Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bombay High Court Rules Astrology To Be a Science

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the magic-is-fun dept.

The Courts 478

neosaurus writes "In India, the Bombay High Court recently ruled astrology to be 'a time tested science more than 4000 years old.' Not only does this stretch the definition of science, it also reaffirms people's faith in pseudosciences at a broader level." At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.

cancel ×

478 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Comfort (4, Insightful)

necro81 (917438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092628)

At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.

That isn't very reassuring.

Idle (0)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092744)

And why isn't this on Idle with the other dross, where it belongs?

Re:Idle (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092824)

Because unlike other things on Idle this has real consequences for intelligent and honest people at large. This undermines real science and makes fighting pseudoscience and superstition harder because idiots now have another country to point to and say "See, they think it's real!". It makes it harder to defend vaccines, to debunk homeopathy, and to get rid of the cancer that is religion because garbage masquerading as science now has another sanctuary in a legal code.

That's why it doesn't belong in Idle, because it has real harmful effects.

Re:Idle (-1, Troll)

Mbraz (1804942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093076)

Why on earth astrology could cause "real harmful effects"?

Re:Idle (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093168)

hmm. where shall I start.

how about "grind up the claw of a bengal tiger to give yourself good fortune" to drive animal populations to endangered/extinct.

Or the "today is a great day to (activity)" which may result in taking extra risks, death, etc.

bolds don't make your post lack any less grammar than it already does.

Re:Idle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093196)

Lots of people believing something stupid leads to lots of people making stupid decisions based on the stupid believe, which more often that not, leads to disaster, which has real harmful effects.

Re:Idle (3, Informative)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093336)

One example is that Nancy Reagan believed in astrology, and white house staffers have stated that it influenced policy decisions made by the Reagan administration.

Re:Idle (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093270)

Because the editors are as confused by the new style (and I use that word in its widest (and I use *that* word in the yo mama sense) sense) as the rest of us.

Re:Comfort (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092866)

Misery loves company.

Creationism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093358)

As a Bible-thumping believer in Christ, I believe that Creationism should NOT be taught as science in our public schools, because it is not a science of mankind. It should be taught as FAITH... and taught in the Church, not our public schools. The sciences taught in schools should be limited to the basics such as math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc., stuff that the Lord has allowed mankind to learn as provable facts.

If astrology is to be taught in our public schools, then let it be taught as a liberal arts/entertainment subject, because that's all that it is anyway (and IMHO, a fool's frivolous and superstitious waste of time and energy). I'd have no problem with that.

Short summary rampage (2)

bsquizzato (413710) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092650)

These one-liner summaries seem to be tickling CmdrTaco's fancy today ...

CmdrTaco (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092666)

Douchebag commentary, douchebag.

Re:CmdrTaco (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093066)

Douchebag commentary, douchebag.

Commentary seemed pretty spot-on. Don't know what your problem is.

Re:CmdrTaco (2)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093200)

Exactly, Creationism has a very very very high chance of being wrong, and I usually say that only idiots view creationism as true -- come on, just because you have faith it doesn't mean that you have to believe in nonsense. Faith is one thing, crazy fundamentalist crap is another. Creationism will never be a science, and if I could, without incurring in a fallacy, I'd say "it is just plain stupid and definitely wrong". I am a non-believer, an atheist, but I respect other people's faith, as I know that it is a fallacy to either say that god exists or that god doesn't. This, however, doesn't mean that I have to turn into a baboon and agree with those who believe in creationism. It's just absurd!

With that said, I think that the commentary is, indeed, spot on.

Geez (0, Troll)

jschmitz (607083) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092676)

It's nice to know their are nutjobs in other places besides just the southern US

Re:Geez (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092712)

Yeah, because no one outside of the united states subscribes to any non-scientific outlook of the universe...

It's not that you just did some blind bashing but that you did some blind bashing that is based on a false assumption.

Re:Geez (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092750)

It's funny how when us southerner "nutjobs" say something about what we believe, so many of you come back with "They are so intolerant", yet it is ok for YOU to lump all southerners in together as nutjobs.

Hypocricy knows no bounds...

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092904)

Eh, only racist rebels down there though, right? Not like us dandy Yankees.

