Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper From: cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) Newsgroups: net.astro Subject: Astrology as science. Message-ID: <3476@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 11:26:02 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3476 Posted: Tue Aug 6 11:26:02 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 04:52:06 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 58 First off, (and this may surprise some readers of net.physics), I do not believe in astrology. That said -- 1. Astrology is a scientific theory: it makes testible predictions about physical reality. 2. The source and justifications of a scientific theory are irrelevant to its validity. These may be used to decide whether or not to expend the resources necessary to check a theory's validity. They may also be used to help decide between two competing theories which make roughly the same predictions. I think that most people with any knowledge of modern science will agree that classical astrological theory is not in accord with it. We can nevertheless accept it as a "heuristic" theory (i.e., one which provides a useful tool for thinking about a particular area, whether or not it is accurate, or even meaningful on a deep level) if it makes accurate predictions. Several attempts have been made to reconcile the structure of astrology with modern scientific knowledge, but none, to my knowledge, have gained wide-spread acceptance. None that I have seen are very convincing. 3. Virtually none of astrology's predictions are astronomical in nature. The most common form of astrology make psychological predictions. Others make economic, political, social, personal, meteorological and geological predictions (there are probably more but those are the major ones that I can think of). For this reason a discussion of the scientific validity of astrology does not belong in "net.astro". I suggest "net.sci" as the most appropriate place for all follow-ups. I will post a copy of this there. 4. Every system of belief which is not "science" (in the modern sense of the word) is NOT religion. For the most part, belief in astrology is not based on faith (not that this basis automatically equates to religion) but on personal observations. I believe that the patterns seen by believers in astrology are created by the inaccuracy of peoples intuitive concept of probability and the human facility to generate pattern where none exists. The failing is natural, human, and something which we are all prone to. Until the invention of modern statistics in the first part of this century, it was all ANY science had to go on. The believers in astrology have made observations and have found a theory which seems to explain those observations; there is nothing wrong with that. 5. Most, though not all, of the people who publicly criticize astrology, don't know what they are talking about. 6. To the best of my knowledge, all attempts, with one outstanding exception, to test the truth of astrology's predictions have failed. Gauquelin, who produced the exception, denies the relevance of his results to traditional astrology, but there seems to be more resemblance than he is willing to admit. Attempts to replicate his work have failed, but the accuracy of the attempted replications is questionable, so the status of this work must still be considered very much unsettled. Topher Cooper RESPONSES: net.sci USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.