Closed and Open Minds
EHWollmann
"There is no bar to knowledge greater than contempt prior to examination."
Herbert Spencer
There is no doubt about the popularity of astrology. According
to various opinion polls roughly a third of the population of
Western countries believes in it and another third is interested
enough to read astrological predictions, at least occasionally.
The last third remains unconcerned or skeptical. As the New
York Times said (13 August 1977): `In the cyclical way of the
world, we have been passing through a period of resurgent
mysticism. Educated people ask each other what signs they
were born under; witchcraft is discussed seriously on college
campuses, occult bookshops flourish, and cults of all kinds
contend with pornography for the side-walks of our cities.'
In reaction to this surge of credulity, other people hurry in to
denounce everything to do with astrology as an absurd fraud,
and among these opponents a number of scientists have been
prominent. The American Humanist (a magazine devoted to
discussions of social problems and irrationality), in its
September 1975 issue, carried the following statement, entitled
`Objections to Astrology'. It was endorsed by 186 leading
scientists, including 18 Nobel Prizewinners.
Scientists in a variety of fields have become concerned about the
increased acceptance of astrology in many parts of the world. We, the
undersigned - astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other
fields - wish to caution the public against the unquestioning
acceptance of the predictions and advice given privately and publicly
by astrologers. T搬ose who wish to believe in astrology should realize
that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets.
In ancient times people believed in the predictions and advice of
astrologers because astrology was part and parcel of their magical
world view. They looked upon celestial objects as abodes or omens of
the Gods and, thus, intimately connected with events here on earth;
they had no concept of the vast distances from the earth to the planets
and stars. Now that these distances can and have been calculated, we
can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other
effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars.
It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and
planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.
Neither is it true that the positions of distant heavenly bodies make
certain days or periods more favorable to particular kinds of action, or
that the sign under which one was. born determines one's
compatibility or incompatibility with other people.
Why do we believe in astrology? In these uncertain times many
long for the comfort of having guidance in making decisions. They
would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces
beyond their control. However, we must all face the world, and we
must realize that our futures lie in ourselves, and not in the stars.
One would imagine, in this day of widespread enlightenment and
education, that it would be unnecessary to debunk beliefs based on
magic and superstition. Yet, acceptance of astrology pervades
modern society. We are especially disturbed by the continued
uncritical dissemination of astrological charts, forecasts, and
horoscopes by the media and by otherwise reputable newspapers,
magazines, and book publishers. This can only contribute to the
growth of irrationalism and obscurantism. We believe that the time
has come to challenge directly, and forcefully, the pretentious claims
of astrological charlatans.
It should be apparent that those individuals who continue to have
faith in astrology do so in spite of the fact that there is no verified
scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong
evidence to the contrary.
In the editorial it was explained that both the American Ethical
Union and the American Humanist Association - the co-
publishers of The Humanist - had long been opposed to cults of
unreason and irrationalism (under which they also classify
religion, of course). The editor went on to ask: `What better way
to demonstrate this in this anniversary issue than by a major
critique of astrology?' Professor Bart J. Bok, a former president
of the American Astronomical Society, was invited to draft a
brief statement listing some scientific objections to astrology.
This was subsequently revised and expanded to the statement
quoted above, and then sent to a selected list of distinguished
members of the American Astronomical Society and the
National Academy of Sciences for endorsement.
The signed statement was subsequently sent to thousands of
newspaper editors in the United States and abroad, with the
suggestion that they print it, especially if they carried a daily or
weekly horoscope column. The intention, of course, was to
counter the ever-increasing trend for astrology to be foisted on
an unsuspecting public which is rarely exposed to scientific
criticisms of it. This was an honorable intention, but as we shall
show it is questionable whether the statement is true. It is also
unscientific in its approach. This point was well made by Carl
Sagan, a scientist who declined to sign, in the following letter to
The Humanist:
I find myself unable to endorse the `Objections to Astrology'
statement (September/October, 1975) - not because I feel that
astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt and still feel
that the tone of the statement is authoritarian. The fundamental point
is not that the origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is
true as well for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only
three. To discuss the psychological motivations of those who believe
in astrology seems to be quite peripheral to the issue of its validity.
That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but
unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for
continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we
see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of
unavailable mechanism were wrong.
Statements contradicting borderline, folk, or pseudoscience that
appear to have an authoritarian tone can do more damage than good.
