As always, Dawkins is brilliant...

I thought it was funny how Dawkins narrated that Astrology is bad since it hinders and harms our ability to understand the universe, while the Astrologer accused Dawkins of being up to "mischief," when he suggested doing a test, to see if his Astrological babble actually held true. Very good stuff.

For Dawkins, "mischief" would be "lying to people, filling their heads with garbage," where as the astronomer defines "mischief" as "someone trying to stop me from making a living while lying to people and filling their heads with garbage." Very Uri Geller, that.

Did you mean "astrologer" in the second paragraph, Dz? Anyway, I wonder how his little experiment with people-on-the-street would play out in the US. I was thinking that with Europe's more secular society, does astrology fill some personal need no longer being filled by religion? Would fewer US citizens take astrology as seriously? Nah, probably more.

oops, yes I did mean astrologer -- not astronomer. Duh, sorry. Thanks for pointing it out...

Here's a video of James Randy on Astrology.

The most surprising thing in this video was the statistic of 1/4 of brits believe astrology to be true! Is stupid contageous?

You won't believe how endemic astrology is in the Indian psyche. The astrology books are referred to when doing ANYTHING. Travelling? Check the book. Starting off for work? Check the book. Buying something, starting something new, getting a haircut, getting married, eating, sleeping, the list goes on.

Especially when it comes to marriages. The priests check the dates on which the couple were born, their star signs etc and then pick the next good date and time at which they can be married. I've been to my share of marriages conducted at 3AM because the time was auspicious.

All of this was from the perspective of a South Indian born of Brahmin parents, btw.

Any one of these astrologer frauds and crooks today undoubtedly has hundreds or thousands of formulas on their computer that they call up randomly to get published in the papers.

Some might even have programs that put together bits and pieces to try to make it undetectable.

The simple fact is that they are criminal frauds.

norm, would you happen to have the rest of this episode?

You all must be Capricorns.

Some might even have programs that put together bits and pieces to try to make it undetectable.

In the early days of the internet (at least my experience with it, 10-15 or so years ago, I remember there was a little program that did this exact thing. Hell, a few months back i got an email forwarded to me about my "color profile" which i answered questions, and it described me so vaugely, it could have been anyone's profile, and when i answered the questions differently, nothing changed :P

norm, would you happen to have the rest of this episode?

I think so, you could check with me through email and I'll look and see.

I think so, you could check with me through email and I'll look and see.

well why not just put it all right here?

I have a question:

Does Dawkins (and his disciples) believe that there is no place for superstition, or un-"rationality" in human design and action?

The most surprising thing in this video was the statistic of 1/4 of brits believe astrology to be true! Is stupid contageous?

Read Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World". Many intelligent peoples' potential has been sucked down the drain by the educational system, considering that they ( check out John Taylor Gatto here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm ) decided that rote memorization was the preferred alternative to the development of critical thinking.

So no, it's not contagious, yet we have all been infected since childhood, and the fever overtook some and spared some.

ya know, if anyone has any method of getting in touch with mr. dawkins, i believe i would like to take him up on his challenge to provide proof. there is an experiment/project i have been wanting to try for ages that i believe will supply real physical evidence in support of astrological influence.

and please dont all jump on me, i'm a skeptic, i really am, and would love to be supplied with proof that i am wrong, but after trying to be objective about astrology for many years, my experience leads me to believe there is something there, even if it is highly confused, misunderstood, and exploited. obviously the "practice" of astrology in newspapers and 900 numbers and the like is fraudulent bs, in no way am i saying i support all that silliness, but maybe there is something being overlooked?

i genuinely would like to propose an experiment to mr. dawkins if anyone is able to provide contact info, or a lead in the right direction.

thanks

ColumnV asks a very good question that ought to be answered as forthrightly as possible. I can't presume to know, because I haven't read all of Dawkins' work. But I will say this about insults thrown by those such as Willey: when you impute stupidity upon people who believe in astrology (or Christianty or Islam or any belief system), then you are really slinging it way too far and wide. There are a lot of smart folks, smarter than me anyway, who believe in some of these things. I can say that I think Jerome Armstrong, for example, is in error, but I'm sure not going to call him stupid for believing that astrology tells him something meaningful about himself and his world. Because he's not stupid.

