Observer: The Dawkins delusion: science good, the rest bad
Thanks to Richard Dawkins I [Neil 'I Lie for a Living' Spencer] have just acquired a new title. It's official: I am an 'Enemy of Reason', a wily opponent of rationalism interviewed (in my capacity as The Observer magazine's astrologer) by Dawkins for a new two-part TV documentary.
Dawkins is right, and you, Neil 'Shite Merchant' Spencer, are, without doubt, a charlatan, enemy of reason, opponent of rationalism, and complete and utter tosser. You're a fucking astrologer, for Pete's sake!
Why in the name of Holy Bollocks does The Observer—an otherwise sensible newspaper—feel the need to have a sodding astrologer on its staff? Answer me that!
Neil Spencer claims he can predict people's futures based on the time of their birth and the arrangements of the planets. You'll notice I say claims and not believes. He sells his specious prognostications to dupes who either do genuinely believe in such bullshit, or wrongly think it's just a bit of harmless fun. Either way, that makes Spencer an Enemy of Reason, and he knows it.
Did you know that your month, or at least seasonof birth can have an effect on your personality. It's supposedly dueto the maternal serotonin levels to which you are exposed in the womb,or some such thing.
In any case, if you are careful it is possible to assign "Your boss will disagree with you and you'll cave in even though you are right" and "You will fly off the handle without any real provocation" to approporiate birth months and actully be right more often than you would expect at random. Nothing to do with stars of course (except our local one and our orbit around it) but might be related to the origin of such ideas. Presumably hemisphere-specific, although I forget the details.
I would disagree with you on one point, however; It is simply hamless fun in the same way as any other comedy, as long as everyone realises that is all it is. Personally, I make all decisions based upon the horoscope in the Onion:
Yes. Given that the position of the planets is totally predetermined (and predictable), for astrolgers to demonstrate that there really is something in astrology (which, for the avoidance of doubt, there isn't), they would need to show thatit was the position of the planets that was causingour fates, and not anything else that is totally dependent upon the current time - such as the total amount of entropy in the universe. In other words, they need to show a causal mechanism. Which clearly they can't.
Richard - only just caught up with this thread but I'd like to compliment you on a rant of the very highest quality!
Thank you, Zimscribe. It does one's kidneys good to have a rant now and again. Having now seen the programme Neil 'I made this up' Spencer was moaning about, I can confirm that I stand by every word of my rant, only more so.