I don't think the author really made the case for astrology here. Quite a few times the author shows how in the pursuit of astrological knowledge we discovered other useful information, like how...
I don't think the author really made the case for astrology here. Quite a few times the author shows how in the pursuit of astrological knowledge we discovered other useful information, like how looking to the stars for meaning led to mapping the stars. But I don't think that's enough to credit astrology, especially since the pursuit of astrological prophecies actually held back scientific progress.
This reminds me of the "military research led to many civilian applications" argument I hear quite often when criticizing military spending. I don't think that argument holds water for the same...
This reminds me of the "military research led to many civilian applications" argument I hear quite often when criticizing military spending. I don't think that argument holds water for the same reasons: just because the Internet and the microwave came from originally military research, it doesn't mean we couldn't have also developed those technologies without originally intending military application. The problem isn't about motivation for the invention, it's about funding for researchers to actually do research and build cool shit. If you took all of the military research budget and fed it into non-military research, I don't think you could argue that the Internet or the microwave wouldn't have been invented.
Well the notion that god deviced plants with certain characteristics based on their appearence that could be used in the medical field was a starting point for modern medicine (among other...
Well the notion that god deviced plants with certain characteristics based on their appearence that could be used in the medical field was a starting point for modern medicine (among other starting points). Religions where in many ways the foundations of human exploration of more abstract things in our reality. That doesn't mean that say the Mithras cult or Jewish Doomsday/Messianic cults was "more right than we think" - just that its from those ideas and thoughts that we in many ways constructed our understanding of the world. "Ideas" not "practical examples" or "proofs"... on the other hand the same can be said for the first person who took a massive poo one morning and gave him or herself time to think about their position in the world or something... its just not very well documented so hard to investigate and use as a lens to research the past.
Its not like the author is saying: "Hey lets all get in to astrology!" Or at least I hope they didn't and I missed it.
As tool to understand the past, an understanding of the ideals of the past - like astrology - is worth while. I mean its nonsense but so is a lot of things. (also good memetic trick to make a difference between astrology and astronomy: "Log, a unit of poo - Nom, something tasty" .
I think wcerfgba said it better than I did. The author didn't say "let's all get into astrology." I was just saying that we could have gone further without astrological intentions. I think the...
I think wcerfgba said it better than I did. The author didn't say "let's all get into astrology." I was just saying that we could have gone further without astrological intentions. I think the astrological intentions held us back. Although I do agree that it is historically important as an example of what not to do. Like all failures, it helped us to get to a better place, but it should be remembered as such and the article doesn't really touch much on that.
Well I kinda disagree... Or rather I think that yes, if we could go back in time and change it we could - but we would probably have to add some future knowledge to the mix. Astrology, much like...
Well I kinda disagree... Or rather I think that yes, if we could go back in time and change it we could - but we would probably have to add some future knowledge to the mix.
Astrology, much like Newtons Alchemy nonsense or Paracelsus necromantic wizardry crap could be seen as holding us back because we see it as something proven to be absolute hogwash. Which they didn't. I mean its like saying Paracelsus shouldn't have been a wizard-enthusiast or he could have gone on making even cooler advances to medicine instead of being stabbed to death. We see it from our vantage point which I think is downplaying the actual astronomical research that was done. How insanely complex it was, to the point that it slid in real close culturally and practically at key points in history with absolute garbage ideas.
I'm sure you've seen those initial rings of Saturn photos? Like "what they may have looked like when first observed" and being able, through logic, intense observation, and tbh wild fekking guessing come to the conclusion that Saturn had rings? "Rings" for heaven sake.
Granted this kind of argumentation I am sliding in to is basically like saying "Well you could smacktalk 9/11 conspiracy nuts but they DID bring the investigation in to a world wide militarized corporate conflict in to view" which I agree is also dumb...
So in summation "I have no idea, I just feel we should be careful with waving away the Mysticism of the past since its so obviously a waste of time from our POV and see it for the research it was. A scientific cul de sac perhaps, but now we know!" (also "steel beams don't melt like that!")
I share your intuitions (and I've had a parent who has been negatively effected by being into many shades of woo), but it's a hard thing to know how history would have played out if you change...
I share your intuitions (and I've had a parent who has been negatively effected by being into many shades of woo), but it's a hard thing to know how history would have played out if you change something like that.
Is credit due to the faith of the Catholic priest who conceived of the idea of the Big Bang/expanding universe, because it called for a first cause? Or would that soon be discovered by Hubble anyways, and in a universe without Christianity Newton would have discovered it in the "wasted" latter part of his life because he didn't get into alchemy and Christian mysticism?
There's a Douglas Adams quote I've seen on the topic that stuck with me:
“In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing the indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people.”
If you're being charitable, I think you can say astrology is engaging in the most basic of basics of human cognition: story telling and pattern recognition. There's a hundred other similar pseudo-sciences that do the same basic thing, from cracking tortoise shells to cheese divination.
