|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
like fuck it is. its exactly the fucking same, ie fucking nonsense. i knew you'd piss me off this year! |
Quote me in context, Paul 
Metaphysics wise, you're right: Both are hard to swallow, and I said that. However, astrology can be naturalised if you drop the astro- and turn it into some sort of psychology (so perhaps astronomy and psychology may have rendered astrology obsolete for ever). As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in his book "Outliers", most hockey players in North America are born in January (Capricorn/Aquarius), February (Aquarius/Pisces), and the first weeks of March (Pisces) because of how the calendar works. So one might say that Capricorn/Aquarius/Pisces are more inclined to become hockey players in the relevant countries, though one should also try to explain why this isn't in the realms of traditional psychology.
Homoeopathy, on the other hand, is so hopeless it needs to change the laws of natural science in order to be naturalised, which should immediately raise some red flags.
So, in short, here's the difference between homoeopathy, astrology and acupuncture, from the most hopeless to the most "promising":- Homoeopathy: The explanations are egregious and it doesn't seem to work better than placebo - therefore, I don't see why anyone should try to save it;
- Astrology: The explanations are egregious, but it sort of gave rise to astrology and it may be considered some sort of personality proto-psychology. Like I said, a good theory doesn't need to be true in the realist sense, so the only challenge is: What sort of facts can be explained by astrology that can't be explained by traditional science already? A conceptual reformulations would be welcome, but not exactly crucial;
- Acupuncture: I'm not exactly a fan of the concept of "qi" but, if I recall correctly (and I don't intend to say I'm sure about the reliability of the following statement), acupuncture seems to be effective (even in animals that can't be affected by the placebo effect, like rats), so though I don't believe these "inner forces" exist, if a systematisation that happens to make use of them works, that's pretty much what matters, and further research should be done in order to understand what's going on here.
See? Not all pseudo-sciences are created the same. And, for the record, just because I tolerate degenerating research programmes, that's not because I think they're true - it's just that there may be one insight or two that may prove useful... though I'm not holding my breath.
Edit: You read "Outliers", didn't you, Shaw? 
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|