Response to Another Astrologer

Here's a reponse I got from my last post, complete with a reading (!). Again, my reponses are in blue with the original message in black.

***********************************************************************************************

Thanks for your response. Here are my thoughts in blue below. 

I must start out talking about astrology to a skeptic. Astrology is a branch of Metaphysics explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics Similar to but different to philosophy and psychology. It has been in existence over 5000 years. Astrology became more refined when Ptolemy AD 90-168 came along. Ptolemy was a Psychologist, Geographer, Mathmetician, Astronomer and finally Astrologer. He was educated in Babylon which is now Iraq/Iran where all the best educated astrologers were along with astronomers.

To summarize his approach to what is now modern day western astrology: Inspiration and insight came to him during his numerous observations as astronomer, pscyhologist,geographer&mathmetician. He correlated cycles of planets & moon to emotional and external events happening to individuals including himself he had observed on a daily basis. He was numbers oriented which lead him to the refining of the everday "transits" (predictions). He took the person's natal chart which described specific personality traits and saw how transits would affect that individual. That's called the Law of Precedence. Basically a person's nature and what they have usually done before is the basis of the Law of Precedence. So personality is based solely on date of birth? And never changes? What about mental illness or brain injury? Or simply life experience? What about twins? We all know twins that have completely different personalities, life experiences and levels of success in life. Indeed there are twins where one  dies at an early age and the other goes on to a ripe old age. 

It is up to the modern day Astrologer to interpret someone's chart accurately. An astrologer first looks at the personality traits decribed in the natal chart to see what they're capable of. Then an astrologer looks at the Progressed Chart to see the progressed moon to see what distinct emotional changes or experiences they're experiencing. Then look to the transits starting with Pluto going inwards to the moon aspects. Pluto aspects take 2 years to experience down to the moon aspect which lasts 2 hours. Interpeting the transits or predictions all depends on the personality of the person. That's how astrology works. So it's predictable? The sun, moon, planets and stars are absolutely, 100% predictable. Does that mean that we can extrapolate into the future to see what's going to happen? Why not just plot out someone's life & say "here you are....this will be your life" ? Has this been done? What were the results?

Now, looking at your chart the part that makes me see the skeptic in you is your Mercury oppose Saturn. That shows you're suspicious by nature since communication wasn't used well in your family growing up. Thus, the skeptic in you grew. I'm not suspicious by nature, in fact I'm quite gullible which is why skepticism is so appealing to me. Otherwise I'd probably believe everything that came my way! I'm not so much  "I don't agree so you're wrong", I'm more "show me your evidence". I was a huge believer in extraterrestrial visitations, area 51, reincarnation etc until I opened Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" in 1996. Those were the roots of my skeptic nature; I always loved science, especially astronomy, but the scientific method wasn't something that was taught very well when I was at school. For the last 15 years

Plus you have 5 planets in Sagittarius. Sagittarius wants truth and honesty and education at all costs. -don't we all (well, except for Sarah Palin ;-P ) ? A very general statement that can apply to a huge number of people. Cast your net wide, you're sure to catch something as people tend to remember the hits & forget the misses. 

1 other aspect seems to pop out at me and that's your moon square Neptune which indicates you don't like others confronting you, but to protect yourself you tend to confront other first before they confront you. -again, a general statement. I'm non-confrontational as a rule. I tend to try to pre-empt situations before they become conflicts, not people. But again, this could be a hit for many, many people. 

Finally your moon conjunct Jupiter loves truth, education and can be optimistic, but given your skeptic/pessimistic nature you tend to fluctuate between the two. -everyone fluctuates between optimism & pessimism, even the most extreme cases of both.....it's normal human nature. 

Another aspect in your chart that doesn't relate to the skeptic part too much is your Venus oppose Saturn. It shows you feel you need to be responsible for everyone and everything which is usually learned by a parent. -again, vague enough to hit home for many people. 

Finally another aspect not related to the skeptic in you is Venus square Pluto. You tend to go for underdogs and do all the work in a relationship. -it's a cliché: everyone loves an underdog! All the work in a relationship? Nope, far from it. I would say my partner does more than I do, to my chagrin......