The high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews may come from a culture that plays rules-lawyer with God, in the same way a philosophy major may be better prepared for law school because they similarly struggle with the arbitrary-but-structured views of Kant.
At least with divination via astrology you may fund the glass industry, have some observations being recorded, and by your mere existence and cultural weight invite people like Tycho Brahe to do a better job?
I don't think the author really made the case for astrology here. Quite a few times the author shows how in the pursuit of astrological knowledge we discovered other useful information, like how looking to the stars for meaning led to mapping the stars. But I don't think that's enough to credit astrology, especially since the pursuit of astrological prophecies actually held back scientific progress.
This reminds me of the "military research led to many civilian applications" argument I hear quite often when criticizing military spending. I don't think that argument holds water for the same reasons: just because the Internet and the microwave came from originally military research, it doesn't mean we couldn't have also developed those technologies without originally intending military application. The problem isn't about motivation for the invention, it's about funding for researchers to actually do research and build cool shit. If you took all of the military research budget and fed it into non-military research, I don't think you could argue that the Internet or the microwave wouldn't have been invented.
Well the notion that god deviced plants with certain characteristics based on their appearence that could be used in the medical field was a starting point for modern medicine (among other starting points). Religions where in many ways the foundations of human exploration of more abstract things in our reality. That doesn't mean that say the Mithras cult or Jewish Doomsday/Messianic cults was "more right than we think" - just that its from those ideas and thoughts that we in many ways constructed our understanding of the world. "Ideas" not "practical examples" or "proofs"... on the other hand the same can be said for the first person who took a massive poo one morning and gave him or herself time to think about their position in the world or something... its just not very well documented so hard to investigate and use as a lens to research the past.
Its not like the author is saying: "Hey lets all get in to astrology!" Or at least I hope they didn't and I missed it.
As tool to understand the past, an understanding of the ideals of the past - like astrology - is worth while. I mean its nonsense but so is a lot of things. (also good memetic trick to make a difference between astrology and astronomy: "Log, a unit of poo - Nom, something tasty" .
I think wcerfgba said it better than I did. The author didn't say "let's all get into astrology." I was just saying that we could have gone further without astrological intentions. I think the astrological intentions held us back. Although I do agree that it is historically important as an example of what not to do. Like all failures, it helped us to get to a better place, but it should be remembered as such and the article doesn't really touch much on that.
Well I kinda disagree... Or rather I think that yes, if we could go back in time and change it we could - but we would probably have to add some future knowledge to the mix.
Astrology, much like Newtons Alchemy nonsense or Paracelsus necromantic wizardry crap could be seen as holding us back because we see it as something proven to be absolute hogwash. Which they didn't. I mean its like saying Paracelsus shouldn't have been a wizard-enthusiast or he could have gone on making even cooler advances to medicine instead of being stabbed to death. We see it from our vantage point which I think is downplaying the actual astronomical research that was done. How insanely complex it was, to the point that it slid in real close culturally and practically at key points in history with absolute garbage ideas.
I'm sure you've seen those initial rings of Saturn photos? Like "what they may have looked like when first observed" and being able, through logic, intense observation, and tbh wild fekking guessing come to the conclusion that Saturn had rings? "Rings" for heaven sake.
Granted this kind of argumentation I am sliding in to is basically like saying "Well you could smacktalk 9/11 conspiracy nuts but they DID bring the investigation in to a world wide militarized corporate conflict in to view" which I agree is also dumb...
So in summation "I have no idea, I just feel we should be careful with waving away the Mysticism of the past since its so obviously a waste of time from our POV and see it for the research it was. A scientific cul de sac perhaps, but now we know!" (also "steel beams don't melt like that!")
I share your intuitions (and I've had a parent who has been negatively effected by being into many shades of woo), but it's a hard thing to know how history would have played out if you change something like that.
Is credit due to the faith of the Catholic priest who conceived of the idea of the Big Bang/expanding universe, because it called for a first cause? Or would that soon be discovered by Hubble anyways, and in a universe without Christianity Newton would have discovered it in the "wasted" latter part of his life because he didn't get into alchemy and Christian mysticism?
There's a Douglas Adams quote I've seen on the topic that stuck with me:
If you're being charitable, I think you can say astrology is engaging in the most basic of basics of human cognition: story telling and pattern recognition. There's a hundred other similar pseudo-sciences that do the same basic thing, from cracking tortoise shells to cheese divination.
The high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews may come from a culture that plays rules-lawyer with God, in the same way a philosophy major may be better prepared for law school because they similarly struggle with the arbitrary-but-structured views of Kant.
At least with divination via astrology you may fund the glass industry, have some observations being recorded, and by your mere existence and cultural weight invite people like Tycho Brahe to do a better job?