Sunday, May 31, 2009

"Tackling" Astrology?

I'd decided not to post today - then I stumbled upon this.

"What is the best way of tackling astrology", on the Richard Wiseman blog. I arrived there quite by accident.

Why on earth should anyone have to "tackle" astrology? Astronomers and science-oriented skeptics have such arrogance!

A very brief extract from a BBC Radio 5 interview has been embedded on the blog. This doesn't give a very good impression of the astrologer's viewpoint, however. Wiseman keeps badgering her to say which astrological study she relies on to uphold her views. I reckon she should have responded that there has yet been no proper all-encompassing study of the subject in a way that computer technology would now afford. It's a pity that those who are so keen to deride astrology don't put their energy into conducting a wide study of the subject, in cooperation with those who understand it fully and using all available technology.

I haven't heard the whole interview, but the comments on this blog attracted, then repelled me.

The blogger, of course, is singing to a choir of lemming-like commenters. There is one comment from a Richard King (5.27pm on 28 May 2009)which warmed my rapidly freezing heart.

A brief extract
I was not wildly impressed with either side in the interview. Anything other than a dialogue with at least a degree of understanding and mutual respect for alternative views and ways seems rather pointless.
What is the best way of tackling astrology? That depends what is meant by tackling. If it is understanding and investigating, including “scientifically”, then discuss it with people who understand the subject. Similarly, any astrologers who wish to engage with science should discuss the matter with people who understand science.
The problem is that there are, obviously(?), huge differences in levels of understanding and capability on both sides

And from his closing paragraphs, a view which is very close to my own:
On the basis of my knowledge and experience, there is less to astrology than some proponents claim and more than mainstream science claims; though the general tenet of it fits with some rather high level science.

Thank you Mr. King!


Shawn Carson said...

Hi Twilight,
I simply can't think of anything nice to say about the same type of arrogance that you find so offensive...
Anyway, nice detective work on the Adam / Freddie connection. I would say that this new information changes the landscape considerably. If crazy Freddie Mercury could work with these guys on a regular basis, then maybe Adam can too! This will be a fun story to watch unfold.

anthonynorth said...

I come across Wiseman a lot in my research. He's one of the leading sceptical parapsychology types in the UK. Mindst you, unlike most, he does do adequate testing of his ideas. Don't always agree with his interpretation though.

Twilight said...

Shawn ~~ Hi!
LOL! I had to restrain myself from saying worse things than
I did!

Re Freddie/Adam - yes, it will be fascinating to watch developments.

Twilight said...

AN ~~~ Oh really? I'd never heard of him. It's a pity he can't harness his skills to do something really useful. Such people make a good living out of peddling negativity - that's how I see it.