What I see here is a collection of general statements that, in a face to face meeting, would provide information for further development. If I were a believer, or even if I just wanted to do this for fun, I might be surprised at the "accuracy" of some of these statements.  I could dig around and find ways to make everything fit with even the most tenuous of links. As it happens, if I stand back and apply reason and logic, I see nothing more than a series of questions designed to elicit a response to provide further information for development. 

My views on astrology are based on the following: Science as a process has proven its reliability to demonstrate how the world works. Astrology is completely incompatible with the known, well-tested and well understood fundamental laws of the universe. If an astrologer (or anyone for that matter) were to make a very specific prediction for 2011 - (exact date, time, event, location) with precise unmistakable details, I'd sit up and take notice. That would be VERY interesting. But it hasn't happened yet, and after almost 2000 years in existence, that's not a good sign. 

Astrology is generally benign, except when used as the only resource when making important decisions. It scares me to think that French President Mitterand and Ronald Reagan, amongst others, consulted astrologers during their presidencies. The problem for me is the magical thinking that goes along with pseudoscience in general. "Well, I don't know how it works, but it works" is all well and good, but is anyone looking to find out how it works? Matthew gave the example of aspirin; we used it even though we didn't know how it worked...yes, but now we DO know how it works. It was studied and it had an underlying logic that corresponds with what we know from chemistry and biology. Compare this with homeopathy that, like astrology, has no known mechanism to explain how it works. In fact it DOESN'T work and any perceived effects are, for the most part, a combination of the placebo effect and regression to the mean. For astrology, the perceived effects are principally caused by the Barnum effect, the fallacy of sunken investment, and a willingness to believe. 

So, it was brief in interpretting your chart,but I want to show you how it works.

I've been busy writing alot in the last few days, so haven't kept up with your dialogue with the other astrologers, but I thought I'd give you a to the point explanation of astrology and including your chart to finish it up.

I hope I've been concise and to the point for you. I don't like to ramble on forever and prefer succinct comments. I hope to hear from you soon.

Posted via email from John's posterous

Astrology Discussion on Twitter

I got into a chat on twitter with an astrologer last week. Long story. Anyway, during the following night, one of her aquaintances sent a whole bunch of tweets as a followup to our discussion, so I thought I'd blog my response instead of a tedious twitter back and forth. Feel free to discuss in the comments! Oh, and apologies for the delay in responding, it's been a hectic few days...but then, you already know that :)

First: Check out this video, it's a classic:

Richard Feynman on what science is:

In Black below are the tweets I received overnight, in blue, my responses. I was originally going to post a single piece, but figured it would be interesting to see the original tweets also.

Science is "Flick the switch, light goes on." Faith is "I hope the Power Co. didn't cut me off - ok

I don't have to have "faith" in astrology, because it observably and repeatedly works.... who's observing, and under what conditions? If we're only taking your word for it, then I'm sorry - not good enough. 

And I know there's little "scientific" evidence for it. -like.....magic, then, no?

Of course they used to pack wounds with cow dung before anyone heard of "penecillin"
 ...and not understanding hydrogen fusion never stop the Sun from shining.

Most skeptical arguments seem to boil down to "I haven't seen any proof that fits my worldview." -no, the view is that if there's sound evidence to support the claim, I'll change my mind AND my worldview.

In other words, Sagan's "Extraordinary proof (etc)" statement may be true, but it also mentally sets
the bar pf "proof" as high as you want it to be. -it should be high. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof required. If we accept astrology as valid, it means that the fundamental laws of nature as we understand them today are completely wrong. These laws have been challenged again and again, and any predictions made using them have been verified and replicated the world over. 

Consider all the many, many, many studies -

about the effectiveness of antidepressants. Antidepressants are a crap shoot, but since we like

to think of the psyche as being the result of chemistry, we want to use chemistry to change it

Billions in research, and the best antidepressants can do is about 60% effectiveness -not aware of this, but I'm sure it's more complicated than a sweeping general statement like that. At a guess, I'd say efficient marketing by manufacturers, incorrect prescriptions to people that don't actually need antidepressants etc. More of a business ethics problem than a scientific one, IMHO. But then again, I don't have the whole story and I'm sure it's VERY complex. 