Let me take this a step further: if your god is going to be Logic, your guardian Angel Reason, and all who do not submit to their supremacy are stupid or hateful, then you are setting up another fundamentalism. But if you think that reason is one of the primary functions of a successful life, then you will see that the attack is not a practical means of debate. So, followers of Dawkins, Logic, and Reason: calm yourselves down and answer ColumnV's question, if you can.

Thanks, Daily Rev.

I used to work at a newspaper where one of my tasks was to put in the horoscope for that week. We subscribed to a syndicated horoscope, but on occasion our internet would be down or they hadn't been updated and I wasn't able to get the current version. When such occurrences happened I just ended up picking a horoscope at random from an issue we ran in the previous year.

Not once was there ever a complaint. However, when I had told our secretary what I had did, she became quite mad as she figured that I was messing with peoples lives.

It was odd... I've always thought of horoscopes as a cursory thing - something to glance at to waste a minute and maybe provide some filler conversation while at work. But in this clip, Mr. Dawkins made me realize that this fluff is taking space that could be better utilized with meaningful content.

I think that that is where he was going with this piece - it wasn't an attack so much on astrology as it was on our cultures over-saturation of meaningless entertainment to the detriment of content that could provide critical thought.

To respond to ColumnV - I don't think that Dawkins would believe that there is no place for superstition or un-rationality in a persons life, in fact I think he would say that they are very necessary components - it's just that when they supersede rational and logical thought, they become a problem.

jon: Here is the program on google video. The first scene is hilarious (Dawkins' eyes!)

ColumnV, Daily Rev, Wolvan: Superstition is the belief that some action will have an effect on some event when in reality the two are unrelated (e.g., knocking wood for good luck). Why on earth should that have a place in human "design and action" (what exactly does that mean?). The full program has a brief discussion of the Skinner Box experiment (about 35 mins in) that may of interest.

Superstition clearly exists in the world, but that's a different question from whether it should be encouraged. Some superstitions might have quite sensible origins (walking under ladders, opening umbrellas inside or walking on cracks may indeed increase the chance of injury) but the vast majority are lunacy (13, black cats, magpies) and some are self destructive (religion).

norm: Hello, btw. Great site, keep it up.

Ok, let me clarify my "stupid" comment. It was careless and incomplete. These people are not dumb, but I do believe i can say they are blissfully ignorant. I can hand them 30 studies about how astrology doesn't work, and they will still say, "well, it works FOR ME." Then I can explain the principle referenced in the video (about how people feel that these generalized statements apply to them), and they shut down the conversation, unwilling to listen to any sort of evidence or proof against their claims.

Here's what I feel about superstition and those who are superstitious. It CAN be harmful when people start using this stuff to dictate decisions that affect their lives, or their childrens' lives.

For example, (anyone watch Battlestar Galactica?) There is an episode of BG where a religous sect doesn't believe in medicine, and they start killing themselves off because they don't want the vaccine that would save them. This isn't a far fetched premise, and has been seen in real life.

So, people can be superstitous, but don't let those superstitions persist in the presense of evidence against your superstitous beliefs. Believe in ghosts, and aliens, just don't start sacrificing children to appease the alien overlords, or try to teach children in school that aliens are the ones that made us.

When YOUR belief in god and his teachings tell you NOT to prevent your daughter from getting Papaloma virus, and therefore cervical cancer, just because you don't want your child becoming "permiscuous", something has gone wrong. What's more important to you, your daughter's cervix, or that she stays pure.

Sheesh.

