Is astrology 'unscientific'?

[phildwyer]

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

I think any mode of thought that has been practiced for six thousand years is worth taking seriously. Astrology's main use was never to predict the future, it was a branch of mythology. I don't suppose anyone here is daft enough to say mythology's a load of rubbish because there is no such person as Zeus? Oh hang on...

 

[frogwoman]

I think any mode of thought that has been practiced for six thousand years is worth taking seriously. Astrology's main use was never to predict the future, it was a branch of mythology. I don't suppose anyone here is daft enough to say mythology's a load of rubbish because there is no such person as Zeus? Oh hang on...

yeah, that's true, but modern astrology, horoscopes and things, are nothing like whatever the original was supposed to be, and are purely there so that people can be ripped off ... or to provide entertainment for the readers of magazines like heat ...

 

[phildwyer]

yeah, that's true, but modern astrology, horoscopes and things, are nothing like whatever the original was supposed to be, and are purely there so that people can be ripped off ... or to provide entertainment for the readers of magazines like heat ...

Oh aye, you'll get no argument from me there. I'd say much the same thing about modern religion.

 

[tw1ggy5]

Of course astrology is unscientific, its not a science so how could it be.

 

[slaar]

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

Quite so.

 

[phildwyer]

Reminds me of the famous letter of dismissal that Kelvin MacKenzie wrote to The Sun's astrologer, which began: 'As you will already know...'

 

[slaar]

Reminds me of the famous letter of dismissal that Kelvin MacKenzie wrote to The Sun's astrologer, which began: 'As you will already know...'

Genius.

 

[Jonti]

I think any mode of thought that has been practiced for six thousand years is worth taking seriously

Anyone else favour blind tradition over the light of reason and evidence?

Just Phil, then

 

[max_freakout]

Anyone else favour blind tradition over the light of reason and evidence?

Blind tradition? Why is it 'blind'?

And is science then "the light of reason and evidence"???

 

[nino_savatte]

The trouble with astrology is that, if it is to be taken seriously, it needs to shed its fortune-telling image. This isn't helped by the fact that most people's knowledge of astrology comes from the press, who use celebrity branded astrologers to give generalised predictions. Aye, I'm talking to you, Justin Toper, Mystic Meg and Russell Grant! The thing about these columns is that they are almost always written by some poor sub-editor and not by the astrologers themselves.

 

[Jonti]

Blind tradition? Why is it 'blind'?

And is science then "the light of reason and evidence"???

It's blind to accept something just because it is traditional (no offence to the visually disabled intended).

And yes, the light of reason and evidence leads one to the scientific method. Do you have any way of finding out how things are, except by using evidence and reason?

 

[max_freakout]

And yes, the light of reason and evidence leads one to the scientific method. Do you have any way of finding out how things are, except by using evidence and reason?

I absolutely disagree, the fundamental assumption behind ALL of science is inductive, science claims that "future futures will resemble past futures", if water boils at 100 degrees when it is measured in laboratory conditions today, then according to science water will ALWAYS boil at 100 degrees.

There is absolutely NO 'reason', and (obviously) no 'evidence' to support this hypothesis, hence science is completely irrational

 

[max_freakout]

It's blind to accept something just because it is traditional (no offence to the visually disabled intended).

but science wholeheartedly accepts the validity of inductionism, for no other reason than it's 'traditional', it has worked ok up to now.....

 

[bluestreak]

I absolutely disagree, the fundamental assumption behind ALL of science is inductive, science claims that "future futures will resemble past futures", if water boils at 100 degrees when it is measured in laboratory conditions today, then according to science water will ALWAYS boil at 100 degrees.

There is absolutely NO 'reason', and (obviously) no 'evidence' to support this hypothesis, hence science is completely irrational

quoted because of the sheer amazing idiocy of that statement.

 

[max_freakout]

quoted because of the sheer amazing idiocy of that statement.

Can you be a little more specific?

 

[Jonti]

science wholeheartedly accepts the validity of inductionism, for no other reason than it's 'traditional', it has worked ok up to now.....

oopsie!

Try this ... science wholeheartedly accepts the validity of inductionism, for ... it has worked ok up to now.....

That's better

 

[max_freakout]

oopsie!

Try this ... science wholeheartedly accepts the validity of inductionism, for ... it has worked ok up to now.....

That's better

The fact that it is being used because it has worked up to now MAKES it a tradition, because time has 'honoured' its validity up to now. This says nothing of the future though

 

[Crispy]

Can you be a little more specific?

