My astrological ignorance
“The Ignorance Map,” by Marlys H. Witte, Ann Kerwin, and Charles L. Witte, The University of Arizona College of Medicine.
I learned from my cousin last night (she brought the topic up by coincidence, she does not read this blog) that my antipathy towards astrology simply stems from not knowing enough about it. She recommended that I read up on real astrology (as opposed to the fortune-cookie-style mumbo-jumbo they print in tiny columns in the newspapers), and claimed that after doing so with an open mind I would inevitably conclude that there was something real to it.
It’s a fair enough point. I like to point out to my ideologically-convinced friends in both the far-left and far-right camps that they do themselves a disservice by reading only the work of those they already agree with; a rightie should seek out the best arguments of the leftists and study them, and vice versa. This is something I believe in rather strongly: keep challenging your assumptions, or your mind will end up stagnant. There is always the chance, however remote, that my take on astrology might fit in one of the areas of “The Ignorance Map” (see image), and if so, then failing to read about it will perpetuate that situation. So my cousin is right to challenge me to read some substantial text on astrology with an open mind.
But I still will not do that.
The reason, of course, is that my time on this planet is limited (can you smell a hint of upcoming-thirtieth-birthday angst? ☺ ) and there is rather a lot to read and acquaint myself with. I have to pick and prioritize according to the estimated personal gain/growth/entertainment to be had in each area I explore. And in that prioritization, astrology inevitably ends up so low on the list that I will almost certainly be dead long before I get to it.
“Ends up low on the list” means sure, I could give it a chance, challenge my assumptions, look for that kernel of truth and wisdom, etc., and it might yield something very interesting for me, but I judge it far less likely to do so than zillions of other things I could spend my time looking for a kernel of truth and wisdom in. Why do I judge it far less likely? Because:
- while I do not know its details, I do know the overall principle as manifested in “western” astrology (that the positions and motions of stars and planets are significantly correlated with our personalities and the events of our lives), and I find that principle preposterous — a.k.a. fundamentally incompatible with my existing world-view and beliefs. And while radical, abrupt changes in world-view and beliefs do happen in adult life, they do so more often by a loss of mental health than by a gain of wisdom :) so it makes sense to go by the expectation that my world-view will evolve for the most part in baby steps from now on.
- there are far less astounding explanations for astrology’s prevalence, popularity, and perceived effectiveness, than the idea that there might be real truth in it. When I have a choice of two things to believe, one of them mundane and rather boring, and the other exciting and romantic and mystical … well, obviously my mind wants to believe the latter. My mind is a nifty little bugger, but treacherous: it tends to weigh credibility by desirability. I recommend that you suspect yours of the same!
So I hereby make the conscious decision of staying astrologically ignorant — “life’s too short!” — and in my ignorance, stay vigorously convinced of the invalidity of this field I am ignorant about. :)
And the day the validity of astrology is proven to me — just like the day I die and arrive at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter greets me with the words “well well, somebody must be feeling like a bit of an ass today” — I promise I will gorge myself with humble pie as if it were Malín’s vanilla-and-white-chocolate ice cream (a phenomenon that, by the way, has changed my world-view more than astrology ever will).
July 27th, 2005 at 2:23 am
Bro is being too diplomatic. He should not be afraid to say astrology is hogwash instead of “fundamentally incompatible with my existing world-view and beliefs”.
Any astrology believers that are prepared to consider the possibility that astrology is hogwash should read this (check the references too if you are still reluctant to shed your foma*).
But then, astrology believers are more likely to want to cling to all their silly little beliefs and shed their skepticism if they have any.
They say “I challenge you to make me doubt it” rather than “I challenge you to make me believe it”. Such attitudes not only do not promote progress, they hinder it by justifying ignorance. Like a sculptor who instead of chiselling his marble block until a work of art emerges throws loads of silly putty at the block and calls it art.
We should not be lenient toward obvious mind pollutants such as astrology – there’s plenty of more subtle pollutants that are harder to criticize.
Maybe cousin’s books define astrology as something completely different from what I take it to mean. Maybe it means “any endeavor to decrease human ignorance” in which case I’m all for it. If however her books on “good astrology” persist in trying to correlate the arrangement of lumps of mass light-years away at the time of a person’s birth with physical, psychological or social attributes of that person or past, current or future events in his/her life, then that constitutes the propagation of ignorance that was perhaps understandable 300 years ago but is unforgivable now.
*I like the word foma. It was invented by Kurt Vonnegut and means “harmless untruths”, as in Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy. However, I tend to think few untruths are really harmless. It probably isn’t a coincidence that foma is an anagram of foam, which emanates from the heads of pseudoscientists such as astrologers.
By the way, anyone who says I’m being arrogant is just plain stupid.
