An inept attack on … yes, astrology
<sigh> … not another one on astrology? : )
Not really. This time I’m dissing an opponent of astrology.
A recent comment on one of my (already too many) posts on this wretched subject pointed out this article as recommended reading for those still afflicted with astrological beliefs.
To put it mildly, that article does not impress me much. It seems — like Vefþjóðviljinn often, and generally the work of anyone carried away by their pride in their convictions — to be written to amuse people who already agree with the stated conclusion, rather than to convince those who don’t. That’s failed writing, if the intent was to accomplish anything beyond idle entertainment.
For example, the article states the intended conclusion in advance, with the words:
“I wanted to put that first, just so we’re clear, and to make sure you’re paying attention. I’ll repeat it later, too.”
Ha ha. This accomplishes nothing; it just expresses the author’s angry disrespect for the reader, alienates him, and eliminates any hopes he might have of the piece being written with an open mind — the attribute on which practitioners of science pride themselves most. Any astrology-enamored reader who values his own time will think “life’s too short” and go read something else — or, at best, read the rest of the text with a closed, locked and bolted mind.
The author then tries to discuss astrology in the language of physics, invoking forces and measurements and great big strides of ostensible logic. What a failure. Astrology is mysticism. It offers the same gratification as elves and ghosts and magnetized bracelets: excitement, romance, an escape from the (perceived) drab wretchedness of reality. Its adherents do not share the author’s need to fit it into any frame of physics. You might as well try to convince a mugger not to take your money by discussing Immanuel Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals. Go ahead and blather about your categorical imperatives and your maxims, see if he cares. You are not speaking his language.
Why bother trying to influence a mind while making no attempt — none whatsoever! — to understand the workings of that mind?
The author goes on to define no less than “the worst thing in the world: uncritical thinking.” Wow. The “worst thing in the world” turns out to be so simple. Who knew! It is hardly in the spirit of science to spout such broad, hyperbolic definitions, but even worse is the irony of the author’s own work being so ill-thought-out. Where is his critical thinking about his own work? “The emperor has no clothes!” he proudly shouts, butt-naked himself. And the emperor is a nudist by lifestyle and doesn’t give a damn.
Remarkable that an article written to win hearts and minds for “good” science could be so utterly bereft of all the elements that make science “good”: an open, calm, humble mind, critical thinking about goals and methods, and at least some tiny inkling of accomplishment at the end.
[And don't think you'll catch me out on the same failures in this blog: I have no goal of convincing anyone, and the audience is whoever wanders in. So I get to be as lax and undisciplined as I feel like. : ) ]
July 29th, 2005 at 1:36 am
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. (Books of Bokonon)
I’m going to blatantly disregard your closing command, not to catch you out on the same failures in this blog.
A couple of months ago, you said:
Wow. Even I wouldnt put it that strongly (mostly for fear of pointlessly insulting friends whom I wont be able to persuade anyway), but Lucy Mangan nails it. Oh, how she nails it. Arrogant, sure, but hey its astrology shes talking about. It doesnt get any more fair game than that.
Apparently, John and Reverend John aren’t the same (to coin a phrase in the wrong currency). Lucy Mangan is extremely arrogant to the point of being verbally abusive, and she gets a pat on the back, albeit a somewhat timid one. Phil Plait gives a clear and concise refutation with justifiable conviction and he gets spat on the back. Admittedly his writing style isn’t as formal/dry as would be appropriate in a thesis, but he’s writing a readable and humorous (and in my opinion well-reasoned) article on his website. He’s not writing on behalf of any institution, in fact he makes it clear on his website that he speaks for no one but himself. Is freedom of expression more restricted for people with a scientific background?
