Replies

Fester. Darling. Let's review the postings. My first post in this thread was to narby, who was pointing out your eccentric (to say the least), definition of science. I stated to him that you think astrology is a science.

Here’s your reply to me in its entirety:

Absolutely, and it has an exactitude comparable to that of evolution's inferences, extrapolations, and hopeful constructs based upon unobservable history, coupled with the presupposition that nothing intelligent could possibly be involved with the formation of intelligent beings.

Now, it’s entirely possible you think you’ve posted something here, but really, you haven’t. There is nothing whatever exact about Astrology, whereas we have some pretty exact knowledge regarding evolution, particularly since recent advances in genetics have come into play. They've changed our understanding of lines of descent.

I’m not sure what offends you about evolution’s “extrapolations,” but I will note that extrapolation is part of every field of science. Scientists then try to confirm or disprove those extrapolations, and go on from there. If there have been any “extrapolations” resulting from Astrology in the last thousand years that have contributed in any way to scientific knowledge, or even refinements in Astrology itself, there’s been a powerful conspiracy afoot to keep them secret. I suggest you expose this conspiracy and garner for yourself the fame and riches you rightly deserve.

This difference, by the way, is essential to science. There have been great advances in all scientific theories in the last few years, including evolutionary theory. However, there have been no advances in astrology … or iridology, reflexology, ESP, or spiritualism despite numerous people spending an enormous amount of time on all of them. This long-term lack of progress is a key marker of pseudoscience.

Here’s a quote from “The Fringes of Reason,” edited by Ted Schultz. It's in the chapter “Reality Shopping, A Consumer’s Guide to New Age Hokum,” by Alan M. MacRobert and Ted Schultz:

As physicist Rolf M. Sinclair pointed out at an American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in 1980 in San Francisco, one of the key distinctions between science and pseudoscience is that science changes rapidly. New ideas are quickly accepted once they are proven, and disproven ideas are likewise quickly rejected. Most of the focus of current research involves ideas less than ten to fifteen years old. In contrast, pseudoscience clutches doggedly at ideas for their own sake. "Astrology froze about two thousand years ago and simply hasn’t changed much," Sinclair said. "That unchanging character is what allows me to say astrology is a pseudo science."
My father finally became inactive in the American Society for Psychical Research partly because nothing ever seemed to lead anywhere. At home, we have a shelf lined with issues of the Society’s journal, marching back through the decades. Unlike other scientific journals, it contains nothing that one can build upon. In essence, the Society is just where it began in 1885, and where its precursor, the London Society for Psychical Research, began before that. It has yet to demonstrate that psychic powers exist at all, much less learn anything about them.

You’ll have to tell me what you mean by “hopeful constructs based upon unobservable history.” Science requires evidence, and evolutionary theory uses evidence. Astrology, on the other hand, does not. If you don’t know or won’t learn the difference, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

You then took me to task for failing to address the “substance” of your post. I stand by my previous characterization regarding its utter lack of substance. But just to make you happy, I’ve picked it apart for you. Will you now return the favor and tell me in what possible sense “Holy Ghost verification” is scientific?

And in conjunction with that, tell me what you’ve learned about N-Rays.