It is not in the stars

Have you heard, it's in the stars, next July we collide with Mars goes that catchy little number by Cole Porter What a Swell Party this Is. And that is astrology's greatest contribution to human culture. The rest, as they say, is rubbish.

Now, I had assumed that this was hardly news. We surely no longer need to hammer out the mantra:

Astronomy and astrology are not the same thing.
Astrology has no scientific basis. It's something newspaper editors do to fill up the space. It's a bit of fun.

But no. It seems that this apparently obvious state of affairs is not at all obvious to some. Apparently the Astrological Association of Great Britain (ahem) has taken umbrage because Brian Cox and Dara O'Briain said both 'astrology is rubbish' and 'astrology is nonsense' on the BBC. The little tinkers.

Like alchemy, astrology does have an interesting history, and just as alchemy started people on the way to real science, so did astrology, and for that we should be thankful - but it's time to put away childish things. Interestingly, in medieval times, some people espoused a version of astrology that had more chance of having a scientific basis than the current version. My old mate Roger Bacon held that it was silly to suggest that astrology could predict the future, but it seemed reasonable that natural conditions, including the state of the heavens, could influence a baby's development, so could shape, to some extent, its personality. He was wrong - but there was a kind of sense to this thirteenth century astrology, unlike the modern, future predicting version.

For goodness sake, astrologers. You are just as entitled to write fiction as J. K. Rowling - but please don't expect us to consider it in some sense valid as fact. There's a great Monty Python sketch where someone's horoscope predicts all sorts of strange things about them (including 'you have green scaly skin'). After hearing all this rubbish, the recipient picks up on the one thing that was true - she wears glasses. 'It was good about the glasses!' That's astrology, folks.

Original story from the Guardian - image from Wikipedia

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog