75 people marked this article as "GOOD," which at time of writing makes it the leader on the front page; you may be waiting a while for that drop in subscriptions. Also, what you deem bad others may (and have) deemed GOOD. If you don't like it, don't read it. This is the internet, not a dictatorship.
Thanks for your response. I'd like to take your concerns one by one.
"Deconstructing horoscopes does not equal idealistic, and barely pragmatic to me."
Debunking Astrology and educating people as to its falsehoods is something I see as idealistic and pragmatic. Despite its fallacy, people still use Astrology to make major decisions in their lives. Getting people to abandon such superstition for reason and critical thinking would do a lot of good in my opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
"This is a completely negative article."
Only if you are an adherent to or are otherwise empathetic for Astrology. Otherwise it's just an article on the science behind a phenomena.
"I, so to speak, 'give a damn,' so I really don't see how anything about this post is 'right.'
I give a damn too. As I said in another comment, I give a damn about exposing bad ideas. Climate change denial is a bad idea. Anti-gay marriage is a bad idea. Astrology is a bad idea. And bad ideas deserve to be revealed with reasoned thought and evidence as what they are: bad ideas. Invariably, this will piss people off, but so be it. Change is never a delicate process. It always involves discomfort.
That's what I give a damn about, and so, per the guidelines, that's what I contribute about.
Thanks again for your response.
-This is a completely negative article, nothing is "GOOD" about it, in a shallow sense of the word and its connotations.
-I, so to speak, 'give a damn,' so I really don't see how anything about this post is 'right.'
Thanks for your response Jaya. The error was a typo, and typos do not invalidate data. I never mixed astrological styles, as I always was referring to the original astrology (Babylonian), and regardless what school of thought you abide by the psychology behind it is identical. The article is remains factually correct because the science behind it remains well-documented and repeatable.
As for a kinder tone and inclusion, you're right. Here's where you and I are going to have to differ: I believe bad ideas do not deserve inclusion. Climate change denial does not deserve inclusion. Anti-gay marriage ideas do not deserve inclusion. Gender-based oppression in religious sects: VERY bad idea. And I'm sorry, but bad ideas do not deserve inclusion, delicate tones, and empathy. They deserve to be revealed with reasoned thought and evidence as what they are: bad ideas. Invariably, that's going to piss people off, but so be it. Change is never a delicate process. It always involves discomfort.
There are many fights to fight, and for me, it was Astrology's turn. Despite being revealed by academic study as entirely fictitious, people still use it as the way to make major decisions in their lives. It's a bad idea, so have the fortitude to say as much.
Again, I appreciate your response.
Can you say why? Just curious.
"Say what you will and explain it how you like": I'm relaying fact, not offering opinion or personal ideas.
"They are right at least 80% of the time." This figure is based on your rock-solid never-selective-or-faulty personal memory. Your claim reminds me of that hapless character from Anchorman, who applies the awful-smelling "Sex Panther" cologne because apparently 50% of the time... it works every time. Here's something you might find interesting, published today.
My guess is you don't feel this column belongs on GOOD because you simply don't agree with it, and it upsets a comfortable notion you have about the world with factual evidence that's irrefutable. That's also exactly why GOOD published it, and why it doesn't belong on a personal blog.
Sounds like the kind of rock solid evidence that's easily repeatable, devoid of coincidence or innuendo, and ready for publishing. The kind that appears in this paper: http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf
Enjoy that Kool-Aid.
The intention of writing this was to reveal the human psychology behind Astrology in order to foster critical thinking. That was my intention. Why?
If this article allows one person to hang up the hat of Astrology and start basing their important decisions on weighing pros and cons, costs and benefits, outcomes and possibilities rather than on heavenly bodies proven to have zero influence or predictive capacity, then the world will be a better place. Simply put, critical thinking makes the best decisions. Period. And this world needs better decisions.
Now if that rattles your cage, I apologize. But an unpleasant truth is still a truth. Throughout history there have been people who didn't want anyone to "provoke people's sentiments" and "create debate" because they didn't think it it served "a purpose of 'good'." They used phrases like that to maintain a status quo that provided them comfort but in fact did no one any good, and in some cases, did some people a lot of bad. A quick jaunt through the social movements of the 20th century will provide many examples.
So to answer your question, the article was written to educate with truths so people can live their lives better. To paraphrase the familiar PSA, "The More You Know" [Starrrrrrr]
Do you have a link that refutes the well-documented psychological mechanics behind Astrology?
The point wasn't to debunk Astrology. That's been done. The point was to discuss how all forms of astrology--sidereal and synodic among them--rely on the same psychological mechanics of the human brain. So take your pick, you're still getting the same product.
And no, Astrology is not like a hammer. That's a false analogy. No one "believes" in a hammer because *it does not require belief*. We use a hammer because we *know*--not believe--that it's a good tool for driving nails. We know because we've directly observed its ability to drive nails, and we verify that hypothesis when each nail is driven. Astrology however, requires belief--it does not produce the verifiable, undeniable evidence like that of the driven nail. Instead it produces an outcome that depends ENTIRELY on the subject's belief to give it veracity. So yes, you do have to believe in Astrology to "use" it, unlike a hammer.
Thanks for the catch Gregory. We've made the correction.
Good catch. We've made the correction. Thanks for the sharp eye.