canopus@amdahl.UUCP (Alpha Carinae) (08/02/85)
> 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. Ahh, yes. The intolerance of another's views. The human condition, unfortunately. By the way, the astronomers (professional and amateur alike) that I know don't condemn astrology vehemently. They might chuckle a bit, but not vehemently. Furthermore, a *true* scientist would not vilify something he knew nothing about. On the contrary, he would investigate it first before vilifying it. Compared to the way the Catholic Church treated those who developed the science of Astronomy, the astrologers of today have it made! > 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. [...] Yes, them good old hippie days. An excuse to do all sorts of strange things. I used the times as an excuse to get a degree in Philosophy, since it was about the most anti-establishment area of study one could find at the University. Spent a lot of time studying various religions myself (never took drugs, though). > 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. And here is the major point: Astrology is really a religion! And as such, discussions concerning it rightfully belong in net.religion, not in a news group that is "scientific", and depends on "objective notions of 'right' and 'wrong'". > 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. Hmmmm. This statement tells me a lot about you, but not much else. Astronomers may treat Astrology as a joke, but I seriously doubt that they are obsessed with debunking it. Except Jay Freeman, but then again he's not an Astronomer. Convert? Another interesting reference to religion. Guess we will have to choose up sides. You either believe in the Science of Astronomy, or the Religion of Astrology. Goodie! Another Religious War in the making!!! > 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! How do you know Astronomers don't know Astrology is bunk? How do you know they've never studied it? Superstitious? These are all unsubstantiated hypotheses! My sign? The last one I saw with my name on it had a red circle around it with a big red slash running diagonally through it! If you want to talk about Astrology as religion, then please keep the postings in net.religion. If you want to post software, be it Astronomical or Astrological, please use net.sources. You can use the header and/or keywords line to indicate its nature. > ken perlow ---- -- Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!canopus Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA [This is the obligatory disclaimer..] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "To be a Teer is to see things... differently"