Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #321 > unrolled thread

More than half of kids think astrology is a science.

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-12 20:11 +0000
    Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Koen Lefever <koen.lefever@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 13:18 -0800
      Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-12 14:10 -0800
        Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. cykros@devio.us - 2014-02-13 05:42 +0000
          Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-12 22:39 -0800
            Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-13 09:24 +0200
              Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-12 23:44 -0800
    Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Koen Lefever <koen.lefever@gmail.com> - 2014-02-14 12:29 -0800
      Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-15 09:22 -0500
      Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science. Vince Mulhollon <vincemulhollon@gmail.com> - 2014-02-16 05:32 -0800

#321 — More than half of kids think astrology is a science.

("http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf")

While Slashdot is in an uproar about this story, I am going to be
fashionable and disagree with the herd.  Astrology is a science, which is
now known as astronomy.  For reasons which still elude me, in a desire to
promote heliocentrism, the geocentric model was both linked with
prognostication and derided as un-scientific.  Properly, astronomy should
merely involve the classification and naming of stars and heavenly
phenomena if we are to observe established scientific nomenclature, and
'astrology' should be the name for what the people who currently are
twisting established conventions of scientific nomenclature are doing.  We
don't have geonomy or bionomy or socionomy or philonomy, and we shouldn't
have astronomy either.  It is properly Astrology whether or not you try to
tell the future.

Now I am not a geocentrist, but the arrogance of the astronomical (really
properly astrological) community in linking geocentrism with
prognostication in an attempt to paint it as driven by magical thinking is
inexcusable and the war continues today, hundreds of years after Galileo
and Copernicus.  Tycho Brahe did not believe in astrological
prognostication and he contended that the geocentric model was actually
very well developed and accurate, describing with great accuracy the motion
of heavenly bodies in the sky.  Remember, on the shoulders of giants...

While I understand the desire for people to see their fellows brought up
from ignorance and superstition, there are two things that I think we
forget.  First, that mockery (such as you see applied to astrology fans and
creationists) just doesn't work, and second, that perhaps for many people a
scientific understanding of the world is not something they desire.  People
have a natural right to believe what they want regardless of scientific
evidence, peer pressure, state-run education, political correctness, and so
forth.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#325

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:11:56 PM UTC+1, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> ("http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf")
> 
> 
> 
> While Slashdot is in an uproar about this story, I am going to be
> 
> fashionable and disagree with the herd.  Astrology is a science, which is
> 
> now known as astronomy.  For reasons which still elude me, in a desire to
> 
> promote heliocentrism, the geocentric model was both linked with
> 
> prognostication and derided as un-scientific.  Properly, astronomy should
> 
> merely involve the classification and naming of stars and heavenly
> 
> phenomena if we are to observe established scientific nomenclature, and
> 
> 'astrology' should be the name for what the people who currently are
> 
> twisting established conventions of scientific nomenclature are doing.  We
> 
> don't have geonomy or bionomy or socionomy or philonomy, and we shouldn't
> 
> have astronomy either.  It is properly Astrology whether or not you try to
> 
> tell the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am not a geocentrist, but the arrogance of the astronomical (really
> 
> properly astrological) community in linking geocentrism with
> 
> prognostication in an attempt to paint it as driven by magical thinking is
> 
> inexcusable and the war continues today, hundreds of years after Galileo
> 
> and Copernicus.  Tycho Brahe did not believe in astrological
> 
> prognostication and he contended that the geocentric model was actually
> 
> very well developed and accurate, describing with great accuracy the motion
> 
> of heavenly bodies in the sky.  Remember, on the shoulders of giants...
> 
> 
> 
> While I understand the desire for people to see their fellows brought up
> 
> from ignorance and superstition, there are two things that I think we
> 
> forget.  First, that mockery (such as you see applied to astrology fans and
> 
> creationists) just doesn't work, and second, that perhaps for many people a
> 
> scientific understanding of the world is not something they desire.  People
> 
> have a natural right to believe what they want regardless of scientific
> 
> evidence, peer pressure, state-run education, political correctness, and so
> 
> forth.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

(1) Geocentrism can still be maintained, it is just a choice of reference frame. Heliocentrism gives a more simple model (an ellipse around the sun) than geocentrism (circles on circles on circles on circles... around the earth) and that is why we mostly prefer it today.

