Astrology? Give me a break.

Didn't "The Left" with our lockstep collective will once condemn Nancy Reagan for seeking the advice of an astrologer? Isn't that enough to put the kibosh on any thoughts that we united sons and daughters of liberalism could let slip even a single approving utterance of that bourgeois opiate of the masses?

Where the Commissar gets that the Left thinks astrology is a science is beyond me. Astrology is an equal-opportunity pseudoscience, and it's certainly well-represented in right-wing populist circles. Look at the prominence in any of the tabloids like Weekly World News or the fact that newspapers in red states run astrology columns for confirmation.

Despite the prohibition on the supernatural and divination in the Bible, in practice lots of right-wing Christians aren't above looking to astrology for an extra boost (data gathered by observation in Alabama). It's certainly better represented among fundamentalists than among any leftists (including the mostly left-leaning scientists) I'm familiar with.

Numbskulls like Commissar know no more about "the left" than children do about the boogeyman.

I wrote an essay a while back that noted that Nancy Reagan seemed to have used astrology to alter Ron's schedule in an arbitrary manner. For most people, this is stupid. For an assassination target (like the President of the U.S.), it is actually recommended by security experts. I'm still trying to recall if there were any astrology stories about the Reagan's before the Hinkley attempt. Other President's wives have turned to liquor after realizing that their husbands were targets, and astrology isn't as hard on the liver as alcohol.

If one is interested in randomizing a strategy, astrology is not as good as, say, a random number table (or tossing coins in the I Ching). But it's better than nothing. Since most pseudo-science is worse than nothing, astrology, in this instance, avoids scoring an "own goal."

Don't mention the boogeyman! You'll make the Commissar wet his pants.

But at least this kooky astrologer isn't married to a presidential candidate.

I'm confused about what you mean here. I gather you're taking a shot at Reagan. He was once a presidential candidate yes, but that moniker should be dropped once he was elected. Or are you talking about someone else?

Hmmm...the "Left" won't condemn astrology - that's an odd straw man to toss out there.

Offhand, I'd imagine that most rational people simply ignore astrology - it doesn't register as significant.

Astrology and alternative medicine are to progressives as Creationism is to conservatives - that is to say an embarrassment. Fortunately for those of us on the left our pseudo science advocates aren't lobbying for astrology to be taught as an alternative to psychology in high school yet.

Numbskulls like Commissar know no more about "the left" than children do about the boogeyman.

I don't think that's accurate; after all, children, to my knowledge, did not invent the boogeyman, whereas the wingnuts themselves invented the fictional "left" they attempt to equate us with.

From the Mercury Retrograde link:

Uranus is the planet that rules television and computers

And this they have in common with toilet paper and the Stership Enterprise.

And James Killus says:

I wrote an essay a while back that noted that Nancy Reagan seemed to have used astrology to alter Ron's schedule in an arbitrary manner. For most people, this is stupid. For an assassination target (like the President of the U.S.), it is actually recommended by security experts.

Wouldn't this put you at increased risk for assassination by astrologer?

Astrology is not a predictive mathematical discipline. It's pseudomathematics, the tossing around of irrelevant formulae to put up an illusion of rigor. It's about as sensible as biorhythms.

But .... but .... but ....
Little Mikey Behe says astrology has all the scientific legitimacy of Intelligent Design creationism.

James Killus:

If one is interested in randomizing a strategy, astrology is not as good as, say, a random number table (or tossing coins in the I Ching).

I was about to disagree, but this redeems the previous comment (although I doubt it really applies in this case). Applying a deterministic rule is really not a good randomizing method. It can be OK provided your adversary is unaware of the rule, and obviously lots of research has gone into the generation of pseudorandom numbers, of which the cryptographically secure forms should suffice to confuse anyone who does not know the seed number.

But if you are following the deterministic method of fairly well known astrologer (apparently Joyce Jillson) that's getting a little too close for comfort. Coin flips would work much, much better and would involve less irrelevant complexity.

BTW, I have often wondered if the true value of "oracles" including I Ching, Tarot cards, and to an extent astrology since the interpretation is kind of random is exactly what you say. There is an entire discipline of computer science devoted to adversarial algorithm analysis in which the worst case is defined by an omniscient opponent who can choose the next input to give the worst case performance. In such cases, randomized methods are often superior to any deterministic strategy, since in that case the adversary can always predict your next move.

Astrology is not a predictive mathematical discipline.

I disagree. It is predictive, it's just that the predictions are not very good.

Written in jello, perhaps?

Bob

I disagree. It is predictive, it's just that the predictions are not very good.

That's why I disrespect astrology less than I disrespect ID: It's better to swing and miss than it is to be a benchwarmer.

