Astrology Challenge Redux – The Director’s Cut

I introduce part six (mercifully the final part) of the Astrology Challenge – my attempt to see if any astrologer can explain how the ancients worked out all those detailed rules astrologers use.

The astrologers’ replies to this question can be summarized as:

1. Don’t know
2. It’s complicated
3. You go figure it out (here, read these books)
4. Myth, legend, divination could be true
5. Science doesn’t know everything
6. Er… yeah that’s it.

At first, when I started all this, I wondered if I was being too hard on these people. After all, they replied in fairly friendly terms when they needn’t have replied at all (although only three out of seven replied with any thoughts – a fourth just gave book recommendations). But as I read back through their dopey replies, I think if anything I’ve been too generous with them. To say that something imagined could be true, and to equate the writings of myth and fiction with truth, is just absurd. If you think anything imagined could be true, you have no way to judge the truth or otherwise about anything, and no basis to reject any idea no matter how ridiculous. You are in complete freefall. You will never learn anything new with this approach.

And to suggest that we need a different “paradigm” from science is just nonsense cloaked in pseudo-intellectual language. Of course science doesn’t know everything, but that doesn’t mean there is a better method. And the idea that some things require a different approach from that of science is idiotic. Science just means we test our hypotheses against external reality. If something has an effect, this effect can be measured and compared with what was expected – ie it can be tested scientifically. If science cannot test something that just means that the thing has no measurable effect. And what is the difference between something with no measurable effect and something that doesn’t exist? - Nothing!

This week’s Guardian Unlimited life asks several scientists the question, what is the one thing everyone should learn about science? Antony Hoare (senior researcher at Microsoft Corporation), gave this answer:

I would teach the world that scientists start by trying very hard to disprove what they hope is true. When they fail, they have a good reason for believing what they hope is true, and can even convince others of its truth.

Do you think any of these astrologers ever tried to test their magic fairy tale pictures in the sky fortune telling system this way, to see if they could prove it wrong? Of course not; they’re too busy looking for “other paradigms” that will not challenge their silly beliefs, to gain any real knowledge. That’s why they’re pseudo-scientists, not scientists. And they basically admit it – are even proud of it! It’s disheartening to realize that certain people are beyond reasoned discussion. Disheartening, but instructive. The astrologers essentially admitted  astrology really is just made up, and furthermore this OK by them. And these people are allowed to vote and drive on the public roads. Their arguments are an insult to the intelligence.

Anyway, there you have it: made up crap that doesn’t make sense and doesn’t work. Astrology is ludicrous crap, every part of it from top to bottom, inside out, every way you care to look at it. There can really be no doubt any more.

Comments

[Rockstar]

Well said. Excellent post.

[Believer]

Whenever I need a good laugh I come here to see who you are dissing today.

The problem is if it is not the scientific paradigm it doesn't exist in your mind. Your religion, even though you hate all religions, is scientism. Something that can't be proven, but there you are... stuck in a netherworld of the scientific paradigm.

The real issue is you are too stupid to own a blog and proof that internet has become a valuable waste of energy.

James H.

[Skeptico]

Whenever I need a good laugh I come here to see who you are dissing today. The problem is if it is not the scientific paradigm it doesn't exist in your mind. Your religion, even though you hate all religions, is scientism.

Oh no, not the old “science is religion” argument. Wow, I’ve never heard that one before.

Please pay attention and try to learn something for once. Religion requires belief without evidence. Religious knowledge comes from revelation and authority; no one can challenge the religious knowledge.

Science looks for evidence to support its hypotheses. Scientific knowledge comes from experiment; revelation and authority count for nothing. Science encourages challenges to previously accepted theories, and actually grows through these challenges.

They are the absolute opposites of each other. (Yawn.)

This old “science is religion” argument of yours is nothing but your own admission you have no arguments to put forward. If you ever think of any actual problems with the scientific method that some other method would resolve, please present them and describe your better method.

Something that can't be proven, but there you are... stuck in a netherworld of the scientific paradigm.

I clearly showed that astrology has been proven – proven false. So you are wrong again. Not very good at this, are you?

The real issue is you are too stupid to own a blog and proof that internet has become a valuable waste of energy

The fact that I do own a blog proves you are the stupid one. Not that we needed more proof. Thanks for playing, though.

[Tom]

Wow, that Believer guy has completely changed my worldview with his highly original arguments. Thanks, Believer! I, too, am now a wide-eyed gawker like you! I'm off to buy some crystals...

I am constantly amazed that credulous idiots like Believer have the nerve to publicly display their ignorance. By the way, what the heck is a "valuable waste of energy" supposed to be? Silly moron.