 But when I as an astrologer come up with 8 or 9 out of 10 predictions right, a skeptic starts with
"The Forer Effect" or "The Barnum Effect" or the "well, that's not how planets work" argument. - these are well documented phenomena. When you say you're "right" - based on what kind of prediction? Specific like "you'll slip on the stairs at work at 2.30pm on March 23rd, but it'll be only a mild sprain) Or vague like "there'll be big changes in 2011" , ie Barnum-type cold-readings? Who decides you're right, you or the client? Under what conditions? 

We've stopped throwing virgins into volcanoes, yet the "superstition" of astrology persists.
Now that just couldn't be because maybe astrology works or something. Noooooo. :) -correct :) 

Every argument I've heard against astrology can be applied to any branch of psychology. -Confusing pop psychology with clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Work by Skinner, Pavlov, and Milgram are among the best known examples of predictive, peer reviewed studies that stand up to the test of time. Psychotherapy doesn't have a lot of fans in the hard sciences as there are problems regarding falsifiability. 

Do I understand the mechanism by which astrology works? Hell no. -does anyone? So why are there no astrological research university departments to discover how it works? Surely uncovering the mechanism of astrology, if there is one, would be a monumental discovery. Einstein, Newton, Feynman, Dirac, Fermi: so long, farewell. Countless Nobel prizes await the discoverers of such a mechanism. I may not understand how every part of a car works, but I can find someone who does. If I want to, I can go all the way up to the engineers that designed it using the cumulative results of centuries of scientific research. 

But peasants packing wounds with cow dung weren't microbiologists either
 ...they just saved lives. Is that "scientific"? Well, they observed results...
 ...and (surprise!) found they were repeatable. No lab involved, but still "scientific." -not sure about the facts of cowdung, but the process is sound. Hypothesis, experiment, replicate. Science is not a body of knowledge, it's a process. The knowledge changes, and in fact does when new evidence contradicts previous observation. The process is to get past the human factor. Ego, error, sloppiness, and fraud can all slip in. Peer review is designed to catch this. It's not perfect (nothing involving humans is!), but in the long run it works. The fact that I'm typing this on a computer that could've run the entire Apollo Program is testament to that, as is the Apollo Program itself. 

Meanwhile, billions of $ pouring into "String Theory," and many careers built on it
So where are all the correct predictions made by String Theory"? Anyone...? Anyone...? -String theory is controversial even in the scientific community. It makes plausible claims but at this moment in time, they are untestable experimentally. Because of this, some physicists claim it's more like philosophy than science. I have no opinion; it's completely over my head, although I did enjoy the Elegant Universe! In the meantime, in mainstream science, astronomers have discovered planets outside our solar system (any incidence for astrology, by the way?) we've rendezvous'd with comets (how do they figure into horoscopes?), the Cassini mission has spent years studying the Saturn system, New Horizons will get to Pluto in a few years, and Messenger will get to Mercurian orbit in March of this year. In the 20th century we discovered that we live in a galaxy, one of billions, in a universe far bigger and older than any of our ancient ancestors could possibly have fathomed. We discovered that the anomalies in Mercury's orbit (precession of perihelion) was due to relativistic effects and can be explained by General Relativity. What advances has astrology made in the last century? Where are the predictions made by Astrology?

Astrology should have nothing to fear from science, any more than any other pursuit
Sadly, most of the skeptics I hear seem to use the "scientific worldview" as the club

they use to dismiss anything that doesn't suit their preconceptions. In other words, they
Make Science their Dogma, and (paradoxically) become as benighted as those they like
to feel superior to. No surprise, really: skeptics are humans too. Humans do that.

But if Science is a controlled, logical search for the truth, I like to think it DOES

apply to Astrology. It *should*. It's just that I rarely if ever see it applied.

