Atrios finds it odd that, since 31% of Americans believe in astrology and it qualifies as a mainstream belief, that "people are falling all over themselves to mock someone who had a perfectly mainstream belief apparently shared by millions and millions of Americans."
I just have to say that in my case it's not odd at all. I'm being consistent.
- Log in to post comments
In my experience it's the mainstream that needs the most mockery.
It's only odd if those mockers have similar unfounded beliefs. Such as, that prayers are answered by an omniscient God.
Well I just think if people are going to be mocking him for astrology they better also be consistent. I think maybe that's what Atrios finds odd... these people aren't falling all over themselves to mock christians.
There should be a whole lot more mocking going on when it's required.
Keep in mind, PZ, that you're not trying to get elected to public office. It will be quite a few years before an open atheist can get elected to high public office.
There's a difference--in certain limited respects astrology is a science--it has some defined procedures to make it replicable, and it makes some testable predictions. Of course it fails a high proportion of those tests, which should lead any rational person to reject it as a science (cf. Lysenkoism).
On the other hand, while I don't think it's rational to believe in astrology, I think a rational person can be religious, as long as s/he doesn't expect prayers to be answered or other intervention.
Now what about this: I know a statistics instructor who claim it's rational to buy lottery tickets because "someone has to win..."
Huh? Believing the position of stars can predict things based on when you were born is less rational than the invisible man in the sky who had a son that came back from the dead?
I have a hard time deciding whether I have less respect for creationists or people who believe in astrology.
On the one hand, creationism carries with it rejection of a very important scientific theory, and many of it's proponents are actively working against that theory. Astrology doesn't have that same conflict, it's just an extra crazy thing to believe.
On the other hand, astrology just seems so obviously false. At least with creationism, there are people out there trying to present fancy sounding 'science' to lure you in. It's tied a major religion. There are lots of good excuses. Believing in astrology requires being extremely gullible and having no critical thinking skills whatsoever. You can't be fooled into it by being scientifically illiterate like you can with creationism.
Uhg. Once you become an adult you have to suspend disbelief for either.
Astrology is WAY less harmful. bogus but harmless.
I don't think people read their horoscopes too seriously.
I think the Discomfortable Institute has a list of more than 600 assembly-line workers who agree that Newton's laws of motion do not explain the entire cosmos.
There's a difference--in certain limited respects astrology is a science--it has some defined procedures to make it replicable, and it makes some testable predictions.
I know you went on to say any rational person would reject it as a real science, but let's go one further and say that in no respect is astrology a science, and alone your two properties do not a science make. Trying to stretch the term "a science" to fit it distorts the meaning and beclouds understanding.
How deeply do you think the 31% hold those beliefs? The question from the survey, though unambiguous, doesn't ask if anyone reorders their day on astrological principles or won't sleep with a Gemini even when drunk, just that they "believe" which covers "I'm really nice, just like all [insert sign here] are."
It's not that I'm misunderestimating the stupidity of the hoi polloi, but that I figure astrology, even if "believed", is trivial to the daily life of most of that 31%.
Tiax wrote:
Actually, if you get into astrology more deeply than the newspaper columns, you will find plenty of people out there using 'science' to lure you in. It's taken very seriously in many parts of the globe (ie India) -- and if you're at all open to the idea that the West might have missed some important scientific discoveries which the East has made, you will find credentialed Phd's spewing forth all the impressive verbiage you want, with what looks like academic journals, peer review, etc.
cm wrote:
In a sense, astrology can be said to be a failed science, in that we can imagine that it could have been true. It makes testable predictions. You could write a science fiction story about a world in which astrology actually worked. And by the same token, you could write a story in which scientists ended up discovering that the earth was 6,000 years old because it really WAS 6,000 years old. Hundreds of years ago, that is what many great intellects expected to happen, as time went on.
The reason neither astrology nor Young Earth Creationism are part of modern scientific understanding today is not because they violate some basic tenet of what science could or could not study, or because there is no way they could ever in theory be scientific. It's because we didn't discover evidence which fit with the theories. They were falsified -- as much as science can falsify anything.
"Science" isn't the body of findings. It's the methods.
Religion is only "outside" of science when it takes great and special care to not say anything specific enough to make any difference in our observations or experiences, one way or another. Which is darn hard to do.
Your mocking is in good company: specifically, Shakespeare's.
PZ! Didn't you get your marching orders from Markos?!! You're supposed to say the same thing as everyone else!
Wait...everyone else is saying different stuff too. Damn, my brainslug fell off.
It's cold down here on the floor....
To be fair, I think that Atrios is not so much defending Astrology against mockery as wondering why this particular superstitious tripe is considered "radiocative", when it's no more ludicrous than religious beliefs - which are almost a requirement, if you seek any political office.
Yes, you are consistent, because you mock all sorts of non-scientific beliefs. But I'm going to go along with the other folks who think that what Atrios finds odd is that believing in astrology is wacky (and should be a disqualifier for involvement in public life), but believing in a reanimated zombie god and his invisible sky-father is not (and is an absolute requirement for involvement in public life). A religion is just a cult with a lot of members, just as a language is a dialect with an army.
All I can say here is that 200 million Americans can't be wrong...