Well, I would clarify it so that as far as we are aware water will always boil at 100C. Just the same as any other scientific finding, it is true until proven false. New theories work well if you start by assuming that water still boils at 100C. If water suddenly stopped boiling at 100C, then the whole lot would come crashing down, but it would soon be rebuilt - based on new experimental data.

It's not like science has blind faith in the unchanging nature of its findings. There are some cosmological theories that predict a variation in the speed of light for example. THese theories are not 'banished' or marked with the sign of heresy.

 

[Jonti]

The fact that it is being used because it has worked up to now MAKES it a tradition, because time has 'honoured' its validity up to now. This says nothing of the future though

I thought you'd say that. But the validity of induction rests not on its ancient pedigree so much as its current utility. It's traditional because it works. Other things (like astrology) are just traditional.

I think the past can be taken as a guide to the future. And you?

 

[max_freakout]

Well, I would clarify it so that as far as we are aware water will always boil at 100C. Just the same as any other scientific finding, it is true until proven false. New theories work well if you start by assuming that water still boils at 100C. If water suddenly stopped boiling at 100C, then the whole lot would come crashing down, but it would soon be rebuilt - based on new experimental data.

It's not like science has blind faith in the unchanging nature of its findings. There are some cosmological theories that predict a variation in the speed of light for example. THese theories are not 'banished' or marked with the sign of heresy.

But science offers no reason for WHY water boils at 100C, it cannot explain it's observations, it can only measure and categorise them. So it doesnt really understand the laws that it formulates, now IMO this makes any assumption on behalf of science about the continuity of these laws into the future utterly meaningless, water is JUST as likely to boil at 100C tomorrow as it is to boil at 101C tomorrow, science can offer no actual reasoning to support the hypothesis that physical laws will carry on being 'laws', other than the standard, fallacious argument that "well it's worked ok up to now"

Just to give a philosophical example to support this, the inductive problem of 'grue', a colour that if observed before a specific time 't' appears green, and if observed after 't' appears blue. If t is in the future, then the same reasoning that we use to support the conclusion "grass is green" will also support the conclusion "grass is grue" to exactly the same extent.

 

[Jonti]

the ... fallacious argument that "well it's worked ok up to now"

Hmmm.

But it has, hasn't it? It's no fallacy. It may not satisfy you, but the validity of induction is shown by the fact it demonstrably works. That's all the justification scientific methodology needs.

Of course one can always ask another why? So what?

 

[bluestreak]

Can you be a little more specific?

to be honest, no. i'm no scientist myself but my casual perusement of science publications and reports suggests that inductive learning may well provide the basis of knowledge and expectations but that many areas of science seems to involve itself into looking to see if the believed constants really ARE constants.

that post of yours seemed to suggest that this isn't happening. did you know for example that water boils at different temperatures under different pressures?

 

[Jonti]

... the same reasoning that we use to support the conclusion "grass is green" will also support the conclusion "grass is grue" to exactly the same extent.

Bit early for chestnuts, surely? Here's a brief discussion.

But what's this got to do with astrology?

 

[slaar]

But science offers no reason for WHY water boils at 100C, it cannot explain it's observations, it can only measure and categorise them. So it doesnt really understand the laws that it formulates, now IMO this makes any assumption on behalf of science about the continuity of these laws into the future utterly meaningless, water is JUST as likely to boil at 100C tomorrow as it is to boil at 101C tomorrow, science can offer no actual reasoning to support the hypothesis that physical laws will carry on being 'laws', other than the standard, fallacious argument that "well it's worked ok up to now"

Are you being deliberately stupid? You sound like a first year philosophy student who has discovered a concept they like the sound of but don't understand. Even worse, a six year old who keeps asking "why" without any critical thought whatsoever.

Science does have strong hypotheses for why water boils at 100 degrees at standard atmospheric pressure, and can predict precisely what temperature water will boil at at different atmospheric pressures.

This knowledge is based on in-depth study and understanding of the atomic structure of hydrogen and oxygen atoms and their molecular interaction. Variants have given us an extraordinary range of industrial products and processes, to name just one application. It is of course possible that the entire laws of physics will change overnight. But science can accomodate that possibility if it happens.

So what exactly is it that you're trying to say?

 

[max_freakout]

did you know for example that water boils at different temperatures under different pressures?

Yes that's the principle that pressure cookers work on

 

[max_freakout]

Hmmm.

