I used to believe in astrology.
That’s embarrassing for me to admit, now that I’m a strong skeptic – but it’s true. While I never really believed in God, I wasn’t totally immune to supernatural thinking my whole life. Between age 13 and 17 I was very into astrology. Out of all things, why that? I think it happened for three main reasons:
- I was fascinated with astronomy when I was a little kid – it was the first science I loved, much more than my current field of biology. I loved learning about stars and planets, star gazing, and picking out constellations. I can still point out all the different patterns in the night sky (though I’ve always known the winter sky better). I was part of our elementary school astronomy club, and I was dying to go to Space Camp (but I could never convince my parents to let me). Because of my love for space, I think the idea of it having some sort of supernatural power really resonated with me.
- I think that’s an age where everyone is looking for answers, and I settled on the stars. By age 13, I was already fairly certain that the idea of God or gods was just silly. I was exposed to different religions enough to logically think about their flaws and come to the conclusion that they were wrong. But no one really debated astrology, so I wasn’t forced to think critically about it.
- I felt like I had proof. I’m a Scorpio, and the description just seemed to fit me so well – determined, passionate, secretive, moody, obsessed with sex. I now know that this is hardly proof (more on that later), but it was convincing evidence to a young girl.
Now, before you laugh at me, remember most atheists were at one point religious. Is believing that planets have some sort of control over your personality really that much more insane than believing in an invisible supreme being that cares about what you eat and screw, and sends his own son (who’s also himself) down to earth to save you from something bad one of your ancestors did by dying and coming back to life?
Didn’t think so.
Anyway, when I say I was really into astrology, I mean it. I didn’t believe in newspaper horoscopes because I didn’t think they were done rigorously enough. I had books on astrology and drew my own charts. I would defend astrology and explain that it’s much more than your sun sign – that you have to look at the planets, and ascendants, and lunar nodes, and angles between all of these things, and what houses they were in… It was a complex art, and I told myself that people rejected it because they were only seeing the pop culture version of it.
Remind you of anything? Yeah, Christians versed in theology who claim people who attack “simple Christianity” aren’t really understanding what it’s really like. Astrology is no different, and let me tell you – something can be complex and nuanced and still be bullshit.
So why do I bring this up at all? Well, thanks to the boobquake media attention, I was contacted by the astrologer Eric Francis. He was a huge fan of boobquake, and extremely friendly. Even though he knew that as a skeptic I would probably think astrology is bullshit, he still wanted to do my chart for me (and gave me permission to poke fun at it). Eric didn’t know about my past relationship with astrology, which made me unable to resist. Even though I no longer believe in it, I wanted to know what a “real” astrologer would say.
You can find his full analysis here, but here’s just a taste:
“And as you might imagine, she’s got it all going on — a Sun-Pluto conjunction in Scorpio, in the 8th house (she jokingly described herself as a sex-obsessed Scorpio, though her precise Sun-Pluto conjunction in the 8th house turns up the heat by a few orders of magnitude). This powerful alignment is conjunct the asteroid Astraea, the goddess of justice. So this is passion driven by a sense of balance and integrity.
Boobquake was planned for Monday, when the Full Moon happened to be fast approaching, carrying lots of momentum — with the Moon itself reaching full phase exactly conjunct her natal Sun/Pluto conjunction. So she was in the cosmic spotlight as well as the regular one. The Full Moon so personally aspected against her chart provided a sense of emotional presence, which is why this event, while funny, was taken seriously.”
Yes, I understand all of that. How I wish I could replace my astrological knowledge with those biochemistry reactions I was supposed to memorize.
It sounds cool, doesn’t it? Seems to make perfect sense (especially if you read the whole article) and fit the story well, right? That’s why astrology can be so convincing. It relies on something known as confirmation bias – people tend to remember accurate predictions and forget the inaccurate ones. Eric was able to come up with multiple examples of things that support my personality (which he learned about from my blog) and boobquake (which he learned about from the media). But he doesn’t analyze every single relationship in the chart (see all those lines in the middle?). I’m rusty on my astrology, but I assure you there will be things that don’t quite fit in there.
What I really should have done is given Eric fake birth information for me and see if he still makes it fit his story. Something tells me he still would have been able to dig some meaning out of that different chart. Unfortunately for skepticism, I was too nice to turn his good intentions into a science experiment.
But you want to know what the really interesting thing about that chart was? When I saw it, my initial thought wasn’t “I’m going to write up a huge post debunking astrology!” It wasn’t even “Now I can write a little backstory about how I used to believe this crap!”
It was “Wow, how cool!”
Even four years after “losing my faith” in astrology, I still had an emotional reaction to it. All the emotional triggers were there, and I felt that same excited rush as when I would look at my own chart, or draw up a chart for a friend, or read about complex interactions that I didn’t originally understand. I used to not understand my religious friends when they explained the same experience. That an ex-Catholic would go to mass, and even though they no longer believed a word of it, they easily went through all the motions and had the same emotional reaction to their surroundings. That a crucifix or stained glass could trigger memories and dig up old feelings. That hearing an old hymn could make you feel closer to God, even if you now think he’s a fairy tale. That being told about the horrible torture in hell can instill fear in your heart, even if you know it’s not real.
Do these things prove that astrology or Catholicism are true? Of course not. What they show is how deeply people can get emotionally connected to their superstitions. That even after years of rational thought, certain stimuli still result in trained reactions. We all know about Pavlov’s dogs, but we have a hard time admitting it applies to us too.
