I'm passing this on from Wendy Stacey, chair of the AA:

============

On Sunday 28th March on BBC2 TV programme "Wonders of the Solar System" Professor Brian Cox stated that Astrology was a load of rubbish.

If you wish to make a complaint (the more they receive the more they are obliged to act) you can do this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

On behalf of the Astrological Association, Roy Gillett has posted the following;

"This was a gratuitous statement made without any alternative opinion or information being allowed. Considerable research and production funds had been spent showing seductive pictures of the outer appearance of the Universe. This suggested that Prof Cox's opinion had the force of absolute truth over a matter that the series had not investigated, nor even spoken to an astrologer about. The BBC should correct this gross bias, by putting resources in to a proper study of the history and standing of genuine astrology in 21st century and make at least two similarly financed programmes. I would be happy to suggest contacts and themes for such a series.
Roy Gillett - President Astrological Association of Great Britain."

Many thanks for your support
Wendy Stacey

Done!

I haven't seen the program, and might not be able to do so from outside the UK, but I'm afraid I'm not very surprised at this kind of comment coming from Professor Cox, having observed how he previously handled serious and legitimate concerns from members of the public about the safety of the Large Hadron Collider in similarly dismissive (in fact, on that occasion brazenly rude and derogatory) terms without providing any supporting evidence for his position.

I'm afraid this may be a classic case of someone with a perceived weight of authority throwing his weight around in the media to the end of influencing the public in the direction of a negative conviction, without taking the time and trouble to justify his stance with regard to every available theory and piece of evidence. In the absence of such a justification, any such blanket negative pronouncement is arguably intellectually void.

A PhD should be capable of better than this when it comes to educating the masses. Either he needs to thoroughly justify his position and be prepared to field counter-arguments to his own arguments for his case, or he should publicly retract his statement and acknowledge that he has not properly studied the subject of astrology yet.

Philip,

An excellent message to send to the BBC! You've pointed out that their standards aren't as high as they may believe ? or want everyone else to believe.

"We should all have our nodes checked and then they should be re-paired." With that I mean there may be short circuiting on either side. The present problem is due to our differences and mutual ignorance of work performed in either camp but I think there will come a time when heads are once more due to be brought together.

- In the mean time we could always demand he removed all his labels from the past.

The outburst of Professor Cox implies his path should be examined scientifically. First the professor has to explain where he is coming from. Secondly, where he is heading and thirdly, what he wants to take with him. Fourth, we have to know what he is looking for and then fifth how he intends to use it once he finds it. I believe these questions should be answered before the Gentleman is allowed to move on.

The interesting thing is Professor Cox?s definition of ?Rubbish?. We might have to point out that apart from a mere educational and entertainment value many of science?s travels to different planets are of limited value or relevance to the multitude of people living on Earth. And it is difficult to see how the spending of such money contributes to improving quality of life and solving problems here. When it comes to defining ?rubbish? it could be important to remind Professor Cox that oxygen itself is a waste product and toxic in nature. He may have to be cautioned as to what he was leaving behind as to avoid the unfortunate effect of other arguments falling short of air. If the LHC is the current scientific standard, then hopefully the particle collisions will provide enough rubbish for science to find exactly what it is looking for.

The question still remains to what good the advancements of scientific knowledge may be put once it is found. But please, no more weapons or pollution to nature. May the profits set a standard that will varnish Human experience, that may inspire our Art, allow us to make wise decisions and sort out our differences. Or do we rubbish that, too?

Here is the remark in context:

"Astrologers have said for years that Jupiter influences our lives but we now have scientific evidence that this mighty planet does have a significant connection with our own small world. Jupiter is so different from our planet. A big ball of gas half a billion kilometres away. It's difficult to see how it could have anything to do with us at all but despite the fact that astrology's a load of rubbish, Jupiter can in fact have a profound influence on our planet and it's through a force that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together - gravity."

BBC iPlayer (UK only I think)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qyxfb
'Dead or Alive' 28 March

Jupiter can in fact have a profound influence on our planet and it's through a force that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together - gravity.

It would appear Professor Cox is having ex-planatory problems more than anything else.

I think it is in the gravy.
Philip Graves comment was excellent!