And all fanatics should be shot.
July 27th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Hey, the “fundamentally incompatible” stuff was a clarification of “preposterous” … hardly a very diplomatic way to describe somebody’s world-view!
As for that article … yep, it prompted yet another astrology blog post. Dagnabbit! I trust you will find that new post less than diplomatic.
I like the word foma too.
It’s all fine to joke about being arrogant, but the thing is, there is something wrong with arrogance from a utilitarian perspective as well … as I address slightly in my new posting. There is something fundamentally broken about ostensibly wanting to convince people of something, but speaking to them in an obviously counterproductive style, peppering one’s arguments with arrogance and besserwisserism that will swiftly close their minds to anything you have to say. You are free to do it, of course, and there is nothing ethically wrong with it; it just defeats your stated purpose. So if you do that, then what is your real purpose in opening your mouth? Just venting? : )
July 29th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
So let’s not say to the wife-beater “wife-beating is wrong”. We wouldn’t want to alienate him. Let’s rather say “Let me buy you a pint at the pub and we’ll have a chat about soccer. So your team’s Liverpool is it? Steven Gerrard was tackled rather badly the other day wasn’t he? It’s a disgrace the other guy wasn’t sent off! Granted, Steven had just insulted the other guy, but that’s no excuse for the foul!” Then let’s leave it at that, hoping that he’ll see the analogy. So we’re speaking his language and taking great care not be be guilty of arrogance or besserwisserism. But isn’t that being condescendingly considerate? Is it terribly arrogant to state our position in no uncertain terms by saying “wife-beating is wrong” – even repeating it several times? Is it more arrogant and inappropriate to say it if you are a social worker or police officer?
What is your purpose with your blogging? Are you making any assumptions as to the purpose of Phil Plait?
July 29th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
No no, by all means, say to the wife-beater “wife-beating is wrong” in any tone of voice you want. Then leave it at that, hoping that that will turn him around. “Ooh, now that you mention it …”
If you’re really interested in turning him around, then you will talk to him, much as it nauseates you; understand him, figure out what makes him do what he does, what makes him tick. And work from there. And it’s noble, dirty work, and neither one of us would really want to do it. But that has some slight chance of success.
But if all you want is to vent your own anger by telling him how much he sucks, or by just skipping the talk and bashing his skull in, then go right ahead. He deserves it. And it will not change him.
Just be clear on the fact that these are two completely separate goals: venting your anger, and fixing the ill your anger is directed at. Sometimes people are more interested in the former than the latter. What I am criticizing is any effort that claims to aim at the latter goal, but fails because it is really only aiming at the former.
My purpose in my blogging, aside from trying to write less about astrology from now on :), is to have fun, share interesting or amusing stuff I come across, and hopefully learn something about myself and others, with time.
My assumptions as to the purpose of Phil Plait are already obvious: I assume he wanted, on the surface, trying to convince astrology-enamored folks that their love was misplaced, and I assume that under the surface he just wanted to vent his anger. And I assume that he was not aware of the extent to which the latter desire determined the way he wrote his article.
July 29th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
I just can’t see that the article is driven by the authors anger with astrology. He is quite insistent that astrology is wrong, rightly so, and I know that you agree with him. But in my opinion his criticism of astrologers is quite dispassionate. He simply doesn’t flame astrologers and their afficionados as Lucy does. But his conviction on the value of astrology is strong and I know that you agree with him on that.
I find your criticism of the article far too harsh. The only justification for your condemnation appears to be that you are extremely passionate about exterminating astrology. But you don’t seem to want to admit to that. So you’re being unfair.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
True, this article is not driven by the author’s anger. Fair enough, I was wrong to imply that. What’s wrong with this article is more the approach than the level of politeness in its writing. But telling someone that their beliefs are mistaken and silly is obviously a delicate matter … it does not take much to offend them (and thus close their minds) in the process.
Maybe I was too harsh. Maybe I should have exercised, in my criticism, more of the diplomacy you “accused me of” : ) in the first comment on this post, above. If I had been addressing the author directly, probably I would have been more diplomatic, since in that case I would have had the purpose of convincing him of a better approach.
The reason for my condemnation was not that I am extremely passionate about exterminating astrology. I am not half as passionate about it as you are.
Part of what made me condemn it so harshly is my current irritation with people’s very common tendency to do what I described above: completely fail to be goal-oriented in the way they discuss things with others; pretend to be trying to convince someone when they are really just venting; write things as if preaching to the converted rather than those they wish to convert; write with no attempt to understand their reader.
The article just provoked in me such a strong sense of “no no no, that’s not how you do it!” that I had to get that down on paper. And did so with more conviction than diplomacy ; ) … c’est la vie.