BBC: Please defend Astrology as Science!

[BillHoyt]

I don't see a thread yet on this. I found this part of Randi's commentary extremely disturbing:

Phil Parsons, Executive Producer for the program who has provided the following response:

I am sorry that you disagree with one of our category headings for in an episode of The National Lottery Jet Set. Subjects that fall under various category headings tend to be very wide ranging and are open to different interpretations by different people. I am sorry if you were offended by Astrology being placed in the Science category. However, I do not regard it as an error and therefore will not be able to “correct” it. I do agree that placing Astrology in the Science category was stretching it a bit and if the topic were to arise again it would probably be placed under a different category heading.

What arrogant muddleheadedness is this?

[andycal]

I don't see this as that disturbing. It's just that because TV is so devalued now, they make more and more of it. As they need more and more, they need more people, unfortunatley we've run out of people with brains so we're left with dunderheads.

I would guess that of the people that watch the lottery, most wouldn't even have noticed the question, let alone the category it was in.

Also, what is there to gain from complaining? OK, maybe they'll think about it next time, but I doubt it, and they can't take the episode back, even if they did "regard it as an error". Likewise, they won't issue an apology. If we had an apology for everytime the TV said something stupid we'd need a whole apology channel.

Best to move on I think.

[BillHoyt]

I don't see this as that disturbing. It's just that because TV is so devalued now, they make more and more of it. As they need more and more, they need more people, unfortunatley we've run out of people with brains so we're left with dunderheads.

I would guess that of the people that watch the lottery, most wouldn't even have noticed the question, let alone the category it was in.

Also, what is there to gain from complaining? OK, maybe they'll think about it next time, but I doubt it, and they can't take the episode back, even if they did "regard it as an error". Likewise, they won't issue an apology. If we had an apology for everytime the TV said something stupid we'd need a whole apology channel.

Best to move on I think.
Book publishers for years have taken the responsibility to issue errata. This arrogant sot doesn't even acknowledge the error. I dislike sloppy scholarship. I dislike more pandering TV and the panderers. More yet, I disklike hidden agendas that drive what otherwise appear to be sloppy scholarship.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I mentioned this on my blog once: astrology is (or really, was initially) partially scientific, in that it observes phenomenon, tries to correlate them, and makes falsifiable predictions.

Where it falls flat is that all its predictions have been falsified. That, and it can be demonstrated that there literally cannot be a force behind it (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html).

So, unlike a science, it never moved on. It still stubbornly sticks to long outdated and disproven beliefs. This makes it more of a fundamentalist religion.

[love]

Where it falls flat is that all its predictions have been falsified.

You mean some, surely? Some of its predictions have been falsified.

[BillHoyt]

You mean some, surely? Some of its predictions have been falsified.
Surely, you intend to back up this assertion with citations?

[Garrette]

Couldn't tell you if only some of its assertions have been falsified as opposed to all.

I can tell you that there are zero which have been positively demonstrated.

But then, the BA can (and has) say it so much better.

[BillHoyt]

Couldn't tell you if only some of its assertions have been falsified as opposed to all.

I can tell you that there are zero which have been positively demonstrated.

But then, the BA can (and has) say it so much better.
We're going to have to stay tuned, Garrette. "Love" is certainly on my radar screen as of now. Probably appropriate, as I'm going to spend the night and most of the weekend with my favorite stripper.

[hellaeon]

You mean some, surely? Some of its predictions have been falsified.

There are claims (which only by a measurable chance or luck may come true) then there are pattern seeking claims (I mean I can guess if not better then an astrologer about someones life as its just a matter of how well you read somebody, I dont claim it to be extraordinary, its just good observation and analysis of people) - such as superstition. If you do this then your blood will boil!!...1/2 a year later you have a terrible flu, high fever...it was true!...you can see its just pattern matching. Humans are great at it.

I guarentee you, its all Bullsh*t. Are you in sports tipping or anything? Like fortune tellers, astrology its all guessing based on previous knowledge of a subject at hand. No hidden 'energetic' powers. No JRR Tolkein here. I bet I can beat a few astrologers at this when they use their 'connection' and I just use my knowledge of the chosen sport.

Here is another way to test.
Read the WRONG star sign to someone. I mean we all want this kind of stuff to be real, but try this. I bet they wont be able to tell its not their star sign.
Also, play trivial pursuit against an astrologer or fortune teller. Bets are, if your better educated, your more likely to win, even against their 'amazing' powers.

my one cent.

[BillHoyt]

Surely, you intend to back up this assertion with citations?
Re-posted because love seems to have lost track of the question. I await your response, love.

