Astrology Not Nonsense After All
Okay and now that we’ve got it straight that I have no choice but to go on being smugly complacently in favour of rational inquiry as opposed to the other thing, let’s drop in on the Independent and see what it has to say about astrology.
The massive power of waves and the tides that cause them are, it is universally accepted, a direct consequence of the gravitational influences of the Moon and the Sun upon Earth. We also know that the Moon sometimes determines animal behaviour and has long been linked with aspects of our lives as diverse as a women’s menstrual cycle and mental disturbance, hence the word lunatic. Is it, astrologists argue, therefore completely impossible that the other planets also exert influences on our lives and personalities, to greater or lesser degrees and in varying combinations?
Well, it’s been awhile since I’ve seen anything quite as ridiculous as that, at least in a respectable newspaper. (Okay, not counting Bunting.) Note the discrepancy between ‘it is universally accepted’ in the first sentence and the much vaguer ‘we also know’ in the second. Who’s we, bub? And what do you mean ‘know’? And once we’ve got that clear – what on earth do you mean by ‘the Moon sometimes determines animal behaviour’? You mean like wolves howling at it? Or you mean like the moon turning bats into vampires? And then when we’re clear about that, what in the sam hill do you mean by ‘has long been linked with aspects of our lives as diverse as a women’s menstrual cycle and mental disturbance’? Eh? What do you mean ‘linked with’ for a start? You mean correlated with? You mean somebody has said ‘Hey, Clara went barking mad when the moon was almost full, and that other woman across town went a little funny during an eclipse’? Saying the moon has ‘long been linked with’ women’s ‘mental disturbance’ is perfectly compatible with simply saying that a lot of people who didn’t know much about either the moon or women’s brains have made random speculative correlations between the moon and women flipping out – which isn’t saying much. (Neither is ‘hence the word lunatic’. We know whence the word lunatic, you prat, that doesn’t constitute evidence that the moon does in fact make women go crazy, it just constitutes evidence that people thought the moon made people go crazy.) And then the descent into complete raving in the last sentence. Who knows whether it’s ‘completely impossible’ or not, but that’s not the issue; the issue is that there’s no reason to think so. Woolly thinkers always babble about proof and certainty and completely impossible, when those are not what’s at stake. Anyway – how did Terry Kirby get from the waves and the tides to ‘influences on our lives and personalities’? (By sly stages, that’s how. Waves and tides, to animal behaviour, to aspects of our lives such as menstruation and mental disturbance, to influences on our lives and personalities – as if they were all pretty much the same kind of thing. Well they’re not. If Kirby knows of some evidence that gravity influences our personalities the same way it influences the tides, I’d be curious to see it.) And then there’s ‘the other planets,’ meaning in addition to the moon and the sun. Err…
And that, having been around in various forms since the ancient Babylonians first began to describe celestial omens 4,000 years ago, astrology deserves more respect than the derision commonly accorded it by the rational scientists and the established churches[?]
Well there’s a stupid ‘argument’. Lots of things have ‘been around’ for four thousand years or more, but that doesn’t automatically mean they ‘deserve’ ‘respect’ – why would it? Stupid ideas don’t become less stupid as they get older; often the contrary is true, as better information becomes available. The four humours were around for a long time too; does that mean they ‘deserve’ ‘respect’ now?
Marlene Houghton, an astrologer for more than 30 years, puts it another way. “Astrology is a metaphysical doctrine, not a science, and cannot be easily judged by the narrow instrument that is science.”
Yupuhuh. Also known as the easy out. Astrology is a ‘metaphysical doctrine’ – okay, but then if it claims that distant planets do in fact ‘exert influences on our lives and personalities’ then it is making non-metaphysical truth claims, and doesn’t get to wiggle out of noticing disconfirming evidence with handwaving about metaphysical doctrines. That is, in the vernacular, cheating.
I’ve never seen astrology as a prop or a belief system but, as Ms Chalklin says, simply a tool to better understand the ups and downs of everyday life and help explain something about ourselves and the people we meet. It’s not rocket science, in fact, it’s not science at all. Whether you are an Aries or a Pisces, it is ultimately about people and what makes us what we are.
But if it’s a crap tool with all broken teeth and twisted prongs and dull blades and bent shafts, then what’s the point of it? How does it help anyone better understand the ups and downs of anything if it’s a great whirling cloud of vapor? How does it explain anything about ourselves and the people we meet when in fact it doesn’t explain anything at all because it’s pure raving nonsense?
Ah, the hell with it. With people like that around and the Indy publishing them, I’ll just have to go on being smug and complacent, I can’t possibly do anything else.
“Is it, astrologists argue, therefore completely impossible that the other planets also exert influences on our lives and personalities”
I’ll go with Carl Sagan here when he said (I paraphrase): of course the planets do exert a small gravitational influence on us, but the nurses and doctors in the delivery room exert a MUCH greater influence. True, the sun and moon are much larger, but the delivery room staff are MUCH closer…
Good God! I’m glad I don’t wear a monocle as it would have popped out about 20 times during that article..
