>Speaking of stereotypes, if anyone takes astrology seriously, I automatically assume they are not intelligent, irrational, and I find it impossible to take them seriously.
Doesn't that speak more about you than about them?Highly intelligence (IQ wise) people have also been into astrology (and alchemy, magic, etc.). Not just in the time of Newton (an avid follower of the above), but in our times too.
>I can tolerate conspiracy theories, or aliens, or whacky religions, but astrology is just so dumb.
That's a quite crude model of what's rational. Something doesn't have to follow physics to have utility (I mean, utility beyond "making astrologers money").
A less crude epistemology would focus on what makes astrology resilient and widespread throughout several millenia, and what kind of purposes it might serve, as opposed to focusing on whether its compatible with hard sciences, or the knee-jerk reaction that "it's because people are stupid".
I'm not much for astrology (I barely know my sign), but I've read a couple of posts about it, and there's something to be said for not jumping to conclusions about a phenomenon with a complex history.
Here's, for example, a classic failure in criticizing astrology that I've read about somewhere: many "rationalists" make fun of astrology's claim that we're supposed to be influenced by the stars, since (the argument goes) their gravity pull is too low to matter, besides the moon would influence many orders of magnitudes more.
But astrology doesn't claim that the stars influence us through gravity. It speaks about influence on the astral plane (which is some kind of different dimension), not through some mechanistic principle. And, of course, astrology is so much older than the discovery of gravity, that "rationalists" making this argument must not know history, or maybe just had a temporary brain fart in making that argument.
I'd say astrology is not that far removed from religion (which you say accept or tolerate). I also found this interesting note on astrology on a "metaphysical" blog:
"Before we go on, it’s probably necessary to note a few points that may come as a surprise to some of my rationalist readers. Yes, I know about the precession of the equinoxes; astrologers discovered the precession of the equinoxes. (Where did you think all that talk about the Age of Aquarius comes from?) Yes, I know that the constellation Aries is no longer in the 30° wedge of the ecliptic that astrologers call the zodiacal sign Aries. (Signs are not constellations and constellations are not signs; every beginner’s textbook of astrology explains that.) Yes, I know that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa; astrologers use the geocentric positions of the planets because we live on the Earth, not the Sun. (It’s the planetary positions relative to where you are that matter in astrology.) Finally, yes, I know that nobody knows how astrology works; so? It’s a thumping logical fallacy to insist that an effect can’t happen just because the cause isn’t known".
Doesn't that speak more about you than about them?Highly intelligence (IQ wise) people have also been into astrology (and alchemy, magic, etc.). Not just in the time of Newton (an avid follower of the above), but in our times too.
>I can tolerate conspiracy theories, or aliens, or whacky religions, but astrology is just so dumb.
That's a quite crude model of what's rational. Something doesn't have to follow physics to have utility (I mean, utility beyond "making astrologers money").
A less crude epistemology would focus on what makes astrology resilient and widespread throughout several millenia, and what kind of purposes it might serve, as opposed to focusing on whether its compatible with hard sciences, or the knee-jerk reaction that "it's because people are stupid".
I'm not much for astrology (I barely know my sign), but I've read a couple of posts about it, and there's something to be said for not jumping to conclusions about a phenomenon with a complex history.
Here's, for example, a classic failure in criticizing astrology that I've read about somewhere: many "rationalists" make fun of astrology's claim that we're supposed to be influenced by the stars, since (the argument goes) their gravity pull is too low to matter, besides the moon would influence many orders of magnitudes more.
But astrology doesn't claim that the stars influence us through gravity. It speaks about influence on the astral plane (which is some kind of different dimension), not through some mechanistic principle. And, of course, astrology is so much older than the discovery of gravity, that "rationalists" making this argument must not know history, or maybe just had a temporary brain fart in making that argument.
I'd say astrology is not that far removed from religion (which you say accept or tolerate). I also found this interesting note on astrology on a "metaphysical" blog:
"Before we go on, it’s probably necessary to note a few points that may come as a surprise to some of my rationalist readers. Yes, I know about the precession of the equinoxes; astrologers discovered the precession of the equinoxes. (Where did you think all that talk about the Age of Aquarius comes from?) Yes, I know that the constellation Aries is no longer in the 30° wedge of the ecliptic that astrologers call the zodiacal sign Aries. (Signs are not constellations and constellations are not signs; every beginner’s textbook of astrology explains that.) Yes, I know that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa; astrologers use the geocentric positions of the planets because we live on the Earth, not the Sun. (It’s the planetary positions relative to where you are that matter in astrology.) Finally, yes, I know that nobody knows how astrology works; so? It’s a thumping logical fallacy to insist that an effect can’t happen just because the cause isn’t known".