But it has, hasn't it? It's no fallacy. It may not satisfy you, but the validity of induction is shown by the fact it demonstrably works. That's all the justification scientific methodology needs.

Of course one can always ask another why? So what?

The fact of the matter is, we are currently LIVING our lives in the PRESENT moment. To put that another way, our experience of nature is taking place at the absolute front LIMIT of the period of time in which science can make rational predictions, beyond where we are at now in time lies complete unknowability (until we get there), therefore it seems incredibly presumptious IMO to trust scientific hypotheses

 

[Crispy]

But science offers no reason for WHY water boils at 100C, it cannot explain it's observations, it can only measure and categorise them. So it doesnt really understand the laws that it formulates, now IMO this makes any assumption on behalf of science about the continuity of these laws into the future utterly meaningless, water is JUST as likely to boil at 100C tomorrow as it is to boil at 101C tomorrow, science can offer no actual reasoning to support the hypothesis that physical laws will carry on being 'laws', other than the standard, fallacious argument that "well it's worked ok up to now"

Just to give a philosophical example to support this, the inductive problem of 'grue', a colour that if observed before a specific time 't' appears green, and if observed after 't' appears blue. If t is in the future, then the same reasoning that we use to support the conclusion "grass is green" will also support the conclusion "grass is grue" to exactly the same extent.

Wonderful word games, just wonderful.

If water is just as likely to boil tomorrow at 101C, then I would like to make a very large wager with you. If you genuinely believe this, then you must take every step as if it's your last, because gravity might all of a sudden reverse and fling you up into the air to suffocate in the depths of space.

Besides, the whole existence of the cosmos - the holding together of planets, the behaviour of atoms, is predicated on a very fine balance of these physical laws and constants that you seem so unsure about. If one of them were to change overnight, then it is highly likely that the cosmos as we know it would cease to exist (gradually or instantly depending...)

Seeing as this has not been observed to happen, we can assume that up until now, the universe has always been like that. Therefore, we can say with 99.9999(a fuckload of 9s)999999% probability that the world will work the same way tomorrow as it does today. Science is a little smug about this, and calls this 99.999..... chance a certainty, just to make things easier. No, it's not the ultimate truth, but it's fucking close. Really, really, really close. As close as you can get. Close enough to work out how everything else works. Close enough for predictions based on it to be useful and correct. And that's all science has ever been - useful, based on the available observational evidence.

 

[max_freakout]

Are you being deliberately stupid? You sound like a first year philosophy student who has discovered a concept they like the sound of but don't understand. Even worse, a six year old who keeps asking "why" without any critical thought whatsoever.

No i am not being deliberately stupid, i am attempting to put across my views

Science does have strong hypotheses for why water boils at 100 degrees at standard atmospheric pressure

NO IT DOESNT!!!!... Or if it does than please tell me what are they? As far as i am aware, science has OBSERVED repeated instances of water boiling at 100C, and has postulated this as a 'law of nature/physics', based on inductive reasoning alone

It is of course possible that the entire laws of physics will change overnight. But science can accomodate that possibility if it happens.

That is not really the point, i am not saying that physical laws "might change overnight", and i am not making judgements as to whether science could cope with that situation. It is perfectly reflected by the grue argument, we have no more reason to believe that water will boil at 100C tomorrow than that it will boil at 101C, and our lives are in the present moment, the exact point where science's observations cease. It therefore seems arrogantly presumptious on behalf of science, to believe that this methodology is THE arbiter of truth about the universe, and to claim that it gives us understanding of physical processes, when in fact it only measures and categorises them endlessly.

 

[max_freakout]

Seeing as this has not been observed to happen, we can assume that up until now, the universe has always been like that. Therefore, we can say with 99.9999(a fuckload of 9s)999999% probability that the world will work the same way tomorrow as it does today.

No we cant, we cant make ANY statements relating to 'probability' of future events, because they havent happened yet, we are living in the present moment with a view to the past in our memories but (i assume) a completely blank picture of the future.

It is science that invented the whole 'probabilistic' view of time in the first place, this is because the whole nature of physical theory about atoms and molecules relies on it. But Einstein said something like (i am quite vague about Einstein BTW) that events do not have a 'probability' of occuring, in fact the probability of any event occuring at any moment in time is either zero or one.

Edited to add:
And another falsehood is that we know (as in your quote ^) that the universe has always behaved like this. This is complete rubbish we only know about the period of time for which we have been observing. So we've known that water boils at 100C for the past few centuries, but science tells us the universe is billions of years old

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Why don't you give up induction?