Re:Geez (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093198)

Eh, only racist rebels down there though, right? Not like us dandy Yankees.

No, but you and others responding like this sure are helping to lend credence to the stereotypes about our education levels down here. He is correct that those who want to teach creationism as science tend to be southerners though. Nowhere in there does he say anything about *all* southerners thinking that way. See the difference?

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093328)

Yeah, just playing the part of a troll, sorry.

Re:Geez (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093118)

It's funny how when us southerner "nutjobs" say something about what we believe, so many of you come back with "They are so intolerant", yet it is ok for YOU to lump all southerners in together as nutjobs.

Hypocricy knows no bounds...

How did he lump *all* southerners in as nutjobs? Do you have reading comprehension issues or what? I'm a southerner too, but I don't find anything offensive about that statement. Also, believing with actual evidence is different than just believing.

Re:Geez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092880)

They are not just in the southern states.

Re:Geez (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093212)

They are not just in the southern states.

No, but that's certainly where you'll find them in the highest concentrations.

It's just confirmation bias (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092914)

Actually I would say reasonably intelligent people could be fooled by Confirmation Bias. http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html [skepdic.com]
Almost everyone is susceptible to Confirmation Bias and intelligent people tend to rationalize even more.

In related news... (3, Insightful)

tboulay (458216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092684)

Sand and rocks are now drinks.

Re:In related news... (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092698)

And fish is a vegetable.

Re:In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092922)

And yo mana...

Re:In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092924)

don't forget that HIV is now a cure for all diseases and leads to immortality. Make sure the people who made this ruling know that.

Re:In related news... (2)

StuckInSyrup (745480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093004)

And ducks are fish.

Re:In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093310)

And bacon is kosher now.

Re:In related news... (1)

PiVNeRT (607628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093110)

Which shouldn't surprise us since tofu is now considered a "meat".

-----
interesting - adj. 1. capable of holding one's attention. 2. arousing a feeling of interest. 3. oh God, oh God, we're all going to die.

Re:In related news... (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093282)

So was bread a few centuries ago. Amazing how words change with time.

Mod parent down. (0)

sammysheep (537812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092720)

Since when did article postings come with gratuitous flamebait in addition to the link/info? Oh wait, this is slashdot..

Re:Mod parent down. (3, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092788)

Since when did article postings come with gratuitous flamebait in addition to the link/info?

When it's justified by the article topic's inherent stupidity?

Re:Mod parent down. (2)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093028)

Justified or not, it shows arrogance and a lack of class. Perhaps I'm insane but I do expect better.

Re:Mod parent down. (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093240)

Expect better? Better for what? Creationism should be challenged! It has a very high chance of being wrong and it is completely unnatural. Faith is one thing, insanity is another.

Re:Mod parent down. (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093296)

Justified or not, it shows arrogance and a lack of class. Perhaps I'm insane but I do expect better.

What exactly is wrong with noting that there are people elsewhere creating the same kinds of difficulties that we have to deal with here? It's a kind of commiseration. I don't see the problem here.

Equivalent to Georgia Supreme Court (3, Insightful)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092726)

"The Bombay High Court" ruling is about equivalent to the Georgia Supreme Court saying Creationism is a valid science discipline, or the France High Court declaring french to be the only language allowed to be spoken.

Yes it's a surprising decision, but likely to be overturned by India's "supreme court" later on. Saner heads usually prevail at the national/ union/ federal level.

RTFA (4, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092886)

According to TFA,

"So far as prayer related to astrology is concerned, the Supreme Court has already considered the issue and ruled that astrology is science. The court had in 2004 also directed the universities to consider if astrology science can be added to the syllabus. The decision of the apex court is binding on this court," observed the judges.

Apparently India's Supreme Court has already made a ruling about this and the lower court is just following orders.

Re:RTFA (4, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093170)

From the article: "The PIL had urged the authorities to ban articles, advertisements, episodes and practices promoting astrology and its related subjects like vastu, reiki, feng shui, tarot, palmistry, zodiac signs and rashifal." Emphasis added.