The average human being is as stupid now as they were a millenium ago and will still be a millenium hence, assuming we don't destroy ourselves in the interim. Dawkins is great but he works from the false pretext that the discoveries, investigations and thinkings of our brighest minds in any way at all reflects the degree 0of intellectual development of the average "man on the street". It would be kind of like judging the wealth of a nation based on the standard of living of the most prominent citizens of the most prosperous city. Why do people seem to be going backwards? I surmise that the boundries of science have advanced so far, woefully out-stripping the inadequate educational systems we have, that science no longer opens up simple and believable understandings that the average person can accept as an alternative to superstition. Simple case in point; the number of stars in the universe. After some basic scientific explenations of how a star works and that a star is just the same thing that the suns is, only further away, the average person can make the leap of discovery to realize that the stars they see in the sky are all potential other solar systems that may indeed be like our own. That is the digestible ammount of science for the average person. Now take it to the next level. The universe contains more stars than the earth contains grains of sand! To a scientifically minded person, that may make perfect sense. To the laymen, it like a xenophobe shut-in leaving the house for the first time and immediately being confronted by a giant barking dog. Science is simply advancing too fast for the average person to keep up. 1000 years ago, Islaam was a progressive belief system for science because Allah was simply the god of creation and the afterlife. All in-between was actively explored by science, since their were no other gods to be responsible for such things, science filled an important part of the theology's plan. Now, however, when the fronteirs of science are delving into origin and the very nature of existence, that threatens the core of Islaam. Pick any other mono-theistic religion you want, it fits. We are not, as a people, over-reliant on mysticism. We are, as a group of some of the most highly educated people on the planet, over-optimistic that a simple lecture, talk, or new article can catch the bulk of the population up to out level of understanding, and most importantly, to a level of comfort with that understanding that replaces the panacea of 'faith'. I don't think we are within even 1000 years of that. I predict complete extinction of the human species before common acceptance of a non-spiritual universe. One of the reasons I seldom post on topics like this is that I feel it is an un-winable battle. If you set everybody on the planet in-front of this Dawkins spe3cial, I suspect that only the tiniest fraction would make any changes in their fundamental beliefs. We're screwed!

Jordan:

How would irrational beliefs be a helpful part of evolutionary design??? Well, for example, it could be shown that the effects of believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being (though fully irrational), gives people an evolutionary edge by giving them more motivation, less stress, etc. Just one of many possible examples.

Hell, even people who believe in horoscopes might have a better day because things seem more organized, or to have more meaning.

...if your god is going to be Logic, your guardian Angel Reason, and all who do not submit to their supremacy are stupid or hateful, then you are setting up another fundamentalism. -- Daily Rev

This is complete nonsense. You are projecting the mindset and attitudes of the superstitious onto those who are not superstitious. I have no gods, guardian angels, saints or prophets. You may freely argue against the gods of other religions, or the prophets of other sects -- BUT RATIONALITY IS NOT A RELIGION.

Rationality is neutral. It's the middle ground between all religiosity, all superstitions, and - yup -- all stupidity. It stands against irrationality.

Astrology has scientific basis, and it's called "statistics". Do you really think whatever creation mechanism made us happen would try so hard to make us that different? No. It's only logical to have a bag of "tendencies" out of which each newborn gets assigned a collection. I am telling you, I am a computer scientist and if I were to simulate people, that is EXACTLY how I would write the code. Astrology simply does this in reverse, tries to determine the commonalities using birthdate (therefore the planet positions at that date) as the starting position.

ColumnV:

How would irrational beliefs be a helpful part of evolutionary design???

I'm sorry, it wasn't at all clear to me from your original question that you were talking about evolution. (I think it's the use of the word "design" that threw me.)

In The God Delusion, Prof. Dawkins gives a posssible solution to the very similar question "If religion is so harmful, how has it survived as a human character trait?"

(He obviously explains it at lot better than I will be able to so it's definately worth reading the book. Unfortunately I don't have a page reference.)

The idea, and it's only a guess, is that it could be a backfiring of a genuinely useful trait, i.e., that of childhood credulity. It's obviously very useful to believe at face value whatever those in authority say since they have valuable experience and knowledge. It's not very wise to try to do scientific experiments and test your mum's assertion that sticking your hand in the fire is a bad idea.

This can go astray if carried into adulthood, however. The local shaman will say perfectly sensible things like "don't drink the muddy water", but will also say complete rubbish like "sacrificing a goat on the second tuesday after the full moon will lead to a full harvest".

The "gene" that says "believe the shaman" will survive since the first case leads to very good things (you won't ingest the bacteria, get sick and die) and the second only leads to marginally bad things (you waste time and kill a perfectly good goat).

