Is astrology 'unscientific'?

[118118]

Names?

Names. Well, obviously there are names, I wouldn't be able to find anyone top of the field off hand. Doesn't Kuhn give a different demarcation?
My best bet is try Hempel, he is IME the most trusted philosooher of science - though of course I do not know what he thinks on this, though I have read him criricise eg Poppers view of simplicity, which is part of falisficationism.

But - whatever your view of the ironic flaw in Popper-based positivism - the usefulness of predictions is tied up with their falsifiability.

In what way?

 

[northernhord]

No that is a ridiculous claim IMO, the situation we have is, some people believe in astrology, some people don't. Then some people believe in science, some people believe in Christianity, some in mormonism etc etc. If you are saying that you know that your particular specific set of beliefs about cult practics is the correct one, and you are so sure of being right about this that you feel the authority to say that astrologers havent a clue, then you are simply illustrating perfectly the kind of ignorance that the scientific establishment shows towards all non-materialist beliefs

In short cultural relativism (diversity of cultural practices ect) cant have its workings quantified by something thats own Laws and rules are used too look at other phenomena, would you try and change a sparkplug with a fishfinger?

I think science's interest in Astrology might have something to do with the fact that Astrology does have apsects of it that appear to be scientific and thats possibly what stimulated the interest in the first place.

 

[max_freakout]

I seriously recommend that you read some Bruno Latour - all of it, in fact, starting at the beginning. He's unconventional. Citing him won't get you extra marks. But at the very least he'll give you an idea that there are more than two coherent positions on all this.

Thanx for that just looked him up on wikipedia - interesting stuff he viewed science as being a culture rather than a set of principles

 

[laptop]

I disagree, i think science has defined its field of objectivity very specifically. Science seeks to locate truth and closure by examing repeatable events, because these are the only kind of things about which 'laws' can be formulated.

And so there is no "fact of the matter", nor any "how it is", about an unrepeatable event. Only witness testimony. Or just - halleluia - Testimony.

I have seen a ghost. I still don't believe there are ghosts.

Hence science deals with the interactions between chemicals, and with the interaction between physical particles.

So ecology is not science?

(By ecology I of course mean the study of ecosystems, not yoghourt-knitting.)

Are you, in fact, trying to save space for a god of the gaps?

Your insistence on a "proper realm" suggests so - or something stronger: that' you're trying to define something that ought not to be examined using the scientific method.

I cooked up a grant proposal for a proper double-blind study of acupuncture. It was infeasibly expensive, since it involved isolating an entire city from outside cultural influences.

I'd be happy to do one for ghosts, when I have time (or money).

For astrology, studies have been done. They took the most basic possible prediction: "a person's sun-sign should have some correlation - we do not presume to know what - with their occupation". For members of professional associations in France, there is no such correlation.

 

[118118]

It certainly seems that Popper has not solved the problem of induction, I believe that alot of research still goes into this.

 

[max_freakout]

In short cultural relativism (diversity of cultural practices ect) cant have its workings quantified by something thats own Laws and rules are used too look at other phenomena, would you try and change a sparkplug with a fishfinger?

Except that its not the "workings of cultural relativism" i would say it's the workings of evolution and nature? (since this is ultimately the thing that created human beings and therefore astrology and all other human musings) and science isnt merely 'quantifying' them, it is making profound judgements about their value

I think science's interest in Astrology might have something to do with the fact that Astrology does have apsects of it that appear to be scientific and thats possibly what stimulated the interest in the first place.

I think it's because occult beliefs make the scientific mindset quite uncomfortable, so it instinctively trys to 'shuts them up' by claiming them to be unscientific

 

[max_freakout]

For astrology, studies have been done. They took the most basic possible prediction: "a person's sun-sign should have some correlation - we do not presume to know what - with their occupation". For members of professional associations in France, there is no such correlation.

That is a very humble admission for a scientific study

 

[max_freakout]

It certainly seems that Popper has not solved the problem of induction, I believe that alot of research still goes into this.

I doubt anyone will EVER solve this problem, literally

 

[laptop]

Thanx for that just looked him up on wikipedia - interesting stuff he viewed science as being a culture rather than a set of principles

I haven't read the wikithing. From arguing with Bruno ( pulls rank), it is clear to me that's a vast over-simplification.

