I know that casting a horoscope involves checking the positions of the planets at the time of birth (or other significant time) and predicting characters and events based on those positions. Is that not enough information to test whether there is any merit to astrology, or do you think it is necessary to understand the various methods of casting horoscopes?
(To put it another way - can you not demonstrate that there is no possible way to get from a set of inputs to a desired output, even without testing some particular operations which are said to do the trick?)
No, I don't think so. Just saying "I can't think of a way in which input A could possibly lead to output B" invites the response "Well, there may be forces out there which you don't understand." An example that occurs to me is continental drift, which we believe happens because of empirical evidence that it does, but whose operations are not well understood.
It's not enough to say "the positions of the planets can't possibly have any effect on our destiny, because it's a silly idea to suggest that they do." You have to be able to show that predictions made by astrology are wrong, or inconsistent, or unfalsifiable.
But to point out that the predictions made by astrology are wrong and inconsistent doesn't require that you know how to cast a horoscope yourself. All you have to do is survey the horoscopes that other people have cast. If they respond that there's this new method of casting horoscopes, that uses forces that you couldn't understand and could never detect, then you tell them to stop being so silly.
Well, my original argument was that I think it's possible to say that there is no way that this set of inputs can produce that output. I still think that's true, for at least some sets of inputs and outputs. If you want to invoke magic/'forces beyond our understanding' as the way of getting from input to output, then okay, I'll just argue that whether or not magic exists, nobody has succeeded in using it to use these inputs for that output. Yeah, it's a weaker argument, but strong arguments and definite positions don't do as well against "but anything is possible!!1!!" (which is why I'm an atheist who doesn't believe God exists, not an atheist who can prove God doesn't exist)
I think this part of the argument is the wrong way round.
The problem with astrology isn't that the mechanisms proposed by astrologers to explain how it works are incompatible with current scientific thinking. (That appeared to be what you were arguing.) If we are not allowed to propose anything that is incompatible with current scientific thinking, science will grind to a halt, and that would be a Bad Thing.
The problem with astrology is that it doesn't work. It's not a matter of how the inputs relate to the output; it is that the process leading to the output, and often the output itself, cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be described as scientific.
1. There is no possible way we know of that it can work (so there is no reason to believe that it could work).
That's, frankly, an unscientific attitude. It presumes that we already have perfect knowledge of all possible mechanisms; in which case, as I said above, science must grind to a halt.
The reason to believe it doesn't work is that the outputs are unsound; that means the proposed mechanisms are irrelevant (though obviously also unsound).
if you discovered some way in which astrology could work, then you might look harder for evidence that it does
But that's a different matter. Here you are allowing a new theory to drive a new experiment, a new test of that theory.
Nonsense. If I tell you I have a starship out in my back garden, made out of baked beans, it's not unscientific to say "That couldn't possibly work". If you maintain that opinion after you see the working starship, that's a different matter.
You don't need to have a perfect knowledge of all possible mechanisms to rule things out - at least as long as you are prepared to rule them back in again if the evidence supports them. If you maintain that attitude, then why are you sure that astrology doesn't work? Sure, the methods you used to cast horoscopes were nonsense, but there could be some other method that does work, and you just haven't heard of it.
If I tell you I have a starship out in my back garden, made out of baked beans, it's not unscientific to say "That couldn't possibly work". If you maintain that opinion after you see the working starship, that's a different matter.
No. The scientific response to "I have a starship out in my back garden, made out of baked beans" is not "Impossible!" but "Show me!"
In principle, I'd agree with you - but that is something of an ideal position. An editor who picks something off their slush pile, reads three sentences, mutters "this doesn't even make sense" and chucks it straight into the bin could be rejecting the next James Joyce - but the chances are very much that they aren't and they probably have a few hundred other submissions waiting to be looked at
( ... )
It is impossible to test every mad claim, in one lifetime at least - especially considering that every mad claim can be amended endlessly to explain uncomfortable evidence. The correct response to the starship claim is not "Ooh, can I visit your back garden to see?", it's "Fly it over here, then we can talk."
How many methods of casting a horoscope are there? How many did you try before coming to the conclusion that astrology is bunk? How often did you repeat your attempts? Did you seek guidance from professional astrologers, who may have been able to explain why it didn't work for you?
The difference between "Ooh, can I..." and "Fly it over here..." is that one means you're eager to investigate, and the other demands that some proof is presented before continuing. Why demand that some proof is presented? Because the claim is outlandish.
Did you try it yesterday? Did you cast a horoscope during a full moon? Were you facing east at the time? Did you make sure to remove all iron objects from the building first? Which planets did you include in your systems? I think you should try it again tonight - wearing only natural fabrics, a silver ring on one of the fingers of your right hand, and with a full basin of water on the table beside you. You'll be amazed at the results.
The difference between "Ooh, can I..." and "Fly it over here..." is that one means you're eager to investigate, and the other demands that some proof is presented before continuing. Why demand that some proof is presented? Because the claim is outlandish.