You said the reason you wouldn’t put it as strongly as Lucy did mostly had to do with fear of insulting friends whom you wouldn’t be able to persuade anyway. Well, isn’t it possible that Phil wrote his article for people that can be persuaded, rather than the lost souls? Isn’t it possible that an assertive “snap out of it” approach could be more effective than a reticent approach that takes care not to insult anyone, including Sara Freder? Weren’t you a bit condescending to her? Don’t forget, you too have a scientific background. Oh no, what you really have a problem with is that Phil’s style is in your opinion not likely to free many people from the ignorance of astrology, right? Well, I don’t agree with you on that. I used to be a new age nut, and I think Phil’s approach would have been more likely to persuade me than a timid open-minded one, that would close with “of course I could be wrong, and the world-view offered by astrology may be just as valid as the one I’m proffering, if not more so.” And it is quite apparent that I belonged to the group that could be persuaded.
I found the article very well written, in particular I noted that it doesn’t just use physics arguments, which could be refused by believers as irrelevant. The reasoning is broader than that and leaves very little room for astrology nuts to wriggle in. Of course, nuts can always afford themselves space for their bee ess by dismissing logic. At that point, there is nothing more to be said. Ostensible logic you say. Well if you want to split hairs, you can. I found the logic sound, but I’m willing to accept that a formal analysis of the article would reveal faults. To remedy that would doubtless require a full-fledged dissertation which would be indigestible for most and read by none. But in all seriousness, do you really think that the case for astrology is so strong that anything less than a doctoral thesis is not worth the monitor it is displayed on?
To sum up, I find the article well-thought-out and witty without being condescending, as Lucy is. Can’t people with a scientific background speak their mind about silly stuff or is it just that they can’t cite physics at the same time?
Regarding mystical language: I guess the proper language in the case of a mugger is “that’s not a knife; this is a knife”. But the analogy doesn’t really work, does it? Would you consider it a proper approach to refute astrology by saying “the great spirit Buuls’ye’Eeht who I am channeling says he’s a better guide than the stars”? If not, then how would you refute astrology in the language of mysticism? If a large percentage of the population needs to be spoken to in that language, isn’t the education system failing abysmally? Isn’t that the problem, rather than Phil’s article?
Just how open-minded do you want to be about astrology? How open-minded should scientists be about phone (don’t make the “e” silent on my account) psychics? How about witch-burning? Genocide? Oprah?
I know you like Steve Mirsky’s AntiGravity column. If Steve Mirsky writes about astrology, will you chastise him? Fortunately for him he hasn’t to my recollection, but he has poked fun at creationism, a subject equally worthy of praise. So I guess his column is full of arrogance and angry disrespect for the reader.
I fear you are the victim of PC contamination which is considerably less agreeable than PCB contamination.
I’m sorry if you think I’m being arrogant, but then I’m a gemini so there’s not much I can do about it.
July 29th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Wow. I think you need to start a blog. : )
True, John and Reverend John are not the same: Lucy was (to my mind) making no attempt to convince anyone. Phil was making such an attempt; this is why I respond differently to them. I found his attempt poorly designed, and that was my point. Lucy was attempting only humor, and I found that fairly successful, hence the pat on her back.
You found the article well-written, well-thought-out and witty, and not condescending. Well, that wasn’t my impression. Maybe this difference of opinion is because the article better matches your level of anger than mine? You seem angrier at astrology than I am.
You said it leaves “very little room for astrology nuts to wriggle in” … I think you underestimate their wriggling power. They only need to wriggle past their own standards of logical rigor, not yours. They only need to convince themselves that the article is bunk, narrow-minded science elitism. It’s their experience of it that counts, not yours. And sure, not mine either, but I’m trying to judge the article based on how I think (for whatever that’s worth) it will strike them; I judge it poorly designed because I think that dismissing it will come naturally and easily to them.
I speak of “different world views” rather than “the stupidity of astrology” versus “the intelligence of science,” and this bothers you … but think of it in a John Stuart Mill kind of way: be a utilitarian. I find calling people idiots, whether “PC” or not, is not an approach that will get them to listen to my arguments. Your mileage may vary, but I find the approach flawed: it does not serve my goals. If my cousin feels I never gave her viewpoint a chance, well hey, that’s the perfect excuse for her not to give mine a chance. And we get nowhere, but I get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside because I stood firm on my convictions, fat lot of good as it did.