Even though I know astrology is bunk, I don’t think I’ll ever totally shake the emotional connection. If people ask my sign, I’ll still happily reply “Scorpio!” out of habit (hey, at least it’s the most badass sign to have). If skeptical men use that as a dating litmus test, I’m screwed. When people poke fun at the vagueness of sun signs (the Forer effect), I’ll instinctively start explaining how it’s more complex than that, even though that’s bunk too – much like an ex-Catholic may still explain that no, Catholics don’t worship Mary, even though what they do believe is still nonsense. I’ll still poke through the Sextrology book at Borders and giggle at what my supposed kinks are because of my particular planetary alignment.
And while I still may get some enjoyment out of it, at least I know it’s not real. Now it’s similar to my fascination with Harry Potter – I can babble about how I’d totally be a Ravenclaw, but I don’t really think magic is real and my Hogwarts letter got lost in the mail. If I ever become a true believer again, feel free to stick me on the first train to crazy town – especially if it’s scarlet.
When I was that age, I was completely convinced that Middle-Earth actually existed, and that I would one day find a way to go there. So yeah. :)
What you say about retaining emotional connections long after belief is so true for me – for both the New Age vagueries I entertained as a teenager and the Episcopal Church I left behind a few years ago.
I’m actually fascinated by astrology, alchemy, and other pre-modern pseudosciences. I don’t, and have never, believe in any of them, but they really make homeopathy and crystal healing look like shit someone dreamed up in five minutes. I don’t see Deepak Chopra undertaking anything as intensive as the Great Work is described in alchemy manuscripts. You want to sit and meditate, you do it after you’ve take the black earth from the mouth of the Nile and are heating it in a flask for three months. Then I’ll believe you’re actually into the crap you spew.Given, I suppose I’m *more* interested in the way these things intersected actual science. Astronomy was born in part out of attempts to make astrology more accurate, which required better measurements of the planets and non-navigational stars. Chemistry was born in part by people who misunderstood alchemy and tried to physically reproduce its meditations as experiments, such as transmuting lead to gold and creating the philosopher’s stone (both of which were very likely metaphors for reaching enlightenment). Given, on a related note, whenever I hear someone talk about the dogma of science that keeps intelligent design down and how scientists are too locked into their ways to see the truth, I have to chuckle to myself. You want scientists locked in their ways to the detriment of their work? Look at phlogiston; the guy who proposed the theory didn’t even really believe it was right, but had nothing better to suggest, it was his students that grabbed onto it and derailed chemistry in a major way for decades if not a century. There was actual evidence contradicting the idea, but a whole lot of chemists were still adherents to it.
“If people ask my sign, I’ll still happily reply “Scorpio!” out of habit (hey, at least it’s the most badass sign to have).”Preach it, sister.As a Scorpio Slytherin myself, I do find looking through the sex and astrology section. I find it funny how some of my kinks are right there, but some of the others (the ones I really like and am into) either are missing entirely or are downplayed.Astrology has that fun factor to it. I think that’s why I find it interesting. Like tarot. Can’t wait to start unpacking so I can get my Lord of the Rings tarot deck out and play with it.
Holy shit! I knew I wasn’t the only one!
I think many, if not most skeptics have had some ridiculously irrational belief at some point in their lives. Me, I went for all of them. I renounced christianity at age 16, but it took me nearly a decade after that to become a true skeptic and atheist. After I told my parents I wasn’t a christian anymore, I started reading about other religions and paranormal stuff. I got to the point where I’d pretty much believe in anything. I believed in ghosts, psychics, magic spells, reincarnation, astrology, numerology, you name it.I think what kinda pulled me out of it was getting into a relationship with a compulsive liar who claimed to be a 30th generation witch. He claimed he had the power of telekinesis (but had blocked the ability because it scared him, which is why he wouldn’t demonstrate), could read minds, could enter other people’s dreams, could pass into alternate versions of himself in parallel dimensions, and could cast powerful spells. He told me at one point that I had been raped as a teenager, but had blocked out the memory. I believed everything he told me.We lasted about a year, and when it was finally over, I started thinking back to all the bullshit he had fed me and realized that despite all his claims, I hadn’t ever seen a scrap of evidence. Then I started thinking about other so called psychics and supernatural claims, and realized I hadn’t seen any evidence of those either. After that, all those other strange claims just started falling apart in front of my eyes, and I eventually taught myself to think rationally.
This was hilarious, you’re totally me — apart from being a scientist, and female, and attractive, that is. I used to do it rigorously too, and sniffed at sun-sign astrology. Invented a powerful technique of my own that seemed quite superior to anything you could find in books. My conclusion as to how it seems to work is different/ complementary, though. I found I could only do good readings face-to-face, for total strangers. What I think was happening was that contemplating the squiggles connected or disconnected some part of the brain, like meditating on a mandala, allowing me to pick up information from elsewhere. For example the reading of cues and body language that I couldn’t do otherwise. But for someone I knew, I would be trying to make what I knew fit, which buggered up whatever process was going on. The lapsed-Catholic thing you describe also applied to me, but eventually wore off, so that I’m completely immune now. So don’t despair! Give it another 30 years. But I do take your point about wanting the storage space back……The Hogwarts parallel: it’s the fascination with huge bodies of complex arcane knowledge, the joy of mastery. Identical in form with the scientific mind, I would say, just different in content. My reason for giving it up was that I realised that I was unwilling to deal with people whose charts I didn’t know. That was pathetic and sinister, so I went cold turkey.
