🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov11.024228.19183@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
>Subject: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:42:28 GMT
>I have tried [without much success] to follow the thread on mixing
>science and religion. I note that many people argue that the two are
>indeed immiscible. I wonder how these people feel about astrology? Many
>of us feel that scientists have a moral obligation to speak out against
>popular delusions of this kind. Are we mistaken? Should we take the view
>that astronomy and astrology don't mix?

   There is an essential difference here.  Whereas mainstream religion by 
and large does not lay claim to scientific ground anymore, astrology, the 
new age movement and many others on the fringes will to varying extents make 
empirical claims or even claim to be new sciences.  So for example, we can 
obtain data to determine whether storing razor blades under a crystal really 
extends their life (it doesn't), or whether hospital emergency rooms and 
police stations are really busier during a full moon (they aren't)......  To 
the extent that the general public is being bombarded with claims such as 
these which have a straightforward empirical answer, they should also be 
presented with data to prove or disprove the claims.

   Claims such as "Jesus rose from the grave and ascended into heaven" are 
in very different ground.  One could argue about the consistency of 
accounts, reliability of witnesses etc., but these are a very different sort 
of evidence than starting with a control set, attaching appropriate probes, 
checking reproducibility over many trials etc.