This "scientific worldview" that you seem to lament created the world we live in today. The computers we work on, the cars we drive, the medicine we take, the clothes we wear, our telephones, food, longevity. It's true that some skeptics get on their high horses about views inconsistent with science. I know, I'm sometimes one of them. But the scientific method has gotten humanity this far. It's improved our lives (at least in first world countries; geopolitics is another matter altogether) immeasurably in the last century. Imagine our great-grandparents hearing of today's world: mother and child will most likely survive childbirth; all of your children will most likely live to adulthood. You'll most likely live to at least your mid-seventies. We can speak with anyone, anywhere in the world instantaneously. We can get anywhere in the world within 2 days. The body of knowledge we call science changes regularly as new discoveries overturn old ones. The "scientific worldview" means that if you present me with evidence for a claim, I'll listen to it and I'll sincerely evaluate it. If it's convincing, then I'll change my mind. Simple as that. 

Here's a previous post of mine on astrology.

Posted via email from John's posterous

Within a few minutes of opening his mouth, the pope Godwins himself

It would appear that the horrors of the twentieth century were caused by atheism.Yes, atheism.

Not psychotic megalomaniac dictators with messianic complexes.

I won't even bother to debunk this as it's done so well elsewhere. I'm just angry, furious in fact, that this guy who's covered up paedophiles in his organisation, who is responsible for untold misery and suffering throughout the world due to his uncompromising stances on various social issues such as homosexuality, contraception and divorce, DARES to lecture nonbelievers on morality.

For shame.

(To clarify, I was raised a Catholic. Nowadays, I'm not sure how I'd classify myself given that I despise pigeonholing of any sort, but I'm probably, if we must slap on a label, a secular humanist agnostic, tending toward atheist. I have no problem with people believing in whatever they want to believe, as long as it stays out of public life.)

"let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of  society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny”

This is horrifying. Removing gods, indeed all religious dogma from public life is one of the greatest freedoms we have in democratic societies. We've seen, and continue to see, the horrific consequences of religious extremism, but couple that with the resources of a government and we go down the path to ruin. Religion has no place in public life. None.

The Pope's equating atheism with nazism, stalinism or a decline in morality in general is just selfserving claptrap that needs to be called out for what it is: a straw man. The Church sees that some people are no longer afraid of it, people that would once have been under its thrall so it takes action by associating atheism with the worst in humanity. This pope would have us return to the medieval mindset that resulted in airliners crashing into buildings in New York. Don't think, just obey.

Enough now.

(Oh, and British taxpayers, you should ask for your money back. Twelve million quid could be put to more productive use, methinks.)

Here's the speech made in Edinburgh. Make up your own mind.

Your Majesty,

Thank you for your gracious invitation to make an official visit to the United Kingdom and for your warm words of greeting on behalf of the British people. In thanking Your Majesty, allow me to extend my own greetings to all the people of the United Kingdom and to hold out a hand of friendship to each one.

It is a great pleasure for me to start my journey by saluting the members of the Royal Family, thanking in particular His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh for his kind welcome to me at Edinburgh Airport. I express my gratitude to Your Majesty’s present and previous Governments and to all those who worked with them to make this occasion possible, including Lord Patten and former Secretary of State Murphy. I would also like to acknowledge with deep appreciation the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Holy See, which has contributed greatly to strengthening the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the United Kingdom.

As I begin my visit to the United Kingdom in Scotland’s historic capital city, I greet in a special way First Minister Salmond and the representatives of the Scottish Parliament. Just like the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, may the Scottish Parliament grow to be an expression of the fine traditions and distinct culture of the Scots and strive to serve their best interests in a spirit of solidarity and concern for the common good.

The name of Holyroodhouse, Your Majesty’s official residence in Scotland, recalls the “Holy Cross” and points to the deep Christian roots that are still present in every layer of British life. The monarchs of England and Scotland have been Christians from very early times and include outstanding saints like Edward the Confessor and Margaret of Scotland. As you know, many of them consciously exercised their sovereign duty in the light of the Gospel, and in this way shaped the nation for good at the deepest level. As a result, the Christian message has been an integral part of the language, thought and culture of the peoples of these islands for more than a thousand years. Your forefathers’ respect for truth and justice, for mercy and charity come to you from a faith that remains a mighty force for good in your kingdom, to the great benefit of Christians and non-Christians alike.