You offer your own experience as anecdotal evidence that Phil’s approach works. I counter that you were always a safe bet; the impressionable teenage years notwithstanding, you were bound to end up rejecting mystic crap in the end, whatever anybody said. You are not — not by a long shot — a representative example of the people who do need help overcoming this mindset.
You ask: “in all seriousness, do you really think that the case for astrology is so strong that …” and I hope you do not ask that question “in all seriousness.” Obviously I think the case for astrology is crap, and I’m using the term “think” loosely here. Let’s not confuse my views on astrology itself with my views on how best to wean people off it.
You ask: “how would you refute astrology in the language of mysticism?” … well, I wouldn’t. I would use neither the jargon of physics (with which my conversation partner is not familiar) nor the jargon of mysticism (with which I am not familiar); there is plenty of plain English to use; common ground. (As for the mugger situation: yes, the analogy is flawed, the basis for conversation there is limited, and I don’t have any magic tips for dealing with muggers. Except: no Kant.)
You ask: “isn’t the education system failing abysmally? Isn’t that the problem, rather than Phil’s article?” Sure, it is failing abysmally. That doesn’t mean Phil’s article is beyond criticism, and it was Phil’s article that came up here, not the education system, hence it was Phil’s article that I criticized.
You ask: “Just how open-minded do you want to be about astrology?” Answer: completely open-minded; I reject it completely, and let nobody claim that I did so only because of a closed mind. But isn’t this the wrong question? The useful question is: “how open-minded do I want to seem about astrology?” when I gently, sneakily, aikidoesquely, guide someone into eventually rejecting it, who otherwise might never have. That is a kind of victory that agrees with me.
You ask: “How about witch-burning? Genocide? Oprah?” and that brought a smile. :) Well, I want to be completely open-minded about witch-burning and genocide and, yes, even Oprah … not meaning that I might conceivably approve of them ethically, but because to defeat them I must understand what brings people to such atrocities, and that requires approaching them with an open mind. Screaming “You’re evil! You’re evil!” may be therapeutic and cathartic and all that, for me, but I don’t think it is useful.
You ask: “If Steve Mirsky writes about astrology, will you chastise him?” Nope, not any more than I chastised Lucy Mangan. His column is named “Anti-Gravity”, meaning it’s supposed to be “the lighter side” … it is entertainment. Sure, with biting sarcasm about real people and real beliefs, but the purpose is to entertain. His style would not work to convince anyone caught in the grip of cults or firm new-age beliefs. That’s just not what he’s trying to do. In what he is trying to do, he succeeds very well.
You ask: “Is freedom of expression more restricted for people with a scientific background?” Hell, no, and you are hardly seriously suggesting that I want to limit anyone’s freedom of expression! Aren’t you getting a little carried away with irritation? I did not attack him for fighting astrology. I attacked him for what I believe to be an ill-thought-out, useless way of conducting that fight.
It is OK to be aggressive to the point of arrogance towards something you consider downright evil and harmful. But don’t kid yourself that such aggressiveness in itself constitutes an effective fight against said evil. Aggressiveness is useful in some fights. Sneakiness is useful in others.
July 29th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
A part of me wants to respond to each point you make in your response. Because I have responses. But this is getting surreal. I would never have thought we would wind up in a dispute over astrology. Let me just say this: Phil didn’t call anyone an idiot. In fact he wasn’t nearly as offensive as you suggest. I think the distinction you draw between Phil’s writing on one hand and Lucy’s/Steve’s on the other, isn’t as clear as you see it. In my book Phil’s writing is much more commendable than Lucy’s. I think his explanation of the physics aspect of refuting astrology is just about as simple and understandable as it can be. He’s not trying to impress anyone with jargon. In my mind, it is more important to convince the majority of people, who have the capacity for understanding the plain English arguments (including the physics) presented by Phil, rather than the hopefully few lost cases who are destined to take their misguided convictions to the grave.
