NavList:

   

Reply

Peter, you wrote:
"As to astrology being  'nonsenses'; I wouldn't know, not having studied the
subject. Isn't the  essence of rational thought not jumping to conclusions
without evidence?  Isn't taking a fixed position, perhaps based on prejudice,
and refusing to  look beyond it, something the whole scientific revolution
has tried to move  beyond?"

I can't speak for George, whose post you were responding to, but  I certainly
have explored astrology in some detail myself applying the standards  of
science as I understand them. And having done that, I have no problem calling
astrology 'nonsense'. It's a flavor of numerology.

But this brings us to  an interesting conundrum... How do you know that any
"mainstream" topic in  science is not "nonsense"? Let's take, as a random
example, fluid dynamics. It's  mostly classical physics in the extreme, and I can't
think of any reason to be  skeptical of its basic conclusions --it's about as
mainstrem as you can get. But  why do you believe in it as a science and not,
to pick another random example,  homeopathic medicine?? Have you studied it
yourself (and if you have, pick  another comparable example)? Although rational
thought and personal  experimentation are a big part of science, in the end,
you and I cannot  personally test each and every theory. So do we adopt an
absurd agnosticism in  which subjects outside our personal experience are unknown
to us? Or can we  accept that there is a certain division of labor in
science, and if I find  something nonsensical, you also have a basis for finding it
nonsensical? I  believe that this is actually what people do in the real world
of science, but  it's a bit removed from the utopian vision of scientific
proof. As I say, it's a  conundrum.

-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N  72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars

   

Reply