Just a note, for those who seem confused by this: I believe the Commissar is buying into a not-uncommon meme about liberals. Specifically, that there is a category of liberals that are new-age/astrology/psychic surgery/what-have-you buffs, typically with a good dose of hippie/drug user tossed in. I think (?) this is related to the term "moonbat".

I have no idea on the validity of the meme other than the observation that I don't know any of these sorts of liberals. I know a couple of conservatives who give a few of those pseudosciences credibility, but ironically, only in an abstract way--both see them as potential threats to Christianity.

RRT is absolutely right that there is a caricature of the left that is anti-science (and I will cop to knowing some who roughly fit the description). This is one of the reasons I am convinced that intelligent design is the best thing to happen to the American left in a long time because it takes the prominance away from the humanistic elements of the left who gave us political correctness and, from any number of articles in Social Text, was hostile towards sceince. Instead, it put the spotlight back on the pro-science part of the left that usually only receives attention in environmental issues. When you put ID together with global warming, the national narrative is shifting.

rrt:

I believe the Commissar is buying into a not-uncommon meme about liberals. Specifically, that there is a category of liberals that are new-age/astrology/psychic surgery/what-have-you buffs

I think you're right on the money. These people do exist. I tend to think of them as "LA liberals" or "Hollywood liberals" (mainly because as a Bay Area resident--former east coaster--I resent the broad brush with Californians are painted; if you want a liberal, rational--frankly rather boring, wholesome and workaholic--community, you could hardly do better than start in Palo Alto and spiral out).

I've been a liberal all my life, and my parents were liberals. I've never bought into any New Age nonsense. That was why I made the (attempted) joke about liberals having a collective will.

The fact that he placed you of all "Left" bloggers at the top of his list was hysterically ignorant. Serious, man - I was in fits. He was clearly speaking from the wrong end of his digestive system. I love being introduced to the apologists this way; saves me from being shocked an appalled later on.

Pharyngula: I come for the education, I stay for the "pseudo-science". I'm curious what our (I hope) ironically named friend considers to be actual science.

I know more than a few people on the left who fit the "moonbat" stereotype: alternative medicine, psychic powers, astrology, vitalism, etc -- all blended together with a generous dash of "anything is possible" and "we all have our own truths." What really ticks them off about the Religious Right is not their basis in superstition (to the New Agers there are no superstitions.) Nor is it the anti-science stance (science is only "one view among many" and quickly attacked and abandoned the minute it fails to support their favorite pseudoscience.)

What they really hate is that the Religious Right dares to tell other people that their religions are *wrong.* This is the ultimate taboo. All spirituality is good, as long as it "works." Nobody should criticize anyone else's religion. Nobody should ever say any other religion is not "true."

They put up a big bluster, but from what I can tell the only reason this particular group of liberals fight against Creationism is because it is too closely associated with the nasty Religious Right. See what happens if Native Americans want to get their ancient "truths" taught in the schools. The self-designated liberals waver. And look at how Alternative Medicine is taking over mainstream hospitals, clinics, nursing schools, and universities. This is voodoo science coming mostly from the Left. A particular aspect of the Left.

They accept evolution because they see it as reinforcing their views that we are evolving up a Great Chain of Being towards a Higher Consciousness.

While it's true that what Orac terms "alties" exist, I'm curious what makes the Commissar think that they are any more representative of the left at large than the right-wing Christians who read and take seriously what the tabloids say about astrology are representative of the political right.

Ah, the old "you don't denounce this, so you must approve it" gambit. This is what happens when someone carries the idea that everyone is either their ally or their enemy. They can't envision anyone being neutral on a topic. Or even less caring than neutral.

Is there a name for this fallacy?

BTW, I wouldn't dignify "moonbat" with a definition. It's a generic slur word applied not just to New Agers but to anyone who makes an assertion that the right finds uncomfortable. Thus, if I suggest that Bush is dishonest, I am a "moonbat conspiracy nut." By screaming "moonbat, moonbat, moonbat" you can drown out a list indisputable instances of dishonesty (easily found on Daily Howler among other places) or the fairly reasonable point that there is nothing that nutty about conspiracies: most plans that work out well require a bunch of people to coordinate their actions.

So it's not a term I'm willing to sit back and analyze calmly. If you want to call me a moonbat that's your constitutional right, but don't expect me to engage in a discussion with a bunch of inbred knuckledraggers.

To be fair PZ, Astrology is "worse" than biorythms or even Alchemy. Some aspects of Alchemy have similarities to molecular biology, with "keyed" structures that allow the molecules to link together. But its totally stupid as a definition of non-biological systems and elemental processes. In effect, had some means been stumbled over that led to recognition of genetics (how ever unlikely that seems) before a true understanding of Chemistry, Alchemy might have narrowed to cover lock and key type molecular biology, with some modifications, while micro-alchemy or some such was defined to deal with real elements and the underlying structures that produce the organic compounds. Its not impossible, just really seriously unlikely.