I think we all have believed odd stuff, and still do. I look back at some of the ideas I’ve had, and beliefs I’ve held and shudder. It is a good reminder to reexamine assumptions. I am sure there is something I believe today, which I won’t in a few years.That said, I have always found this horoscope fairly accurate.
I have often wondered how they came up with the star signs to begin with. Was it some form of primitive empirical study or did the priests of Zeus pull it out of there asses?
When I was 14/15/16, I was busy scouring the bible for verses that would reveal the meaning of life/convince me I wasn’t a horrible person/convince myself that god existed. And praying the rosary, like, a lot.Yea, I think the astrology thing would have been MUCH more interesting. More analysis, less repetition. Bogus analysis, sure, but still would have been entertaining.But then, the whole getting-prayed-over, hanging-around-people-speaking-in-tongues-thing left me with great stories to tell along side the somewhat unpleasantly intense emotional memories.That, and the music was awesome. Or at least awesomely moving at the time, in context. Everything from some very old hymns and chants to more modern worship music… my church covered the whole range, depending on the particular mass/retreat/holiday. The music is about the only thing that can still provoke an intense emotional response in me though. Maybe that wouldn’t be the case if I returned to the same church buildings I had my most intense experiences in, but for the most part, I get through mass these days without much emotion beyond vague anger at having to sit through another inane sermon.
For what it’s worth, I think a great failing of the skeptical/atheist movement is the near complete failure of its members to actually educate themselves on the deeper theologies and philosophy they seek to discount. There have been lifetimes and lifetimes dedicated to meditation and reasoning out complex religious thought and to stand a chance at defeating it all, we have to unpack every morsel. We cannot be satisfied with potshots.
> If skeptical men use that as a dating litmus test, I’m screwed. I think that the problem is that you won’t ;)
My poison was UFOs, Atlantis, ancient advanced technology (~ Egyptian electrical engineering), Eric von Dänicken and that sorta thing.
I’m pretty sure it’s Babylonian, not Greek, in origin. It got adopted by the Islamic scholars and then carried over into Europe with the rest.Though – you’re right – there’s a step missing in there.
Hmm, now I’m really wondering about the errors in the analysis. What other information is there that doesn’t actually fit? What about the other tens of thousand people born that day (and about a dozen within the same second)? Or did location matter for the ‘rigorous’ version of astrological analysis?Also re: liking sex, come one, how broad is that, might as well say someone likes eating. If most people didn’t like sex perpetuating our species would’ve been pretty difficult.
i started out being a Christian,southern baptist of course being in Oklahoma.then bout age 20 i kinda stopped believing and started looking at other religions,settling on new age for awhile,astrology psychics the whole kick.then went back to Christianity then went to seventh day adventists then back to baptist and finally skeptic/atheist.long hard road out of hell but i made :d
That’s still not a match for the sheer number of brain cells that have to retain my knowledge on Star Trek.
When people ask me “What’s your sign,” I say something like, “Some people say I’m an Orion and some say I’m a Cygnus, but I think I’m more of an Ursa.” I just start rattling off constellations they don’t know. Most people are too casual about astrology to know that it’s only the constellations in the ecliptic that “count.” Many don’t even know there ARE other constellations. It confuses them pretty badly.The last person who asked me this was one of my fellow Atheists. I was really disappointed in her.
Dear Jen and Friends:Thanks for introducing me to this excellent, adventurous audience. I know everyone had a great time with Boobquest (though I wonder what those imams were thinking last week). As the unofficial adopted astrologer of the movement, I want to tell you first that you’ve had a far greater influence on the world than anyone has yet recognized. You have contributed to a tipping point that is rapidly approaching and that will be rather obvious by early June.Of course it’s difficult to see this now. The way our media treats anything that is 1) liberationist or 2) explores an idea, tends to diminish it and to reduce it to a cartoon. Our dinosaur media exists as if people, our feelings and our desire to free ourselves from oppressive ideas really don’t matter. We are experimenting with another approach. You, at least, figured out that you make a difference. Just think, this whole fuss started with a single thought in your mind.Looking at the astrology of last week’s event has given me a window into the many ways you have sent a life-affirming message rippling through the world, at the same time you’ve challenged dysfunctional beliefs that prevent people from expressing their life force and their natural beauty. You, Jen, feel your strength and power; you have access to many facets of your mind. You’re not afraid to challenge authority — and you have set that example literally for millions of people.I would like to speak for a moment to the question of whether your astrology, or any astrology, means anything. Remember that astrology is [merely] an intellectual platform. Yes, it as a connection to natural cycles, but as we use it, it’s a mode of analysis — one that is an established part of mainstream Western thought. It is also a form of divination. Divination is not science. It more resembles an art form. A chart is not “true” any more than a song or painting is objectively beautiful. I don’t claim astrology is a science, and I argue against that viewpoint regularly (the hope that it will be “proven” is a debilitating crutch for many astrologers). Divination is based on authenticity and sincerity; it’s based on clarity and dedication to the truth. Basically, any search for the truth will succeed. Whether we use a hound dog or divining rod or the scientific method, the truth responds to us. Astrology is not science because there is no “cohort of Jen McCreights” to prove or disprove your chart. Science as you know requires repeating the experiment under controlled circumstances. Astrology is the case of a unique example, over and over. But as we conduct those experiments, we can see patterns. Yes, those patterns exist in the mind of the observer — but so does the data from a psychological experiment. It is not the mind’s bias that is at work, but the fact of consciousness itself — and while we know lots about lots of things, we don’t so much about the origin and true nature of consciousness. We’re just bobbing in the middle of it, often unable to question what we’re experiencing.Whether something is bullshit often depends on its use. Rhetoric can be used to make a lie sound true, or to make the truth clear and presentable. The law can be used to hang an innocent person, or to liberate one. Science can be used to test the effects of dangerous chemicals, or as more often happens, it can be used to “prove” that they are safe.Currently, it is science that has issues of belief. Science itself has morphed into a kind of fundamentalist religion that is driven by profits more than by a quest for truth. My own background is investigating scientific fraud. That’s what I was doing when I embarked on astrology — I wanted to see how it worked. So I approached astrology with a scientific mind — a scrutinizing mind, looking for solid evidence. Proof is another story. I don’t “believe in” astrology; it’s a tool and I use it, for a purpose. You were (and are) a prime example of that purpose.I could have said a lot about your aspects that I didn’t say. There are many ways to read your chart, and I used planets in that reading that few astrologers bother with (they are skeptics). I gave my reading aiming for your highest potential, your highest evolutionary potential, presuming that you were and are acting in integrity and good faith. I offered my information to you when you’re a young woman, at the cusp of her adult life, in a moment of truth of your power — honoring your power — and I tailored my ideas to encourage you to go on — to believe in yourself — to affirm your existence and your reality, so that you have it in times of doubt, or serious life choices.I’m honored that you shared your data and invited me to look at your chart in such a rich moment. I love doing astrology in its flush of passion, and writing about people when they are in peak moments of discovery. Of course, astrology will often fade into the background for them, in that phase of their life (so much else is happening), though part of my intention is to present a document that will be useful looking back.I write Planet Waves for contemporary readers and for those who will be browsing in around 2400 — so of that happens to be you, hello from a strange, beautiful, dangerous time in history, 2010 — when we’re first figuring out that we can influence the world in positive, constructive and healing ways, even if we did so on a lark, in the dark. Yours & truly,Eric FrancisPortland, Maine
Just saw some olde Bill Nye stuff the other day, and now this post! It’s obviously the work of God/some planet/star/whatever – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQPFoD...“Ssssexy Scorpio!”
Hey, I’m a scorpio too! I assume you know that in ancient times the zodiac was based on your conception date, not your birthdate (how they knew this, I have no idea), in which case I guess I don’t really know my sign.
I tried to test astrology a few years ago.A friend (who believes) and I (who doesn’t) recorded the predictions of her favourite astrologer and kept a diary of what happened in our lives. This went on for six months.At the end we compared the predictions to the reality. She claimed to see (but could not justify) a strong correlation between the two, were as I thought they had very little in common. Unable to justify her claims she concluded I couldn’t see it because I’m a man. I guess that’s a feminist justification for astrology.
That reminds me; I was a total Dan Brown fan only some years ago. *shudder*
I think many people really just want to connect with themselves in a deeper way. Astrology. self help books, religion, UFOs, you name it. We find out more about ourselves and it seems to be what makes us feel more complete, more truly ourselves. Quantum physics is bringing some very interesting ideas to the table. Have you seen “What the bleep do we know”.
Jen,I left you a few twitter comments, but I’ll post here as well since I’m not limited to 140 characters (bwahahaha!)Prior to 2008 I had been pagan since I was in about 8th grade, so since about 1998 (am I dating myself?). I also considered myself a scientist, and I went to college for biology. I did well in my classes, completed an internship and a senior thesis and graduated in 2006.Although I didn’t usually buy into much of the pagan “new age” stuff, I did subscribe to magical thinking (happily), and in the summer of 2008 I was considering taking a reiki course. I don’t think I can possibly explain how it all fit right in my head– I guess that’s a testament to human capacity for discordant thinking. Maybe it was a flagrant attempt to try to get myself back into paganism since I was never an ardent practitioner, I don’t know…But then in the fall of 2008 I found the Skeptic Zone. The Skeptic Zone led me to SGU which led me to numerous other podcasts. I branched out quickly and within a month or so I was listening to half a dozen podcasts and reading a dozen or so more blogs. Including atheist blogs. Around the beginning of 2009 I just gave up. Who was I kidding? The last several years of my “paganism” were just me sitting around saying I was pagan because I wanted to call myself something and be part of a community.So am I a skeptic and an atheist now just because of that want of a sense of belonging? Maybe. I hope not. I would like to think I’ve finally found a niche I belong in, that I can flourish in. When I found all these science and skeptic resources it was like I had been starved for years and I ate it up. After a year or so I feel like I’m a little more tempered, and I actually feel better about my community when I can find something wrong with someone’s argument than when I am agreeing with them all the time.Regardless of leaving the pagan community, I’m still a member of an active pagan forum and post there still once in awhile– because I know how important it is to reach out and to offer another way of thinking. Hell, if I hadn’t found Richard Saunders, where would I be now? But I know that even though he might have helped me on my feet (my critical thinking feet), it’s me who has to keep my balance and keep on standing. My less than stellar background is what makes me really proud to be a part of the skeptic community. We CAN change things for the better, we CAN influence peoples mode of thinking– not into sheeple but into strong critical thinkers. And that’s, well, fucking awesome!