Sure; but neither of these responses equates to your previously preferred option of "Nonsense! or "Impossible!" I'm glad you now agree with me that "Show me!" is the best response.
As for the astrological questions you propose, none of them has been put forward by qualified astrologers, so I did not take any of them into account when testing their claims; except for the one about the planets, of course, which indeed is a question which astrology fails to resolve.
My preferred response is _still_ "Nonsense! That's impossible!" That doesn't mean I won't examine evidence if it's offered.
Why are you limiting yourself to methods proposed by qualified astronomers? It's not like you think their horoscopes have more predictive value. Surely, to properly test astrology, you should test every possible method of casting horoscopes? Or is it your opinion that astrology may be valid, and it's just the methods (you've tested) used by qualified astronomers (you know of) that are bunk? If someone approaches you tomorrow, and says that he has a new method of casting horoscopes - it takes a week to do properly, and requires the astrologer to be on a special diet for the duration, but the results are incredibe - are you going to test the method, or demand evidence of the spectacular results first?
(To put it another way - can you not demonstrate that there is no possible way to get from a set of inputs to a desired output, even without testing some particular operations which are said to do the trick?)
Reply
It's not enough to say "the positions of the planets can't possibly have any effect on our destiny, because it's a silly idea to suggest that they do." You have to be able to show that predictions made by astrology are wrong, or inconsistent, or unfalsifiable.
Reply
Reply
Reply
If you want to invoke magic/'forces beyond our understanding' as the way of getting from input to output, then okay, I'll just argue that whether or not magic exists, nobody has succeeded in using it to use these inputs for that output.
Yeah, it's a weaker argument, but strong arguments and definite positions don't do as well against "but anything is possible!!1!!"
(which is why I'm an atheist who doesn't believe God exists, not an atheist who can prove God doesn't exist)
Reply
The problem with astrology isn't that the mechanisms proposed by astrologers to explain how it works are incompatible with current scientific thinking. (That appeared to be what you were arguing.) If we are not allowed to propose anything that is incompatible with current scientific thinking, science will grind to a halt, and that would be a Bad Thing.
The problem with astrology is that it doesn't work. It's not a matter of how the inputs relate to the output; it is that the process leading to the output, and often the output itself, cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be described as scientific.
Reply
Reply
That's, frankly, an unscientific attitude. It presumes that we already have perfect knowledge of all possible mechanisms; in which case, as I said above, science must grind to a halt.
The reason to believe it doesn't work is that the outputs are unsound; that means the proposed mechanisms are irrelevant (though obviously also unsound).
if you discovered some way in which astrology could work, then you might look harder for evidence that it does
But that's a different matter. Here you are allowing a new theory to drive a new experiment, a new test of that theory.
Reply
You don't need to have a perfect knowledge of all possible mechanisms to rule things out - at least as long as you are prepared to rule them back in again if the evidence supports them. If you maintain that attitude, then why are you sure that astrology doesn't work? Sure, the methods you used to cast horoscopes were nonsense, but there could be some other method that does work, and you just haven't heard of it.
Reply
No. The scientific response to "I have a starship out in my back garden, made out of baked beans" is not "Impossible!" but "Show me!"
Reply
Reply
How many methods of casting a horoscope are there? How many did you try before coming to the conclusion that astrology is bunk? How often did you repeat your attempts? Did you seek guidance from professional astrologers, who may have been able to explain why it didn't work for you?
Reply
Well, that's rather closer to my "Show Me!" than your "Impossible!"
Lots; lots; often; and yes.
Reply
Did you try it yesterday? Did you cast a horoscope during a full moon? Were you facing east at the time? Did you make sure to remove all iron objects from the building first? Which planets did you include in your systems?
I think you should try it again tonight - wearing only natural fabrics, a silver ring on one of the fingers of your right hand, and with a full basin of water on the table beside you. You'll be amazed at the results.
Reply
Sure; but neither of these responses equates to your previously preferred option of "Nonsense! or "Impossible!" I'm glad you now agree with me that "Show me!" is the best response.
As for the astrological questions you propose, none of them has been put forward by qualified astrologers, so I did not take any of them into account when testing their claims; except for the one about the planets, of course, which indeed is a question which astrology fails to resolve.
Reply
Why are you limiting yourself to methods proposed by qualified astronomers? It's not like you think their horoscopes have more predictive value. Surely, to properly test astrology, you should test every possible method of casting horoscopes? Or is it your opinion that astrology may be valid, and it's just the methods (you've tested) used by qualified astronomers (you know of) that are bunk? If someone approaches you tomorrow, and says that he has a new method of casting horoscopes - it takes a week to do properly, and requires the astrologer to be on a special diet for the duration, but the results are incredibe - are you going to test the method, or demand evidence of the spectacular results first?
Reply
Leave a comment