They had recently passed a law banning certain false advertising practices for medicine and treatments (similar, I imagine, to the regulations that the FDA imposes in the US), but the law was written in such a way that it could be used to ban any psuedo-science from being advertised or sold.

The court was left with three choices. Apply the law as written and ban the above listed pseudoscience, enraging scores of superstitious Indians across the country. Declare that those subjects were science and continue to all them (what apparently they chose to do). Personally I think, the third choice, declare those practices to be outside the scope of the law, would have been the preferred one. But I can understand why, for political reasons, they ruled the way that they did.

Re:Equivalent to Georgia Supreme Court (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092888)

RTFA!

>> "So far as prayer related to astrology is concerned, the Supreme Court has already considered the issue and ruled that astrology is science. The court had in 2004 also directed the universities to consider if astrology science can be added to the syllabus. The decision of the apex court is binding on this court," observed the judges.

Re:Equivalent to Georgia Supreme Court (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092932)

You mean like when the US Supreme Court ruled that local governments could seize private property under Imminent Domain and have it developed commercially and it was ok because it was going to generate more taxes?

Yeah, and how does the world look through those rose-colored glasses??

Re:Equivalent to Georgia Supreme Court (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093124)

but likely to be overturned by India's "supreme court" later on.

I suppose you're hoping that India's Supreme Court will reverse its earlier ruling which recognizes astrology as a science worthy of being taught at universities, and with courses funded by taxpayers. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19043519/Astrology-Case-in-Supreme-Court-of-India [scribd.com] . Here's a relevant excerpt from that judgement:
"Since Astrology is partly based upon study of movement of sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies, it is a study of science at least to some extent."

Re:Equivalent to Georgia Supreme Court (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093230)

the France High Court declaring french to be the only language allowed to be spoken.

You do know the french right? If you suggest something like that, they will go for it

Necessary? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092730)

At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.

What happened to the /. that was fairly neutral, objective and unbiased? Perhaps it only existed in my mind. Ad hominem such as this is unnecessary, it only cheapens /. as a whole. Creationism is not being pushed anywhere as a science, to be taught, sure, but not as science. Somehow it has become the boogeyman to those that don't actually know what science is. In the marketplace of ideas their will always be struggle, and the victor will not be the one making childish remarks towards the other.

Re:Necessary? (3, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092808)

At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.

What happened to the /. that was fairly neutral, objective and unbiased? Perhaps it only existed in my mind. Ad hominem such as this is unnecessary, it only cheapens /. as a whole. Creationism is not being pushed anywhere as a science, to be taught, sure, but not as science. Somehow it has become the boogeyman to those that don't actually know what science is. In the marketplace of ideas their will always be struggle, and the victor will not be the one making childish remarks towards the other.

Actually, that's exactly the concern; nobody (well, very few people) object to Creationism being taught in a religions course, forces such as the Texas school board are indeed trying to mandate its inclusion right next to the observed evolution studies present in many science textbooks, and used for materials in science classes.

Re:Necessary? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092874)

While I do agree with you regarding the article commentary, there are indeed people who are trying to get creationism(disguised as Intelligent Design) taught as science in schools. Eg. http://www.discovery.org/ [discovery.org]
A nicer list of the papers written etc. are here --> http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php [intelligentdesign.org]

Re:Necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093140)

Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. It is an alternative to something that is completely unexplained by evolution - where the universe itself came from, and how life began in the first place. The notion that one needs an explanation for where God came from is not needed since there is no requirement that God was part of the universe in the first place - indeed, being outside of time, the very notion of God having a beginning or end becomes entirely absurd. The universe exists within time (in fact, time is a part of it), however, and it very clearly had a beginning - some 13 or 14 billion years ago.

Of course, the notion that such a being would or even could actually care about the daily goings on of such short-lived organisms such as ourselves is another matter entirely. But the notion that God exists and made everything is really the best explanation I've ever seen for where it all comes from.

sad day for enlightenment (4, Insightful)

tota (139982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092748)

I have met numerous people, some of them quite clever and respected, who despite being well aware of various pseudo-science tricks (say homeopathy and the like) all fell for astrology. They will claim that people born at a certain time of year share some traits... (like it's some kind of scientific measurable proof. sigh)

I have no idea why it appeals to so many, especially women for some reason. Just look at most women's magazines!
Every newspaper has a column (all of them sufficiently vague that you can't use this to prove how ridiculous the whole thing is).

