From: yoo@netcom.com (Young-Kyu Yoo)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: "world"
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:08:48 GMT

Robert Wiegand writes:
>
>yoo@netcom.com (Young-Kyu Yoo) writes:
>
>>A true scientist and skeptic, I think, remains neutral on a question until
>>the physical data tips the scale in one direction or the other.  To those
>>who dismiss astrology without testing it empirically themselves or 
>>critically examining the small body of serious scientific work on the
>>subject (there have been many attempts to debunk it...but very few such
>>attempts hold up under serious scientific or mathematical scrutiny...
>>a consequence of the fact that most debunkers are not serious
>>scientists), I would say that it is not skepticism they are practicing,
>>but an UNscientific, unexamined prejudice against the so-called pseudo-sciences.
>
>The way I see it, its the supporters of astrology who must prove that
>it works, its not up to the skeptics to disprove it.

The position that "astrology does NOT work" is as much an unsupported
position (logically, scientifically) as the assertion, without proof, that
it does.  Invoke occam's razor if you wish, but bear in mind that occam's
razor does not LOGICAL support for your position make.

The question that started this thread was how intelligent folks can
believe in astrology.  I gave the basis for *my* belief.  I have not
stated that on this evidence *you* or anyone else should believe.  I
HAVE said that to LOGICALLY, scientifically support a stance of belief
or disbelief, a person should either test astrology empirically themselves
or examine the scientific literature on the subject.  And I would suggest
they examine the literature on both sides of the issue, though there is
much chaff among the wheat (books with presumptuous titles like 
"Astrology Disproved" that normally demonstrate that the authors know 
little of the workings of mathematical or scientific proof).  

>Just because I'm a skeptic doesn't mean that I have to use up all my time
>disproving every crack-pot claim someone makes.

My sole claim is that I have seen convincing evidence to support *my* 
belief.  I doubt anyone can produce evidence that the evidence was not
convincing to *me* or that I *don't* believe.


>When you make an extraordinary claim (such as that astrology works) its
>up to you to prove it. Until you do I have no obligation to believe you.

If you carefully read my original statement above (which you quoted yourself),
you will see that I do NOT say you should believe or disbelieve.  I HAVE
said that you should base your disbelief or belief on a study of the
evidence.  This is only good science.


>I have never heard of any serious study which supported the claims
>of astrology. If you know of any please let us know.

And I have not heard of any studies that show that electronmicroscopy
works.  Merely a demonstration of my ignorance of the literature on
electronmicroscopy.

I refer you to Gauquelin's study on sun signs (which I mentioned in 
an earlier posting) and refer you to the astrology newsgroup for more
info.  I am certainly NOT an expert on astrology.  I will, though,
gladly field questions on set theory or tear apart faulty logic, an
enjoyable exercise in mental masturbation for me.

 ;-)

Cheers,

Young-Kyu



Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa