Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: BA and MA Degrees in Astrology! What Are They Smoking in Sea ttle ?



Dear Bernard et al.,

I would disagree with the conclusion that there is no difference between
degrees in divinity and degrees in astrology. While there are some
similarities between religious claims and astrological claims, there also
are major differences. Religious claims are untestable for the most part.
Astrologers, on the other hand, make claims that can be tested; and, as
David Lunney has noted the claims fail the test.

It seems to me that accrediting bodies have the capacity to deal with the
differences appropriately. The names of the divinity degrees (B. Div., M.
Div., and D. Div.) provide some notice to the "consumer" that the holder of
the degree is dealing with the supernatural. (The standards for these
degrees differ substantially from B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in
"religious studies" or "comparative religions".)

On the other hand, because the claims of astrology can be tested and have
been found wanting, it makes little sense to offer any sort of legitimacy to
the practice through the accreditation process.

Mark Shapiro
http://www.IrascibleProfessor.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Cleyet [mailto:anngeorg@PACBELL.NET]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:06 AM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: BA and MA Degrees in Astrology! What Are They Smoking in
Seattle ?


My first opinion was that of the IP's viz.:


"The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board has lent an aura of
legitimacy to the Kepler College bachelors and masters degrees --
including the MA degree in "astrological counseling". This goes further
than the simple approval of silliness. This action may induce some
trusting soul who needs the help of a psychiatrist, clinical
psychologist, or trained marriage and family counselor to instead accept
the worthless advice of a quack. The results could be devastating both
to the individual and those around him.

The members of the Washington HECB should be ashamed of themselves for
approving these degrees."

However, a friend wrote:

"Well then, since you suggest it, why allow Doctors of Divinity and
let people get advice from quacks who think a god will answer their
prayers?"

in reply to my sending him:

It might also amuse us to compare the requirements of Kepler's MA in
astrology <http://www.kepler.edu/ma/index.html> with those of Harvard's
MA
in divinity <http://www.hds.harvard.edu/registrar/catalog/mdiv.html>.

- Tucker Hiatt

My assumption being there is great difference between the two. Being a
devout
atheist, I'm not so sure now. Yes, Harvard and the accreditation board
legitimates a belief equal to that of astrology.

bc

GK suggested their is a difference: Her concern is to protect the
"uneducated
who will be impressed by the letters after their names, and confuse
astrology
with astronomy, but can trust clerics.

David Lunney wrote:

At 02:00 AM 7/9/01 -0700, Brian Whatcott wrote:

I expect the Irascible Professor reviewed the sometimes worrying
correlations of birthdate (birth signs, if you will) and occupational
choice outcomes studied by the feckless academics who should have
realised they would be excoriated for their actions?

I know that someone dedicated to the scientific method
would not stoop to condemn before considering the evidence:
after all, to do otherwise would be to indulge in mumbo-jumbo -
taking part in a witch craft trial, so to speak.
:-)

This is ridiculous. Either Brian doesn't really understand science, or he
believes in astrology, or both. Astrology has been utterly discredited
by
every well-designed, genuinely scientific study made of it. There is no
real evidence to examine.

This kind of argument has been made on this list before, I believe (I
suspect by True Believers in the occult), but it is a smokescreen.
Claims
of purported occult phenomena can be safely dismissed without violating
the
principles of scientific openness because the claims are so incredible
and
the evidence for them so feeble.

In approaching this sort of question, we should all remember the
skeptics'
mantra : "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Best regards,
David Lunney, retired chemistry prof.

"Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out."
--- Robert Low, British mathematician and physicist