Biorythms have two key flaws, scale and arbirrariness. With the exception of some people with seriously screwed up brain chemistries, the minor patterns of hormones that progress through monthly and yearly cycles have, on the scale of other factors, an effect that is only "slightly" higher than background noise. This is hardly enough to cause massive shifts of mental states and certainly **is** meaningless as to the events in your life, though not completely irrelevant to how you deal with them. The real problem is that they are arbitrarilly set, not on the "true" biological cycles, which can change from environment, stress and even, in some cases, like women's periods, due to proximity to other people, which triggers some level of syncronization. Instead they pick an arbitrary date, like astrology does, then try to claim that the rythms are completely inflexible. Had they been based on statistical tracking of ones moods, then projected based on observed cycles... They still might be mostly meaningless, but not 99% wrong.

Astrology on the other hand... Has **no** relevant biological or chemical parallels. Nothing at all in the world of science come vaguely close to implying that some distant star so much as has a effect on life in general, let alone one specific life form. You can't even make anything up to explain how it might work, if someone tried to apply real science to it. It is just plain, complete and total BS.

I agree that astrology in and of itself is not as much of a threat as creation science and ID. However, it's the same inability to apply critical thinking and the same anti-science attitude that leads to a belief in both, so in that sense I believe astrology should be debunked with as much vigor as other pseudosciences.

Whatever you want to call them (I've considered "Cursive-L liberals"), they do seem to exist. I find it funny that some have called me a Bush supporter because I don't buy into their conspiracy theories.

the Left thinks astrology is an acceptable pseudo-science

How many left-leaning politicians make the injection of astrology into the science classrooms part of their platform?

I know of none, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Now, how many right-leaning politicians make the injection of creationism/ID into the science classrooms part of their platform?

I know of three just off the top of my head from my home state: SC education superintendent candidate Karen Floyd (just won the R primary), SC state senators Mike Fair and Bob Walker.

Bronze Dog:

I find it funny that some have called me a Bush supporter because I don't buy into their conspiracy theories.

Actually, this might be one of those areas in which Bush has managed to be a "uniter not a divider." By declaring war on stem cell research and the environmental sciences, Bush has unified the resistance in a way it could never have done by itself. Twenty years ago, liberals were probably more likely to oppose science and technology. At least that was my experience.

I was in college during the Reagan years, and was never anything but a liberal Democrat (the first vote I ever cast was Mondale/Ferraro). But because I was a computer science major, people seemed to assume by default that I was some kind of Alex from Family Ties with conservative beliefs, bent on making lots of money. It didn't take much to dispell the notion in my case, but one got the sense that liberals were expected to eschew science and mathematics, and should be majoring in English Lit. or Women's studies. I would also note that in my experience computer scientists have always been a fairly liberal bunch (not true of all engineering disciplines).

Possibly one thing that has changed the outlook was the introduction of "wonkish" liberalism as popularized during Clinton's presidency. As blog examples of that strain, I would pick Brad DeLong and Matt Yglesias. Neither are especially focused on science, but both make quantitative arguments on a regular basis (DeLong's are a bit more compelling, but Yglesias has years to catch up).

I have to say that I really feel comfortable in this new environment. We have become the party of brains instead of "bleeding hearts" (though I hope our values are still driven by compassion). The conservatives are the party of the gut belief, "pray for a solution", and slavish adherence to ideology, facts be damned. I have always sided with liberal values, but now it's quite clear to me that this is where all the thinking is happening.

First, astrology is mathematically rigorous. Where the objects they track are going is pretty much where they say they are going. The trig is trivial. The main problem is that there is no real, i.e. valid, meaning to be attached. It might be helpful to use if you are pointing a telescope, but there are much better tools for that task.

Second, you fail to note your efforts in alt.out-of-body! I recall with some fondness the 'what's on your monitor' experiments - I even did one of them. It certainly demonstrated the lack of any real travelling by consciousness. That they seem to gloss over the inability to obtain new information indicates to me a real cognitive lack and flat inability to think critically. (Remember the wood turtle being called a baseball classified as a hit!)

First, astrology is mathematically rigorous. Where the objects they track are going is pretty much where they say they are going. The trig is trivial.

Actually, your star sign (or whatever it's called), is based upon the star positions several hundred years ago, so they are not in the correct positions any more. A simple mathematical calculation shows that. Hence, astrology isn't mathematically rigorous.