Personally, I’ve moved on from smug & complacent to conceited and self-congratulatory. You should try it too.
Another example of basic innumeracy, as pointed out by John Paulos in his books and columns on mathematics. The fallacy that correlation implies causation is fundamental in so many areas – astrology, prayer, baseball statistics, etc.
No, no, OB, it’s perfectly straightforward. The behavior of newly hatched turtles is strongly influenced by the moon. Women’s menstrual cycles are about twenty-eight days long. Therefore, women are turtles. Mysteriously, we are also wolves. *Deep*, isn’t it? Aroooo!
I’m going to have to point this article out to Josh. Astrology is such a sure way of getting him ranting. We have an acquaintance who keeps declaring, “You know, I’m really a skeptic, but –” followed by skepticism-free astrological gurgling. I can count on an entertaining rant pretty much every time Mercury’s retrograde.
I’m perfectly happy to grant the possibility that the season of our birth might have something to do with how likely we are to have enjoyed dodgeball in school, though. (Thanks to my October birthday and the school enrollment rules, I was the smallest kid in my class, and did I ever get pounded for it.) I’m willing to consider that there may be various seasonal influences — wouldn’t it be nice if one could study them without the astrologers pointing and hooting? Oh well.
As our resident wingnut, I enjoy playing at divination. But I have my standards.
I’m happy to see, at least, that they’re not claiming that astrology is a science. This is an improvement over the usual. But I wonder about claiming that it is a metaphysical system. Seems to me that there are more people who know a fair bit about science than there are people who know about metaphysics, so it’s safer to claim that astrology’s metaphysics. Is there a metaphysician in the house?
I reallyb liked this quote:
“And that, having been around in various forms since the ancient Babylonians first began to describe celestial omens 4,000 years ago, astrology deserves more respect than the derision commonly accorded it by the rational scientists and the established churches?”
There is only one tiny problem with this: there is no one astrology that is still going after 4000 years. Babylonian astrology is long dead, for example, and there are today different astrolgies, for example the Chninese one and the one you see in newsapers. And they all contradict each other! So whatever evidence is adduced to support one form of astrology implicitly disproves the claims of the others.
I wonder if the recent change of the Independent to a more populist format has anything to do with lunar induced brainstorms?
“and help explain something about ourselves and the people we meet”
Explain? Precisely what does explain mean in this contest?
What patience, OB! To wade through that crap and give each detail of it the attention it deserves shows an awesome ability to concentrate. It is really a heavy sensation to see such crap published in a national newspaper (mind you the Independent is mostly crap anyhow, except for Johan Hari sometimes). But all that effort you put into it lightened my outlook considerably. Humour is such a nice thing. :)
Proof positive that The Independent no longer qualifies as a serious newspaper. I thought the conclusive proof, even for the gullible who read them, was the complete failure in any of the dailies which carry them to predict the boxing day tsunami.
I was puzzled by the tone of this post, OB, until I did a chart for the post itself (the exact posting time was very helpful — thanks!) and now it all makes sense.
Matt: “Another example of basic innumeracy, as pointed out by John Paulos in his books and columns on mathematics. The fallacy that correlation implies causation is fundamental in so many areas – astrology, prayer, baseball statistics, etc.”
Unfortunately, the fallacy is also present in philosophy – think of the correlation between watching violent pornography & enjoying violent sexual practices. Way too many philosophers have bought into the correlation implying causation.
That being said, I’m not even sure that there is *any* convincing correlation present in astronomy, much less causation.
If Cherie Blair had consulted the stars, maybe she would have thought better of wearing that white frock to meet the pope. That’s my guess anyway.
Ian Gibson wrote:
“Good God! I’m glad I don’t wear a monocle as it would have popped out about 20 times during that article..
Personally, I’ve moved on from smug & complacent to conceited and self-congratulatory. You should try it too.”
Why, thank you, I will. Splendid suggestion. And now I’m thinking of getting a monocle too, of course. I bet we all are. Think how lovely if we can learn to pop it out with real force — and maybe hit something.
Monocle – pff – kid stuff. I’m getting a glass eye – people will sit up and take notice when that sucker flies across the room.
Nothing pisses off a vulture more than a glass eye. I hope our pal Ben Goldacre over at the Grauniad’s Bad Science will be applying his narrow instrument of a scientistic mind to this appalling guff sometime soon.
The proof of astrology is, as they say, in the pudding. I have a standing offer to skeptics like yourself – let me do a chart interpretation for you at no charge, and then you can make an informed decision on the subject. Oddly, it’s hard to find a skeptic who will take me up on this offer. Why is that? Hopefully you will have the courage where others before you have not. http://astrodynamics.blogspot.com