We find many examples of this force for good throughout Britain’s long history. Even in comparatively recent times, due to figures like William Wilberforce and David Livingstone, Britain intervened directly to stop the international slave trade. Inspired by faith, women like Florence Nightingale served the poor and the sick and set new standards in healthcare that were subsequently copied everywhere. John Henry Newman, whose beatification I will celebrate shortly, was one of many British Christians of his age whose goodness, eloquence and action were a credit to their countrymen and women. These, and many people like them, were inspired by a deep faith born and nurtured in these islands.

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

Sixty-five years ago, Britain played an essential role in forging the post-war international consensus which favoured the establishment of the United Nations and ushered in a hitherto unknown period of peace and prosperity in Europe. In more recent years, the international community has followed closely events in Northern Ireland which have led to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Your Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland, together with the political, religious and civil leaders of Northern Ireland, have helped give birth to a peaceful resolution of the conflict there. I encourage everyone involved to continue to walk courageously together on the path marked out for them towards a just and lasting peace.

Looking abroad, the United Kingdom remains a key figure politically and economically on the international stage. Your Government and people are the shapers of ideas that still have an impact far beyond the British Isles. This places upon them a particular duty to act wisely for the common good. Similarly, because their opinions reach such a wide audience, the British media have a graver responsibility than most and a greater opportunity to promote the peace of nations, the integral development of peoples and the spread of authentic human rights. May all Britons continue to live by the values of honesty, respect and fair-mindedness that have won them the esteem and admiration of many.

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.

May God bless Your Majesty and all the people of your realm. Thank you.

Posted via email from John's posterous

H1N1 Vaccine issues: back in the news again in France - narcolepsy edition

Saw this in the news last night. It appears that narcolepsy is being linked to H1N1 vaccination. This set off my FUD alarm, so let's quickly look at the numbers:

• 6 million French people were vaccinated against the swine flu virus. France's population is approximately 65 million; for convenience let's call it a 10%  vaccination rate;
• There are approximately 500 new cases of narcolepsy reported annually in France;
• 6 of these are being linked to the vaccination;
• 30 million were vaccinated in Europe with 22 reported cases; 

So in summary:

~10% of the French population were vaccinnated: 

Reported new cases every year comprise 0.0008%  of the total French population;

Reported new casessuspected of links to the vaccine comprise 0.0001% of the vaccinated French population;  

reported new cases in the Europe comprise  0.00007% European vaccinated population

So what does this mean? Are the numbers of cases statistically significant? I'm no statistician, but I think given the huge populations involved and the tiny number of suspected cases, I have my doubts. At this point, as the Lepoint article below points out, a link hasn't been established. If there is one we should know about it, but given the numbers, I think it's premature to start shouting from the rooftops about this. People are already a little wary thanks to the antivax movement and the hysterical bleating last year surrounding the H1N1 vaccine.There's no need to add speculation to it.

Sources:

http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/grippe-h1n1-six-cas-de-narcolepsie-apres-vaccin-en-france-26-08-2010-1229085_23.php

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/briefing_20091119/en/index.html

 

 

Posted via email from John's posterous

Astrology - is there anything to it?

Anyone who has studied astronomy at even the most elementary level understands can see that the claims of astrology are untenable. Why? Because we know that we are only a small speck in a universe that's incomprehensibly large and old. The possibility that the stars and planets can have some special effect on our lives outside of the known laws of physics is improbable, to say the least. And even though the daily horoscope on one's favourite website or newspaper might be an amusing daily distraction, plenty of people take astrology seriously enough to spend sigificant amounts of time and money on it.

So just what is astrology? Astrology claims that the position of the sun and planets in relation to the zodiacal constellations (see below) at the time of our birth has a profound influence on our personality and destiny (for the purpose of this discussion I'm referring to "western" astrology, but the same principles apply to Chinese, Indian, Aztec and other variants). We'll take a look at the main, obvious evidence against this, and also why it's still around.

But first: a little astronomy :)

What are constellations? These are groups of stars that resemble terrestrial artifacts, mythological characters or animals. There are 88 recognized by the International Astronomical Union, details here. Some of these shapes take a little imagination to see, others are a bit more obvious. To the ancients, one group of stars looked vaguely like a lion, another a goat, and yet another a scorpion. We humans projected our bronze age world onto the stars, as did the 17th century explorers when they saw the southern hemisphere constellations for the first time. They saw ships prows, telescopes and crosses in the sky. The constellations in the sky are in fact paredolian artifacts.