As for what is the liberal or "Left" equivalent of creationism, a pernicious and pervasive idea that drives people to gut science education, deny reality, drive political campaigns, and slander scientists, there is none. Nothing on the liberal side can compare. Astrologers are a nuisance, a collection of entertainers and/or charlatans, but they aren't as bad as creationism - and not too many people on the "Left" give it much credence - in contrast to the droves on the "Right" that support creationism.

There are countless denials of science on the political (esp. religious) "Right" at present, but there are still several anti-science positions held by some people who are on the "Far Left." There are the anti-GE folks, the food-supplement pushers (often anti-medicine), anti-animal testing folks, and the ultra-organic crowd. I am not saying that organic is bad at all, I buy (and grow) some of it too; I'm talking about those that take it to an extreme where anything that is artificial is neccessarily bad, even if the "natural" alternative is harmful. And what do you get when you combine organic agriculture with astrology? Biodynamic agriculture - where grinding quartz and spreading it over the field channels the energy of the planets into your wine grape. (Don't buy Fetzer wines, BTW) But none of these things compare to denying global warming, evolution, or the potential of embryonic stem cells.

On astrology, I wrote a post a couple months ago, http://www.inoculatedmind.com/?p=22 , wherein I suggested that basing your decisions on astrology could in fact open you up to being manipulated or predicted by others. So I agree with PaulC that if you want to randomize an important decision to make, make it truly random.

Kristjan Wager: "Actually, your star sign (or whatever it's called), is based upon the star positions several hundred years ago, so they are not in the correct positions any more. A simple mathematical calculation shows that. Hence, astrology isn't mathematically rigorous."

There are multiple kinds of astrology. Tropical astrology doesn't purport (at least, not any more) to connect the zodiac signs to the actual constellations; sidereal astrology does. (Not that this makes the slightest bit of difference to how well it works.)

Didn't "The Left" with our lockstep collective will once condemn Nancy Reagan for seeking the advice of an astrologer?

No, she got it from two groups. One group were the rationalists that know astrology is a joke and we rolled our eyes, even if we didn't say much. The other group were those with religious problems that look at it as some type of witchcraft or the devil's work. Their foaming at the mouth responses scared many of us rationalists as much as (or more than) Nancy.

What really gets people going is when I, fairly liberal MikeM, starts rattling off my list of bunk theories... Astrology, clairvoyance, channeling, acupuncture, acupressure, chakras... What's funny is that sometimes Christians will say, "You don't think acupuncture works?".

Then I'll keep going on my list... Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism...

Then they'll take my obvious disaproval of acupuncture as proof I don't know what I'm talking about.

See? I really am a jerk.

Yes, I am a grouch, too.

MikeM: I thought acupuncture was effective in some forms of pain reduction. At least, there's a plausible mechanism: twiddle a nerve in one place and confuse the brain into not noticing the pain elsewhere. From my own experience, I've succeeded in doing pain management through things like applied heat and pressure or stretching, so I have little trouble believing that needles might work.

I think that the traditional explanation of acupuncture along with the map of various places and the effects is probably bunk. As with any traditional medicine, some parts may have been found to work by trial and error, but the tradition is wrong about the reasons why. I also doubt its efficacy extends beyond pain management. This would put it way ahead of homeopathy, which makes no sense at all.

Do you disagree with this view of acupuncture or just the stronger claims? I've never tried it, and I have only a cursory understanding, so it's possible I'm wrong.

Coincidentally, I just put up a post ridiculing astrology, here. If anyone thinks this is a pseudoscience which liberals embrace, I invite them to read that post, and then peruse the rest of my site to determine where my political sympathies lie.

I think, at best, acupuncture has a placebo effect.

Every time the practitioners of acupuncture agree to test their methods, they never quite pass their tests.

Take a look at what the Skeptic's Dictionary has to say about it:

http://www.skepdic.com/acupunc.html

Sastra: This is voodoo science coming mostly from the Left. A particular aspect of the Left.

Huh? Granted, instead of Atlantean crystals and energy beings the 'wingers have pentawater, cancer cranks and black helicopters, but it's the same damn thing.

PaulC: Twenty years ago, liberals were probably more likely to oppose science and technology.

I noticed no such thing. Of course, I consciously avoided the fruitloops, so I never really got to know their political leanings.

It is interesting to note that the only fruitloop in my place of employment (believes in ghosts and alien autopsies, face on Mars, etc) is a conservative.

Astrology may be garbage, but for the most part it is harmless garbage. If astrologists were demanding equal time for astrology in our classrooms, and demanding that we all make our life decisions based on the precepts of astrology, then I would be worrying about them.

Secular rationalism is like democracy for understanding and manipulating the physical world around us. When a theory or hypothesis stops working, we can vote out the old one and vote in a new one. Therein lies its power. It may be the worst way to do things, but it is better than any of the others.

