From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Simpering Sophists (was Re: Nattering Nabobs)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:36:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.202352.17127@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes...
>>
>>Hope your asbestos clothes aren't out at the cleaners...I have a feeling
>>you'll be needing them soon.
>
>Were you the same one I spoke with earlier - I've got so much backlogged
>mail. ... Looks like you'll want to keep your suit on for a while longer.

Thanks bud.  I never take it off in this kind of company.

>Here's a quick question. If alt.astrology is a group for people who are
>interested in it, what are you doing here, aside from giving people flak?

I am interested in it.  I just don't believe in it.  There is a difference.
Next question.

>If I thought Physics was stupid, in what regard would you hold me to
>receive mail from me in sci.physics, carping at this and that?

It would depend.  If you sent a message saying, "Look I just measured an
effect which seems to point to a problem in your model of physics," and you
could back it up, and it didn't apparently contradict innumerable other well-
documented observations to the contrary ("Hey, I just dropped an apple and it
fell up"), I'd treat you with a lot more respect that you seem willing to dole
out.  If you came with a philosophical objection, say to quantum mechanics
or something, if it wasn't completely idiotic, I might listen with interest
even if I disagreed.  But I don't think you really want to compare astrology
with physics, based on the rest of your post, so maybe we should drop this
analogy.

>Namely, what do you get from bashing it?

I'm not bashing it.  There are people here that bash astrology mindlessly.  I'm
not one of them.  I think about what I write here, and I'm not posting because
I need typing practice.

>I read your letter and I don't like your attitude.

Oh excuse me.  Consider it mutual.

>After a few intelligent people have said the same sorts of
>things - about how it is really used and so forth, why doesn't it strike
>you that maybe they have a better handle on it than you, because they
>actually do it, see, and you just sit back in your armchair and scoff.

They see it from their point of view, I see it from mine.  Their "handle" is
one of admittedly almost unquestioning acceptance. You say as much yourself
below.

>Astrology and psychology have an amazing amount in common, in terms of what
>they deal with and how. I doubt you'd have any trouble mapping your barbs at
>astrology into barbs at psychology. And I bet you probably know as much
>about psychology too.

I know enough about psychology to know there is a plausible mechanism to
account for how it could work, for starters.  I also know that experiments
with reproducible results can be done, although obviously never at the level
of the hard sciences.  I also know that it is not a static field like
astrology, but a dynamic one.  And yes, there are similarities.  To extent
astrology is not manipulation of random numbers, it is psychology, no doubt
about it.

>If you want to punch it out because it doesn't have a well-defined
>scientific basis, go ahead. If you want to understand it, then do something
>positive toward that end.

I am.  I am reading about it when I have the opportunity.  I am talking to
people about it here, some of whom even have more to say than "fuck off".

>I understand how I use astrology, and I have seen a number of other
>astrologers in operation. No two are the same, and I doubt you'll get
>two consistent replies about how they go about doing what they do,
>or about the basis or validity of astrology.

No argument here.

>Jesus, look at psychology.
>It's a science with differing schools of thought. They even have their
>little flame wars about behavioral vs. humanistic etc. - proving? It
>proves the science is a science in regard to humans. They are who consume
>it, and it is they to whom it means anything.

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.

>If you don't speak French,
>and you walk up to a group of French people, they can talk to you but
>you won't understand. It's up to you to realize it's as much your language
>problem as theirs.

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

>I use astrology without worrying about causality, precession of the
>equinoxes, scientific basis, any of that. It's a tool, and I don't have
>to worry about the mechanism to use it successfully. In a number of ways
>it's exceedingly arbitrary how one goes about using it. You choose certain
>approaches and work with them, and select what works for you.

Quod erat demomstrandum (see above).

If you are so secure in your unassailable belief, why does seeing it questioned
publicly evoke such hostility, by the way?

>If you came to me and said, do my chart, but first prove that it works,
>I'll say no, I can't prove that it works. I'll say, perhaps I can work
>with you to clarify life issues, to increase your self-understanding.
>So right here, spew on it - but I might as well be a psychologist too,

Exactly.  You are being a psychologist, but you are throwing in elements (I
claim) which are unrelated to the case, which can only decrease the efficacy
of your efforts.

>so get a clue: you're defining astrology as YOU see fit and asking it
>to perform certain things. But you aren't an astrologer! How about
>shutting up and actually going to see real, live astrologers do real,
>live astrology. THEN you might be more qualified to pass judgement on
>what it is you're dealing with.

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"?

And by the way "defining astrology as YOU see fit".  Isn't that exactly what
you claim to be doing too?  Don't you admit it means something different to
everyone who uses it?  So what is the "right" definition then?  I used to
cast horoscopes when I was younger, and I occasionally run astrolog for one
reason or another. I read books about astrology.  So it seems your criterion
for "being qualified to pass judgement" on astrology is that one must have
already made the immutable, eternal judgement that it is valid and not worth
ever questioning further.  Is it any wonder then that everyone who practices
it in the way you do is convinced of its value?