So, indeed evolution may have predisposed us to believing any old crap as long as we trust the person telling us, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. We now have this great thing called the scientific method (and more generally, reason) which gives us a much better way for deciding whether something is true or not.

astrologer: You give Computer Science a bad name

Astrology has scientific basis, and it's called "statistics".

Ok, statistics can explain why astrology can work with some statements, but astrology does NOT use statistics to derive it's claims. This is an important point. It's like handwriting analysis. You can compare one set of handwriting to another to see if it's written by the same person, but when you try to say that the way I write my "A's" with a bigger Loop than a closed loop it means i'm open to new ideas, you're getting into quakery.

Statistics explain why a psycic can claim vagueries about a person and be right a certain percentage of the time, but that doesn't mean that the psycic is Validated by statistics, the psycic is manipulating information to land in a wide swath of people to catch as many people in the net as possible.

I'm not sure, but your post sounds like you are defending astrology. I'm sorry, but my disposition towards life has nothing to do with the day i was born, except for pertaining to certain social aspects (i.e. having a late birtday in the school year, being the youngest kid in my class and picked on because of this, and therefore, i end up being more introverted because of the way i was treated in grade school).

I apologize for all the mispellings in my last post... psychic, Quackery, and whatever else i missed. Psh, proofreading, who needs it.

I'm sorry, but my disposition towards life has nothing to do with the day i was born

On the contrary, it has everything to do with when you were born. Give me your birthdate - I will give you a complete reading, right now and here. If you dare.

C'mon - would it be so nonsensical that you inherit some tendencies from your parentes genetically? Introversion is one of this. And I further claim that all of these tendencies are synched to a certain compatible date, your birthdate which also forces one to conclude that cloning will never work. Because someone's genetic dispositions are so keyed in to when there were born, if they are cloned on a random day, they would simply be defective. Recent findinds support this claim by the way.

Not that certain barriers are never found in science. See the uncertainty principle.

You give Computer Science a bad name

Jordan, anytime you want to race against me on matters related to CS, I'll f**k you up so bad you won't wake up for two days. I deal with theoritcal proofs, discrete math, estimation theory, control theory ALL THE TIME. I consult on IT, Java, distributed computing to Fortune 500. YOu do that, THEN you can tell me what's up. Until than, I advise you to shut the fuck up.

Jordan,

Thanks very much for your cogent response. I think you did a very good job of summing up Dawkins' position, though I don't agree with one aspect: I see an embrace of rationality and the scientific method to require a degree of faith akin to the eventual criticisim put forth by Dawkins.

astrologer: I wasn't knocking your undoubtedly l33t ski11z (which uni did you get your degree from out of interest?). I simply expect more from computer scientists than comments like "Do you really think whatever creation mechanism made us happen would try so hard to make us that different?". Perhaps I was mistaken. Frankly, I fear for the Fortune 500 companies.

Everyone else: really sorry for feeding the trolls, shouldn't get sucked in.

ColumnV, I know this isn't going to answer your critism (I don't really know how to adequately convince someone who has taken the "you have faith in science" or the parallel "atheism is a religion" stance), but the scientific method and rationality don't need faith. They are cold and indifferent and require nothing from you. The scientific method doesn't care what your viewpoint is.

In any case, to say "embracing science requires faith" is practically contradictory - faith by definition is the belief in something despite a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary, and science is all about evidence.

Ok then astrologer,

My date of birth is jun, 25 of 1982, my husband is all so a cancer sign. Pin down my "tendencies".  I promise to play fair.

I deal with theoritcal proofs, discrete math, estimation theory, control theory ALL THE TIME.

And that notwithstanding that all his synapses are not firing. What a pathetic bit of sophistry. Show the troll the door before he introduces the 'Mars effect'

I'll bet he charts his biorhythms as well.

I will give you a complete reading, right now and here. If you dare.

Oh, please tell me.

Sorry Norm, but i can't wait to hear my "complete reading"!

oh,yes.. birthdate..

June 27, 1957

Jordan,

I agree that science is "all about evidence". However, embracing that methodology takes on faith that the evidence will always produce results that will be, and will be interpreted as, "true".

Where do you begin your study? What do you focus on? How do you trust the ultimate limitations of the human mind?

Oh, and finally, am I a troll??? If so, then this really must be a den of homogeneous thought.