[Danny Boy]

As I remember it, there was an astrologer who tried to debate skeptics and prove his case "scientifically" in the Internet Infidels Forum (iidb.org). He goes by the nick Volker.Doorman, and I think he also has an astrology website, but it's in german. Maybe you can try reading his (english, thankfully) posts in IIDB and examine it.

[latibulum]

Nevertheless you must admire how they can come up, day after day, with a "horoscope" which seems to say something, and always different. Personally I like the horoscopes in "The Onion".

[-steve-]

Hi Skeptico,

I'm enjoying your blog and the posts about astrology. Being a scientist I often marvel at the power of the scientific method. Where would we be without it? Your discussions refuting astrology have really got me thinking about the definition of science and the scientific method. In your post on April 6th you say,

"...But what other methods are as consistent and reliable as science, for revealing the truth? Anybody? (Sound of crickets.)...".

This sentiment is reiterated by Josh in the comments section, who says,

"...I'd also like to say that science is in fact still the only paradigm, and is the sole custodian of truth. ...".

My immediate response to this would be, "So what about philosophy? In particular, reasoning and logic?" These methods are so consistent and reliable in revealing truth or falsity that they are indispensible to scientists. In fact, one might say that the scientific method is just a tool used by scientists to gather information that verifies (or refutes) the assertions of reason and logic. Which I suppose could make science the custodian of truth as asserted by Josh, at least in regards to the scientific method. However, what about a discipline like mathematics? Is mathematics science? Can you use the scientific method to test the truth of mathematics? Or are you stuck with the methods of reason and logic? If you have to use reason and logic to verify the assertions of mathematics, then science is not the sole custodian of truth. For I do believe there is truth in mathematics.

-steve-

[Josh]

Well, for my part, I've always felt that philosophy is the root structure of science. The term metaphysics (not with is new age bs usgae but in the traditional sense)is a good indicator of this. Reason and logic gave rise to the scientific method and are an integral part of it.

I'd always assumed mathmatics to be a tool of science rather than a completely different and seperate discipline. There absolutely is truth in math, but it's subject to falisty through mistakes as well, and so still needs to be subject to repeatability and to verification through testing against reality.

Interesting food for thought here, I think I need to examine my position on the relationship of math and science. Excellent thought proviking and challenging comment Steve!

[Skeptico]

Steve:

You raise some interesting points. Reason and logic are invaluable, but I think eventually you still need to test your hypothesis to see if it is right, no matter how logical it may be. (I would be interested if anyone can think of any exceptions to this.) So I agree the scientific method is a tool to verify (or refute) the assertions of reason and logic. Of course, using reason and logic alone, you would reject astrology.

Regarding mathematics, I agree with Josh that it is a more tool of science. Math can give you math proofs, but does it provide any external check of reality? As I understand it, string theory currently relies on math alone, but unless some way can be found to verify string theory, what use is it?

[-steve-]

Dear Skeptico and Josh,

I see what you're saying. Mathematics is a powerful tool of science. Where would science be without the use of mathematics? (Probably flailing around and accomplishing nothing like the astrologists.) You could say that the language of science is exclusively mathematical. At least I can't come up with any concrete exceptions. Even if there were exceptions (behavioural research or consciousness studies?) you would need mathematics to perform a statistical analysis to evaluate the outcomes of your experiments.
However, in my previous post I asked if the scientific method could be used in mathematics. Is there a fundamental difference between these two scientific endeavours? The following quote suggests that there is. The quote is also relevant to what Skeptico said, "Reason and logic are invaluable, but I think eventually you still need to test your hypothesis to see if it is right, no matter how logical it may be. (I would be interested if anyone can think of any exceptions to this.)".

"What distinguishes mathematics from the other sciences is the concept of proof. The mathematician can prove with 100% certainty that the primes will never run out. Whilst in other sciences old ideas are thrown away to be replaced by new theories, mathematical ideas remain true for all time. In no other scientific subject are we still teaching the discoveries of the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that matter was made from earth, wind rain and fire. That view of chemistry seems absurd today. But their discoveries about primes are still as true today as they ever were." -taken from this website discussing the importance of prime numbers. The rest of the page is instructive in that it mentions the high regard mathematicians feel toward proofs.

Josh also mentioned that mathematics should be "...subject to repeatability and to verification through testing against reality". In the case of prime numbers, Euclid developed a proof showing that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. It is a certainty. You could check it against 'reality' (although this has no value to mathematicians): take the biggest prime you know and count up until you find another prime. Although this may not be practical to do (it will take a really long time). In fact this sort of 'reality checking' is unscientific in mathematics. It's akin to using case studies to support astrology. Useless.
Even worse, the proof cannot be verified against 'reality'. That is, you cannot count an infinite number of primes. You have to relie 100% on the proof.