>>"The true height of arrogance is to assume that science is the only way of
>>finding knowledge".  After all, don't you know that people were a lot smarter
>>back in those days when astrology was invented, you know, back when they thought
>>the planets were Gods, that the four humours governed temperament, that
>>the universe could be reduced to the 5 platonic solids, etc., etc.
>
>I think what derived from times past was a lot of garbage, in a religious
>sense. As it so happens, people were also developing ways of looking at
>the world and of thinking about their own natures. Fire, Water, Air, Earth
>and Spirit are very powerful, cohesive symbols which relate to the nature
>of reality as we experience it. I'm glad you're thoroughly familiar with
>these symbols such that you could relate them to your everyday life.
>If you don't care about these symbols, fine. Astrology uses them, and it's
>an art of interpretation of human experience.

One could have some interpretative symbolic psychology of these symbols, I
suppose, 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??

>If you refuse the glossary, get off the subject.

Again, "if you question astrology, you are not qualified to question astrology."
Neat logic.

>Yeah, all those old guys way back there when people were primitive and
>superstitious. The fact that we have categories of science is due to
>Aristotle.

No, the fact that we have categories of "science" rather than categories of
abstract philosophy or superstition or religion is because of all the people
who came after Aristotle and weren't afraid to question what someone else
told them when they found it to be incorrect.

>He thought women had fewer teeth than men - he asserted
>it as a fact because he never bothered to check, sound familiar?

Yeah, it does sound familiar:

>In article <1992Sep12.202352.17127@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
>writes...
>I use astrology without worrying about causality, precession of the
>equinoxes, scientific basis, any of that. It's a tool, and I don't have
>to worry about the mechanism to use it successfully. In a number of ways
>it's exceedingly arbitrary how one goes about using it.


>Science can go down into E = m * c^2 as far as it likes. Matter is energy.
>Photons behave like waves and like particles. Matter is made of whatever -
>three types of quarks. Can science explain why the universe exists? Not HOW
>it works or HOW it is constructed, but WHY things are? What do you think
>philosophy and religion deal with? We don't have a freaking clue what the
>nature of reality is, so we do our damnedest to find plausible theories.
>What you can measure with a ruler of any kind is a mere fragment of what
>there is to be understood.

This long diatribe is so irrelevant that I considered just deleting it.  I
include just to point out:

1) We are not discussing why the universe exists.  Astrology cannot explain
that either.  Or rather, there will be as many different explanations as there
are astrologers, no doubt.

2) We are talking about whether certain conditions produce certain results.
That falls under the category of HOW the world works.

3) The existence of God is irrelevant to this discussion.

I am always amazed at this type of straw-man argumentation:
        a) science cannot explain why nature exists as it does
        b) therefore scientific evidence contrary to [astrology, creationism,
           psychic phenomena, etc.] is completely irrelevant.

4) Finally, what prompted your tirade was my reply:

>>"The true height of arrogance is to assume that science is the only way of
>>finding knowledge".

If you want to agree with me, why not just say so?  Is it so painful for you?


>>1) Tests done by skeptics are not fair since they cheat to make the
>>astrologers look bad.
>
>I've never heard this remark from any astrologer.

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.

>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.  He might not
even charge you for the initial consultation (as opposed to actual therapy).

Besides, psychiatry in the sense of psycho-analysis (which is the form which
corresponds most closely to astrology) is merely a form of talking about
problems with someone else.  Everyone knows this is usually worthwhile.
Contrast this to the extremely non-obvious claim that the planets affect
personality and life events.

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.

>You can make a 'fool' of anyone by feeding them false information. A skeptic
>worth the name will cooperate to begin with and assess the results, they
>will not try to jury-rig the test. So (1) makes no sense as a statement.

I don't understand the reference to false information.  So are you claiming
that skeptics attempt to cheat or not?

>>2) Astrology does not work in a repeatable way, so there is no way to predict
>>events with this kind of precision before the fact.  When we examine the chart
>>after the events, with full knowledge, of course everything makes perfect
>>sense.
>
>Read Barbara Watters' book "Horary Astrology and the Judgement of Events",
>second part consisting of case studies. Maybe YOU will come back and say,
>oh, she only presented the cases that worked!

Well, if she made 100 predictions (probably a conservative estimate) and then
wrote a book about the 10 which seem to be borne out, yes, I might be
suspicious.

>But you won't be able to make the quip about "can't predict ... with
>precision." She got a guy off a murder rap with the stuff,

Hope he was innocent...

>and saved someone from buying stock in a company which later failed.

Wonder how many times she saved someone from buying stock in a company which
later struck it rich.  I wonder if she reads the Wall Street Journal.  Don't
you see these kinds of issues are paramount in determining if there is really
anything to her claims?