Scientific research does show that there is an actual placebo effect. Human beliefs, rational or not, can influence human perception and behavior. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with developing a belief system that lets one deal with the world more effectively or less painfully. There are problems when the belief system becomes self destructive, and more seriously when it impacts others. Even the pacifist Quakers could get violent when faced with gaudy garden flowers.

The folks behind "intelligent design" are fighting medical research from the right while certain "medical ethicists" are fighting it from the left. That's doing harm. Neither package is particularly tempting when you think about it.

Graculus: My observation is purely anecdotal, and it might have more to do with my own change of environment than any overall shift. I'm curious if others agree or strongly disagree with my impression, though.

The enthusiasm for stem cell research on the left does strike me as new. Few lay people knew what one was in the 80s, anyway, so that might be an unfair comparison, but I think it might have been confused with genetic engineering of adult humans. Nuclear issues were bigger in the consciousness back then, and that got conflated with science (I was once told by a liberal friend that as a science major I surely supported nuclear power; I said I was against unsafe nuclear power--admittedly kind of a non-answer, but if pressed I would have included fission reactors in densely populated areas). There was a strong environmental movement on the left, though it was less likely to use the now common scientific discussion of carbon emissions. People talked about the greenhouse effect. (The ozone hole was kind of a bigger issue.)

What I think is probably true is that past administrations regardless of political affiliation have been more inclined to let scientists do their work. Bush Junior's is the first to declare all out war on science. Scientists themselves (apart from a few fields) have always been liberal on a lot of issues, but Bush has done more to galvanize the alliance between political liberals and scientists than any past administration.

What really gets people going is when I, fairly liberal MikeM, starts rattling off my list of bunk theories... Astrology, clairvoyance, channeling, acupuncture, acupressure, chakras... What's funny is that sometimes Christians will say, "You don't think acupuncture works?".

Then I'll keep going on my list... Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism...

Then they'll take my obvious disaproval of acupuncture as proof I don't know what I'm talking about.

Heh, that's kinda funny. Usually, it's the other way around. They find out you're an atheist and then assume you must not know what you're talking about on astrology, clairvoyance, pyramid power, crop circles, etc. You must be someone who just doesn't want to believe anything. Not even real obvious stuff like God.

It's a pesky problem in the skeptic groups. Most of us are atheists or agnostics. The psychics use that to discredit us as extremists. See where doubting gets you? See where you can end up if you don't keep an open mind and buy my garbage?

I think it interesting that some pseudosciences are much more politicized than others. Consider how creationists are much more political than astrologers or vitalists. Especially when vitalists can make such arguments as:

* A "vital force of the gaps" can explain various biological mysteries

* It would be a terribly cold and hostile Universe if living things are not animated by some vital force.

* If we are animated by a vital force, we have more dignity than if we are biochemical robots.

* Teenage suicides and school shootings are the result of belief in the mechanistic view; if it is correct, then not only oneself, but other people are nothing more than readily-disposable robots.

* Many reputable biologists had been vitalists; Aristotle had believed in the existence of three kinds of vital force: the vegetable soul, the animal soul, and the rational soul.

And while vitalism is discredited in mainstream science, it is present in the "theoretical justifications" given for some "alternative medical" therapies. And it is present without mainstream biologists paying much attention.

Our host PZ might be familiar with one of the last reputable vitalists in the biological science: Hans Driesch, who noted that if one split a sea-urchin embryo in the 2-cell or 4-cell stages, the two parts develop into separate sea urchins, not two halves of a sea urchin. He concluded that some vital force must be responsible for sea-urchin development; we now know that those cells do not get committed to any specific fate in the first few divisions. Thus, Driesch's argument is a "vital force of the gaps" argument.

And I hope our host will someday blog on the decline and fall of vitalism.

Back to the original subject, I'm sure it's possible to make similar arguments for astrology. Which some astrologers do, like point out that many early astronomers had also been astrologers.

And a serious problem with astrology is the multitude of astrological systems -- why haven't astrologers tried to do tests to work out which one is right about what?

Astrology and Alchemy are obviously not good science -- but they are (mostly) science. They make testable predictions, based on a hypothesis which purports to explain natural phenomena. These tests have advanced "mainline" science in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, and medicine (to name a few).

This makes them distinct from ID, which creates no predictions, and cannot be tested.

Having basically gone through the New age stuff and come out the other side, I have a slightly different point of view on this stuff.