ColumnV, I was referring to 'astrologer' as a troll, not you.

that methodology takes on faith that the evidence will always produce results that will be, and will be interpreted as, "true".

It's not taken 'on faith', no one just said "this is the way it must be". A result is accepted or not after going through a system based on logic and probability that includes things like blind trials.

The interpretation of results is the interesting bit here because that's where, try as we might to be objective, human viewpoints and prejudices come back in to mess the whole thing up. To tackle that, science has things like requiring experiments to be repeatable and peer review (to, among other things, make sure your interpretation is sensible)

But I think we have moved a long way from the original question of if Dawkins thinks there's a place for supertition in "human design and action". I am convinced that science and rationality are by far the best way we have of deciding what is 'true'. It seems you disagree and I don't think I will be able to convince you - perhaps try a book on the history of the scientific method. Thanks for the discussion though.

…gabriel… said: "there is an experiment/project i have been wanting to try for ages that i believe will supply real physical evidence in support of astrological influence."

But what's stopping you from conducting this experiment on your own if you are so convinced and why hasn't someone else stumbled upon it already?

Jordan,

Thanks for your response. The deeper issue here isn't one that we will resolve with haste.

I too agree that the scientific method is the best method that we have to determine what is true. I, however, would approach it with a great deal of humility understanding that the limits of human capacity are so great (and I'm not just talking about interpretation of results, but the entire process).

Oh, and I've read my fair share of books on the scientific method. I'm currently a Phd candidate who has published on the issue that we're talking about.

Ok, astrologer, here's what astrology.com says about me (everyone else, don't go there! it's a site full of "BUY THIS NOW!" and ads and they'll grab your contact information to sell your email address to other companies, I created a dummy email account to sign up, and it's already getting junk mail from these guys every hour.)

ANYWAY, here goes nothing.

"You have powerful emotional attachments to the past, your family, your childhood, those places you associate with safety and security and your beginnings. Maintaining a connection with your roots and heritage and keeping family bonds strong are very important to you. Loyal, devoted, and sentimental, you tend to cling to whatever is dear to you, be it person, familiar place, or cherished possession."

BullShit. Absolutely not me. I can't prove it, but this is the opposite of me, in every way, minus the "cling to what's dear to me", oh NOBODY does that.

"You are a person of strong opinions and you express your views energetically and often dramatically. You are an entertaining speaker and will embellish or exaggerate in order to get your point across. You have an aptitude for story-telling and performing. Even if your arena is only the classroom or dining room table, you put on a good show. You have an abundance of creative ideas and do not enjoy a job in which you have no creative input or voice in decision-making. You could be a good politician, spokesperson, group leader, director, or coach."

No. While I am strong minded (most athiests are), I'm definately not outspoken in public, and will not make up stories to get my point across. I'd make a horrible leader, or coach.

Wow. Astrology.com really nailed me. Missed on every cylinder. Sorry I didn't want to pay $29.99 a month to find out more about myself, but I declined.

And yes, it was from a "computer" but shouldn't it always be the same for me? Someone had to enter it into the computer right? YOu are a computer Science major, you know how easy it would be to automate something like this.

Sorry for the long post and quotes, but man, astrology is bullshit.

Ok, astrologer, here's what astrology.com says about me

You dumb-ass.. Don't you think there are so many different "methods" in astrology like in everything else? If someone defends that "physics explains quantum mechanics", do you go to www.physicsforbuttfuckers.com to verify this? THERE IS A BEST IN EVERY DISCIPLINE and I am one of those best in astrology. Take it to the bank.

I say again: Give the birthdate, I will tell you all. If not, you are a scared little pussy trying to cover up using these external sites - you probably know all well they aren't worth shit.

Ops, you gave the bdate already. Reading is due to arrive shortly.

OK June 28, 1982 - whoever you are:

http://www.geocities.com/davut61/june281982.txt

The reading above is who you are. But there are also tendencies you were born with and a direction you need to go.

First of all, you need to work on being humble. You need to be able accept others' emotional changes and situations and shortcomings without judging them. Must work on emphaty, and remain centered on your on emotions not others.