>She uses it brilliantly, and you haven't any idea how
>she did this or how she could, because you don't relate to the subject at
>all. Read the book. AND I'LL SEND A COPY TO YOU IF YOU GIVE ME A MAILING
>ADDRESS, I don't want any lame excuses.

Cool.

Dave Casper
293, rue de la Cite'
Batiment D
F01220, Divonne-les-Bains
France

I think I check for ticking noises inside the package before opening though.

>Let's suppose you have an incredibly nonlinear system sitting in front
>of you in a black box, with rows of knobs on top. Your job is to determine
>exactly how to make the box behave in a specific fashion. The only way to
>do this is through trial and error and observation, by twiddling the knobs
>and seeing what happens. After a while you develop a theory - this knob
>kinda does that, and this knob changes the thing that that knob does, and
>so forth. Suppose I come up to you before you've finished, and say, well,
>since you really don't seem to know how it works, I guess your theories
>are all hot air? I mean, I see you can get it to whine and wheeze, but
>it still doesn't put out a pitch at middle C, so it's probably useless.
>Is that a fair assessment, of the truth, and of the knowledge that you
>have already accumulated?

Bad analogy.

You have yet to show that turning _any_ knob affects what is inside the black
box.  So yes, if I had been stupidly sitting there turning knobs and
accomplishing nothing, and you came up and said "Has it occurred to you that
turning those knobs has no effect on the behavior of the instrument...let's
think of some way to find out if it does."  I might thank you.  Of course, in
reality, this is the _first_ thing I would make sure of.

In fact a better analogy (the fact there are knobs is a good reason to suppose
they affect the box.  The fact there are planets is not a good reason to
suspect they affect romance, hair color, temperament, etc.)  would be if you
were standing there furiously calculating the box's distance to every
automobile in California and then trying to alter its behavior by getting your
Uncle Charlie in Van Nuys to park his car somewhere else.  In this analogy, my
reaction would closely parallel the one I have to astrology.

>Let's suppose there is a family of people,[...]
>You've watched numbers of family arguments [...]
>one night Father wins the argument and gets his way.
>One night Father wins the argument, but Mother storms out angrily.
>Father goes after her and five minutes later they come back and the
>decision is changed! Well, here it is, your weekly visit. An argument
>starts. How will it end? Who will win? Why?
>YOU don't know. YOU will guess. And you might be WRONG. And next week,
>the same time, the same people, even the same topic of argument, could
>go down differently. It's PEOPLE who are 'not repeatable'. This is a pretty
>good model of what astrologers do and what they're up against.

Whereas you would see who had Mars transiting their 4th house and could do
better...is that what you are saying?  You don't know either and *you* will
be guessing.  Only *you* will not realize you are guessing.  You will think you
are using a "tool".

You are supporting my side of the discussion without realizing it.  Yes,
personal relations are unpredictable.  Yes, even with an intimate knowledge of
the personalities it is impossible to say.  How much more difficult is it if
you introduce a random variable like the position of Mars??

>>4) Fuck off and die you troublemaker, we don't want you here questioning our
>>beliefs.
>
>Well, I suppose if it were a congregation and you sat in the back of the
>hall snickering, it'd get on their nerves after a while.

The net is not a church.  The net is a place for discussion.  A church is
place for worship.  Yet another poorly chosen analogy.

Let's take a better one.  Suppose I am walking through a public square and
there are a large group of people talking about something.  It is obvious that
it is not a private discussion, since people are walking up and listening,
occasionally chiming in, while others drift away from time to time.  I walk
up and listen for a while.  It turns out that a topic I find interesting is
being discussed.  I hear someone make a statement which I disgree with, in
fact to point of believing it to be completely false.  I do not think the
person is necessarily lying, just probably basing his statement on incorrect
information and/or unsound reasoning.  I speak up and say, excuse me, I think
that is mistaken for the following reasons, and proceed to list them.  I say,
could you explain to me how it is things could be as you suggest, in the light
of the points I have made?  I say, why don't we attempt to determine if there
is a way we can ascertain the actual state of affairs in a manner which will
convince both of us, regardless of which claim turns out to be correct.  Now
someone else, their face turning red, veins bulging from their temples lets
loose a torrent of more faulty logic and concludes with "I know I'm right.  I
don't care what you say! (a statement obviously belied by his state of extreme
agitation)  If you don't agree with me, you're not welcome to participate
in this public discussion.

Now we've got an analogy.

>You understand nothing, make no effort, and find no other venue to expend
>your energy in. 

False, false, and false.

>GET A CLUE - hang around and eat the wine and crackers, we don't care.
>The congregation has you figured out too.

Well to extent your behavior is suspiciously similar to that of a fundie, maybe
the analogy isn't so bad after all.

>-ecsd

Aren't you gonna close with an "Amen", Reverend?


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.astrology