--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > I think that if every scientist was to go back to the beginning it > would defeat the object of the exercise of science, that is: having a > body of referenced and checkable work to build on or dispute and > refine. > > The maths behind astrology is ancient nonsense and no-one has ever > demonstrated that a correlation between planetary activity and > human affairs (except that Aries are 2% more likely to be doctors > but that has statistical fluke written all over it). Thus, any > scientist who ignores what is known about the solar system in favour > of unproven superstition is a bit of an idiot and will be treated as > such.
We are in agreement here. However, many practices form ancient cultures are superstitions with no empirical support. At this time. Most have not been systematically disproven. I am open to new evidence. Not holding my breath, but with knowledge doubling every ___ months, in a few years we may be surprised at what we know then that we didn't know now. > > > Researchers can't runb down every possibility, Not enough time. If > > something has no empirical evidence, why chase after that when there > > are tons of areas that have promising preliminary results. > > > > If you are convinced about astrology, then train in disciplines that > > will enable you to do research -- or obtain financing from your own > > work, or pursuade others, to fund the research. Science has a lot of > > competing ideas. If you can't find a way to contribute to advancing > > research you feel has merit, you are not trying very hard. or its > not > > very important to you. So why should it be important to researchers > > who are pursuing things that are important to them. > > >