Sorry Eric, but “Boobquest”? Really?We all make silly typos and brainfarts such sure, but it’s not very reassuring to see one in your post when it’s of that nature.The whole Thing was about earthquakes, and boobs, and the causal relationship between them. Boob + quake…Besides that I’m having a little difficulty parsing some of your ideas in that post. (You can put some of it down to my being a bit ill atm)So astrology isn’t true in the sense that the position of the planets/stars actually influences the way that people act later in their life in a manner that can be rigorously tested and falsified(if false)? But as long as we all pretend it works then we can derive all sorts of interesting things using it, which themselves may be useful?If that’s remotely what you’re going for then it sounds very much like a “psychic” using cold reading to me. Sure, it might be a useful falsehood to claim that astrological phenomena actually influences people in some special way, but I’d be more comfortable with the use of it if people owned up to what’s actually going on.“Imma make some reasonable inferences about you, and we’ll talk about it/you can ruminate on it and let’s see what we can figure out.”That’d be totally OK in my books(not that my books get a lot of circulation in the general population)
Disclaimer: I have seen only excerpts, not the entire film.I would contend that mainstream scientists and philosphers that are actually studying many of the topics shown in What the Bleep Do We Know!? would not recognize them from the descriptions in the film.The film uses terms from science in ways that are at best only tangentally related to their actual use, and badly misrepresents what our current best understanding of physics suggests is true. In fact at least one of the people(David Albert) who appeared in the film is rather upset at the way the movie grossly misrepresents his views, twisting them rather badly.It really is not a good film(at conveying what appears to actually be going on in the universe). It is however a great success as a movie to be seen by many people and influence their thinking.
I had been an agnostic for a while because I had trouble making why God does not exist. It took me a while to figure it out and Objectivism helped me a bit.Right now, thanks to your boobquake. I am no longer an atheist. I believe in boobquake gods. I am scared and need to workship them and pray to them.
Growing up I had a friend who was born not only on the same day as me, but in the same hospital. We are not that much alike. Besides the whole man/woman thing. Debunked!As an ex-Catholic (first time I’ve said that instead of non-practicing) I find I’d rather avoid Church all together. Not because I don’t believe, but because I feel guilty for not believing. Or, really, because a part of me still believes, or still wants to.
You mean Sagittarians don’t have the most bad ass sign?! ;)
One of my favorite astrology-related moments came when I’d just started seeing my (current) ladyfriend.We had been seeing each other for about a month, and she had already discovered that astrology was one of my hot-buttons. Up until this point I had always held my tongue whenever she raised the subject, but it made me squirm… And she’s exactly the kind of girl that is vindictive enough to do that to me on purpose.So one day she pulled out an astrology textbook from her shelf and claimed it to be highly authoritative on the subject. She would prove to me that astrology was real. At this point, she asked for my star-sign. “Taurus,” I said, looking unhappy.She turned the page to Taurus and went through the description with glee. “See, that’s you,” she would interject between every second line.”I dunno,” I would say. “That could apply to just about anyone,” or words to that effect.At the end, she closed the book with a look of triumph. “You see? It works. It describes you perfectly!””So that proves it, then?””Yes,” she beamed.My tone changed ever so slightly. “So… There’s no way that this could just be, you know, a big co-incidence?”She scoffed, putting the book down. “Of course not. Now you’re just looking for excuses.” She flicked on the TV and started surfing, smug in her victory.The wry amusement in my voice coming through in full force now, I asked: “Are you sure? They were all kind of… you know… vague. Some of them could have applied to anyone. Maybe even everyone.”She snorted. “Face it. You’ve lost.””Hmm… that’s interesting.” In the subsequent eighteen months that we’ve been together, she has come to hate it when I say this. Can’t think why.Finally sensing that something was up, she looked up from the TV. “What? Why?””My birthday is in December.”There was a long pause while the penny dropped – that I am actually a Sagittarius, but had lied about my star-sign with malice aforethought. Then she hit me over the head with the astrology book.The look on her face was totally worth it.”Have you heard of this James Randi fellow?”She hit me again.Eighteen months so far, and counting. ^_^
As far as ‘boobquest’, I would be more inclined to blame that on an entirely justified Freudian slip on Eric’s part.Personally, I can forgive him that. ^_^His ‘art’ is still basically just good fiction. And I like good fiction – so long as the book says so on the spine. The disclaimer is important.