When you say “The author then tries to discuss astrology in the language of physics, invoking forces and measurements and great big strides of ostensible logic,” it appears to me that you are not only criticizing him for unfruitful arrogance – you are suggesting that his arguments don’t hold water. That’s why I asked you about your opinion on the case for astrology. And what does it mean to be open-minded about genocide? Come on!
Let this suffice.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
No, he wasn’t that offensive, it’s true. But when you are claiming to someone that what they believe in is bullshit, then you are implicitly accusing them of having been gullible to believe in it in the first place, and in that context, it does not take much to offend them.
And my criticism wasn’t just about offensiveness, but also about the futility of presenting a logical argument based very strongly on premises from the basic principles of physics, to a target audience that does not have much faith in the significance and completeness of those basic principles.
Way down in the article he discusses things like the strong human tendency to see patterns and meaning where there isn’t any, and our tendency to remember what interests us (astrology’s successes) and forget the rest (astrology’s far more numerous failures). But by then, he’s already lost most readers in all the talk about the basic forces of physics, and his very weak discussion of the hypothetical “fifth, unknown force” … weak because he assumes that, while it is unknown, he can still state things about the nature of its action (that planets in other solar systems should act just the same on us as planets in our own solar system) and then base his argument on those statements. Duh: it’s an unknown force … we don’t know anything about it!
That is the slippery all-purpose loophole of pseudoscience: the mystery element! “I know you mean well, poor little scientist, but you just can’t handle the mystery element. All your methods depend on knowing things and understanding things. Over here, we deal in the unknowable and incomprehensible. Welcome to our realm. Don’t get your hopes up.”
July 29th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
As for open-mindedness about genocide: hell yeah. If you don’t want it to happen again, then you’d better investigate how it happened the last few times, with the most open mind you can muster. That may involve interviewing the perpetrators. When you go do that, first get rid of all your anger and all your preconceptions about how they think. Do not let your conversation with them be colored by your own state of mind. That will give you suboptimal information — or no information — about how genocide can happen. Work with them, get inside their filthy, revolting minds … or don’t bother trying.
But that open mind is completely different from being apologetic for its perpetrators, or trying to be “understanding” of their point of view in the sense of forgiving them for it.
From a utilitarian perspective, it makes sense to have an “open mind” about genocide, or about child sexual abuse, or about anything else that’s horrible and vile and makes us wish we had never heard of it. An “open mind” about anything at all … is useful. And, to me, a crucial part of science.
July 30th, 2005 at 2:11 am
It seems straightforward to me that the first thing to discuss when refuting astrology is physics. They’re not going to spare us the mystery element. Why should we spare them the physics element? Yeah yeah, ok, ok, it would stop readers from reading on, blah blah. I’m not interested in the lost cases. We’re beginning to repeat ourselves.
We’re beginning to repeat ourselves.
Regarding open-mindedness, I think we understand the term differently. When somebody (other than you I guess) tells me that he’s open-minded about genocide, I take it to mean that he would be willing to consider that a valid course of action. You obviously understand it differently. If he says he’s open-minded about ways to deal with genocide, I take it to mean he is willing to consider any course of action to reduce the risk of genocide.
Nuff said.
August 1st, 2005 at 5:45 pm
I´m sorry to comment on a discussion that is way past due date… but one of the claims made on the website in discussion is: “There is no force, known or unknown, that could possibly affect us here on Earth the way astrologers claim”… I must say that the author even fails his own physics approach. With the small and simple word “unknown” he rules out every possible argument that he has not taken the time to become familiar with. That seems to be rather uncritical.
August 1st, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Precisely; that is where the article’s logic goes down in flames. Trying to reason about the properties of something that is declared completely unknown, its properties a pure mystery.
The trouble, of course, is that the author is trying to apply logical arguments to something regarded as mystical in nature. He claims to be “playing by the astrologers’ rules,” but he really isn’t; he is clinging to the realm of physics and logic, a realm they are blissfully unconcerned with. That is the astrologers’ sneaky but effective catch-all easy-way-out; appeal to mysticism. They need not support their arguments by logic; they need only say “you have no understanding of mystical things; we laugh at your puny logic” and they win. Or at least he doesn’t. Nice try, but it is an exercise doomed to failure.
