Below is an article from the Metro Newspaper that appeared last week. The Metro is a free newspaper distributed across the UK. It has a very large circulation.

Sadly I found this article too late to get a reply printed. However, you can still post on the website. The comments by the science writer Simon Singh were especially frustrating. He comments:

?Astrology is bogus bilge, twiddle-twaddle, hocus pocus, weirdo woo of the highest order. In short, anybody who believes in astrology is one card short of a full tarot deck.'

I shudder to think what the standard of PHD graduates is these days if this passes for an intelligent critique. Dr Singh seems symptomatic of what goes on in popular science in our culture today. You dont need to even bother intellectually challenging astrology. Instead you can just act like a stand up comedian and ridicule astrology as nonsense not worthy of intelligent discussion. The clear implication is that its the exclusive preserve of the mentally deranged or congenital idiots.

Of course nobody questions if this man has any credentials to comment on astrology. He is a scientist so he must know what he is saying.

The fact we are all money driven, dishonest charlatans goes without saying.

Unfortunately, the comments page is full of spam but if you feel inspired you can still reply if you register.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/13/written-i ... s-3838261/

Mark

yeah Mark, sounds like the thinking typified in this essay: http://t.co/p3X0U2IaoE

Simon Singh is entitled to express his opinion, but he is known to have extreme views against anything which doesn't fit the testing criteria of modern science. He has particular disregard for alternative medicine, and has been caught up in a number of legal suits regarding his right to maintain that anything which isn't based on testable evidence is rubbish. It's a shame, but the hostility by which he expresses his view takes something away from its worth. It is the kind of non-rational, emotive attitude that is common amongst those who feel that "rational science" is threatened by anything which has spiritual or holistic connections.
The article itself shows other problems: criticisms against meaningless sun-sign astrology, the text of which is unspecific and can apply to anyone, together with legal requirements for the media to present only meaningless sun-sign astrology, the text of which is unspecific and can apply to anyone! Yet there continues to be so many people who do take astrology seriously - the reason why the media periodically regurgitates these provocative kind of features, which are designed to polarise opinions in light reading, whilst not presenting anything that is thoughtful or worth reflecting on.

Here's something a little more interesting in the media, which appeared on the BBC website yesterday:

Mystery over museum's moving statue
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23029507

I fail to understand.

Why so much venom against astrology and astrologers? As if we are getting regular funds from prestigious institutions. As if we are the most rich or as if Presidents and Prime Ministers are selected from astrologers.

I hope Simon Singh knows about his subject 'Particle Physics' but judging from his way of analysis and profound insights of any subject. I doubt

Additionally, I think a lot has to do with WHERE one is, as to how it will be represented by the media.

Two points:

1) Moving from the U.S. to Germany, I could see a distinct difference in the stigma associated with seeking astrological counsel.

2) Here (Germany), they had a contest on a network TV show with an astrologer, psychologist, and a palmist. They all had to "apply their methods" in trying to understand/delineate various information about the same individual. The astrologer was the winner by quite some margin. [In the States, if they came to that conclusion, one can be sure that monied interests connected with psychologists as well as skeptical organizations would have made sure that the show likely never aired. Witness "Conspiracy Theory." Their shows have aired and repeated many times, however the show on "FEMA camps" aired once and then seemingly disappeared. I don't know the reliability of the claims, but several people wrote that they had recorded the program on their TIVO and that after the fact, it was missing from their inventory!]

Having argued quite a bit with various skeptics, two things stand out...

They really CAN NOT see any possible method that it could work and this colors their evaluation of any test results or reasoning.

Additionally, the very things the skeptics champion (openly reviewing evidence, having no pre-conceived bias, etc.) are exactly the things they end up being most guilty of... (ie. not seeing PAST their closed mind and completely dismissing all evidence as anecdotal)

Still, when these mass disinformation opportunities come up and are utilized to sway public opinion, it is in our (collective) best interests to refute every bit possible, I think.

Take care,

James

i don't see why astrologers need to get worked up about this...

i like what robert hand said at the end of this long article -

"The difficulty of proving astrology scientifically should not make us feel so disadvantaged. This is a problem which originates more from the limitations of Science than from our deficiencies. We must say the following: We believe that the philosophical foundations of the sciences have many deficiencies, that whatever the merits of the sciences as a set of practical procedures may be, it tells us absolutely nothing about the essential nature of true being. It tells us nothing about the essential nature of our true being. It is therefore not practically useful in regard to these questions; it is also a philosophy which exalts death above life."

http://www.arhatmedia.com/journal/matter_form.shtml

Can't science astrology without a mechanism. Can't provide the mechanism because the mechanism is disallowed scientifically.

And yet they think comets are made of ice...
Quite a lot of believes rest on very shaky ideas if they have a mechanism.

I'm pretty sure astrology is easy to prove to people with reasonable minds. Continuously defying the odds using math as a way of detecting the abstract outlines astrology could be assumed to be helping construct when those outlines can be measured in the pragmatic. The only people who seem to notice are statisticians with a bent towards astrology. And astrologers of course, even if they can't do stat math, it gets pretty obvious to them after a while.