Sorry, I seem to be getting a little long-winded here. All I really want to say is that reason and logic (as exemplifiey in mathematics) are excellent ways of discovering the truth which don't need to be checked against a physical reality. That is they fall outside of the scientific method. At least the scientific method as it pertains to experimentation. I like the definition Josh gave earlier that it should be verifiable and internally consistent. These are what's important to science. Forget the checking with reality, it doesn't fit with the philisophical roots of science and is too limiting.

And as for unverifiable math having no utility, prime numbers are integral to internet security and as for string theory, that will take too much to get into at the moment: just let me say Grand Unified Theory. And suggest Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. Thank you both for sparking such interesting conversations. Keep up the good work Skeptico. You've got a great blog.

-steve-

[Eric Gunnerson]

I have deep respect for mathematics, and the contribution it has made to the world.

But the reason that math can speak of proof is that math is an abstraction. Because it's a created world, we can say things like "the pythagorean theorem can be proven to be true", though it's only true under a specific set of assumptions.

Science, on the other hand, is about utility, not proof. We use mathematics in relation to the real world under that definition, not under the " theory is true" definition. To expand on the pythagorean theorem example, we find that it has high utility to check for squareness when we build a deck for our house, and that it has very low utility when we're trying to make maps of the world (for obvious reasons).

Or, to take another common example - neither Newton's "laws" of gravity nor Einstein's relativistic forumulations are true in the mathematical sense. One has more utility in some circumstances, the other more utility in others.

Prime numbers are a useful invention, but they don't have any physical reality.

Hope that makes sense.

[-steve-]

I'm not too sure what Eric means when he says science is about utility, not proof; implying that mathematics is not about utility. He attributes this to mathematics being 'an abstraction'.

Come on. You can't seriously think that abstraction and utility separate mathematics from science? The utility and practicality of mathematics in our capitalist, money-based world can't be any plainer. So what about science? Is science devoid of abstractions?

Sure, many people seem to take Rutherford's famous quote to heart. Rutherford said, "All science is physics or stamp collecting." Implying that science, other than physics, just observes real phenomena of the world (and collects these objects or observations like stamps). To me this ignores a lot of theoretical and basic research. Maybe the majority of science. The collecting of observations (whether empirical or experimental) is always placed in the context of a model, or idea, of how the world works. These models are simply abstractions that simplify or unify disparate facts and make connections that can be exploited to do something useful. So science in this way has utility. But that utility is built on the back of abstractions. For example, can anyone tell me what an electron is? Is it a particle flying around the nucleus? Is it a wave? Is it both? Is it a probability cloud? Is it a superposition of wave equations? Does it 'wink' in and out of existence? I don't think you can get any more abstract that that. So you just choose the abstraction that gives you the greatest utility. Which is exactly what Eric said about mathematics:

Science, on the other hand, is about utility, not proof. We use mathematics in relation to the real world under that definition, not under the " theory is true" definition. To expand on the pythagorean theorem example, we find that it has high utility to check for squareness when we build a deck for our house, and that it has very low utility when we're trying to make maps of the world (for obvious reasons).

Looked at another way: What does it mean to say, "The average American."? This is just an abstraction. There is no real, physical person who is the average American. Yet the fields of psychology and sociology are based on this and similar abstractions.

Mathematics is science. And just like science it has utility and abstraction. Just wanted to get that out there. Hope I'm not too off topic. We are in a blog about critical thinking, but since it uses science so much to debunk nefarious claims I thought it instructive to have a closer look at what science is.

-steve-

[Carrie]

Hello Skeptico :-)
You know, I'm reading medical blogs minding my own business and see you're linked for something about astrology. I'm sorry I've been absent and missed all this. Or maybe not ;-)

Seriously, this was a great series. I just read the entire thing.

Anyway, it was an absolute hoot for me to see the responses you got from some very respected astrologers. It's preferable to see someone actually ask some questions instead of ranting without fully investigating a subject. You never know, you might have saved some people out there from following something better left alone.

Great posts :-)

[TMV]

As much as you would like us all to believe that the world is governed by a set of well explained 'rules', most intellectuals would beg to differ! I urge you to purchase a zodiac ring (available at ebay) to help diffuse some of your anger and negativity and channel some of your more positive energy. If that doesn't suit you, send me a photocopy of your left and right palms... i'll be happy to post a free personality profile of you so we could all better understand 'the unexplainable' part of your personality! Just kidding... enjoyed your column from a far but don't buy it.