(2) Both geocentrism and heliocentrism can exist with or without magical thinking. For example, Kepler was a copernican (heliocentrism) and he was also an astrologer (in the sense of magical thinking).

(3) What we today call astronomy was once called astrology indeed. The shift of meaning may be unfortunate, but language is a convention, so trying to use a word in its historical meaning rather than how the community understands it today only adds to the confusion.

(4) Magical thinking (including astrology as how the word is used today) is unscientific. That is a different matter from whether is it wrong or correct (even if I personally think magical thinking is incorrect: in my opinion scientific thinking may be imperfect, but it is the best we have). Still a different matter is if people have the right to be wrong (I think they do).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#335

On 2014-02-12 21:18:02 +0000, Koen Lefever said:

> I'm not sure I understand your point.
> 
> (1) Geocentrism can still be maintained, it is just a choice of 
> reference frame. Heliocentrism gives a more simple model (an ellipse 
> around the sun) than geocentrism (circles on circles on circles on 
> circles... around the earth) and that is why we mostly prefer it today.
> 
> (2) Both geocentrism and heliocentrism can exist with or without 
> magical thinking. For example, Kepler was a copernican (heliocentrism) 
> and he was also an astrologer (in the sense of magical thinking).
> 
> (3) What we today call astronomy was once called astrology indeed. The 
> shift of meaning may be unfortunate, but language is a convention, so 
> trying to use a word in its historical meaning rather than how the 
> community understands it today only adds to the confusion.
> 
> (4) Magical thinking (including astrology as how the word is used 
> today) is unscientific. That is a different matter from whether is it 
> wrong or correct (even if I personally think magical thinking is 
> incorrect: in my opinion scientific thinking may be imperfect, but it 
> is the best we have). Still a different matter is if people have the 
> right to be wrong (I think they do).

I believe that the current astro-physical model of the universe quashes 
geocentrism.  It is still a very useful model for astrological 
observation of the heavens, but as far as its vaildity in cosmology it 
is now obsolete.  Anyway I have been bucking the trend for years and 
calling astrology by its proper name, as it has led to some great 
conversations.  Conventions can be bucked and trends can be reversed 
with persistence, and though others may feel I am a crank or a troll I 
am comfortable with this.

While your last point is true, I have moved beyond the stage in my life 
where I was worried about whether or not other people hold views that 
are scientifically supported.  It smacks of groupthink, especially when 
people are presssured to have views that they are merely told are 
scientifically supportable without having the tools or time to verify 
these supposedly scientific ideas for themselves.  It's simply swapping 
one religion, with one priesthood, for another, and ultimately is 
merely magical thinking under a different name.  I try not to believe 
anything unless I can prove it to myself, to my own satisfaction, with 
my own resources any more.  If I can't test a theory myself it is not 
likely that my belief in it (or not) will cause any great impact on my 
day to day life.

Ultimately I was moved to post the link by the commets posted at 
Slashdot, which were a perfect example of mass groupthink.  People are 
conditioned to hate astrology and geocentrism, and many don't even know 
why.  My comment following was just a rant in the vein of Slashdot 
posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#351