I circulated this thread to members of my Astrology Association.

One of our members (Anna Estaroth) has asked me to circulate the reply she has reveived from the BBC after making a complaint.

Thanks for your e-mail regarding the 28 March edition of 'Wonders of the Solar System'.We're sorry if you were offended by Professor Brian Cox's comments about astrology.The purpose of the series was to tackle the big questions like: how did all this beauty emerge from the chaos of space? Are we all alone? Professor Brian Cox is a working scientist - a Professor and Royal Society University Research Fellow at the University of Manchester, as well as a researcher on one of the most ambitious experiments on Earth, the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. His comments were his own, not those of the BBC and were based on his belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to support astrology.We recognise not everyone watching will agree but this was a view he was entitled to make. We'd also like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards BBC Complaints

Yes I got the same standard reply as did a couple of other astrologers I know. I complained again about the reply. I think it would have been very easy to edit the comment, it was unnecessary. It is supposed to be a "factual" programme yet Cox is allowed to voice his "opinion". That seems contradictory?

I suppose the issue is "evidence" but I think the Sports forum here, all by itself, is providing "evidence" of the symbolic correlation of astrology to events on Earth...: ) Personally, I don't need astrology to prove itself on a scientific level, the spiritual/symbolic plane is enough for me. Faith is all that's required. And it "works" whether you "believe" in it or not....you just might not recognise the signs, but it's happening anyway.

I'm probably flying alone in the wrong direction over this issue - but I would get more concerned about Brian Cox saying that astrology is a load of rubbish, if this forum weren't so full of astrologers telling other astrologers that *their* astrology is a load of rubbish.

I guess I don't see the problem so much. We live in a world of free speech. I have been on a BBC program (Everyman) where myself and several other respected astrologers had a credible program all to ourselves and were allowed to say very convincing things about astrology. As far as I know they didn't get scientists arguing that in this apparently "factual" program we were allowed to voice our "opinion".

I apologise, however, as I'm sure no one wants to hear this opinion today

Yes I got the same standard reply as did a couple of other astrologers I know. I complained again about the reply.

So did Anna. I think she was hoping putting up the BBC reply would more more astrologers to take action.

Brian Cox's is probably representative of the views of nearly all professional astronomers today. Having said that our Association hosted an astronomer to give a talk on the Solar system last year who was quite open minded. Mind you he did confess his girlfriend was into astrology...We had an interesting discussion about horary and whether it could be 'tested'....

Publicly though I think its probably professional suicide for an astronomer to show anything other than derision for astrology today. The astronomer Percy Seymour was heavily criticised just for trying to find an astronomical explanation for the Gaughelin effect.

Somehow Patrick Moore's criticism of astrology in the Sky at Night never bothered me. It was quite amusing actually in a quaint way. A favourite demonstration of Moore was to show the constellation Leo with light bulbs separated in distance but looking together head on to the Camera. As with Richard Dawkins the subtleties of tropical astrology dont seem to have ever occured to him.

Brian Cox is very much the darling of the British media just now and has managed to make astronomy 'sexy'. At least so my female friends tell me.... Perhaps having such a fashionable, fresh face of astronomy dismiss astrology as 'rubbish' is what is so hurtful to many. Others though seem to share Deb's sanguine attitude. I have no problem with freedom of speech. I just object to having to fund my critics for the privilege. On the other hand I bet the sceptics were hoping mad when the BBC radio 4 programme 'In our Time' ran a whole programme on renaissance astrology a couple of years ago.

Mark

Deb wrote:I would get more concerned about Brian Cox saying that astrology is a load of rubbish, if this forum weren't so full of astrologers telling other astrologers that *their* astrology is a load of rubbish.

here here! Divide and rule if we don't stick together. Different approaches can still get the same result. But then academia and science have infighting as well.. it's ego isn't it? And if you have a passionate conviction, I guess it's hard to stay detached.

Yes Cox is hot : ) I think he has capricorn rising with those cheek bones. He has a pisces sun.. just a shame he can't embrace the spiritual with the science. That would be really sexy!

I'm contacting the beeb again to try and get the Everyman and In Our Time programmes.