Hello again.I have described some methods of using astrology: as an intellectual / analytical platform (that is, a collection of concepts and categories that can be used for analysis), and as a divination tool. I don’t think we’re in tin foil hat territory here; we are still in the realm of intellect, of rational discourse and at worst symbolic representation. In this sense, astrology is closer to poetry than it is to computer code.How does astrology work? There are a lot of possibilities.If a skeptic were willing to admit that it _might_ work — that is appropriate, since astrology has not been disproved, and logically a negative cannot be proved (you cannot prove that pink ducks don’t exist) — there are a number of possibilities for how it might work, but remember — the question is to remember is, “work for what?”Someone above referenced one big giant coincidence. Has anyone heard of synchronicity? It’s a term that was used by C. G. Jung, one of the pioneers of modern psychology. It’s a descriptive term — he was describing a phenomenon he saw in his psychiatry practice. Says Wikipedia, “Jung coined the word to describe what he called ‘temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events’. Jung variously described synchronicity as an ‘acausal connecting principle’, ‘meaningful coincidence’ and ‘acausal parallelism’.”That’s one starting point.Jung also worked with the idea of an archetype. A helpful definition again from Wiki: “An archetype is an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior.” The concept dates back to Plato. Archetypes exist on the subtle planes, such as in the collective unconscious (another Jungian concept). An archetpe might be the concept of the president, rather than the president himself. The thing is, these concepts have life on other levels, in the genetic memory, in mythology, in dreams, and so on.Then we have a cycle. Nature has many cycles, from the precessional cycle to the year to a planetary cycle to a season to a month. If we can grasp and apply these few concepts — we have some plausible tools to grasp how astrology works — when it works. And everything that works sometimes doesn’t work other times; most oil platforms don’t blow up. In science, nature and philosophy there are apparent failures and differing degrees of success. 100% solid proof never happens; there is always an exception, and quantum mechanics says that everything happens as a probability, not a certainty.But how astrology really works is, it works in the mind. This is an objective statement: without the mind, there would not be astrology. It is based on human observation and thought. The notion that it is a subjective phenomenon rather than an objective one is not so strange. That it has not been ‘proven’ by science does not mean it doesn’t work, or cannot work; it merely means it has not been proven. Many things we think of as theoretical haven’t been proven, and are awaiting the right experiment or technology; or are outside the realm of proof but considered meaningful (blue is pretty; a song is beautiful). Certainly, there are lot stranger things than astrology, and some of them are supportive of astrology. Take chaos theory and fractals. If you have a grasp on these two things you have another model with a good working parallel to astrology. Chaos theory says there are not really chaotic patterns in nature; no matter how chaotic something seems, there is underlying order; such as bubbles in a stream, branches of a tree or planetary movement. In terms of pure science (rather than psychology or philosophy, respected as they may be) the closest cousin to astrology is chaos theory.In the end, however, astrology is based on observation and interpretation — and these are human functions, subject to discipline, scholarship, faith, sincerity, bias and yes, flaw. Astrology is good as far as it goes, and it needs to be used wisely and carefully — as does every technology or powerful idea. Yes it can be wrong and it can be used to deceive, just like anything.And it can be a beautiful mirror in which to consider the nature of reality, within which we are just babes in the woods.–efc
I used to be a Christian, and long after I left that religion, the number 666 (the one said to be that of the anti-Christ) still disturbed me. I remember working as a cashier in a restaurant and I’d see the total appear occationally as $6.66 when taking an order, and then I’d blurt out, “Could you please add something else?” And in many cases, the customer would, because she feared that number too!Astrology was never taken seriously by me, however.
All I got from all that was “Astrology isn’t just cold reading – it’s really cool cold reading! With a cherry and whipped cream on top!”I don’t mean to be glib. I keep trying to think of something more to add… And there isn’t really.I suppose a shout-out to Brian Dunning is always appropriate. In his movie ‘Here be Dragons’, he gives a very good example of how something that may seem intuitively highly improbable can actually be shown to be a statistical certainty. http://herebedragonsmovie.com/Bye-bye synchronisity! Bye-bye seemingly-improbable co-incidences of astrology!The fictions we tell ourselves about reality pale into comparison with the beauty and strangeness of the real thing. It’s the difference between a schoolboy’s daydream about a girl, and actually having a girlfriend.
This was such a good entry. I only discovered your blog because of boobquake but I am addicted. I thoroughly enjoy your writing, your sense of humor, and your skepticism! Keep up the awesome work.
I’m a scientist (of several sorts, including some fairly advanced physical sciences, advanced computer science, social science and I consider myself a mathematician), and I consider myself a sceptic, but I’m also religious. Personally, I consider myself non-theistic as well (gotta love the range of beliefs in liberal Quakerism), but I have no trouble seeing that people who believe that the same practices I follow relate to the Abrahamic god, or to some pagan pantheon, or whatever, are actually describing the same thing. Without going into the common points of liberal Quakerism (would take too long), does this actually make any sense?
Skepticism or atheism are forms of deconstructionism. You take things apart, and what you’re left with, in the end, is your perception of the universe, and the need to put it together in a way that makes sense — just like an astrologer, a scientist, a priest, a construction worker. If I were Bucky Fuller, I would be skeptical of skyscrapers. If I were Tesla, I would be skeptical of direct current. These people had ideas how to take apart other ideas — and how to reassemble reality in a way that works better. By disenchanting the world, which is what science inadvertently does, do we really get a world that works better? That feels better and is more beautiful? Or have we proven that there are no more mysteries?To any skeptic, and I am gathering there are a few of you here: Please share with me one thing that is a mystery to you.This just in — The Amazing Randi came out of the closet at 81.
I’ve been reading your blog for about a year, and I have to say, this might be my favorite article of yours to date.I’ve been an ex-Catholic for many years. A few months ago, Richard Wiseman had a post on his blog daring skeptics and atheists to announce in the comments that they were giving their soul to Satan. The effect he was trying to achieve was exactly what was produced in me: a genuine fear of something that I knew was a fair tale!So yeah, I totally sympathize with your emotional reaction to astrology.Keep up the great work, chica. You’re doing a great service to the skeptical community.
Not meaning to take a quote out of context, but I just wanted to focus on one part, as we seem to have veered into the metaphysical…”Basically, any search for the truth will succeed. Whether we use a hound dog or divining rod or the scientific method, the truth responds to us.”As a (liberal) Quaker, this is a wonderful statement. However, I’d say it’s a statement that applies for more to the metaphysical than the realist/rational/physical world. As such, I can see that, used appropriately (to the individual), astrology may have value. This is the same as saying that profound spiritual insight may be found in, say, Asimov, or Dawkins, as plausibly as in the Bible or Qu’ran.The problem is when you try and apply your statement literally. Scientific method is great for determining the value of physical constants. Your statement suggests that a divining rod or astrology would also be plausible. Similarly, prayer, meditation, silent waiting, etc have often been described as good ways to find (your own) spiritual ‘truth’ – scientific method doesn’t work well for this.Well, it’s just a thought.