You have to stop trying to control others. You feel this immense need to take command without knowing what the fuck is going on. You are too preoccupied with the goal, and you forget to follow a PROCESS to reach that goal. And you also think that in order for something to be meaningful, that thing must be HARD to reach. This is complete bollocks of course - which also explains why you go against religion which is a cultural issue more than a mystical one.

There is more: If you wanna hear more, I will be more than happy to help.

"THERE IS A BEST IN EVERY DISCIPLINE and I am one of those best in astrology. Take it to the bank. I say again: Give the birthdate, I will tell you all. If not, you are a scared little pussy trying to cover up using these external sites - you probably know all well they aren't worth shit. ... Ops, you gave the bdate already. Reading is due to arrive shortly.

Denizens; Onegoodmovers -- lend me your ears...

Sometimes, posters are trolls. And sometimes, posters are just plain out of their everlovin' minds. And sometimes -- from behind a keyboard -- the two are indistinguishable.

This is one of those cases. And it doesn't matter if he or she is making fun of you, or if he or she is insane -- either way, your effort is wasted.

And I mean that in an honest, and constructive way.

I say again: Give the birthdate, I will tell you all. If not, you are a scared little pussy trying to cover up using these external sites - you probably know all well they aren't worth shit.

The assumption here is that the 'astrologer' is going to prove his brand of 'astrology' works. I'm sorry a single example even if 'accurate' would not be evidence that there was anything to it. The fact that the predictions are so general as to apply to many further limits any perceived value. What's not worth a shit is his feeble attempt to breath life into this pseudo-science.

i dunno, deezee, trolls aside, i think that second paragraph in your computer readout (not the trolls')-"...express your views energetically and dramatically...etc."- has you pegged pretty good. :)

just funnin'.

Dear astrologer,

My birth day is the 25th of jun (not the 28th), there may have been confusion because only half of my text was shown on the message board. Dose that make a difference in the reading?

Our minds can't communicate with each other because our souls are heading away from one another AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Seriously, Mr. Hubble, doesn't it make more sense to say "matter is shrinking," than "space is expanding"?

Or do I need a shrink?

Sorry to stray so tachyonically mornic, I was just perusing A. Koestler's "Roots of Coincidence," and the book snapped open to the afterward, to the part about "a Ton of Love".

I think it can all be explained with triangles. 11 cubed . Pascal's, I mean, generalized (9 lives? phhhhht).

No?

Border Collies, Jews.

Afghan hounds, dogged,... well, Afghans.

We are a race to the bottom. As asinine is to my ass.

Ok, now let's take a poll. How many people could that reading apply to? Raise of hands?

raises hand

Hey, I know what, let's rip all the....Pisces, yeah, let's rip all the Pisces to pieces! Helter Skelter. And half the Gemenis don't deserve to live, and..

What are the Pisces dates, anyway?

I'm, not one of those self-loathing antiichthysites am I?...

...no, no seppuku necessary, rip the fishious Ungeziefer! Thin the People Forest (i like Berkeley, and... I like Freud, 1's tastes, dispu-tandem) .

or we could have a lottery...

M e x i c o.

Bloviating of a "Lottery," that old Film "the Lottery," in all it's Christo-Dionysic bloodiness, ought to take its place beside the great Zimbardo, Milgram, maybe the actual summer-camp "Lord of the Flies" experiment (I can't remember who did it, or where, Arkansas, Missouri, maybe, late '60s), and James "golden bough" Frazer, and, of course, a course in World History, in the encyclopedia of true human sociology and forest management.

In my "opinion".

Speaking of "Bloviating," that pompous authoritative Ass-troll-ogre,

Astrology has pride of place in the community college "community" syllabus, of this county for one. Phuctardiness. Or Phucneverness

But...

2 tribes, 4 corners area, 1 tribe, avg. i.q.,5 pts. lower than avg., the other tribe, avg. i.q., 20 pts. HIGHER than avg., higher than the Tribe of Einstein even. So much for "no" evidence.

Ass/Troll/Ogre:

Via vous:

Mischief, mischievousness, Science is a Coyote. OK, so soft sciences are pack-rats, still...

Et vous, vous/te?

De-vousness (deconstruction as "as-if" destruction). I still have to look up post-structuralism...