I wonder what it is that makes so many of us susceptible to such blatant scientific fraud.
As for India, I am not surprised... their belief system is already quite complicated and intersects with all aspects of life, science included.

Re:sad day for enlightenment (5, Interesting)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092872)

James Randi's astrology experiment remains one of my favorites. Gather information from a room full of people, prepare a reading for each one, and have them read it (in the same room, but silently). Invariably they claim that it was 85-95% accurate, far beyond what they would believe is pure chance. Then he has them pass their readings to the next person in line. Very soon they realize that the entire room was given the same paper.

As Heinlein liked to say, man is not a rational animal, rather a rationalizing one.

Re:sad day for enlightenment (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092950)

I wonder what it is that makes so many of us susceptible to such blatant scientific fraud.

Patternicity [scientificamerican.com] .

Re:sad day for enlightenment (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092954)

They will claim that people born at a certain time of year share some traits... (like it's some kind of scientific measurable proof. sigh)

There are some measurable differences. Babies born during winter and their mothers have traditionally had a different diet.
Then there's the educational system which often is year-based, and whether you were born in December or January knocks you one year off in schooling.
Finally, there's a small correlation between economic status and when in the year your children are born.

But month-by-month, no, I don't think there are any big differences, except between December and January.

Re:sad day for enlightenment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093080)

I guess the horoscopes in women's magazines or newspapers have nothing to do with astrology which seems to be about calculating things. To someone who does not know astrology and who does not know science, astrology might very look like science with all the graphs and tables and calculating the movement of stars and planets whereas horoscopes that are just a few vague sentences would probably not look scientific to even the wackiest person on earth.

Re:sad day for enlightenment (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093164)

I gave up when we declared catsup to be a vegetable. Now we have commercials proudly saying that manwhiches (tm) contain two servings of veggies.

Why sad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093192)

This is what the majority wants. I keep hearing about how in the business of politics, whenever the majority gets what they want, "society" wins, including the people who lost. Is this not true anymore? After all, if "society" decides that government should spend tax money on (for example) intelligent design, then everything is working as planned, right?

Re:sad day for enlightenment (2)

TaleWeaver (1376991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093254)

The wide spread belief in astrology is probably based on the Forer Effect. In 1948 Bertram F. Forer, a psychology professor, gave his students a personality profile test. The next day he handed out personality descriptions to his students and asked them if they were apt. The average score for the profiles 'accuracy' was 4.26 out of a possible 5 (perfect personality description). However, every student had been given the same analysis which consisted of statements from various horoscopes columns in the media. "You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life." This experiment has been repeated many times with similar results. People like general & mostly positive statements about them made by "authority" figures and that "affirm" their uniqueness.

Re:sad day for enlightenment (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093320)

You know, when I was a little kid, I used to buy into astrology too, since my mom and her family were really big into it. They came from a very superstitious background, believing in astrology, palm reading, numerology, tarot... yeah.

And when we went to the pizza place, there were always this machines (or sometimes a display case) were you could buy these little scrolls. Buy the one for your sign, and unroll it, and it'd have whatever the predictions were for your sign that month, along with charts and the whole shebang. My brother and I used to compare ours to each other. We got a kick out it. My dad would roll his eyes at the wasted dollar, but we were entertained.

And then I grew up. Now I pretty much read the Onion's horoscope for kicks, and that's about all the more seriously I take any of that superstitious bunk. You won't catch me saying anything about "how ornery Capricorns are" or what-have-you. You might catch me listening to this, though. [youtube.com]

Re-enforcing India's Supreme Court (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092760)

RTA, Bombay High Court didn't "rule" this way. They noted that India's Supreme Court already ruled on whether Astrology is a science back in 2004 and parroted the result of it. Seems consistent to me.

MOD PARENT UP!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092944)

MOD PARENT UP!!!

Great (1)

nsupathy (515587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092768)

There are more scientists in India than anywhere else in the world !!!

Re:Great (1)

Old Wolf (56093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092918)

There are more scientists in India than anywhere else in the world !!!