But they're not fixed. Nothing in the sky is. It's just that our lives are too short to notice movements that take place over hundreds of thousands of years. In all of recorded history the skies haven't changed significantly. We don't notice that the pole star is gradually drifting away from celestial north and that in the future, various other candidates will take its place. In a few hundred thousand years, the constellations we look at will have changed beyond all recognition due to stellar migration. Those that concern us for the present discussion are the zodiacal constellations, those that are grouped on the ecliptic - the imaginary line traced by the sun's annual apparent path in the sky.

So how do the planets come in to all this? The planets move around the sun in fixed orbits. As they do, we see them move "in" and "out" of constellations in the background. This is what astrologers mean when they say, for example, that Jupiter is in Leo: the planet Jupiter, in it's journey around the sun as seen from our perspective, passes in front of the constellation Leo. Of course, Jupiter is a lot closer than any of the stars in Leo, and Leo itself is just an arbitrary collection of stars at various distances from us and each other. We know, thanks to Kepler and Newton, exactly where all the planets are are now, where they were in the past, and where they will be in the future. We also know that when a planet appears to move backwards in its orbit (in retrograde) that it's simply because the Earth's orbit is overtaking that of the planet in question. Here's a good visual explanation for how this works in the case of Mars.

By what mechanism could the planets and stars affect us at our birth? Physics tells us there are only four fundamental forces in the universe. The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. The first two can be eliminated as they concern only atomic nuclei. EM is plausible only if the baby is born outdoors, and even then the light from the planets takes a certain amount of time to get to the earth. So should that be part of the calculation? And what about gravity? Its effect is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two bodies (F=G (mm')/r² if you remember your high school physics classes) so the gravitational force of the baby's mother would be millions of times stronger than our closest celestial neighbour, the moon, never mind any other celestial bodies. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, the moon is more massive, but mommy is closer.

Another problem:
Due to precession of the equinoxes the sun doesn't "pass" through these constellations on the dates proposed by astrology proponents. Here are the dates that are commonly accepted as being the "sign" of a person born in that interval (when the sun's apparent movement takes it through the the zodiacal constellations), as compared to when the sun actually crosses these constellations:

Sign	Sun's actual passage through constellation	Commonly accepted Astrological solar passage through constellation
Capricorn	Jan 20 to Feb 16	December 23 - January 20
Aquarius	Feb 16 to Mar 11	January 21 - February 19
Pisces	Mar 11 to Apr 18	February 20- March 20
Aries	Apr 18 to May 13	March 21 - April 20
Taurus	May 13 to Jun 21	April 21 - May 21
Gemini	Jun 21 to Jul 20	May 22 - June 21
Cancer	Jul 20 to Aug 10	June 22 - July 22
Leo	Aug 10 to Sep 16	July 23 -August 21
Virgo	Sep 16 to Oct 30	August 22 - September 23
Libra	Oct 30 to Nov 23	September 24 - October 23
Scorpius	Nov 23 to Nov 29	October 24 - November 22
Ophiuchus	Nov 29 to Dec 17	?
Sagittarius	Dec 17 to Jan 20	November 23 - December 22

A related problem, as evidenced by the table above: The zodiacal constellations aren't spread neatly and evenly across the sky. For convenience, most astrologers use twelve virtual constellations that divide the zodiac into neat, thirty degree regions and work from this instead of using the visible night sky. For example, the sun takes more than twice as long to pass through Virgo (44 days) as it does Cancer (21 days), yet astrology counts them equally, as per column 2 above.

Looking at the table again, you'll see a thirteenth constellation that's rarely mentioned: Ophiuchus. Now why don't we see this in the daily horoscopes? How many people have you met that say "Hi I'm an Ophiuchus, what's your sign?" ? Logically there should be as many Ophiuchuses (Ophiuchi?) as Leos or Capricorns. But there aren't. There are some astrological systems that use the constellations as they appear in the sky, but are in the minority. This detail aside, however, the fundamental theory of all astrology is the same: celestial bodies influence our destiny.

One obvious test of astrology is fraternal twins (to eliminate any possible genetic factors): If astrology were valid, they should have similar lives as they were born under similar circumstances. Time and again we see that this is not the case.

