Re: a belief equal to that of astrology

[Doug Craigen <dcc@ESCAPE.CA>]

mike sloothaak set L DIG wrote:
> I'm still getting a feeling that a double standard is being applied. It is
> hip in the scientific community to bash astrology lately, and I too have
> participated in that. But when "respected" religions like Evangelicalism
> come up, you pepper your responses with qualifications. I get the feeling
> that we are becomming intellectual bullies: picking on "weak" faiths
> mercilessly, but tipping our hats to similar belief systems just because
> they have political or social clout.

I haven't had much time to participate in PHYS-L discussion lately, but
I'm still here reading in the shadows.  This topic has brought me out
again at least momentarily.  I will try to keep my comments within the
general realm of PHYS-L topics - which we easily stray away from
whenever a thread like this is started.

1) The scientific credibility of astrology:
The vast majority of what I've heard cited as "scientific evidence" to
support astrology is pure bunk.  Stuff like "if the moon can cause
something as big as the tides, surely all planets have an effect on
us".  This plainly has no
place in any faculty of science.  On the other hand there have been
serious attempts to study astrology.  The study  I've heard cited most
is the infamous "Mars Effect" (see for example
<http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html>) episode.  Depending who is talking
this could be proof of astrology (and of the intellectual bankruptcy of
skeptics), or it could be another case study in the difference between
correlation and causation - an illustration of the fact that broad based
studies aiming to correlate data will eventually find "statistically
significant" correlations which are in fact random and as such have no
predictive ability.  The latter group might mention cite studies of
health risks due to power lines as another example.

So, there are aspects of the debate over evidence for astrology that
would bear some time in certain science classes - but overall this is by
no means a field of science.

2) The scientific credibility of religion:
There are many scientific claims made by many religious groups.  Do
pyramids extend the life of razor blades?  Is the earth 6,000 years
old?  Were there wild horses in North America at the time humans were
reported to arrive in the Book of Mormon?  We don't need to pussy foot
around to such questions - they are falsifiable claims and we are not
playing a responsible role as scientists if we do not put such to the
test.  It may come as a shock to many of you that evangelical Christians
are among the most active scientists denouncing the claims of
"scientific creationism".  My pages on my church's web site are an
example of this: http://www.escape.ca/~acc/reading/index.html#craigen

Astrologies make various claims that are testable.  We can prove claims
of correlation between personality traits and time of birth to be either
true or false.  What amuses me about hearing the Mars effect cited so
much is that as far as I know it doesn't confirm any known astrological
creed.  Hence, if this is the best evidence for astrology, I would say
we've shown the others - the ones some people believe in - to be false.

Where mainstream religions differ is that the core of our beliefs are
not based on scientific claims.  Certainly mistakes have been made in
the past and many are still being made - see above - but no scientific
study will ever prove or disprove the core beliefs.  Rather, these are
in the same class as my beliefs on history, politics, where I should
invest my retirement savings......  There is evidence on which to make
rational decisions, however the evidence is not so overwhelming as to
lead me to disrespect those who interpret it differently.

3)  The role of either in a University:
The majority of University campuses I've been on began as theological
colleges.  However, the analogy could be made that we don't teach
alchemy in chemistry classes anymore either.  So why teach religion?

Even in an atheist's utopia religion would be taught.  It is simply too
important to understanding our world to be left.  After all, we studied
Greek and Roman gods in school, and it wasn't because anybody in my
school was
afraid on angering Mars if we didn't.  How much more so in a world
where a variety of religious beliefs are commonplace and affect so much
of what happens shouldn't we be teaching a variety of beliefs from a
variety of viewpoints?  I would also point out that most of us on PHYS-L
live in countries that promote freedom of religious choice.  Surely
stifling education is a means of limiting choice.

Finally, what exactly is the fear of having degrees offered in
astrology?  I suppose it has to do with the what's, who's and why's of
the teaching.  In science we expect that if a degree is offered in
astrology it is because the teachers and students believe it all to be
true.  However, in arts things can be taught because they are deemed
worthy of study.  I would oppose equally astrology or christianity being
taught as science, but it is up to others to decide the place of these
in a faculty of arts.

\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\_/^\

Doug Craigen
          http://www.dctech.com/physics/about_dc.html