You need to define “mystery” first. Is it something that I don’t know? There are lots of things I don’t know, like the Navajo language and what the sky looks like from Pluto. Are they mysteries? Or do you mean something that I don’t know and that gives me goose-bumps even to think about? In which case I fail to see the importance, since I don’t consider my goose-bumps, supposing I get any, to be of any epistemological significance.
My sign is actually Serpentifer. Astronomy geeks may get this.
Jen,Did you see the article in New Scientist a while back about how some traits (e.g. anxiety attacks) have some correlation to time of birth, because of how much Vitamin D (from sunlight) the mother gets during gestation has an effect on the child?
Well, for what it’s worth, if I ever have the opportunity to ask you out, I promise not to use that as a litmus test.
Wonder how it plays in the far north of my country, where the sun doesn’t rise for two months in the winter, and then doesn’t set all summer. Jen, did you ever try to cast a chart for people born at 70 degrees north? Naughty Babylonians, shoulda thought of that!
Sam, “Many shores, one lake,” as the saying (passed to me through the yoga tradition) goes. How we approach what we think of as divinity or consciousness is more of an inner gaze than an outer one. Devotion to truth, awareness, kindness and healing know no boundaries or borders or denominations.I am a Quaker and have been since I was 14. I discovered I was, rather than became, Quaker. For those not familiar with this mode of practice, it’s a [very old] religion without doctrines or dogmas. There is nothing you ‘have to believe’ to be in the religion. Most Quakers, who know themselves as Friends, share these ideas:– Inner light. What we think of as God/Goddess is within. In Christian theology, this is sometimes called the Holy Spirit, but Quakers don’t usually use this term.– Nonviolence. Out of faith in humanity, Quakers don’t go to war, and if you get drafted, go to the nearest Quaker: we know how to handle the draft board.– Non-hierarchical structure of the meeting (not a church, a meeting). There is not a minister or preacher; there is a ministry and council committee.– Silent worship. The meeting is held in silence, and anyone moved to speak may do so, once. Meeting is a process of inner listening, outer sharing, and listening to our peers.– Witness. Quakers participate in society, in politics, in movements, though we do so mostly in the spirit of witness: as one who holds space for the truth. Quakers get a lot done in this spirit.Those are the basics.”With my old yellow britches and my shaggy, shaggy locksI am standing in the glory of the light, said Fox.”
I would define mystery as: something you are witness to, that moves you, that you cannot explain, and where you have a healthy respect for your lack of knowledge. A place where you don’t know the truth, but hold the space open for truth, with respect.
I find it amusing that a Muslim scientist in the 14th century called bullshit on astrology;””And if you astrologers answer that it is precisely because of this distance and smallness that their influences are negligible, then why is it that you claim a great influence for the smallest heavenly body, Mercury? Why is it that you have given an influence to al-Ra’s and al-Dhanab, which are two imaginary points [ascending and descending nodes]?”” – Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya
Fuckin’ magnets, how do *they* work?
Hmm, well playing by your definition of mystery, I’d say the Mandelbrot set, the Hubble deep field images, and watching just born kittens might qualify. I’d say that while I’m no expert in any of the fields, having some (scientific) knowledge about them helped me actually appreciate them. I’m not sure in the purpose you had about asking about that? But my feelings about mysteries is that my desire is to understand them, not wallow in my unknowing. But I think it’s like ‘studying’ art, why do people tend to see something as beautiful and not others, why are some sounds harmonious (add music theory to the list of mysteries to me)? By inquiring, studying and learning we can learn to produce and create new things. Take your archetype example, especially archetypes of storytelling. Deconstructing one will give us new insights into it. It even can be done as art. Doing so gives rise to a new ones. We are enriched for having done so, not left more desolate.
Dear Jen:Don’t feel bad. I am a full-on atheist and sceptic, but the door in my mind about ghosts is still a wee bit ajar. At least I still listen to true ghost stories without openly mocking them. And about 15 years ago, a friend took me to her psychic to have my Tarot read and I must admit I was more than a little impressed.
I would define mystery as: something you are witness to, that moves you, that you cannot explain, and where you have a healthy respect for your lack of knowledge. A place where you don’t know the truth, but hold the space open for truth, with respect.Drat, I pressed the Like button by mistake, as we’d gotten to where Disqus doesn’t offer a Reply button. No personal offence, Eric, but I didn’t Like it particularly. Scott Jones nailed it most amusingly. Since I am not a scientist, there is an awful lot that I can’t explain and I am fully aware of my lack of knowledge. I guess I respectfully hold a space open for the ToE. And magnets….. Even so, I don’t like this word mystery or the way you seem to want to run it up the flagpole of the permissible scientific ignorance of an intelligent layman. It smells like a set-up. So put me down as a no-show on mysteries.
Hugo, it sounds like you’re not a scientist, but one of the religion of science: the adherence to a concept; a belief system.The set up is: respect for where belief systems run out.
You can find your conception date with a calculator, like this one. If you’re at all squeamish about the idea of your parents having sex, be forewarned that some people find a conception date coinciding with their mother/father’s birthday or a holiday to be TMI…
I don’t think you should be embarrassed about having “believed in” astrology–you should take it as a source of pride that you no longer do so. A friend once told me that he didn’t hold it against me that I used to be a fundie Christian, because my deconversion was impressive enough to have made up for it. As a lifelong atheist, his line of thought was that it was more difficult to examine firmly held beliefs and, ultimately, reject them than it was to have never believed in the first place. You should be proud of yourself for being able to separate emotional responses from reason–as you seem to have found, it’s not always an easy thing to do.
