From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Simpering Sophists (was Re: Nattering Nabobs)
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:31:39 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <13SEP199216365483@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.202352.17127@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes...

>I know enough about psychology to know there is a plausible mechanism to
>account for how it could work, for starters.

My understanding was that the mechanisms behind mind were at the
moment still sufficiently obscure that not only are there many
differing points of view among the experts, but there are basic
unresolved philosophical problems still involved. What plausible
mechanism are you referring to? How does it account for free will, for
example?

>I also know that it is not a static field like
>astrology, but a dynamic one.

What about harmonics? What about mid-points? What about house systems?
What about chart shape? These are all well-known areas of
controversial astrological developments of the last few decades which
research-oriented astrologers are still arguing over, often using
charts and statisical evidence to support their points of view. If you
think astrology is static you have clearly never opened a serious
textbook, let alone an astrological research journal.

>But both psychology and astrology are dispensed to the masses who have only
>the word of the practitioners concerning its worth.  Psychology is a science
>in its infancy, but still using the scientific method.  That stands in
>complete opposition (no pun) to astrology.

Depends on your definition of scientific method, which, despite what a
lot of the schoolkids on sci.skeptic think, is still an open question.
If, as is a defensible position, you choose to say that astrology does
not employ scientific method (since it started before the scientific
method it can't be _based_ on it), then a perfectly good riposte is to
point out that the scientific method, in so far as it is understood,
is simply one of the latest and most successful forms of human
enquiry.  Its virtue is its repeatability, objectivity, and formality,
permitting hundreds or even thousands of minds to collaborate over
lifetimes of research. Its disadvantage is that it is very slow and
ponderous. The most scientifically-inclined don't use science to
choose a spouse or adjust the seasoning on a stew.  Non-scientific
forms of human enquiry gave the human race steel, gunpowder, the steam
engine, the sailing ship, the telescope, and the most sustainable
forms of agriculture known to date, to mention only a few.  Even now
that the scientific method is well established, inventors usually take
non-scientific short-cuts, and leave it to the scientists to find out
why it works afterwards.

>I don't feel the problem is one of language.  It is one of evidence vs.
>blind belief.

You are supposing that the scientific method is the only way of
arriving at useful knowledge, and that in the absence of the
scientific method only blind belief is left. Yet the human race
achieved most of its dominance and control of this planet long before
the scientific method was devised. Throwing out other methods because
of the special virtues of the scientific method is as silly as
shooting all the horses because cars are faster.

>I see plenty of "real live astrology" here.  People here ascribe even the most
>trivial of life occurences (dialing a wrong number, being late to an
>appointment) to astrological influences, with unquestioned, deterministic
>certainty.  They dispense advice to people they don't know about matters they
>have only the vaguest acquaintance with.  Is this "real live astrology"?

Yup. Now check out sci.med and sci.psychology see the same kind of
thing happening there. And if you judged medicine as a science from
reading sci.med you'ld be a fool.

>although I honestly don't see much value in viewing the world as
>made up of four abstract substances and one intangible essence.  The problem is,
>what do the planets have to do with any of this??

Any decent astrological textbook will tell you this. Why is it a problem?

>Michel Gauquelin relates that he used to test astrologers by sending them
>horoscopes and asking them to match with personalities.  When they failed
>miserably they accused him of rigging the test.  I have read other similar
>accusations.

And you'll find this in every branch of science. Scientists are human,
you know. They even sometimes cheat. That is to their discredit. But
it doesn't discredit science.

>>But I have heard numbers
>>of them say they had no patience for someone coming in expecting them to
>>account for astrology.  Go to a shrink and tell him he has to justify his
>>profession or his methods to you - he looks at you and says, I do what I do,
>>I assumed you came here to do that. Why are you wasting my time? And yours?

>I tend to doubt he would say that.  I expect a prospective patient's questions
>about the methods of treatment, efficacy in past cases, professional standing,
>etc. would be welcome and expected before beginning counseling.

You might be so lucky. On the other hand you might be thrown out as a
trouble maker and probable litigant. Practical users of a discipline
which seems to them to work have no responsibility to devise
justifications for the edification of sceptics. If you care so much
about the scientific justification of astrology why don't you do
something about it instead of whining to people who are quite happy
without it to do it for you?

>Finally, let's set our sights lower than "account[ing] for astrology"  just
>show me one unambiguous claim which is supported by a body of reproducible
>evidence.

There isn't one, and given the reluctance of research funding bodies
to get mired in that bog, there isn't likely to be one. Too bad. Now
will you go away and play somewhere else?
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: alt.astrology