Astrology domine?
Ah, now, this is intriguing. A chap called Percy Seymour, who apparently used to be a lecturer in astronomy at Plymouth University, and who is still a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, has written a book entitled 'The Scientific Proof of Astrology". Which would be marvellous and ground-breaking if it did what it said on the tin. But, no, it doesn't contain a scientific proof of astrology at all. What does it contain? We'll come to that in a moment. First, a brief debunking of astrological claims...
First, and rather fundamentally, astrology was invented about 2000 years ago. In the geo-centric days of the universe. Before it was known that the earth orbits the sun. So, because of movement of stars, the earth, and so on, the star sign you are supposedly born under doesn't represent the actual map of the stars overhead when you were born - in fact it's out by approximately one. So that's nice - basically, it means that even if astrology were true, you're reading the wrong horoscope.
But is it true? How could it be? What exactly are the causal effects that determine your life, from the moment that you're born (and how, exactly, do you define birth - astrology seems to take it as the moment you pop out, but, if the stars are really having some sort of effect on us, why wouldn't it be from the moment of conception? Or at least before birth...)?
Which is where we can move onto Seymour's book. He doesn't believe in astrology. At least not the Russell Grant, newspaper style astrology. But his book does suggest that the magnetic fields of non-terrestrial bodies interfere with you, thus giving some sort of credence to it. Which is all very nice, but the magnetic fields of other planets have a smaller effect on earth than does your mobile phone. Or pc. In fact, you're more likely to be affected by the magnetic field from the computer whilst reading this than you are by one from another planet. So what can I get you to do...? Heh, heh, heh....
Ultimately, though, it does beg the question of why a respectable scientist would go over to the other side and write a book promoting irrationality and stupidity. It's akin to the pope declaring himself a Satanist. One possible explanation may be the relative pay-packets of astronomers and astrologers. The likes of Jonathan Cainer can command 7-figure salaries for writing their bollocks. Your average lecturer at a university will be lucky if they make 30K a year. Presumably Seymour thought "I'll have a bit of that" and wrote his silly book. Presumably, as well, it will sell a lot. Doesn't make it worthwhile, though, does it?
First, and rather fundamentally, astrology was invented about 2000 years ago. In the geo-centric days of the universe. Before it was known that the earth orbits the sun. So, because of movement of stars, the earth, and so on, the star sign you are supposedly born under doesn't represent the actual map of the stars overhead when you were born - in fact it's out by approximately one. So that's nice - basically, it means that even if astrology were true, you're reading the wrong horoscope.
But is it true? How could it be? What exactly are the causal effects that determine your life, from the moment that you're born (and how, exactly, do you define birth - astrology seems to take it as the moment you pop out, but, if the stars are really having some sort of effect on us, why wouldn't it be from the moment of conception? Or at least before birth...)?
Which is where we can move onto Seymour's book. He doesn't believe in astrology. At least not the Russell Grant, newspaper style astrology. But his book does suggest that the magnetic fields of non-terrestrial bodies interfere with you, thus giving some sort of credence to it. Which is all very nice, but the magnetic fields of other planets have a smaller effect on earth than does your mobile phone. Or pc. In fact, you're more likely to be affected by the magnetic field from the computer whilst reading this than you are by one from another planet. So what can I get you to do...? Heh, heh, heh....
Ultimately, though, it does beg the question of why a respectable scientist would go over to the other side and write a book promoting irrationality and stupidity. It's akin to the pope declaring himself a Satanist. One possible explanation may be the relative pay-packets of astronomers and astrologers. The likes of Jonathan Cainer can command 7-figure salaries for writing their bollocks. Your average lecturer at a university will be lucky if they make 30K a year. Presumably Seymour thought "I'll have a bit of that" and wrote his silly book. Presumably, as well, it will sell a lot. Doesn't make it worthwhile, though, does it?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home