[Dave_46]

"love" is busy elsewhere being offensive to Fowlsound.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49403
and
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49444

Dave

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don't see a thread yet on this. I found this part of Randi's commentary extremely disturbing:

Phil Parsons, Executive Producer for the program who has provided the following response:

I am sorry that you disagree with one of our category headings for in an episode of The National Lottery Jet Set. Subjects that fall under various category headings tend to be very wide ranging and are open to different interpretations by different people. I am sorry if you were offended by Astrology being placed in the Science category. However, I do not regard it as an error and therefore will not be able to “correct” it. I do agree that placing Astrology in the Science category was stretching it a bit and if the topic were to arise again it would probably be placed under a different category heading.

What arrogant muddleheadedness is this?I don't find it disturbing. I'm not familiar with the TV show, but I assume it has a few main categories for some questions, like: History, Current Events, Science, Music, Politics, Art, Sports, etc. So, given these topics, which category would an astrology question best fit under? Given just those few categories, I would select Science as the best fit. The respondent says that the categories are "wide ranging" and admits that fitting astrology under the category Science is a bit of a stretch and that in the future they would probably put it under a better suited category. In essence, they are saying that astrology was put under the most appropraite category avilable, that it didn't really fit, and that they will probably do it different in the future. What is disturbing about that? :confused:

[Mojo]

I don't find it disturbing. I'm not familiar with the TV show, but I assume it has a few main categories for some questions, like: History, Current Events, Science, Music, Politics, Art, Sports, etc. So, given these topics, which category would an astrology question best fit under? Given just those few categories, I would select Science as the best fit. Just ask Michael Behe (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178)! :D

[DevilsAdvocate]

Just ask Michael Behe (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178)! :DGiven the seven categories I offered, I'm sure Mr. Behe would have selected Science as the most appropriate. In fact, I expect that Mr. Behe would have found it more fitting than did the producers of the TV show. The point is, it is a TV show, with limited categories, and you have to fit an astrology question into one of them. Of the categories available, Science doesn't really fit, but none other do either, so as a bit of a stretch astrology goes under Science. It would probably be better suited under another category if one was available. If there is a significant number of subjects that would fit a similar category, then astrology should be put under that category in the future.

That is my interpretation of the response, and I still don't see how that is "disturbing".

[BillHoyt]

I don't find it disturbing. I'm not familiar with the TV show, but I assume it has a few main categories for some questions, like: History, Current Events, Science, Music, Politics, Art, Sports, etc. So, given these topics, which category would an astrology question best fit under? Given just those few categories, I would select Science as the best fit. The respondent says that the categories are "wide ranging" and admits that fitting astrology under the category Science is a bit of a stretch and that in the future they would probably put it under a better suited category. In essence, they are saying that astrology was put under the most appropraite category avilable, that it didn't really fit, and that they will probably do it different in the future. What is disturbing about that? :confused:
Surely you see you've posed a false dichotomy. Should we construct another false dichotomy by assuming we must have a question about Garbage Collection and placing it under Politics? Remoiving the veil of the false dichotomy, the obvious third option is not to include the question at all.

[homer]

The BBC are not the worse at this game , Ever seen that "Most Haunted" program ? It gets worse with your resident Medium ( I should get a Maximum , it'll last longer ) now in a program of his own . Derek somebody or other's overacting hour or some such program . Apparently it's wonderful when spread on roses .

[drfrank]

You mean some, surely? Some of its predictions have been falsified.

In a way, I'd have to agree with Love on that, although definitely not for the same reasons.

Most of the predictions usually associated with astrology are so vague so that they fit pretty well to everyone on the planet, and therefore are reasonably sound.

It's only on the few occasions that specific and narrow predictions are produced that they can be falsified ;)

Plus, by definition, even a small number of specific predictions will be correct by chance.

[antihippy]

Also, what is there to gain from complaining? OK, maybe they'll think about it next time, but I doubt it, and they can't take the episode back, even if they did "regard it as an error". Likewise, they won't issue an apology. If we had an apology for everytime the TV said something stupid we'd need a whole apology channel.

Best to move on I think.

The BBC have a clear policy for answering and dealing with complaints. I have actually complained to them a number of times. They are forced to respond and, if you are dissatisfied you can take them to the regulatory body (which I believe would be excessive in this case). This is the beauty of having a public television station funded with public money. Without it they wouldn't. Do a google and you will find the complaints page where you can read the process to your heart's content.

[BillHoyt]

In a way, I'd have to agree with Love on that, although definitely not for the same reasons.
I think we'd all have to agree that a broken clock is right twice a day.

But, so what? I mean: that's depressingly lame. Y'know?

[drfrank]

I think we'd all have to agree that a broken clock is right twice a day.

But, so what? I mean: that's depressingly lame. Y'know?

I'm not denying that it's depressingly lame, it was just a bit of a nitpick lol ;)