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:14 am
-Sigh-
I still agree with the article’s argument. Hjalti takes the word “unknown” out of the context of the argument that follows. Granted, astrologers can always resort to mysticism. Anyone can, anytime, on any subject, when he has run out of arguments. That does not render the article’s arguments invalid. In the case of astrology, the mystics are making statements about things science knows a lot about. The planets are in modern times firmly based in the realm of physics and logic. Nowadays I venture to say even astrologers don’t claim that Jupiter is actually Zeus himself looking down on us with his dad Cronus (Saturn) standing behind him. In many other cases, mystics talk about things that science professes little or no knowledge about. There it is harder to ward off their mind pollutants.
To recapitulate, the author’s sinfully logical argument goes like this:
The known forces diminish with distance. If astrology is based on those forces, the Moon and Sun dominate all other astral entities by far. The same goes for an unknown force that diminishes with distance. If however astrology is based on an unknown force that does *not* diminish with distance, that means the few astral entities taken into account by astrologers are greatly outnumbered by the gazillions they don’t take into account.
So the author has covered all cases, known and unknown. Nice work. QED.
The most straightforward entry-point for mysticism (although it can as I said be applied anywhere anytime) is in the underlying assumption that the properties of matter are the same anywhere in the universe (it is my belief – shared by many – that there are mountains of evidence supporting that assumption). A mystic is likely to say that the hydrogen atoms in Jupiter have different properties than the hydrogen atoms in Saturn (although he probably would phrase it differently). And he is free to say that. He is also free to say that the Earth is flat and bounces around an omelette we call the Sun. However, most people who have an inkling of respect for science would side with science, at least on that last statement. And the former statement is quite comparable, although not as obviously ridiculous.
Recently Gulli sent me a link to an anti-Intelligent Design web site (http://www.venganza.org/) of a guy who sent a demand to the school board of Kansas that they respect his beliefs (that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster) by teaching his version of Intelligent Design alongside the Christian version (and evolution). I’m waiting for Gulli to shred that web site to pieces on the grounds that it alienates and demeans the Christian ID people, making them less likely to come to their senses. That would be consistent with Gulli’s opinion on the astrology refutation. 55% of Americans believe that God created mankind and evolution was not involved. About two thirds think creationism should be taught alongside evolution and 37% think it should replace evolution outright (I know, doesn’t quite add up, but don’t blame me, blame CBS – lies, damn lies and statistics). Does this mean scientific arguments should not be attempted in America? Would that be counter-productive? When Scientific American criticizes creationism posing as science, is that making no attempt – none whatsoever! – to understand the workings of the creationists’ minds? Should we always cater to the lowest common denominator?
Both the astrology refutation and the Spaghetti Monster plea use humor, that can be said to be condescending, to make their point. But the astrology refutation backs that up with solid reasoning and is therefore in my book worthy of more praise, not less.
I guess I should start my own blog, lest I be accused of commandeering this one! There I could blissfully persist in attempts (misguided according to Gulli) to refute pseudo-sciences using, dare I say it, logical and even scientific arguments. I would even allow myself liberal amounts of condescending remarks that I would arrogantly consider humorous.
But nah, I won’t bother. I’ve wasted enough of my and the reader’s time already. Besides, there’s plenty of misguided web sites like http://skeptic.com, http://csicop.org, http://skepdic.com and http://randi.org that do a better misguided job of it than I would ever.
August 26th, 2005 at 9:47 am
“Well, as long as you’re not bitter about it …”
Here’s the straightforward logical flaw in the author’s coverage of “all cases, known and unknown, nice work, QED” … an “unknown” force that does not diminish with distance may still diminish with other factors, whatever they may be. The author assumes that this force, since it does not diminish with distance, therefore acts equally from all the gazillions (Sagan? Is that you?) of stars not under consideration [and that these unconsidered stars thus dominate the effect of this force, so the stars that are considered by the astrologers are inconsequential, and so are the astrologers themselves]. This assumption is only possible by ignoring whatever other (“unknown”) factors affect the force; these factors may explain why the astrologers’ pet stars matter and others don’t. That’s the thing; “unknown” is different from “independent of distance.” You can reason about the latter. You can’t reason about the unknown. If you think you can, you should be in a different field. Astrology, perhaps?
