gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/30/85)
--
I've always been amazed at the vehemence with which astronomers
condemn astrology, like some bastard cousin they're too ashamed
of. Of course it's not science, but they're awfully quick to villify
something they know *nothing* about.
I have a degree in physics; back in my hippie days I did get
deeply into astrology. And it's a lot more complex than
those phony horoscopes in the paper. Of course, that's all
most people know about astrology. To claim to understand it
from such figments would be like claiming to understand all of
Christianity from seeing advertisements for "The Living Bible."
There's actually an enormous amount of literature, and most has
nothing to do with "telling the future". The basic philosophy deals
with recurring patterns in nature, not cause and effect. It's
essentially religious, so you believe it or you don't. As with
any religious belief, objective notions of "right" and "wrong"
don't apply. Yet astronomers seem obsessed with debunking it,
even though the arguments they drag up derive solely from woefully
mistaken impressions about astrological practice. The way astronomers
spit on astrology probably drives more people to it in these
xenophobic, anti-technological times than astrologers could ever hope
to convert.
I left astrology back with the drugs and the revolution. (Looking
at the vacuous materialism that has superseded them, I'm still
ambivalent about this, but like they say, you can't go home again.)
I know astrology is bunk--but astronomers don't. They've never
studied it. Actually, they seem to be very superstitious about it.
'Fess up--you *do* know your sign!
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 30 Jul 85 [12 Thermidor An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7753 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***jeff@utastro.UUCP (Jeff Brown the Scumbag) (08/02/85)
[ ]
(To the weary reader: much of this article is a near-flame.
The last paragraph is not. Feel free to skip.....)
Sorry, I can't sit still for this.
I, too, was into astrology in my younger days. When I was 13 or 14
I figured out to set up the charts, calculate siderial time, read and
interpolate the tables, and try to make readings. It was fun then;
across the 15-year void I can't remember honestly whether I believed
any of it at the time.
Most astronomers, I think, would have no complaint if astrology was
considered an amusing pastime (because it does make you more aware
of how the planets move around in the sky). If you draw some philosophy
from it, then I won't condemn that, either. But I suspect that if
you do either of these two things then you are NOT the kind of person
the general anti-astrology message is aimed at.
The problem comes because astrology, as it usually is thought of by
damn near everyone, is a form of divination. Like all other forms
of divination, it is bunk, which you say. The point is that LARGE
NUMBERS OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S BUNK. While still tech editor
for Stardate here I could count on getting a couple of phone calls
a month (since that position includes handling the calls & letters
the front-office folks couldn't) from earnest people seeking
astrological advice. (One of the last and most vivid cases was the
poor woman who was so perplexed because she always made sure to plant
her garden while the moon was in a fertile sign, and the three
astrological publications she had were in direct mutual conflict.)
And there's nothing astronomical at all in the crap that appears in
the daily papers.
And there is the problem. You know that astrological divination is
trash. I know it's trash. Every statistical analysis ever turned
on it has shown it has no predictive power. But there are many
people out there that don't know that, are willing to testify to the
contrary, and spend too much time and money in support of it. (More
money is spent on astrology than astronomy in the US each year.)
Most astronomers _do_ know something about astrology, and if it's
really necessary can in an hour or two get the references to demolish,
at length and in detail, any arguments by astrology's apologists.
The instant vehemence of astronomers' universal condemnation of
astrology probably comes from frustration: astrology is the most
widespread of the popular superstitions, and unfortunately the two
fields' names are too much alike. (Having to explain the difference
in every casual conversation -- "And what do you do? -- gets VERY
tiresome; I've gotten so that I lie to barbers, etc., to avoid the
topic.) I suspect, for instance, that mathematicians would be a lot
more irate about numerology if mathematics was called "numerometry"
and daily numerology columns in every paper.
[ end of preaching. I apologize for its length. ]
I didn't object to "astrological" software because most of it will
be, as pointed out (I think) by the original poster, astronomical in
origin. What you do with originally-astronomical software in the
privacy of your own directory is none of my business. My only suggestion
is that the codes be posted in net.sources and have only pointers
appear in net.astro. (I will even help this along somewhat. While
I do not have it coded up, I can give a reference to a paper I think
will provide everything that was wanted and more: "Low-Precision
Formulae for Planetary Positions" by T. C. van Flandern and K. F.
Pulkkinen, in the _Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series_ vol. 41,
pp. 391-411 (1979), is just what the title says, with an accuracy
of 1 arc-minute "for any epoch within 300 years of the present".
Unfortunately, Ap. J. Supp. isn't in that many libraries...)