I'm sure there are, when astrologers are included

Wacky Friends (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092778)

People who dance appear to be crazy by people who can't hear the music.

(FYI, that statement goes both ways)

Re:Wacky Friends (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093012)

People who dance appear to be crazy by people who can't hear the music.

That's a gross mischaracterization of science's approach to things such as astrology. Science/scientifically-minded people do not take a dogmatic position that astrology is invalid; rather, they say that if astrology *is* valid, it should be possible to come up with evidence that it is. In simple terms, it needs to be statistically distinguishable from the null hypothesis.

When something isn't, the assumption that it is indeed not valid is a fair working hypothesis. Science, mind you, still does not rule out that there might be merit to astrology, but again, there needs to be good evidence for it.

Re:Wacky Friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093022)

You have to rephrase that as a car analogy to be taken seriously.

Re:Wacky Friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093096)

No, they don't.

Well, maybe if you're an idiot.

Re:Wacky Friends (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093186)

People who dance appear to be crazy by people who can't hear the music.

(FYI, that statement goes both ways)

When did Kosh start commenting on Slashdot? :P

This is sad (2)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092780)

This makes making fun of India so much easier now.

Bombay/Mumbai? (3, Informative)

tessellated (265314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092798)

I thought it's called 'Mumbai' now?

from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_High_Court#History_.26_Premises [wikipedia.org] :
"Although the name of the city was changed from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, the Court as an institution did not follow suit and remained as the Bombay High Court."

Wikipedia doesn't explain why that is so.

Re:Bombay/Mumbai? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092936)

Clearly, accordingly to Astrology, Bombay is more auspicious than Mumbai.

Re:Bombay/Mumbai? (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092982)

You may want to try a better source...

Re:Bombay/Mumbai? (2)

figleaf (672550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093034)

Several institutions in Mumbai have not changed their name this includes Bombay Stock Exchange, Bombay High Court, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay etc.

BTW, Half of my Indian friends still call it Bombay.

Re:Bombay/Mumbai? (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093222)

Not to mention Bombay Sapphire.

Re:Bombay/Mumbai? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093092)

I thought it's called 'Mumbai' now?

from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_High_Court#History_.26_Premises [wikipedia.org] :
"Although the name of the city was changed from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, the Court as an institution did not follow suit and remained as the Bombay High Court."

Wikipedia doesn't explain why that is so.

The "Mumbai" name was being pushed by far-right Hindu nationalists, such as the Shiv Sena [wikipedia.org] . My guess is that the Indian juridical system is not sympathetic to them. Also, (parts of) their juridical system still uses English, so they maybe just stick longer to the name by which the Brits know the city.

I predicted this (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092822)

I already predicted this. I scientifically yanked the guts out of my dinner last week, and there it was.

They are allies of the free world? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092842)

How can any of these countries possibly be trusted with nuclear weapons? What if the stars happen to align themselves in just the right way? GOODBYE!

Axioms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092868)

Every science is based on certain axioms so is this. We must not say that it is fake. Rather, we should say that "we dont know". Someone please read Vaastu Shastra and comment below here.

Well, it is SOUTHERN India, sort of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092910)

It is in the south of India, so this makes perfect sense. Do they sleep with their relatives and hate the government there too?

Astrology is easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092916)

You will read an article that saddens you, or find true love, or get dumped, or get a new job, or have a good lunch, or........

Pseudo science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092926)

You mean stuff like Global Warming? Opps sorry Global climate change. You know you can trust those scientists they just change the name when things are not going the way they predict..

These people have nuclear weapons, btw... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092958)

... so if Astrologers say the time is now to bomb Pakistan out of existence, I guess they should go for it.

Pseudoscience (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35092984)

Yes it would be nice if we could remove all Pseudoscience from the class room, beginning with macro Evolution

Re:Pseudoscience (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093206)

It is that very macro Evolution that is responsible for the creation of your ancestors, the Trolls.

Octopus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093002)

I only believe in OCTOPUS for predictions....hahahaha

Who's next? (3, Interesting)

udoschuermann (158146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093010)

I'm taking bets on the next practice or belief system to be labeled and taught as a science. The reading of entrails, tea leaves, palms, or smoke columns? How about tech support by Tarot? (that one does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?) Any others?

