological matters, what else can one expect?
Exactly! He regularly gets airtime on the UK media to produce another programme outlining 'The God delusion'. We have been seeing an unprecedented amount of attacks on religious attitudes in UK society lately. Secularism has become increasingly vocal and strident. Still, at least religious voices are still allowed some air time to put the counter view. That is the difference for astrology.

Unfortunately, what we often see perpetuated as science is not a rational, balanced enquiry based on evidence but rather a crude, dogmatic 'scientism' that sees anything non-materialist as superstitious nonsense prior to enquiry. It doesn't require serious study or debate since they have the ultimate put down ..its rubbish! The Pope commented on this strident secularism in his last visit to the UK. We are also seeing it in attempts to get Homeopathy removed from health care provision. The comments made in the Guardian are just another reflection of this secularist intolerance.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

23
We're entering a world where, in our arrogance, nothing exists until we've found it under a microscope. It seems ridiculously short sighted to me, by this approach quantum physics sat dormant not existing until a scientist discovered it. Isn't it outrageously arrogant of man to consider that the laws of nature stand still until we discover them?

This is ultimately where I feel it's going wrong: the assumption that we know enough about the universe and its operation that anything which falls beyond the safetyzone of 'discovered' therefore does not exist - as though we've discovered most of the laws of physics already.

I am always reminded of the fact that, despite the best efforts of the world's brightest scientists and the literally billions pumped into it every single year, we still do not fully understand something as simple as gravity, and still do not have even ONE theory that explain the varying phenomena mankind has discovered. With this in mind we have scientists who do not have any actual working theories that incorporate observed phenomena and still go ahead and ridicule astrologers because such a system does not fit into their (faulty) systems that they do use.

I was told once by a student of particle physics that their professor once remarked that if gravity (I think it was gravity) were not so blatantly obvious and so obvious that science would probably not recognise it in its calculations, because things just work so much easier, in theory, if you don't have to complicate it by factoring in gravity. It muddies the best of plans and the best of theories.

Astrology for me is like this, because it is less obvious it is not recognised and is scoffed and ridiculed, but if gravity was not so obvious either, it too would be scoffed the 'Gravit-ologers' would be equally scorned.

Scientists would do well to be more open about what exactly they dont', which is a considerable amount. Because in acknowledging your ignorance you allow yourself the space and opportunity to open your mind to possibilities and theories ultimately the chance to learn without restriction.

Ultimately tough astrologers are probably best advised to refrain from arguing on blogs with posters. I myself have argued over at phil plait's blogs when astrology has been raised. What we have to remember is that most of the posters, despite lofty opinions of themselves to the contrary, are, by and large, not students of science, and so are not qualified to proffer scientific opinion. But what surprises me is the vitriolic attacks on astrologers who, according to them, are all sleight of hand charlatans conning poor innocent old dears out of their hard earned cash. There seems to be a lot of hatred there and I'm more interested in attempting to discover what fuels that. Is it confrontation with the fear of the unknown?

24
Mark wrote:
Exactly! He regularly gets airtime on the UK media to produce another programme outlining 'The God delusion'. We have been seeing an unprecedented amount of attacks on religious attitudes in UK society lately.
Mark
I'm reminded of one his documentaries in which he 'disproves' astrology by asking several Capricorns on the street to rate how accurate their star sign was for that week. Most agreed it wasn't accurate, ergo astrology is rubbish.

I'd love for a professional biologist to take a pop-psychology test from cosmo magazine and ask some people if it's accurate and conclude that therefore the science and art of Psychology is proven to be utter rubbish.