They never convince those who are flirting with pseudoscience but
merely seem to confirm their impression that scientists are rigid and
closed-minded. . . .
What I would have signed is a statement describing and refuting
the principal tenets of astrological belief. My belief is that such a
statement would have been far more persuasive and would have
produced vastly less controversy than the one that was actually
circulated.
Authority or evidence?
The scientists who signed the Humanist statement agreed that
astrology was folklore and superstition and that there was no
scientific basis for it. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have
investigated any evidence that would have supported or
disproved their claim, and so their response seems to have been
largely emotional. Rather than appealing to their authority, it
would have been better if they had simply presented evidence.
This point was well made by Einstein in response to criticisms
of his work. In 1920, a racist German group tried to refute the
theory of relativity by holding an emotional meeting in the
Berlin Philharmonic Hall, and then by persuading a hundred
professors to condemn Einstein's theory in a book. Einstein
commented: Were I wrong, one professor would have been
quite enough.'
In addition to the `appeal to authority', other weaknesses
occur in the statement. Feyerabend ( 1978) points out that the
186 scientists made the mistake of criticizing the basic
assumptions of astrology rather than the way in which it is
practiced. He observed that `it is interesting to see how closely
both parties approach each other in ignorance, conceit and the
wish for easy power over minds.' He also notes that, following
the statement, many of the scientists declined interviews
because they had not studied astrology. It appears they had
signed merely on the basis of a `religiously' felt conviction.
Feyerabend claims that this conviction led the astronomers
to overlook even evidence they were familiar with. For example,
in an article accompanying the statement, Bok ( 1975) had
stated that because of their distance from us, the planets could
not influence human affairs; he similarly assumed that the walls
of the delivery room would shield the newborn child from
radiation emitted by the planets. He made these statements
even though, as an astronomer, he should have known that the
planets might influence solar activity which in, turn has various
effects on us; it is also known that certain types of radiation can
penetrate very thick walls to which a delivery room would not
be an exception.
The scientists' statement prompted a contrary statement
published in I976 by the astrological journal Aquarian Agent.
This statement claimed that astrology is at least a valid area of
research, and that it is important to distinguish `sun sign
frauds' from genuine astrologers, who take far more factors into
account than the sign of the zodiac under which one is born.
Signatures for this statement were obtained from 187 (!) people
with academic degrees. This, while also appealing to authority,
does seem to take a less prejudiced view. Of course, simply to
state that you are in favour of further research is to say little
more than being against sin and for motherhood, but even this
is an advance on the simple, prejudiced refusal to examine the
evidence.
It is of course possible that there is no truth in any part of
astrology. The point is that the 186 scientists have not
demonstrated this. To do so would involve systematically
examining all the available evidence in favour of astrology and
then showing how it is invalid.
The attitude of more moderate scientists is illustrated by J.
Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at
Northwestern University. As a member of another of Professor
Bok's committees, the Harvard Committee on Astrology, he
cast twenty thousand horoscopes from entries in the American
Men of Science directory and found no association with sun signs
or with aspects of the planet Mercury, which is claimed to be
the `planet of the mind'. The director of the observatory where
he did this work refused permission to publish even this
negative result lest it be thought that his staff spent any time on
matters of this sort! Similarly, Hynek wrote in his foreword to a
book of Gauquelin's published in 1978: `It is with considerable
hesitancy ... that I write this foreword, because for an
astronomer to have anything to do with anything remotely
related to astrology seems enough to rule him out of the
scientific fraternity.'
It is against this background of undisguised hostility, rather
than of receptiveness to new ideas and experiments, that open-
minded scientists have had to fight in their attempts to establish
whether or not there is any truth in astrology. They have even
had to defend their right to do research in this field. As a result,
established scientists have often found it best to say nothing,
rather than incur derision; only a few have had the courage to
admit that `there might be something in it'.
H.J. Eysenck and D. K. B. Nias, "Astrology, Science or Superstition?
1988, Penguin Books
--
"Let the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur of the
mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind. "
-SIR FRANCIS BACON
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
(c)1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
anonym™
multiple ISP account loser, Jan. '98 Kook of the Month,
bankruptcy-filing jackass, fool, convicted criminal, asshole, bully, and
Kook of the Year 1998 wrote:
>
> CFA• wrote:
> >
> > EHWollmann wrote:
> >
> > >Closed and Open Minds
> >
> > Would you mind closing yours for a bit? It's leaking its contents all
> > over aa...