This doesn’t mean that astrology isn’t crap. And it doesn’t mean that it can’t be shown to be crap. There are plenty of cogent arguments showing that it is crap (mountains of evidence, controlled statistical tests, the plausibility of such a theory arising out of human wishful thinking or fancy or overinterpretation, etc.). But the claim that the above argument against astrology is logically sound (“QED,” no less!) … that is just wrong.
“However, most people who have an inkling of respect for science would side with science, at least on that last statement.” Good! So what are you so heated up about?
You say you are waiting for me to shred http://www.venganza.org/ to pieces. Are you seriously suggesting that these two pieces of writing are comparable, and thus should be judged on the same grounds? One is written to convince people that the beliefs they hold are false. The other is clearly just about humor, the author amusing himself and like-minded readers with sarcasm. The former fails in its goal (in my opinion); I’ll bet the latter doesn’t fail in its goal. I’ll bet that author and his like-minded readers were amused.
When Berkeley graduate admissions sent me a rejection letter, I replied in the same tone:
Ha ha, very nice. Now, should this (predictably failed) attempt be judged on the same grounds as another person who wrote them a letter, seriously pleading for admission? Was this a botched attempt to get accepted? No, it wasn’t an attempt at all. It was just me doing something fun. In the same way, the Spaghetti Monster plea is not comparable to the astrology refutation. They are attempting different things. If the Spaghetti Monster guy were trying for real, he wouldn’t have written the letter the way he did. Indeed, the people who are trying for real are most definitely not using that approach. I don’t send you links to their letters to the school board of Kansas, because they are probably not online, and probably not all that amusing.
By all means, start the kind of blog you described. Amuse yourself, and others (including me) — amusing oneself is almost a moral imperative, after all. That’s fine. Use all the condescension and arrogance you want. Just don’t think you’ll be convincing anyone. You’ll only be (“blissfully”) preaching to the choir. As long as you realize that, your work will not be misguided; you will be doing what you intended.
I think it is important to recognize when one is wasting one’s breath.
In that spirit [whoops!] … I’ll stop here. :-)
August 27th, 2005 at 1:38 am
So you agree with what I said in my last post (which regretfully turned out not to be my last post): the most straightforward line of attack for the critic is in the step from the unknown force that does not diminish with distance to the conclusion that the effect of the few pet stars is dwarfed by the effect of all the distant ones. And as I was trying to explain, the underlying well-established assumption that matter has the same properties everywhere, transforms that step from a leap of faith to a hop of reason. :-)
I daresay what we have on our hands is a cogent argument. Not logically sound in the formal sense, but few arguments about the world we live in are. And all the cogent arguments against astrology – the ones you don’t disdain, some of whom are referenced in the article – can just as easily be disregarded by the mystics. It’s no harder for them to dismiss statistics and psychology than it is to dismiss the cosmological principle. So if your measure of whether an argument is successful is whether mystics can dismiss them, then you’ll find yourself running out of arguments pretty fast. On any subject.
Regarding the unknown, and the impossibility of reasoning about it, here’s what a few good men have to say:
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. – Francis Bacon
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. – Voltaire
In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain. – Pliny the Elder (23 AD – 79 AD)
Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind. – Marston Bates
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. – Bertrand Russell
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? – Albert Einstein
Regarding the comparability of the astrology refutation and the Spaghetti Monster – you seem to be awfully certain of the author’s motives in each case – or should I say motive. You seem to assume each has only one motive: to convince mystics that they’re wrong on the one hand, and to have fun on the other. It’s not obvious to me that their motives are so clear-cut. I do concede however, that the astrology refutation is more concerned with convincing and the Spaghetti Monster is more concerned with poking fun. But in retrospect, you don’t seem to be so clear on the motives after all. Allow me to quote you:
[The astrology refutation] seems — like Vefþjóðviljinn often, and generally the work of anyone carried away by their pride in their convictions — to be written to amuse people who already agree with the stated conclusion, rather than to convince those who don’t. That’s failed writing…
Compare this with:
[The astrology refutation] is written to convince people that the beliefs they hold are false. The [Spaghetti Monster] is clearly just about humor, the author amusing himself and like-minded readers with sarcasm.