True, he started (in Aramis) studying science and technology as a culture. That is not to say that he ever saw it as "merely" a culture. That was what he got a grant to do.

I suspect the wikiauthor(s) may not have read (or understood) We have never been modern - which is largely about epistemology and principles.

He is widely feared by scientists who don't know how bad they are at philosophy, and hated by arm-wavers who detest him for upsetting their attempts to declare what they damn well please as Truth without bothering to consult the Parliament of Things That is - culturally speaking - why I like him.

 

[paolo]

No that is a ridiculous claim IMO, the situation we have is, some people believe in astrology, some people don't. Then some people believe in science, some people believe in Christianity, some in mormonism etc etc. If you are saying that you know that your particular specific set of beliefs about cult practics is the correct one, and you are so sure of being right about this that you feel the authority to say that astrologers havent a clue, then you are simply illustrating perfectly the kind of ignorance that the scientific establishment shows towards all non-materialist beliefs

This is common starting point: Say that science is "just a belief, like spritual beliefs", then you've brought it down to being something that is just one of many persuasions, rather than something that sits entirely seperately.

Except that isn't quite right though is it? Some/much of science is accepted by those with a spiritual belief. So it's not incompatible. it's only incompatible when someone decides that their spiritual belief is unassailable (and incompatible), at which point they will selectively decide that parts of science are "wrong". I say selectively because someone who, say, believes in Creationism, does not stop believing in gravity.

It's this "pick and mix" attitude that is one of the fatal flaws of the whole "science isn't right" argument.

 

[laptop]

That is a very humble admission for a scientific study

The methodology of science is, in fact rather than in multiply-mediated cultural myth - extemely humble.

As humble as a very humble thing. Think about it in a nutshell: "I have a hypothesis. I will now do my damnedest to destroy it. If it survives I will publish the record of my failure and invite others to destroy it."

But you keep picking off tiny cultural bits in what I write and ignoring the hard bits.

Since you insist on cultural, rather than philosophical, debate, we need motivation.

Are you, in fact, trying to save space for a god of the gaps?

 

[max_freakout]

So ecology is not science?

Im confused about this, i think that ecology falls outside of the range of sciences that believe themselves to be arbiters of empirical truth, maybe because ecology is not one of the sciences that is involved with the production of spectacular technology, as THIS is the ONLY means by which science has risen to a position where it is able to make judgements about astrology

 

[laptop]

the sciences ... involved with the production of spectacular technology, as ... is the ONLY means by which science has risen to a position where it is able to make judgements about astrology

Ah, we're getting closer to motivation. I still want my question answered before questioning you on this, though.

 

[max_freakout]

The methodology of science is, in fact rather than in multiply-mediated cultural myth - extemely humble.

NOT the scientists who are involved in much of the policymaking in society

As humble as a very humble thing. Think about it in a nutshell: "I have a hypothesis. I will now do my damnedest to destroy it. If it survives I will publish the record of my failure and invite others to destroy it."

i accept that but it's not the same kind of humility that involved in considering the validity of the ENTIRE scientific methodology, rather than just an individual theory

But you keep picking off tiny cultural bits in what I write and ignoring the hard bits.

Since you insist on cultural, rather than philosophical, debate, we need motivation.

Are you, in fact, trying to save space for a god of the gaps?

Laptop i swear im not selectively trying to avoid arguing philosophically, and sorry i don't know what you mean about god of the gaps (you mean the gaps between atoms?)

 

[max_freakout]

Except that isn't quite right though is it? Some/much of science is accepted by those with a spiritual belief. So it's not incompatible.

I disagree, i think science's denial of a non-physical realm of existence makes it entirely incompatible with absolutely ALL spiritual beliefs. The very meaning of the word 'spiritual' indicates this

 

[118118]

I doubt anyone will EVER solve this problem, literally

Depends how its framed.

We were taught, that basically science is true, because it builds aeroplanes - the no mircles argument.

I disagree, i think science's denial of a non-physical realm of existence makes it entirely incompatible with absolutely ALL spiritual beliefs. The very meaning of the word 'spiritual' indicates this

What do you mean by incombatible exactly.