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-12 21:18:02 +0000, Koen Lefever said:
> 
>> I'm not sure I understand your point.
>> 
>> (1) Geocentrism can still be maintained, it is just a choice of 
>> reference frame. Heliocentrism gives a more simple model (an ellipse 
>> around the sun) than geocentrism (circles on circles on circles on 
>> circles... around the earth) and that is why we mostly prefer it today.
>> 
>> (2) Both geocentrism and heliocentrism can exist with or without 
>> magical thinking. For example, Kepler was a copernican (heliocentrism) 
>> and he was also an astrologer (in the sense of magical thinking).
>> 
>> (3) What we today call astronomy was once called astrology indeed. The 
>> shift of meaning may be unfortunate, but language is a convention, so 
>> trying to use a word in its historical meaning rather than how the 
>> community understands it today only adds to the confusion.
>> 
>> (4) Magical thinking (including astrology as how the word is used 
>> today) is unscientific. That is a different matter from whether is it 
>> wrong or correct (even if I personally think magical thinking is 
>> incorrect: in my opinion scientific thinking may be imperfect, but it 
>> is the best we have). Still a different matter is if people have the 
>> right to be wrong (I think they do).
> 
> I believe that the current astro-physical model of the universe quashes 
> geocentrism.  It is still a very useful model for astrological 
> observation of the heavens, but as far as its vaildity in cosmology it 
> is now obsolete.  Anyway I have been bucking the trend for years and 
> calling astrology by its proper name, as it has led to some great 
> conversations.  Conventions can be bucked and trends can be reversed 
> with persistence, and though others may feel I am a crank or a troll I 
> am comfortable with this.
> 
> While your last point is true, I have moved beyond the stage in my life 
> where I was worried about whether or not other people hold views that 
> are scientifically supported.  It smacks of groupthink, especially when 
> people are presssured to have views that they are merely told are 
> scientifically supportable without having the tools or time to verify 
> these supposedly scientific ideas for themselves.  It's simply swapping 
> one religion, with one priesthood, for another, and ultimately is 
> merely magical thinking under a different name.  I try not to believe 
> anything unless I can prove it to myself, to my own satisfaction, with 
> my own resources any more.  If I can't test a theory myself it is not 
> likely that my belief in it (or not) will cause any great impact on my 
> day to day life.
> 
> Ultimately I was moved to post the link by the commets posted at 
> Slashdot, which were a perfect example of mass groupthink.  People are 
> conditioned to hate astrology and geocentrism, and many don't even know 
> why.  My comment following was just a rant in the vein of Slashdot 
> posts.

I'm not so sure I'd write off what we usually think of as astrology as "not a science" either (unless you're talking about the particularly bad brand found in newspapers, "apps", etc).  Correlations based on positions of heavenly bodies are tracked, from which we have the general attributions granted to their positions. 

What this basically amounts to is a calendar of sorts, and farmers of old routinely used astrological information to gauge what time to plant and harvest their crops, among other things. And likewise, humans go through different psychological states at various times of year, and in response to that, we have in many places astrologically deteremined dates for holidays.  It's no accident that a large familial feast holiday exists across so many cultures to celebrate the winter solstice.

Now, is it a RIGID science, being held to strict rules on quantitative data and controlled observation?  No, it generally is not. But I'm not so sure that means it's the best idea to throw out millenia worth of collected study that was able to survive that long, with such a profoundly important role in many societies.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#354

On 2014-02-13 05:42:52 +0000, cykros@devio.us said:

> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-02-12 21:18:02 +0000, Koen Lefever said:
>> 
>>> I'm not sure I understand your point.
>>> 
>>> (1) Geocentrism can still be maintained, it is just a choice of
>>> reference frame. Heliocentrism gives a more simple model (an ellipse
>>> around the sun) than geocentrism (circles on circles on circles on
>>> circles... around the earth) and that is why we mostly prefer it today.
>>> 
>>> (2) Both geocentrism and heliocentrism can exist with or without
>>> magical thinking. For example, Kepler was a copernican (heliocentrism)
>>> and he was also an astrologer (in the sense of magical thinking).
>>> 
>>> (3) What we today call astronomy was once called astrology indeed. The
>>> shift of meaning may be unfortunate, but language is a convention, so
>>> trying to use a word in its historical meaning rather than how the
>>> community understands it today only adds to the confusion.
>>> 
>>> (4) Magical thinking (including astrology as how the word is used
>>> today) is unscientific. That is a different matter from whether is it
>>> wrong or correct (even if I personally think magical thinking is
>>> incorrect: in my opinion scientific thinking may be imperfect, but it
>>> is the best we have). Still a different matter is if people have the
>>> right to be wrong (I think they do).
>> 
>> I believe that the current astro-physical model of the universe quashes
>> geocentrism.  It is still a very useful model for astrological
>> observation of the heavens, but as far as its vaildity in cosmology it
>> is now obsolete.  Anyway I have been bucking the trend for years and
>> calling astrology by its proper name, as it has led to some great
>> conversations.  Conventions can be bucked and trends can be reversed
>> with persistence, and though others may feel I am a crank or a troll I
>> am comfortable with this.
>> 
>> While your last point is true, I have moved beyond the stage in my life
>> where I was worried about whether or not other people hold views that
>> are scientifically supported.  It smacks of groupthink, especially when
>> people are presssured to have views that they are merely told are
>> scientifically supportable without having the tools or time to verify
>> these supposedly scientific ideas for themselves.  It's simply swapping
>> one religion, with one priesthood, for another, and ultimately is
>> merely magical thinking under a different name.  I try not to believe
>> anything unless I can prove it to myself, to my own satisfaction, with
>> my own resources any more.  If I can't test a theory myself it is not
>> likely that my belief in it (or not) will cause any great impact on my
>> day to day life.
>> 
>> Ultimately I was moved to post the link by the commets posted at
>> Slashdot, which were a perfect example of mass groupthink.  People are
>> conditioned to hate astrology and geocentrism, and many don't even know
>> why.  My comment following was just a rant in the vein of Slashdot
>> posts.
> 
> I'm not so sure I'd write off what we usually think of as astrology as 
> "not a science" either (unless you're talking about the particularly 
> bad brand found in newspapers, "apps", etc).  Correlations based on 
> positions of heavenly bodies are tracked, from which we have the 
> general attributions granted to their positions.
> 
> What this basically amounts to is a calendar of sorts, and farmers of 
> old routinely used astrological information to gauge what time to plant 
> and harvest their crops, among other things. And likewise, humans go 
> through different psychological states at various times of year, and in 
> response to that, we have in many places astrologically deteremined 
> dates for holidays.  It's no accident that a large familial feast 
> holiday exists across so many cultures to celebrate the winter solstice.
> 
> Now, is it a RIGID science, being held to strict rules on quantitative 
> data and controlled observation?  No, it generally is not. But I'm not 
> so sure that means it's the best idea to throw out millenia worth of 
> collected study that was able to survive that long, with such a 
> profoundly important role in many societies.

Good points.  Knight and Lomas conducted an exhaustive study of 
astrology and came to the conclusion that it can achieve a degree of 
accurate prognostication.  It is the first modern study of astrological 
prognostication that I am aware of since the Carlson study.  Of course 
Knight and Lomas' work has been ignored by the Wikipedia editors as 
well as the broader scientific community, but this is hardly surprising.

I do not personally make use of astrology as a tool for 
prognostication, but I do not fault those that do so, nor will I 
condemn people for engaging in other types of what is called magical 
thinking.  It's part of the human condition and there are cultural 
forces that can be as, or more important to people than sterile science 
alone.  We are moving more and more into an era where science alone is 
supposed by many to hold answers to questions that have a moral 
component heretofore unaddressed by the scientific community and the 
20th century is rife with scientific progress unchecked by moral 
restraints.  Say what you will about a moral system that comes from a 
religion, at least each religion has a firm moral grounding whether or 
not one personally agrees with it.

I am happy to let people believe what they want these days, as I said 
above, and even if I disagree with somebody's thoughts on a matter 
mockery such as that exhibited on Slashdot in relation to the story I 
linked to seldom constructively addressed any problem or changed 
anybody's mind.

Thanks for your post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> I am happy to let people believe what they want these days,

Superstition is an innate human instinct that has served our species
well during the millennia. You will not be able to eradicate it any more
than you can eradicate love, humor or music. Since it is an instinct, it
has nothing to do with how smart or educated you are. With education
(including organized religion), you may be able to bridle it.