So given that we have this evidence against astrology (and there's plenty more where that came from), why does it persist into the 21st century?

We can boil it down to two principle reasons:

• A fundamental lack of critical thinking skills;
  
• General scientific illiteracy\apathy and a lack of curiosity in how the world works.

Both of these are essential to understanding why astrology, like other pseudosciences, persist into our technological age. These problems can ultimately be addressed by teaching critical thinking skills at both high school and university level (using, for example The Baloney Detection Kit *), and by using creative outreach programs that engage the public at large. As regards the latter, CatherineQ recently wrote a wonderful piece on why engaging people's emotions in popularising science is essential.

In the end, we may think of astrology as a quaint, quirky holdover from the past, and so adopt a "what's the harm" attitude.

At first glance there is no real danger in letting people pursue beliefs that may cost them a little money but are otherwise harmless.Yet there is real harm here. Astrology, like homeopathy and other pseudosciences, promotes magical thinking. No evidence or thought is required. It leads us to take the word of anyone who comes along with a magic solution to any and all problems. And when magical thinking gets together with health care or politics, the results can be disastrous, much more than merely financial. Would you like your leaders making policy based in part on astrological advice?

*Taken from THE reference on critical thinking and skepticism, Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World . If you haven't yet read it, it's a lifechanger.

Posted via email from John's posterous

Scaremongering And General Incoherent Nonsense in Video Piracy\Anti-Terrorism Billboard

Take a look at this:

Have you ever seen such tripe? It's idiotic and Orwellian all at the same time. So much is so wrong here, I don't even know where to start. But I'll try.

"A bomb won't go off here because weeks before the criminal pirating films was caught by monitoring his internet history"(sic)

Leaving aside the terrible punctuation (or lack thereof)*, this is a mishmash of flawed logic, non-sequitors, scaremongering and outright technological ignorance. The only thing missing is a kiddie porn reference and the scaremongering would be complete.

A bomb (not going off, mind you). Illegally copying films. Same person  involved in both. Ergo, illegal copying of films = terrorism, or aiding terrorism. 'kayyyyy......so basically what's being implied here is that anyone ripping or downloading films for personal use is a terrorist. And if they're not, we should monitor their internet usage anyway, just to be sure. And while we're at it, why not everyone else's, too?

Just in case, you know.

I'm willing to grant that there are people in the world who make and distribute illegal copies of films for profit, and that some of them may be involved in unsavoury activities. But really, how many of the people you know actually pay for illegal copies of films? Most people simply download, watch and delete.

And those who are in the illegal distribution-for-profit business will almost certainly know how to cover their tracks. They'll either use a copy bought legitimately and copy it offline (no internet history), or they'll download it using an anonymous proxy server or Tor-type network. It's VERY difficult to track what happens behind the anonymiser. Either way, internet monitoring is not very useful.

So what's going on here? Does increasing internet surveillance on the general public, aided and abetted by a TIPS -type operation REALLY help prevent terrorism? Or does this merely contribute to a paranoid, TERRORISED citizenry, where those encouraging this kind of a society are complicit in aiding the real terrorists by scaring the bejaysus out of the very people they're supposed to protect? 

At best this is a huge waste of time and resources. Bruce Schneier wrote about this a few years back. At worst, it's reminiscent of Stalinist Russia at its worst, with everyone watching everyone else, scared shitless they're going to be the next ones to hear a knock on the door at 4am. Over the top? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

My guess is that the copyright protection crowd have taken advantage of the 9/11 7/7 paranoia to associate piracy to terrorism, and the security services have gleefully indulged. These days, if you can plant that association you're on to a sure thing. The security services are always happy to have more visibility over what happens on the internet, thank you very much, so everyone's a winner.

Except the public.

Thanks to @crntaylor for the picture on Twitter.

 

*And who wrote that awful phrase? Have they never heard of commas?

 

Posted via email from John's posterous

Cognitive Biases in song!

A list of cognitive biases in song, pretty cool:

 

Posted via web from John's posterous

Tim Minchin - this is the business!

Just discovered this bloke....brilliant!

Posted via email from John's posterous