From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Back to the subject: Skepticism (was: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:15:15 GMT

I just realized (after finishing the response below) that the "Newsgroups:"
line is larger than I thought, so I set

***Followup-To: sci.skeptic***

to keep the crossposting to a minimum.  If you t.r.n readers are still
offended by people who don't share your opinions, sorry.  Hit 'n' now.

In article <1992Nov16.192115.21473@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
[explanation re: constellations and zodiacal signs deleted,
as well as the Scorpius/Scorpio/Scoropio/Ares discussion]
>Much misunderstanding could be eliminated if the distinctions were kept
>clearer, including the scoffing argument raised by scientists that the
>precession of the equinoxes has shifted all the signs so they no longer
>line up to the stars, thereby "proving" that astrology is intrinsically
>nonsense. The fact is that the earth-sun zodiac does not precess, while
>the sidereal one does. About 2,000 years ago they were approximately 
>lined up (except for the varying sizes of the sidereal zodiac). [..]

That's a matter of definition, not a fact.  One precesses with respect to
the other, and you can choose arbitrarily which is the precessing one.
To sum up: Those "scientists" that "raised" the "scoffing argument" missed
the point, and you missed again when you tried to refute them.

>Scientific skepticism about astrology has never been based on solid 
>scientific investigation.  It only is based on  a revulsion against the 
>essentially non-scientific methodology of astrology and the often crude 
>application of it in a superstitious way.

Why should skeptics use a cannon to shoot a sparrow?  It seems that the only
halfway solid scientific investigation *astrology is based on* is one of the
Gauquelins' statistics, and that is currently discussed.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong about scientific evidence.  But don't tell
me about the metal-planet correspondence work; here is an interesting
sentence by Kollerstrom:  "My interest in the experiments had somewhat
waned after finding that they sometimes worked but sometimes did not.")

Please don't misunderstand me: I don't want to say that skeptics should not
investigate astrology, but you can't reproach them with not doing it
(which possibly you didn't want to do anyway).

>The result is that most scientists 
>never get beyond the position that there is absolutely no reason to investigate
>this "nonsense" anyway, so a few pot shots aimed at the astrology of
>the National Enquirer variety are deemed to be enough. Then they say,
>show me some evidence according to my standards of evidence.  Astrologers
>are not forthcoming with this, so there it stands. No truly scientific
>investigation is ever made.

Fine, so you have an excuse for not having scientific evidence.  It's the
same excuse that nearly everybody without scientific evidence has.
You are not alone: the "stones are living and moving" school shares your
fate.

>For one thing that requires an objective scientist
>who also has some faith that his investigations may yield concrete results,

Doesn't that mean that the "objective scientist" has to believe that there is
an effect?  You seem to use a new definition of "objective".

>not one who is determined to find the first piece of evidence that disproves
>the hypothesis. [..]

Assistent: "Hey, look here.  There is the first piece of evidence that
  disproves the hypothesis!"
Objective Scientist: "Just ignore it, that's not what we're searching for!"

What's wrong with being determined to find whatever it is you mean by
"evidence that disproves the hypothesis"?

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)