Most of the forms of divination that I've seen have idiosyncratic "trimmings", but the underlying pattern is basically identical in all cases: The diviner seeks out or constructs an "deep perceptual field", which can be almost any structure or pattern which (1) cannot be succinctly verbalized, and (2) can provide an arbitary large number of apparent details or perceived associations. For Tarot, that's the layout of the pictorial cards. For hydromancy it's the complex form of a "splash" of formerly liquid wax or lead. For pyromancy, it's the shifting shades and forms of the flames and/or their fuel. And for astrology, it's the "chart", a mass of numeric values and geometric relations.

The diviner then ruminates upon that field, usually with reference to another complex memetic structure (the "Book" ;-)). This "brings back the words", to decorate the divining field with meanings and interpretations. This combination basically adds up to "creative intuition", which can often yield helpful insights about the problem in question, or life in general. Of course, when those intuitive flashes get treated as a Infallible Oracle, well, that's when you run into trouble.

Note that for a great many life problems, the "proper" response is basically to do something -- almost anything will do, as long as it gets you moving and responding to the situation. That of course, is where divination in general can "pay off", just by pushing you to look more closely and think about your options.

Scientific American recently had an article on acupuncture which as I recall said that studies show that it does reduce pain, but that the theory behind it is bunk. This surely is actually the case with many (although not most) "alternative" or "traditional" remedies.

I wrote an essay a while back that noted that Nancy Reagan seemed to have used astrology to alter Ron's schedule in an arbitrary manner. For most people, this is stupid. For an assassination target (like the President of the U.S.), it is actually recommended by security experts.

But not using astrology! Peter Fleming, in Invasion 1940, relates that British Intelligence used astrologers "in a counter-battery role" to foresee the date of a German invasion attempt - not to predict it directly, but to reconstruct the sort of advice on invasion dates that Hitler's astrologers would be giving him. An assassin who knew that the president used astrology would be able to do exactly the same thing...

SteveG: I've (like Chomsky and others) long said that the progressive that poo-poos science shoots himself in the foot. Hopefully increased awareness of environmentalism and stuff will end that foot-shooting. Alas, however, I still see a lot of bogusity (e.g. that inane "water pattern" guy) in the environmental stuff that people are falling for when there are real issues (like those mentioned by Mr. Gore) that should be disussed.

ArtK: Sounds like a special case of the false dicotomy.

Kagehi: That reminds me - does anyone know how exactly menstrual cycle synchronization occurs? (And why?)

Inoculated Mind: "Biodynamic agriculture"? Yikes. (I'll have to add that one to the list ...)

Funny that people should mention astrology in the classroom. I was first seriously introduced to it in one! The French teacher I had in grades 4-6 was seriously into it - that and yoga and a few other things of various dubiousnesses. She traditionally spent the time talking about the last day of every school year. To her credit, she also said that if you found this stuff to be pointless or whatnot you can do something else quietly on your own ...

Loren Petrich: I think the difference is that most people are tacitly vitalists. Most people are tacit mind-body dualists, after all.

ajay: I find it incredible that the German astrologers would make concrete enough "suggestions" to Hitler that one could predict actions from it.

Which is another thing astrology supporters talk about - that their horoscopes are not predictions, but sort of like a projective test (think Roscharch) or psychoanalysis. (Of course those are bogus too, but ...)

Menstrual synchronization probably does not occur. The original studies have not been able to be replicated.

I think, at best, acupuncture has a placebo effect.

But in pain relief, a placebo effect is really all the effect you need. That's why I don't rock the boat when someone I know is using a fake treatment like acupuncture for pain relief - if they say their pain is relieved, it probably *is* relieved (why would they lie about it?), so that's good enough.

It's when they announce their intention to have their acupuncturist treat their inflamed appendix or whatever that I get in their face about how they should use real medicine that is proven to work.

ajay wrote:

Peter Fleming, in Invasion 1940, relates that British Intelligence used astrologers "in a counter-battery role" to foresee the date of a German invasion attempt - not to predict it directly, but to reconstruct the sort of advice on invasion dates that Hitler's astrologers would be giving him. An assassin who knew that the president used astrology would be able to do exactly the same thing...

That's odd, because my understanding is that astrology is such a subjective "science" that two astrologers reading the same chart seldom come up with the same reading or prediction. That's one of those little red flags hinting here be pseudoscience.

KeithDouglas wrote:

I think the difference is that most people are tacitly vitalists. Most people are tacit mind-body dualists, after all.

Exactly. Seeing mind and meanings as "forces" which connect and effect objects underlies not only pseudosciences like astrology, but people's vague intuitions about God and spirit. Such connections are "magic" -- literally. People born under a red planet will have tempers because red represents anger. The connection isn't so much physical as symbolic. And symbols have force. Just as Mind itself has force. God thinks things true with no underlying physical processes involved. It all takes place on the powerful level of meaning.