So which is it? By your own argument, if it is written to amuse people who already agree with the stated conclusion, for instance, me, then it isn’t failed writing, is it?
Carl Sagan, one of the best known popular science writers, and often touted as the best communicator of science to the masses the world has seen, wrote a little essay that touches on astrology. If you are consistent, you should criticize the world’s best communicator of science as fervently as the author of the debated article for making no attempt to understand the mind of the reader, and for being carried away by his pride in his convictions. He makes sweeping statements too, and doesn’t even bother to provide arguments. Granted, that isn’t really the subject of the essay, but still.
On the other hand you would commend him for not attempting any humor. He attempted humor however, when he said:
I can only suggest that astrology and assigning peoples’ birth dates to star signs can only be a result of the gravitational pull of the planets at the time of birth. However, I must say that the pull of the gynecologist is much greater than that of, say, the planet Mars.
How is it that the mystic who certainly gets carried away by his own convictions and makes bold statements without feeling any need to justify them wins people over by his writing (as evidenced by the “billions and billions of gleaming dollars” harvested by the bullshit industry), but if a skeptic dares to reveal his convictions and provides several arguments for those convictions (albeit not a sound logical proof using only well-defined terms – if that’s at all possible – which would definitely not go down well with the uninitiated reader), his writing is held to be completely failed? Why would the masses approach the mystic with an open mind, willing to gobble up his wild assertions, but shun the skeptic who attempts to provide arguments for his modest statements? You may be right that that’s the way it is, but if so I think that’s a shame. Maybe scientists aren’t assertive *enough* when talking to the public!
Your disclaimer, that since you have no goal of convincing anyone you get to say whatever you want – do you really believe that when you publish your thoughts for the world to see, you have no desire at all for anyone who reads your thoughts to think “I agree” or “I can relate to that” or “He has a good point” or “I know that feeling”?
August 27th, 2005 at 9:20 am
I can’t believe you still have energy for this crap. There have to be better things to use your spare time on. I am bored to tears by this argument, and I am staying in it only out of respect for you, because you evidently find it interesting.
Sure, for the mystics themselves. But you already conceded that they cannot be won over and so an article like this should target those who can be — it is engaged in a tug-of-war against the mystics, where the minds of the undecided are the rope. The mystics have already proven themselves to have a pretty strong pull on that rope; what’s our strongest pull? A “cosmological principle” and principles of physics that the rope has never heard of? Or the common tendencies of every human mind, that the rope can instantly recognize in itself? Sorry, the science you are so fond of does not resonate in most minds. Cosmology, for most people, is Estée Lauder. You can cry about that all you want, or try to change it, but that’s how it is at present.
Nice quotations — only, most people will see this noble “doubt” thing as belonging to those nice mystics, and that nasty “certainty” thing as belonging to the arrogant scientists. In a mind that is open (and undecided) towards both astrology and real science, you and Phil Plait come across as “fools and fanatics” by Bertrand Russell’s assertion. The mystics leave everything cloudy and full of doubt. That’s somehow more agreeable. See, people never see or hear scientists nobly going up potentially blind alleys and doubting their own results and doing healthy research. People only ever see scientists when they are either presenting successful results (e.g. doctors discussing new medical treatments on TV) or preaching to the public, bleating about their certainties because they are so filled with righteous rage at the bullshit artists.
