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.