rdp@teddy.UUCP (08/01/85)
...
The recent debate in this news group over astrology has generated a lot of
ill-will amonst many here. I suspect that I may be responsible for some of
it myself. The discussions seem to center on purging the newsgroup of the
evil menace of astrology, not WHY it should be purged.
I have a proposal to make. Instead of casting the heathens of atrology out
of the Astronomical temple, let's engage in a cool, rational, scientific
debate on the merits or lack thereof of astrological principles. It is
only this way that a homeland can be found for the wandering astrologists.
Why engage in such a debate in this group? Several reasons:
o Astrology, like it or not, DOES share the smae parentage as
astronomy. If it's related to anything, it's related to
astronomy.
o As "Sunny" points out, much of the mathematical astronomy
was performed by astrologists, but many errors where ignored
because of the insistance of the validity of a geocentric
model.
o If those of us who have such firm beliefs in the validity of
scientific astronomy can convince those others, using straight-
forward reasoning, observational evidence, unbiased experiments
and cool logic, of the errors of their ways, then not only will
the group be purged of astrology, but EVERYONE will learn quite
a bit about the scientific method.
Only by avoiding derogatories, insults, and name calling can we avoid the
spectre of having our noses in the air. Sunny's comments a few articles
back are well taken here. I strongly disagree with her(?) viewpoints, but
I would like to try to refrain from getting into arguments having nothing
to do with the issue at hand.
I think, in fact I am strongly convinced, that modern astrology is so
much nonsense, and I have good reasons for that conviction. Other people
think differently. Why don't we try to convince them otherwise. The people
in net.misc, net.jokes, net.religion or net.games won't do that. I think
that by convincing these people about the errors in astrology, I am
raising their general level of knowledge (if for no other reason than by
adding to it).
Sure, as an active amateur astronomer, let's engage in a polite, SCIENTIFIC
debate on astrology. If we are so right, we should be able to prove it
without resulting to kicking and punching, right?
SO, let me fire the first salvo...
My objections to astrology arise from several sources. Let me deal with one.
The concepts of astrology have never, to my knowledge, been subject to
the critical, skeptical rigors of the scientific method. There seems to
be no underlying theory, based on widely-accepted physical laws, that
describe mechanisms, observations, and lead to prediction and subsequent
discovery of new phenomenon.
I once watched a "debate" between two proffesional astrologers and two
professional astronomers. Continuosly, the astrologers were asking the
astronomers to accept the pricnciples of astroloy on faith, that they
knew what they knew because of their "experience". The astronomers
pressed for an underlying theory, for the mechanisms behind the principles.
Finally, one of the astrologers said something like "Einstein proved
astrology is correct!", and, when asked how, continued, "The theory of
relativity proves it. It proves that everything is related in the
universe!". This sort of fighting went back and forth. The impression
that I got at the end of the show was that the astrologers did NOT have
any underlying theories or even conjectures to their beliefs.
Astrology, I have read, was thrown into something of a dissarray with the
discovery of the outer planets. Here were some more agents moving around
that were completely unaccounted for in the tenets of astrology. Yet, through
careful investigation, observations, calculations, and the application of
a theory of interaction between bodies (Newtonian gravity and Keplerian
mechanics), the scientific community had succeeded in predicting the
existance of these bodies. Has astrology been able, using it's priciples,
been able to make similar "predictions"? To my knowledge, they have not.
Dick Pierce