Posted on 05/25/2004 8:04:21 PM PDT by perfect stranger
In the UK Sunday Times of May 16, 2004, appeared an article titled, "Top scientist gives backing to astrology," written by Jonathan Leake, who plays at being their Science Editor. "The planets may control your future after all," he wrote.
This statement was inspired by a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, Dr. Percy Seymour, author of a new book, "The Scientific Proof of Astrology"
— are we surprised? —
who says he believes that "human brain development may be affected by the Earth's magnetic field, especially during growth in the womb."
In his book, Seymour suggests that the Earth's magnetic field is affected by interactions with those of the Sun and the Moon. Other planets such as Jupiter, Mars and Venus also play a part, he opines.
This notion is less than acceptable to other astronomers.
Dr. Seth Shostak is an astronomer involved with Project Phoenix/SETI, has a BA in physics from Princeton and a PhD in astronomy from Caltech.
He's the Public Programs Scientist at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, conducts radio astronomy research on galaxies, and has published approximately fifty papers in professional journals, as well as several hundred popular articles on various topics in astronomy, technology, film and television.
His book "Sharing the Universe" appeared in 1998.
His opinion of Seymour's idea is scathing. He describes the theory as "nonsensical," pointing out that even though large planets like Jupiter have magnetic and gravitational fields far greater than the Earth's, they are massively attenuated by distance.
Said he, "Jupiter's magnetic field is about a trillion times weaker than the Earth's [at this distance from Jupiter]. You would experience a far stronger field from your lights and washing machine."
Undaunted, Dr. Seymour waxed sweetly poetic on the lyrical effects of these magnetic fields:
"[This] means the whole solar system is playing a symphony on the Earth's magnetic field. We are all genetically tuned to receive a different set of melodies from this symphony."
Oh, please! My teeth are beginning to develop cavities!
But this is what really offended and startled me.
Announced the Sunday Times:
. . . Seymour's theories won qualified support from an unexpected source. Richard Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, who once suggested that astrologers be prosecuted under the trades descriptions act, said that although he had not read the book, Seymour's ideas sounded interesting.
Reading that, and seeing that it was not qualified in any way, nor expanded upon further, I contacted Professor Dawkins.
He replied:
"
Jonathan Leake, the Science Editor of The Sunday Times wrote an article on Sunday 16th May about a book that supports astrology. He telephoned to ask my opinion. I said I hadn't seen the book and could therefore offer no opinion on it. He then read me a paragraph from the jacket notes, about experimental evidence that magnetic fields might influence fetal development.
I said (approximately), "Well, that's all very interesting, no doubt, but what the hell does it have to do with astrology?"
The next day I found that Jonathan Leake had quoted me as providing "support from an unexpected quarter" having described the book as "interesting."
He added, in a note to me:
I am FURIOUS. Please publicize the truth of what happened . . .
Of course, in their usual crackpot manner, the astrologers were enchanted and giggly over this bit of nonsense. UK astrologer Russell Grant was quoted as saying:
At last someone is not just saying: "It's a load of poppycock." If the moon is connected with the ebb and flow of the tides, and humans are 70% water, then why can't the moon be affecting us? So we have good moods or bad moods depending upon the position of the moon?
No, Russell, you see, as most of us non-astrologers learned in grade school, the Moon attracts all matter — rocks, fat, bananas, footballs, buffalos, and bottled bleach — not just water — equally. It has nothing to do with the human body's water content.
And astrology is a load of poppycock.
The Times chortled that Margaret Thatcher once told MPs:
I was born under the sign of Libra, it follows that I am well-balanced."
Well, that does it. Can't argue with authority, can we?
This is just another example of half-done science, sensationalized both by the author of what will surely be a best-selling book, and a man entrusted with depicting science via the media.
Inverse-square, inverse-square the man is just another inverse-square. (Physically harmless, but socially dangerous).
Just when ya think you've heard it all...
'Have you ever googled the word "welcome"?'
Now I have! 87,800,000 references to "welcome" in the initial search. First two references are for the White House and the planets.
Richard Dawkins:
Way to ruin a good, nonsensical article.
Us Virgos don't believe in this astrology crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.