I once read an excellent essay on why alchemy was fundamentally different from chemistry. The argument was that the underlying theory in alchemy is that lead must be able to turn to gold because man's flesh will be glorified into a soul. The processes involved were then less like doing modern experiments and more like what David Harmon was talking about, searching a wide field for mystical correspondances.

David Harmon:

Note that for a great many life problems, the "proper" response is basically to do something -- almost anything will do, as long as it gets you moving and responding to the situation. That of course, is where divination in general can "pay off", just by pushing you to look more closely and think about your options.

I would also call your explanation of divination similar to the use of randomization in computer algorithms. When there are too many possibilities to enumerate, it is reasonable to try one at random. This works particularly well when most choices are good: for instance when choosing a pivot for quicksort, you have a 50% chance of finding one in the 25-75%tile range just by choosing randomly--by contrast, any deterministic method could give bad results depending on input.

An even better example comes up in the construction of expander graphs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expander_graph These are tricky to construct deterministically, but easy to construct just by choosing a graph at random. This is called the problem "finding hay in the haystack." For whatever reason, the most obvious deterministic constructions always give you the rare "needles" that you don't want, while you're surrounded by hay. When such situations occur in real life, you might do as well with Tarot cards as you'd do to start thinking really hard about what to do next.

Finally, the comment about forcing you to think about your options made me think of Ramon Lull's Ars Magna http://www.maxmon.com/1274ad.htm This is considered an obscure crackpot science, but unlike most divination methods, he seemed to be proposing exhaustive search of a combinatorial space rather than sampling. I have often thought that while his justification was probably insane, there might be some merit to enumerating combinations of concepts with the expectation of forcing your brain to consider something it would not have otherwise.

Quite a ways upthread PaulC noted:
If you want a liberal, rational--frankly rather boring, wholesome and workaholic--community, you could hardly do better than start in Palo Alto and spiral out).

You're right on Palo Alto and mid-peninsula (I'm a native and fortunate enough to again live nearby). But you don't have to spiral out very far to lose it, sigh. I grew up in west Santa Clara valley, the suburban edge of what's now 'silicon valley', about 15-20 miles from Palo Alto ... and was there raised in one of the first mega-churches preaching fundamentalist Christianity. 6,000 in congregation, three morning services (plus evening and mid-week) - all in late 1960's. Spectacular growth ended in the mid-70's 'cus the preacher got frisky. But the church still exists, with good-size services in its large facility - a former microwave research lab with a large auditorium, many classrooms - and a wooded hillside location to die for. And this church isn't alone.

For some reason this early enculturation didn't stick well in me - I bailed by mid-teens.

But I've always been bemused by the large numbers of engineers, if not scientists, who I knew were in the congregation (some of them teaching Sunday School classes, and I recall some memorable episodes when I questioned various Bible stories). My guess then was then general zeitgeist of the 1960's valley, which was of 'new people' - newly built suburbs in which families new to the region and even to California were looking for something sociable and seemingly safe. But now I'm not so sure that's all it was, since even teaching in San Francisco now I find engineering students are still prone to fondness for the seemingly simple and clear mandates of fundamentalist faiths - most often Christianity, though it's obvious other fundamentalisms appeal elsewhere in the world. (Astrology is considered witchcraft by Christian fundies - which reminds me of the ecological principle that the most severe competition is found between those life-forms which are most similar.)

thwaite: The recent trend in Sunnyvale seems to be churches that want to sell their land to real estate developers, who going gangbusters on in-fill high density townhouses these days. I'm not sure what things are like farther afield, but I had the impression that what religious people remain around here are all making plans to move to the central valley or farther. I exaggerate a bit. Asian churches are probably growing in numbers, but there's certainly little left of "new people" in "newly build suburbs." I like the trends and want to stay and see what happens, but I think I may be unusual in that regard for an American anyway. (I grew up on the east coast, and Silicon Valley was always kind of my mecca.)

MikeM: I thought acupuncture was effective in some forms of pain reduction. At least, there's a plausible mechanism: twiddle a nerve in one place and confuse the brain into not noticing the pain elsewhere. From my own experience, I've succeeded in doing pain management through things like applied heat and pressure or stretching, so I have little trouble believing that needles might work.

As someone else said, its mostly placebo (or all). One prior advocate for it ran a few experiments of his own. One involved using the wrong points, the other involved replacing the needles with sort of pads that would help the needles stand up and using blunt needles in them, so that they never penetrated the skin. Note: This couldn't have worked like acupressure, because those points tend to *not* be the same as accupuncture locations. The only causual relationship he was able to find is how convincingly he presented the gibberish explaination for how it was supposed to work. If he seemed to imply that he didn't trust the method himself, it would fail. If he went into a long and convoluted speel about how his special techinique was blah blah blah..., it would work, no matter "how" he did it or which points on the body he used to "treat" the problems.

