[inquest]

I expect most scientists would give a positive review of microscopes and karnaugh maps--that doesn't make microscopes or karnaugh maps infallible tools of first resort for selecting between alternative scientific theories.

I never said anything about any tool being infallible.

[Einstein's mechanics are infinitely superior to Newton's.]

Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?

Because for velocities in the range that macroscopic objects in our world move at, there's scarcely any distinction between the two. It's like asking why we round numbers.

[And astrology does explain these things? Accurately?]

Prove it won't--in a few months, when the stars begin to line up properly.

All that's necessary to show is that it's failed to give reliable, predictable explanations for people's behavior, which means that thus far, it's been disproved of having any explanatory value.

[donh]

I expect most scientists would give a positive review of microscopes and karnaugh maps--that doesn't make microscopes or karnaugh maps infallible tools of first resort for selecting between alternative scientific theories.

I never said anything about any tool being infallible.

Great. Do you think we should teach the greek theory of the 4 humors, on account of it's simplicity?

Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?

Because for velocities in the range that macroscopic objects in our world move at, there's scarcely any distinction between the two. It's like asking why we round numbers.

So, in other words, for almost all practical uses, the special relativity components of the calculations are utterly useless window dressing--unneeded complexity in violation of Occam's Razor.

All that's necessary to show is that it[astrology] failed to give reliable, predictable explanations for people's behavior, which means that thus far, it's been disproved of having any explanatory value.

The theory that astrology gives accurate readings on people's fates in a few month's, when the stars are properly aligned, has never been tested, much less "disproved". Much in the same way that ID never gets a fair chance at scientific investigation because of the assumption that because you don't currently have any evidence, you don't need to look for it. Unlike with, for example, SETI...where lack of evidence doesn't seem to exercise this curiously selective veto.

you starting to see the problem with this line of reasoning? If you let it into the classroom to discredit it is an excruciatingly bad idea--it would even be a bad idea even if you had a really powerful refutation--which Occam's Razor ain't. Ask those self-same scientists you pointed out were kinda fond of Occam's Razor.