You may not get superstition, but similarly there are people who can't
get love, humor, music, art, friends, kids, sports, pity, curiosity,
ambition, fashion etc.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360

On 2014-02-13 07:24:51 +0000, Marko Rauhamaa said:

> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> I am happy to let people believe what they want these days,
> 
> Superstition is an innate human instinct that has served our species
> well during the millennia. You will not be able to eradicate it any more
> than you can eradicate love, humor or music. Since it is an instinct, it
> has nothing to do with how smart or educated you are. With education
> (including organized religion), you may be able to bridle it.
> 
> You may not get superstition, but similarly there are people who can't
> get love, humor, music, art, friends, kids, sports, pity, curiosity,
> ambition, fashion etc.
> 
> 
> Marko

Who says I don't get superstition?  My main point was that I don't 
think it's useful to judge people as unsound based upon their having 
beliefs in the supernatural or other aspects of humanity that may not 
be explainable by science, conversely I will not condemn a person for 
holding a belief they believe to be scientific yet haven't proved to 
their own satisfaction through their own efforts.  Freedom of thought 
is a basic human right regardless of others' opinions on a given 
belief.  I think you misunderstood my point, which might be my fault.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427

Well, it turns out that there is a confusion in terminology:

"http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report-flawed-americans-do-not-believe-astrology-is-scientific/"

FTFA: "Among those that correctly identified astrology as astrology, only 10% of the sample found it "pretty scientific" or "very scientific". Only 1 person said it was "very scientific." Among those that identified astrology as astronomy, the field was overwhelmingly seen as scientific, exactly as I expected. This is the true driver of the NSF report findings."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#434

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:29:08 -0800 (PST), Koen Lefever
<koen.lefever@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, it turns out that there is a confusion in terminology:
>
>"http://neoacademic.com/2014/02/14/nsf-report-flawed-americans-do-not-believe-astrology-is-scientific/"
>
>FTFA: "Among those that correctly identified astrology as astrology, only 10% of the sample found it "pretty scientific" or "very scientific". Only 1 person said it was "very scientific." Among those that identified astrology as astronomy, the field was overwhelmingly seen as scientific, exactly as I expected. This is the true driver of the NSF report findings."

So it's not that Americans have no grasp of science, they just can't
speak English ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457

On Friday, February 14, 2014 2:29:08 PM UTC-6, Koen Lefever wrote:
> Only 1 person said it was "very scientific."

I'd be in that 1%.  So you run thousands/millions of experimental trials where you tell people enough that they don't feel ripped off but not so much that you're identified as a fraud.  Virtually all the trials are falsifiable and testable, while wrapped up in technicalities so the author doesn't get busted.  Its very hard work and the cream rises to the top quite effectively and reproducibly and falsifiably.  

There's also a reasonable rational model behind the results.  I'm not talking about the woo woo stylistic BS, but the actual model of how they convince people to give them money, the psych and business related model.

There are some issues with the profession, like is it good style in the modern world to use math and astronomy and the like as a meaningless stage prop.  Or is it moral and ethical to base a business around just barely not lying to people but also not providing any usable insight for money, aka being a management consultant or management in general, especially at the highest levels.

I just think its amateur hour to vote against a perfectly scientific psych-hack of a profession just because of a moral/ethical/stylistic dislike.  By analogy these guys are saying something like, "Physics... I don't like living at the target of H-bombs and their taste in corduroy elbow patches on sportscoats is awful, so I'll vote for them not to be scientists, because scientists are cool, and regardless of what the Physicists are, they're not cool IMHO".  Like I said, amateur hour.  May not like them or their style or their biz or their ethics, but they're certainly extremely scientific, at least the successful ones.  Even the so so ones, could teach Bernays a thing or two, and the cream of the crop operate at a scientific level above Bernays.

If you vote the astrologers off the science tropical island, next up is the management science people, all the political scientists, virtually every economist who ever walked the earth, most of the psych crowd, most of the soft science crowd...  Pretty much anyone who styles themselves a scientist but they flunked calc, or at best took stats instead of calc.  Admittedly a lot of B-ark people, but you're going to lose some real insight.  Maybe not much, but some.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web