 

[paolo]

I disagree, i think science's denial of a non-physical realm of existence makes it entirely incompatible with absolutely ALL spiritual beliefs. The very meaning of the word 'spiritual' indicates this

Find me a paper that says "I deny" (whatever). Science isn't about denial. It's the opposite. It's about providing best available proof of something, and then discarding that when there's better proof to improve or even contradict the finding.

And I think you'll find there are scientists that will happily have a spiritual belief and not see that as meaning that belief therefore invalidates science.

 

[max_freakout]

What do you mean by incompatible exactly.

I mean that, since science, and various spiritual traditions, can all be viewed as belief systems existing alongside each other in society, it is impossible to genuinely, legitimately combine the beliefs of science with the beliefs of spirituality in a single person. Because science denies the existence of spiritual essence, it claims that everything that exists is made of matter, and this belief simply cannot be combined with spiritual beliefs, which all say, in one way or another, that there is a realm of existence 'spirit' which is non-material.

 

[max_freakout]

Find me a paper that says "I deny" (whatever).

But you know as well as i do that science doesnt work that way, science has gone about its denial in a more surreptitious way. Because science literally IS the exploration of the materialist's realm of existence, it is the paradigm of materialism in its most stark and detailed form, it has staked out its realm of study very firmly as [MATERIAL EXISTENCE, NOTHING ELSE], and from there it proceeds to give us all this technology that makes so many people thing "oooh isnt science great", then something like astrology falls within their field of vision, which involves considerations aimed at an immaterial type of existence, and they say it is 'unscientific' BECAUSE it relies on supernatural, immaterial entities/forces or whatever. Thus they have denied any kind of immaterial existence, without ever explicitly admitting it

 

[laptop]

NOT the scientists who are involved in much of the policymaking in society

Oh, that there were a significant number.

Let's see. Sir David King (government chief scientific advisor) is, to my personal knowledge, quite humble, epistemologically speaking. Not so humble when it comes down to shooting down purveyors of un-thought-out prejudiced nonsense [PUPN] (not mentioning any Bellamies in particular).

Then... who? Richard Dawkins is arrogant - arrogant with good reason - about PUPN too. In person he's culturally humble - and if you consider what he's actually saying about knowledge it's in line with what I said. And as far as I am aware he has less input into policy than I do.

Lewis Wolpert is notoriously arrogant about cultural relativists - he practically spat when I asked him about Latour, who is in fact not one - but, also, he has no power.

It is a problem that policymaking barely includes scientists. It includes lobbyists who seek to deploy prejudiced views of science - including yours - to their own ends.

So your motivation is in fact based on these lobbyists' misrepresentations that "science is on their side", it seems.

i accept that but it's not the same kind of humility that involved in considering the validity of the ENTIRE scientific methodology, rather than just an individual theory

But that's a job for philosophers. You don't expect accountants to be familiar with the latest weirdness in number theory, do you? In fact I'd rather hope thay the accountants I talk to were not thinking about the set of all possible arithmetics - I just want them to use the same arithmetic as the Inland Revenue - Peano arithmetic over a fully-populated field known as the "integers"

Laptop i swear im not selectively trying to avoid arguing philosophically, and sorry i don't know what you mean about god of the gaps (you mean the gaps between atoms?)

The "god of the gaps" is a cheap shot thrown at those who accept, for example, that the Big Bang and evolution are ideas worth exploring - and want their god to live in the gaps that science doesn't deal with. This is an accusation frequently thrown at the likes of the Reverend and physicist John Polkinghorne.

The more militant start trying to defend their gaps, to say that science shouldn't go there - see those who invoke John Searle's utter misunderstanding of consciousness...

You do want there to be room for Something Mystical, don't you?

Edited to add: You've answered that while I was writing this.

You really, really, want there to be something that's none of science's business.

But why? What, for example, do you gain by being able to say "I have this 'spiritual' experience - it's none of science's business - which, er, means we can't actually say anything about it to each other, it's an unrepeatable one-off...."

Edited to add again - especially, what do you have to gain by arguing against something that is not science but rather your projection of the military-industrial complex onto scientists?

 

[max_freakout]

But that's a job for philosophers. You don't expect accountants to be familiar with the latest weirdness in number theory, do you?

Sorry laptop not meaning to snip but im falling asleep this bit stood out the most i'll properly read the rest tomorrow.