>
> FU asshole. I'll post more tomorrow now just because you said that.
How will we be able to tell the difference?
--
"Why am I an asshole?" -Edmond Wollmann
anonym™
>
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
>
> >CFA• wrote:
> >>
> >> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> >>
> >> >CFA• wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> EHWollmann wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Closed and Open Minds
> >> >>
> >> >> Would you mind closing yours for a bit? It's leaking its contents all
> >> >> over aa...
> >> >
> >> >FU asshole. I'll post more tomorrow now just because you said that.
> >>
> >
> >Ok. You know I can't wait to meet you
>
> Alright! Another fan!
>
> I hope you're not one of those stalking types.
Must be the Holiday Spirit. Ed wants to meet you, Cornyhole wants to
meet me...
Hey! How come Ed doesn't want to meet me? At the Octagon?
anonym™
misdemeanor (PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation,
sued for Unlawful Detainer and evicted in 3/96, and past violator of
Federal and State game laws for abusing wildlife wrote:
>
> Closed and Open Minds
> "There is no bar to knowledge greater than contempt prior to examination."
> Herbert Spencer
>
"Now, recognize that the personality of Wollmann is warped. His
personality is, we shall say, a kooky construct, a facade (in a
negative term -- a mask) created so that he could avoid having to face
the hideous reality that is his life." Bashar and the New Metaphysics.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless like Edmo Wollmann, and
knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful like Edmo
Wollmann. Wow. That's weird because Edmo Wollmann has neither knowledge
or integrity." Samuel Johnson
Wally Anglesea
<CFA.> wrote in message
news:bda66sgh4k5ru1i6g...@news.mindspring.com...
> EHWollmann wrote:
>
> >Closed and Open Minds
>
> over aa...
Submitted for consideration to alt.humor.best-of-usenet.
FYI
--
Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday kook:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's Turtles all the way down!"
Lou Minatti™
>
> CFA• wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Closed and Open Minds
> >
> > Would you mind closing yours for a bit? It's leaking its contents all
> > over aa...
>
But you and Bruce whine constantly that you're being censored. How can
this be, shiny-headed one?
--
Happy Holidays from SpOOk Central!
http://www.watchingyou.com
el...@no.spam
EHWollmann <ehwol...@aol.com> wrote:
>Closed and Open Minds
>"There is no bar to knowledge greater than contempt prior to examination."
>Herbert Spencer
SNIP!
You don't offer knowledge, Wollmann. Having an open mind doesn't mean
falling for every kook like you that comes along. Grow up.
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>FU asshole. I'll post more tomorrow now just because you said that.
Poor lil crybaby.
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ok. You know I can't wait to meet you punk.
You keep saying that but anytime he asks when are where you run like
the coward we know you to be. Nobody believes you anymore, Wollmann.
Mr. Sweetness & Light.
>In article <38632...@bigfoot.com>,
>
>Poor lil crybaby.
The Kook will post MORE!!!! Great!!! I'm looking forward to more laughs.
Kettler has been boring the last few days.
---
I am not familiar with this particular work, but I think all
astrological applications to be valid. - Wollmann displaying vast
knowledge of astrology and grammar.
el...@no.spam
Mr. Sweetness & Light. <kfr...@lart.com> wrote:
>The Kook will post MORE!!!! Great!!! I'm looking forward to more laughs.
>Kettler has been boring the last few days.
Kettler is *always* boring.
Dina O'Grogan
el...@no.spam () wrote:
> In article <19991224030122...@ng-cv1.aol.com>,
> EHWollmann <ehwol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"There is no bar to knowledge greater than contempt prior to examination."
> >Herbert Spencer
>
>
> You don't offer knowledge, Wollmann. Having an open mind doesn't mean
> falling for every kook like you that comes along. Grow up.
>
>
Here's a nice Carl Jung quote:
'An inflated consciousness is always egocentric and conscious of nothing but
its own existence. It is incapable of learning from the past, incapable of
understanding contemporary events, and incapable of drawing right conclusions
about the future. It is hypnotized by itself and therefore cannot be argued
with. To extend this last thought a little further, it would be vain to hope
that Edmond Wollmann could be helped by a perusal of this analysis.'
(...well, I added in that last bit... ;)
~D~
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.