Especially considering the state of the current science establishment where pseudoscience masquerades as the genuine article. From a review of a new book that analyzes astrology from one scientist's perspective. The verdict: no more unscientific than many current "scientific" enterprises. Of course, the author doesn't consider even for a moment that there really could be at least some truth to astrology. The book: A Scheme of Heaven by Alexander Boxer.
Quote:"Why is astrology considered unscientific, while economics—which also uses complex mathematical formulas to 'predict' the future—is regarded as a perfectly respectable field of study, despite its many failed forecasts? With the neutrality of statistical science, Boxer shows that today’s sophisticated models are, embarrassingly, often no better at predicting the future than the algorithms of astrology. Just think back to the 2008 housing crisis, the 2016 election, or, indeed, the wildly divergent, if not contradictory forecasts for the spread of COVID-19.
Mathematical models can appear to offer the solidity of a mathematical proof. We tend to believe in numbers: they offer “certainty” to our rational minds. But numbers still mislead, figures still deceive, and predictions still fail—sometimes spectacularly so. Put it differently, here's the uncomfortable truth. Many modern disciplines that advertise themselves as purely rational (and especially those that rely heavily on numerical forecasting), actually contain elements from the domain of the magical, even if they don't realize it or are unwilling to admit it.
Our modern forms of divination—based on AI and big data, with “corporate astrologers” dressed in suits—offer little from a purely rational perspective, given that their track records are hardly any better than astrology. Yet we are drawn to these forecasts.
Evidently, there are deeper forces at play. Perhaps these modern forecasts, with their own peculiar esoteric symbols and mysterious jargon, serve to satisfy an essentially magical, divinatory need. Understanding this explains, in part, why astrology continues to thrive (despite every effort to eradicate it) alongside its modern, data-driven successors."
I always liked Braude's paper on astrology, an interesting anecdote regarding his wife's career as an astrologer.
Quote:Opponents of astrology, like some skeptics about parapsychology, routinely — though I believe disingenuously — overestimate the importance of theoretical knowledge. They often argue that if we can’t scientifically explain how astrology might work and lead to detailed, accurate predictions, we’re not entitled to conclude that there are genuine astrological facts to which astrologers have gained (or can gain) access. They might say, for example, “I can’t accept that the arrangement at birth of celestial bodies (especially extremely distant ones) makes a difference to a person’s character, or that there’s a connection now between the placement of those objects and present or future events. Nothing we know scientifically about the world suggests a mechanism for these alleged connections.” As far as parapsychology is concerned, some would say, “I can’t accept that a table levitated (or that someone received information directly from a remote location, or influenced a random number generator by thought alone). It simply makes no sense (or is overwhelmingly improbable) in terms of our scientific knowledge.
Quote:It’s also well known that a person’s physical or mental states can be affected (and some-times permanently conditioned) by features of that person’s environment. Astrology rests on the claim that these environmental relationships extend to our connections with celestial states of affairs. Some may doubt whether these alleged relationships are genuine, and it’s perfectly legitimate to raise those doubts. But there’s nothing inherently wrong with suggesting that the relationships are real. And in fact, we can have good grounds for claiming they are real without knowing why that is. We need only to spot the regularities and determine whether they’re persistent and robust. So if there’s a scientifically credible and causal story to tell about alleged astrological connections, we’ll obviously have some serious work ahead of us. But in the meantime, we can continue to refine and extend our observations and see whether we can generate successful predictions from the correlations we observe. In short, we can try to get a handle on the phenomena pragmatically so that we have at least a working knowledge of the domain. The analytic knowledge of it can always come later, if it ever comes at all. And it needn’t come at all, especially if the regularities in question turn out to be as fundamental as natural regularities get. But in any case, without the practitioners (those with a working knowledge) to guide them, theoreticians often wouldn’t even know where to look. For example, acupuncture theorists (Eastern or Western) first needed the groundwork laid for them by those who figured out how to use needles to heal. In principle at least, and as far as we know, astrologers might be in the same boat.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
|
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)