Re:Who's next? (1)

pellik (193063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093194)

$5 on economics

Re:Who's next? (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093264)

I don't know, but I'll keep wearing my lucky underwear when analyzing particle collision tracks.

a little cultural background (1, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093024)

zoroastrians, the folks who actually started astrology, at one time had the largest empire in the world, the achaemenid empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire [wikipedia.org]

eventually, as their empire dwindled and islam rose, they fled persia for india, where zoroastrians became a wealthy, influential and rich minority, the parsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi [wikipedia.org]

if you like the music of queen and freddie mercury: his background is parsi

another thing that always struck me about parsis, the towers of silence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Silence [wikipedia.org]

earth, fire, air, water... no i'm not talking about the last airbender, but in zoroastrianism, so as not to pollute the other elements, the dead can only go to the air, so their bodies must be put on pillars to eaten by vultures

this ruling is more about the power of an influential group in india, as so much in the world is

I say BS (2)

cjcela (1539859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093040)

Science can certainly be regulated by law, but one cannot legislate what is or is not science. This is just sheer ignorance.

Re:I say BS (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093138)

Never heard of Texas, have you?

Only one phrase can sum this up: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093082)

"Like, wow, man!"

I'll admit, it's entertaining, and there might, maybe, be some basis to find correlative data for personality traits, but honestly, this is like taking a /. poll seriously. I can't recommend that too enthusiastically, either.

neosaurus is a troll (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093126)

You mean people that believe in the beginning their was nothing then nothing exploded and became everything. Wow there is a fairly tale to tell kids. From the summary "At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe." WTF does Christianity have to do with this article? Christianity preaches against astrology. neosaurus is a troll trying to take a cheap shot at others beliefs why didn't he make a wisecrack about Islam or another religion? Oh that's right no one wants to make fun of someone who may blow you up so pick on someone who wont blow you up.

Re:neosaurus is a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093262)

Uh... Your vision of the Big Bang is severely outdated!

If Thor Heyerdaul can be a scientist... (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093146)

...Astrology can be a science. Although not every scientist will accept the findings.

India isn't the only one, IDists think so too (1)

Dracil (732975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093148)

As "cdesign proponentsist" Behe said during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, any definition of "scientific theory" that would include Intelligent Design would also include Astrology.

Re:India isn't the only one, IDists think so too (1)

Dracil (732975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093202)

And that was redundant. That will teach me to read the summary more fully next time.

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35093184)

Science is by definition the utilization of the scientific method. If you're not using the scientific method, it's not science.

Belief has nothing to do with observation and testing. Or peer review for that matter.
There is no controversy or argument. It's not science. And anyone arguing that it is, doesn't know what science is and therefore isn't qualified to say what is or isn't science.

But Creationism is science.... (-1, Troll)

peterofoz (1038508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093228)

its even documented in texts over 4,000 years old. It has a much stronger claim to science than some newer ones, say, global warming for example.

Americans (1)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093304)

A 2010 Harris Poll shows that only 31 percent of Americans believe in astrology. But it's not a science here, yet!

CBS News [cbsnews.com]

The Sun is where ? (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093306)

Pretty good for a "science" that states the sun is in capricorn when it actually is not.

Did they rule if this was valid for old astrology dates or the new aligned reality based astrology with Ophiuchus or both.

Fascinating scientific debate (1)

sb98052 (857171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093348)

A very respected psychology researcher recently published a paper producing purported statistical evidence for "psi", i.e. phenomena that cannot be explained by known science. The author carried out a long and detailed study on his students: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html [nytimes.com] and concluded that the effect of 'psi' was 'statistically significant'. The evidence was severely criticized by his peers - in particular is a dismissive rebuttal to the work cited in the same article. Links to the papers lie therein as well. The outlook I have had, reinforced by these studies is that it doesn't hurt to dab a toe on the other side (i.e., in favor of pseudo sciences) every now and then. It helps you think out of the box of known science and understanding. It's like exploring a landscape by following the stars rather than your GPS and compass. You may venture into uncharted territory more easily with the former.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?