Scientific Correctness Gone Mad

At breakfast I heard a news item on the radio today about proposed new trading standards for astrologers that would mean they'd be required to label their work as 'for entertainment only'. The implication, of course, is that astrology doesn't work. 

Then I had lunch with a fellow publisher, a kindred spirit who's had huge success on both sides of the Atlantic in the course of his career – and seen three angels in the course of his life. I'm not sure he'd want me to give his name. But he told me that the Watkins who founded the famous esoteric bookshop of the same name was one of three people with a direct line to Churchill during the war – because Churchill relied on him for astrological guidance in his prosecution of the war.

In my book I try to show how throughout history people who have wielded power have been guided by astrology because they know it works.

Comments

[Me]

Um...I wonder, don't you think the readers of the "Mystic Megs" of this world would not benefit from this?

Lets be honest, how many people every even contact a "real" - assuming they can manage to find one - Astrologer?

This is the issue - rightly I think - that the scientific materialism of Dawkins has with the "esoteric" (although to be honest he is actually talking about "new age"). It's not just that it cannot be put into a scientific methodology (trying to define a hypothesis is difficult enough - but it's all of the "snake oil salesman" out there that he has an issue with.

And yes, before you say it, I know that the scientific and medical community has enough of this within its "respectable" communities - just look at Dawkins very only application of his "selfish gene" theory to the origin and propagation of religion as found in his frankly weak "meme" model.

[Me]

PS

Actually, thinking of it, perhaps many of the more tentative scientific models such as Dawkins Memes and Quantum Physics "String Theory" should also carry a "For entertainment purposes only" sticker also, until they can provide more solid support for them?

I think I would support that.

[Stef]

I don't have any particular axe to grind against Richard Dawkins (at the risk of making myself deeply unpopular with my esoteric friends) purely because I think he's already gone over the edge of exercising his own beliefs with the religious fervour usually seen in the convert to a cause. And there are those who separate science and "religion" (to represent any kind of spiritual belief) so completely that science develops an almost religious context.

What little I know about quantum physics suggests to me that the differences between "pure" science and "esoteric" belief is actually a lot less than some of these devotees of science would give credit for.

Or as Einstein put it "The more I learn about science, the more I believe in God".

Personally, I think Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle just hit the nail on the head.

[Gregory Sams]

I used to run a shop devoted to chaos theory (Strange Attractions) and was always surprised at how readily scientists dismiss astrology. Whilst they believe that a butterfly's wing flap can effect the global weather cycle, they dismiss the idea of heavenly bodies, able to lift oceans and hold planets in orbit, affecting our lives.

We would do well to remember that science once included astrology and it was the influence of the church, more than the scientific method, that made this unacceptable from the 17th century.

[Gregory Sams]

I used to run a shop devoted to chaos theory (Strange Attractions) and was always surprised at how readily scientists dismiss astrology. Whilst they believe that a butterfly's wing flap can effect the global weather cycle, they dismiss the idea of heavenly bodies, able to lift oceans and hold planets in orbit, affecting our lives.

We would do well to remember that science once included astrology and it was the influence of the church, more than the scientific method, that made this unacceptable from the 17th century.

[Stef]

I think I can probably demonstrate that the bible is about as empirically provable as the average quantum physics textbook (especially when it comes to quarks and strange particles) in the sense that theoretically demonstrating that something is there and actually proving it are not the same thing - but I am no physicist and I don't doubt that someone who is will show all the holes in my idea - but it was a good one while it lasted.

It has always struck me - especially with quantum physics - that even with "hard science" there comes a point when empirical and demonstrable proof is just not possible - and then one has to take the whole set up on faith. Does it matter if that set up is the existence of god or a strange particle? I don't really see that it does.

Regarding astrology, I must admit that it is not something I run my life by, but having said that I was interested to have a conversation with a friend who declared my recent stressful patch as being due to the negative interactions between Saturn and Neptune at the moment. And here was me, blaming that time of the month again!

I really don't know how much credence I feel I can give to astrology. It's almost as though I want to believe in it, but I just can't, and I don't really know why.

[Marcel Benn]

In Jonathan Black book „ the secret history of the world“from the start he mentions how we have lost this connection to the spiritual world. He is very right and this should be the key of why we feel so disconnected with the “universal existence”, hence having difficulty to make senses, accept or understand astrology and many other aspect of the universe which is bound between 2 realms.
This phenomenon of lost connectivity to the spiritual world was a “natural” happening as the universe runs in cyclic mood therefore we can look forward the coming back of this unified connectivity of both spheres. This has been predicted by countless ancient civilization.
Marcel Benn.

[Nick]

Indeed Marcel Benn very true

--Nick