Philosophers HAVE been doing their job, very diligently, for over 3000 years in Western society, and what are their conclusions up to the present day? That the problem of induction is UNSOLVABLE, at least insofar as noone HAS convincingly solved it up to now, and this fact surely indicates that the riddle of induction ITSELF is an inductive riddle, because we are relying on the fact that someone is going to solve it eventually, yet induction is the absolute central assumption in the scientific belief-system, so it's all very well saying "that's the philosopher's job", when you ignore the fact that philosophers are actually doing this job, and havent reached any firm conclusions YET, which creates an inductive paradox out of the concept of induction itself....

 

[118118]

it is impossible to genuinely, legitimately combine the beliefs of science with the beliefs of spirituality in a single person.

It does happen, lots of scientists are religous. But I guess you mean that its irrational to do so - for your above reasons. I would say that science does not science does not state that everything is matter, rationality maybe says this, and many believe science to be rational, but I don't think that this is enough - as I would say that IT IS NOT THE DOMAIN OF SCIENCE TO COMMENT ON SUCH THINGS (perhaps because its not falsifiable )- it more of a value jusdgement, of scientists, and as such can go one way or the other without contrdicting, their theories physical success or truth in itself.
I have definetly seen such ideas as spirit etc seen classified as value judgements, by scientists - the point being that they are not part of scientific study, and as such aren open questions to them.

 

[max_freakout]

It does happen, lots of scientists are religous.

Then these scientists have either misunderstood the teachings of their science, or their religion, or both.


A religious scientist is no less of a contradiction-in-terms than an astrologer scientist

 

[118118]

Sorry laptop not meaning to snip but im falling asleep this bit stood out the most i'll properly read the rest tomorrow.

Philosophers HAVE been doing their job, very diligently, for over 3000 years in Western society, and what are their conclusions up to the present day? That the problem of induction is UNSOLVABLE, at least insofar as noone HAS convincingly solved it up to now, and this fact surely indicates that the riddle of induction ITSELF is an inductive riddle, because we are relying on the fact that someone is going to solve it eventually, yet induction is the absolute central assumption in the scientific belief-system, so it's all very well saying "that's the philosopher's job", when you ignore the fact that philosophers are actually doing this job, and havent reached any firm conclusions YET, which creates an inductive paradox out of the concept of induction itself....

If its an inductive riddle, then I don't think it can be solved, as it would be circular!
And everything you say is very inconclusive, as it all uses falliable induction.

Names

Though there is wide agreement among published philosophers of science as to certain basics (e.g., empirical limitations, testability, etc, as outlined in the section above) the demarcation problem is not fully resolved, with numerous remaining specific issues still under discussion today. The discussion about what is acceptable and useful methodology in the various fields is also not confined to academic and practical issues, but also can involve legal issues. In its 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals opinion, the United States Supreme Court articulated a set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, in effect developing their own demarcation criteria. The Daubert Standard has four criteria:

* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

 

[phildwyer]

is that true? does science claim to be the sole arbiter of truth? what about logic? that's not a science, as far as i know.

Post-Baconian science does not accept the truth of logic. It does indeed claim to be the sole arbiter of truth.

 

[slaar]

Then these scientists have either misunderstood the teachings of their science, or their religion, or both.


A religious scientist is no less of a contradiction-in-terms than an astrologer scientist

You want to try telling that to Martin Rees?

Whatever the philosophical issues underlying science, which are worth thinking about, the sciencific method has repeatedly over hundreds of years come up with advances on how we view the world that have yielded testable hypotheses and lead to technological advances in nearly every field of human endeavour. Astrology has, well, not. So I'm prepared to give science the benefit of the doubt whilst everyone waffles on about the ultimate fate of the inductive method.

 

[bluestreak]

so, astrology = bollocks then?

all in favour?

 

[phildwyer]

so, astrology = bollocks then?

all in favour?

As mythology and psychology, its great. As a practical method of predicting the future, its rubbish.

 

[frogwoman]

no, it's bollocks, bollocks, bollocks ... not worth taking seriously at all ...

 

[bluestreak]

As mythology and psychology, its great. As a practical method of predicting the future, its rubbish.

agreed. everyone knows that entrails are much better.