In this collection of essays I hope to show that the belief that planets have an influence over human behaviour is a myth of the most ignorant kind.It is true that the planets have an insubstantial gravitational influence,but the effects that they are supposed to elicit in terms of conjunctions or auspicious occasions due to relationships with the 12 constellations cannot be true for the following reasons.
Are Scientists prejudiced against astrology?
In short scientist's scoff,because like all pseudoscientific
pursuits no proof is ever forthcoming and as soon as any scientific work
is done that shows the belief up for what it is-a belief and not fact,those
who adhere to the belief through conviction or an act of faith continue in
their belief,rather than update their views accordingly. Scientists get annoyed
with this,because they have to update their views,no matter what they would
like to believe,when faced with facts.The basic lack of understanding and
unwillingness to follow the esoteric symbols of mathematics and the physical
laws,means that astrologers and their pseudoscientific counterparts never
come to terms with real facts, instead they surround their own beliefs in
their own symbols and claim it is just as good for being shrouded in as many
symbols. Strangely they are always quick to accommodate new advances in science
and integrate them in a half understood mix of mysticism,belief,and ignorance.The
historical ascent and decline of astrology is annotated here by Philip J
Davis and Reuben Hersh in "The Mathematical Experience" which shows why anyone
with an ounce of understanding has intellectually dispensed with
it. The Mathematical Experience - Astrology
One might wonder what astrology is doing in a mathematics book.Of
course the natural philosophers of yore,studied all kinds of things,even
Newton studied alchemy,this is often used a rouse to validate astrology
or the pseudosciences, by saying that if some of the things that were studied
in the past are still workable today ,then they all are!
As Jacob Bronowski says contrary to what some people might suggest,
presuming that the stars are a means to diving the future is not just a "bit
of fun".For there are those who once it is put to them that astrology is
bunk,shrivel and say "Well,I never thought there was anything in it anyway,it's
just a bit of fun isn't it?".This is an obnoxious and insidious idea. It
means that those who ply these things as truths have an audience,and that
some people even President's may make world changing decisions upon an authority
with no basis.It also means unelected people have control over representatives
in authority,and advise them according to their own misguided beliefs,that
a certain day can be a "good" or "bad" for them,negating the fact that good
and bad are value judgments and what might seem like a "good" day for an
astrologer can be seen in a quite different light by those with greater vision.In
the following article Richard Dawkins explains what is wrong with this meddling
with things that are thought to have influence upon people,and why it is
wrong to say "It's just a bit of fun". Tricksters who exploit Crystal Balls
In this article we see how language is manipulated to make people
think there is something to it,by exploiting the technical sounding words
of science.One would have thought that if mystics and astrologers sought
to lend credence to their beliefs the last thing they would do is borrow
scientific terms.But no,they merely dumb down and warp scientific ideas to
suit their own ill-conceived views. In a all of this it may sound like only
spite and mistrust is talking and that there is some particular axe to grind
just because a scientific view finds it "hard to understand".This is not
so,as with other paranormal or pseudoscientific phenomena it would be remiss
of science it were merely overlooked as foolishness. Such things are studied
and have been, on an ongoing basis,but the result of experiment after experiment
is "There's nothing in it".At any other time,say,when investigating another
phenomena,a scientist would give up the ghost,so to speak,and just sees no
extra need to keep chipping away at something for which there is no evidence,or
for which evidence has been found which refutes the beliefs of the claimant.There
is little point in flogging a dead horse,and astrology,like God and all other
unprovable beliefs,is a dead horse. Innumeracy - Coincidence and Pseudoscience
John goes on to explain the cultural and psychological reasons
why it is that there is such an affinity with pseudoscience,and a revulsion
of a scientific explanation, mostly citing the "cold hard mathematics" as
being the domain of a mundane technician,and the propensity of people wishing
to feel special or indeed not to be picked out. The UK lottery advert with
a finger saying "It could be you" perhaps exemplifies this message of people
seeing chance and likelihood playing parts in their lives.It is odd then
that they do not turn to the doctrine of chance- statistical mathematics
in order to familiarise themselves with it,but instead turn to purveyors
of speculation and misunderstanding for help.It is the blind leading the
blind.Moreover it is paradoxical,since a life ordained by the stars and decamped
into only 12 categories devalues individuality or the means to be special.It
actually makes a person just like others of their kind,and suggests that
a future is set in stone (contrary to the investigations of our most capable
intellectuals).Why then do people listen to the mumblings of people wearing
dayglo woolly jumpers or baubles trinkets and crystals,in preference to people
who have spent their whole lives in pursuit of knowledge? Perhaps this is
because of a basic distrust of science,perhaps based in
CP Snow's
"Two
Cultures"-the basically artistically creative person-the romantic,as
opposed to the trained rationalist.Perhaps many have a romantic side,an emotional
side,that finds hard truths unpalatable and offensive to their humanity,they
see explanations as diminishing.Maybe this is because they have been spoon
fed Reductionist science,which as much makes them a human automaton as does
astrology make them a "victim of venomous fate". Perhaps the mystic
has been brought up in a peer group of people who worship gods or nature
and see science as an antithesis by default. Polly Toynbee reviews Everyman-Astrology
Whatever the reason,assuming there is one,it can be no explanation for shutting off and reviling a scientific explanation on its own merits.Find fault with it,yes,but don't just gripe that you don't like it,prove it isn't true,or show that there is any greater or at least as good evidence for a counter-claim. It's insidious that in a technological culture that has reached the moon and landed craft on Mars to think that the planets affect us in any more than to be targets and aspirational drives for a conquest of space.Such attainments were done by following a rule which has its basis in rationalism and mathematics,not in superstition ,belief and hearsay.It's incredible then,that as John Allen Paulos says over half of the most technologically advanced nation on Earth believes in such hogwash.More bizarre still is that in "the nation of shopkeepers" is a propensity to be taken in by such ignoramuses and show people as Paul McKenna and Uri Geller.It perhaps is no shock that footballers succumb to this nonsense,but that they should be sacked from their jobs for listening to such baloney is only a fitting end to ignorance.At every turn from Mystic Meg on the lottery to morning television, from CEEFAX to the internet,from tabloids to broadsheets,the hokum and fraud and even convicted belief of astrologers pervades.So much so that people often confuse the legitimate science of astronomy with it,and if for no other reason,we should see the last of it.We are now in a new millennium and ought to start as we mean to go on,without ignorant superstition.The apocalyptic thinking that seemed to mar the end of 1999,should not be allowed to continue.
|
Chaos | Quantum | Logic | Cosmos | Conscious | Belief | Elect. | Art | Chem. | Maths |