Jeff Brown
U. of Texas Astonomy Dept. (...!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!jeff)
Austin TX 78712
"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you. It's all them things
you _do_ know that ain't so."doug@escher.UUCP (Douglas J Freyburger) (08/03/85)
> -- > I've always been amazed at the vehemence with which astronomers > condemn astrology, like some bastard cousin they're too ashamed > of. Of course it's not science, but they're awfully quick to villify > something they know *nothing* about. > Er... This high-and-mighty stuff from modern astonomers is fun, but real data on places far outside the Solar system is shakey at best. With the Pioneer's and Voyager's and all of those other robots we've sent to other planets, the Copernican/Keplerian model of the Solar system is well proven, but how well proven is our "Knowledge" of the rest of the galaxy, and what lies beyond? Parallax (sp?) works well locally, but it can only be used on a few objects out of many orders of magnitude more. Farther than that, it's all speculation. Sure, it's well founded speculation, but so was Ptolmey (and even the Sumerians that started up astrology). This sort of system has been proven wrong before. I "believe in" neutron stars and expanding universe, and I don't "believe in" astrology, but I'll be a lot firmer in my belief when Beowulf Sheiffer comes back with photos of the local neutron star! Maybe the reason modern astronomers are so dead-set against astrology is related to just how un-proven THEIR work is. They saw the astrologers fall; they saw the Ptolemics fall, and now could it be that they're afraid the Hubbelians will fall, too? I am very pro-astronomy, and here I am lambasting it without even the slightest intention of adding a ":-)" smiley in the whole text. As hard as we work on it, it isn't testable until we get out there to test it with something, so by the definition of many of us on the net, astronomy isn't a science. I prefer to call the Ptolomics (and even the astrologers) "obsolete scientists" rather than "not scientists". Do you want all of your work dismissed as worthless, or just recognised as out-dated, when it gets old? In the interest of getting out there and testing some of these theories, let's DO it. Robert Forward's StarWisp is a good start. On the lighter side, does anyone have a better idea for an FTL-drive? I don't want to dive into a T-machine face-first, I'm afraid of black holes when they're that close... Doug Freyburger DOUG@JPL-VLSI, DOUG@JPL-ROBOTICS, JPL 171-235 ...escher!doug, doug@aerospace, Pasadena, CA 91109 etc.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/07/85)
Interesting thought -- if and when we get out there, and actually directly observe neutron stars, the effects of black holes nearby, etc., will it really be "astronomy" any more? That is, when it is no longer theoretical speculation based on small amounts of data gathered by instruments and eyes, but "ordinary" direct observation and recording of visible phenomena, it won't be "astronomy" as we now know it, any more than "geography" is the same as "surveying". After interstellar spaceflight becomes common, will "astronomy" as a science exist any more? Or will it be subsumed into some form of practical engineering or the like? I could see general cosmology continuing as a subset of physics, but that's about it... Will
tomk@ur-laser.uucp (Tom Kessler) (08/08/85)
Perhaps this is why many Cosmologically oriented types are referring to
themselves as Astrophysicists. I don't think most people who sell
themselves as Astronomers will have to worry about it in the near
future.--
--------------------------
Tom Kessler {allegra |seismo }!rochester!ur-laser!tomk
Laboratory for Laser Energetics Phone: (716)- 275 - 5101
250 East River Road
Rochester, New York 14623bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/08/85)
> Interesting thought -- if and when we get out there, and actually > directly observe neutron stars, the effects of black holes nearby, etc., > will it really be "astronomy" any more? That is, when it is no longer > theoretical speculation based on small amounts of data gathered by > instruments and eyes, but "ordinary" direct observation and recording of > visible phenomena, it won't be "astronomy" as we now know it, any more > than "geography" is the same as "surveying". > Many astronomers concluded that now that we are exploring the planets and moon directly, these are not properly part of astronomy any more. I'll take the traditional view, though. All that has changed is our methods. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
ayers@convexs.UUCP (08/15/85)
/* Written 12:34 pm Aug 7, 1985 by wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA in convexs:net.astro */ /* ---------- "Re: Astronomers vs. astrology (long" ---------- */ Interesting thought -- if and when we get out there, and actually directly observe...will it really be "astronomy" any more? That is, ...it won't be "astronomy" as we now know it, any more than "geography" is the same as "surveying". After interstellar spaceflight becomes common, will "astronomy" as a science exist any more? Or will it be subsumed into some form of practical engineering or the like? /* End of text from convexs:net.astro */ Now that we have "surveying" has "geography" disappeared? blues, II world's leading exopsychologist (If Carl can do it, I can do it)
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/19/85)
In article <5600007@convexs> ayers@convexs.UUCP writes: > >Now that we have "surveying" has "geography" disappeared? > blues, II As a practical matter, and a subject of study all in itself, yes.