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

Groups > comp.misc > #351

Re: More than half of kids think astrology is a science.

Show all headers | View raw

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.  

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web