The catch-22s are several fold:

1. If they know it doesn't work, it won't, no matter how much gibberish you use.
2. If it does work, it is because you are deluding them with gibberish, instead of applying real treatments.
3. Real treatments can't be developed, unless you eliminate that very factor, since it skews the data, especially if the real effect is marginal and the problem is dose, not lack of any effects (including negative ones that are ofset by the plecibo effect).
4. Finally, by allowing such treatments to stand, many people who need more effective treatment, or whose pains, etc. are the result of early symptoms of far more critical problems won't get proper diagnosis or treatment. Some of the most delusional ones even avoid that treatment in favor of the gibberish, to the detriment of themselves, or in the worst cases, others around them. There isn't that big of a gap between, "Accupuncture cured my back pain.", and, "I got myself cured of aids by raping a virgin." Harmless is a matter of degrees in psuedo science, not a simple cut and try, "This stuff is benign, while that other stuff isn't." Its all feed by the same lack of logic and promoting of false associations to "help" people. If 99% of the people being treated for back pain are helped by it, that doesn't excuse the damage done to the 1% that is actually suffering from an undiagnosed nuero degenerative disease, or something equally bad.

PaulC: Sunnyvale? - not specifically familiar with such a church-land sale. But there's the very conspicuous example of dense townhouses in Cupertino visible from 280 freeway (near San Antonio Park) - my vague understanding was that once-vacant land was (is?) owned by the Catholic Church. For them I certainly see the motivation to sell out and feed the inflated profit into operations elsewhere ("Church Universal" as they are). But for independent congregations such as the "non-denominational" fundies it's not so easy.

Moving to the Central Valley - yeah, I've heard of Auburn and Grass Valley in the Sierra Foothills as preferred destinations for the churchly. Lovely rural Grass Valley always was known as 'God's Country'...

Good points on the local Asian churches and continuing demographic flux.

thwaite:

But for independent congregations such as the "non-denominational" fundies it's not so easy.

The specific church I'm thinking of was able to relocate elsewhere (probably in the central valley). Those townhouses have been occupied for at least two years by now. There was an article on another church that the city wanted to block by rezoning http://www.svcn.com/archives/sunnyvalesun/20060329/news4.shtml I'm not sure that two anecdotes makes a trend, but the lump sum you get from a multiple-acre land sale around here opens up plenty of options even for independent churches. I expect it to continue unless the city actually takes action to prevent churches from selling, which they apparently want to do.

thwaite had noted:

Astrology is considered witchcraft by Christian fundies - which reminds me of the ecological principle that the most severe competition is found between those life-forms which are most similar.

That may be why all those Xian theologians have been getting so indignant about The Da Vinci Code. It competes with them in their own territory. It asserts a competing narrative of the career of Jesus Christ, and it presents that narrative as a secret to be revealed.

ajay, the likelihood that a putative Presidential assassin would be able to "reverse engineer" the effects of an astrologer's predictions on the President's schedule is pretty slim. At the very least, jerking the schedule around improves the odds in favor of the target. (Lesson one in How Not to be Seen).

Let me also make this observation about the Placebo effect: if you every have a reliable method of producing the Placebo effect, use it! When a friend of mine was interning in Miami, they gave out Zomax (later taken off the market because it was found to be associated with heart attacks, shades of Vioxx, and maybe it's caused by all those end-of-the-alphabet letters), along with an anti-acid, explaining that it was such "powerful medicine" that they had to administer it with something to protect the stomach. My friend tells me that they successfully stopped heroin withdrawal symptoms with that bit of flummery.

Things that are in your mind are just as real as anything else; they're just a different kind of real.

PaulC: on Ramon Lull's Ars Magna:

I poked around that a bit... it does look a little like a divinatory form, where the "field" is produced by the combinatorics of his disks.

That is, if you've got several disks with a bunch of words on each of them, the combinations will overwhelm the readers' capability to keep track of them (which is the point). In terms of the pattern I described above, the "Book" is also used for the "field", as it is in bibliomancy.

Note that for divination the "justifications" (in his case, conversion) amount to "patter", being mostly irrelevant to the process.

Sastra: From what I can tell you're almost right about alchemy - the very founding principles were wrong, yes. But they did figure out a few practical techniques which were useful later on - and to this day. For example, distillation.

James Killus: Quite correct - your subjective experience is in your brain. (Or, more correctly, it is what some of your brain does.) This elementary point is lost on a lot of people. Similarly, unless you're a mind-body dualist, placebo effects are not at all mysterious. (Which is not to say fully understood, of course.)