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] |
At 02:00 AM 7/9/01 -0700, Brian Whatcott wrote:by
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
every well-designed, genuinely scientific study made of it. There is noClaims
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.
of purported occult phenomena can be safely dismissed without violatingthe
principles of scientific openness because the claims are so incredibleand
the evidence for them so feeble.skeptics'
In approaching this sort of question, we should all remember the
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