And you know damned well that the quotations you presented have nothing to do with what I said. I said “You can’t reason about the unknown” and from the context it is obvious that I am not talking about “doubt” vs. “certainties” but about complete wildcards. This proposed “unknown force” of astrology can be anything, can have any properties, because the assumption is that it is something — anything! — outside our current realm of science. When faced with that, if you are a scientist, you bow out and say “okay, there is no meaningful way to talk about such a broad wildcard, so let’s approach astrology from a different angle.” You do not pretend to have something logical (even cogent) to say about it, and add that you’ve “covered all cases, known and unknown.” And you certainly do not defile the notion of “QED” by sticking that at the end. That’s like a swimmer placed in outer space, doing breaststroke and claiming that it must be getting him somewhere because he is making all the right moves.
You then quote two passages from me and claim that I was inconsistent. You are wrong, but I admit that the first passage is badly phrased. In that passage, I am pointing out that people who obviously did set out to make a point and convince others, failed in that purpose by writing in a manner not suited to it. Their failure lies not in writing to amuse — that’s fine — but in doing that when they intended something else. So instead of “written to amuse [...]” I should have phrased it “written as if it were only intended to amuse [...]” Surely you agree that this is clearly what I meant. In the second passage I am talking about what I believe is the intent of their writing, and it is the same as in the first passage.
I’m sure you remember that zen koan about eating and reading:
I think the acts of eating and reading the newspaper go together better than the acts of laughing at people and trying to win them over. The latter two acts should be kept separate.
This is why, when my cousin mentions astrology, I listen and discuss it, and do not attempt the “smackdown” strategy. You are so fond of aikido and its general idea of working with the opponent’s motion rather than against it … why are you so vehemently opposed to that approach in fighting bullshit beliefs? Because you are consumed with righteous rage at the bullshit artists, you don’t want any fluid motions, and are not satisfied with anything less than smacking them down? Well, calm the heck down or you are doomed to lose the fight, because “if you strike them down, they shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine” as Kenobi might put it. Mocking the people you speak to predisposes them against you.
Try thinking of astrological beliefs as a mental illness. Working with the patient does not couple very well with mocking him. Explaining his medical condition in Latin does not do much for him either. Especially if your Latin is bad. And these are, by analogy, the problems I have with Phil Plait’s article.
Carl Sagan’s essay is not at all bad. In large part it discusses the historical and psychological reasons for people being prone to astrological beliefs — just the approach I’ve been suggesting. A language the reader can relate to. It is a far better article than Phil Plait’s. You are wrong in calling me inconsistent for not criticizing Sagan’s article with the same fervor, because it is not of the same quality.
And the bit of Sagan’s humor that you quoted is vastly different from Phil Plait’s condescending “Astrology is wrong. I wanted to put that first, just so we’re clear, and to make sure you’re paying attention.” Sagan’s little chuckle does not belittle anyone. It is not counterproductive to his goal.
Most of the time, scientists are not talking to the public at all. Most scientists are scientists because they are interested in their particular science, not in public speaking or TV production or writing webpages for the masses. And maybe those few who do are often (a) the most assertive ones, and (b) doing it because they are filled with some Billygrahamesque (I checked; Google says nobody has used this word before. Yay!) penchant for vehemently attacking the devil in all his forms, and people just go “Whoah, dude. Chill. Okay, you just go ahead and do your cosmological principle thing and I’ll be in here smoking weed with my hip mystical fun friend Salazar the astrologer. I bet you’re against weed too, aren’t you? You stuck-up prick.”
I may be digressing. But maybe that’s because I want out of this wretched discussion! Astrology sucks. Talking about astrology sucks. Phil Plait’s article about astrology sucks. And probably the bulk of the writing on my entire blog is now about astrology and that really sucks.
Gulli, signing out.
August 27th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Ditto, I can’t believe the energy you have for this. We both appear to have a hard time allowing the other to have the last word. Bottom line, I still think you were unfair in your criticism of the article and you still think the article is crap. I could go on replying to your comments, but I guess I’ll let you have the last word. Sá vægir…
August 28th, 2005 at 3:52 am
Hmm, looks suspiciously like a last word to me. :-þ