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.

We are dealing with the ignorant - this is the real problem. How can an opinion have any value when the subject under siege has never been studied by those who claim to know so much!

Julie K

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

I agree with most of what's been posted above. I don't think the problem is science per se, but scientism and some scientists who, as fallible human beings, venture loudly into areas they haven't studied, biases intact. But this trichotemy is true of many fields, not just science.

Also, there is good and bad science, just as there is good and bad astrology, food, economics, and anything else. Beneath science, astrology, and anything else, however, are inter-personal and institutional power-relations. Just now, science and scientists have a lot more clout than do astrology and astrologers. This is one major reason to learn more about science as an institutionalized enterprise.

The intellectual advantage of science, however, is that the majority of it gets published in double-blind peer-reviewed journals, whereby erroneous ideas can get countered by other scientists who see if they can duplicate one another's results. If enough of them can't, today's hot science news becomes tomorrow's discarded mistaken conclusion. While this process is by no means simon-pure and problem-free, some comparable kind of intellectual rigour would be helpful in astrology, IMO.

And it needn't be scientific in nature. For example, humanities disciplines also have standards of good and bad research. History and law seem to me to have the best methodological comparables to the standards astrologers might develop. Critical thinking really is the key, as distinguished from broadside negativity.

I think it is important for astrologers to make more inroads into universities, where education in research procedures and (one hopes) critical thinking takes place. I think astrology is a long way from science and even from psychology, but the humanities journals and book publishers are already printing more research on astrology. It would be good to see more astrologers pursue graduate degrees. If we put the wagons in a circle with a "them vs. us" mentality, however, it only increases astrology's isolation.

So I think the challenge of these periodic dust-ups for astrology is to have something intellectually rigorous to present in return, and we are going to have to do so on on the academy's terms.

Just a quick note to add news of another blog headed ?Astrology and Ridicule? published today at http://billynojob.wordpress.com/2011/01 ... idicule-2/

I made a response myself; since it seemed to be a relatively quiet place of reasonable argument, despite the divergence of views.

I also want to make a request here ? if any of you contributed to the recent Guardian blogs under pseudonyms, or helped in some way to circulate the astrological argument, I?d love to know (in confidence) who you are. Please PM or email me at deb@skyscript.co.uk

Although some people think that these attacks are best ignored, I can?t help thinking that we should aim to correct publicly misunderstanding and deliberate misrepresentation wherever possible. Soon enough this matter will have flared up and died down again, but whilst astrology is receiving this negative attention, it?s important to use the opportunity to get corrective statements published too (IMO).

(PS - also agree with Waybread's last comment too.)
(PS - Plus I also agree with all the other comments that have been made in this thread!!)

For those interested, I posted a copy of my letter of complaint to the Guardian (for removing my posts which defended astrology and censoring me) here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=61696