I was like that with Narnia. I used to get excited by the idea of being in a train accident, can you imagine? *pats mini!self*
This is my first post here, though I’ve been reading on and off for about six months. I once read a book that combined (Western?) astrology with Chinese astrology. The author of the book seemed especially impressed with my sign(s), Leo-Dragon, and even wrote that, although all signs are technically equal, some are more equal than others. That appeal to my vanity (I am a Leo, after all) probably sold me a few more years of credulity. It was during that same time that I began to accept fundamentalist Christianity. Fortunately I am free of both, now. But I, too, still have a vestigial reflex of joy for astrology.Since this is my first post, I hope you won’t mind if I cast a wide net here, but I wanted to say how happy I was about Boobquake. It’s an elegant assault on several fronts. No matter what the accommodationist say, I don’t think we should remain “respectfully” mute when religious leaders spout absurd and, more importantly, falsifiable sophistry like that. I also think it’s a great move on the feminist front and, as a feminist, I find it maddening that other feminists couldn’t see past the cleavage to the brilliant statement that Boobquake was.Anyway, I promise to remain fully on topic in any future comments I make.
“When I was a child, I thought as a child.” That’s from the bible, but that fact doesn’t make it wrong. :)But anyway, this is a really good post. Nice tie-in from psych (confirmation bias), too. I appreciate, most of all, the recognition of positive nostalgic reactions to the trappings of things that you no longer believe.
Well, music is powerful like that.
I hope you aren’t trying to validate Jung by citing modern psychology. Many early theorists in many disciplines (like Jung and psychology) were frequently wrong with their assumptions and frameworks, but fortunately spurred others on to work on the same topics within a truly scientific discipline. Some were even charlatans, like the guy who launched the study of organizational behavior.
Consciousness is a very good mystery. What is it? Where is it? How does it work? What conclusions can we draw from the very strong correlations between consciousness and brain-states?I’m currently reading Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. I’m only part of the way in so I can’t form a full opinion yet. It seems promising so far.Regarding the interpretation of your definition, there’s a problem with the phrase ‘have a healthy respect for your lack of knowledge’. There’s at least two ways it can go.1) It could mean ‘recognizing that you genuinely don’t know something, coupled with the curiosity to do something about it.’We can’t learn about a subject if we already think we know everything there is to know about it – the recognition of personal ignorance is important both as a foundation for learning and as a stimulus for curiosity.2) Alternatively, the phrase could be intended or interpreted another way; ‘recognizing that you genuinely don’t know something, coupled with satisfaction with or taking pleasure in that lack of knowledge for its own sake.’Clearly paragraph 1) has the more generous interpretation. It also seems to dovetail with ‘making room for truth’, so it’s justified. I’ve assumed that this is what you intended.However, 2) is still lurking there behind the words. The notion that we should learn to value or embrace ignorance itself is deserving of the exact opposite of respect.
Well, that was quite the read. Catholicism is a fairytale, just a superstition.Okay, Pope Benedict it’s over. Vacate the Vatican. Priests and religious leave your diocese, leave your order. Catholic medical practitioners, and I know their are a lot of you providing healthcare at some 113, 000 Catholic healthcare facilities worldwide—go home!And, for the billions of Catholics (those faithful, and those pagans with “patches” of Catholicism amongst us)…return to your homes. Please.Our religion is all a hoax, Jen McCreight has declared it so.What evidence?No evidence actually. Kinda like Hitchy and Dawky. Strong assertions, just no real evidence.What we really need to do here is get a hold of Stephen Hawking’s time machine and go back in time to when Jen was still a fetus in mommy’s womb. Fortunately, for us…her mother was Pro-life. And while Jen is suspended there, in the nurturing care of mommy’s inner sanctum, we need to ask her a very pertinent question.What does Jen know about the world she is about to enter?Likewise, what does Jen know about the world, after this world?You said, above, “and sends his own son (who’s also himself) “The Son is not the Father.God can never be reduced to an equation, or a cycle, however tempting that sort of reductionism is.Encountering Jesus, something I assembled last year for some pagans…how it went down, back in the day:http://neverwasanarrow.blogspo…
Aw, is this what popularity brings? Cute little Catholic trolls who have had their wee little feelings hurt because I dare mention that their religion is ridiculous nonsense? How cute.And by the way, my mom is pro-choice. The fact that she chose to have me – nay, dearly wanted me – makes me feel even more loved. I feel so sorry for those children who were forcibly brought into this world.
I understand what you mean. I used to be Wiccan and it still irks me when people don’t understand what the pentagon stands for, or say that it’s devil worship. I know magic isn’t real, but I still feel emotionally attached to all those rituals. Christianity on the other hand, I have no attachment to even though I went to a christian school until 4th grade. I guess I never really believed that stuff to begin with.
and by pentagon I mean pentagram… :P
Kacey–Isn’t that interesting? I mentioned before that I still have a vague bit warm-fuzzy reflex for astrology, but I, too, have no real emotional attachment to Christianity anymore, even though I was more deeply involved with it than I was with astrology. I suspect it has to do with the changes caused by my new-found disbelief. When I stopped believing in God, I felt a lot a peace and a sense of possibility, like I had just been released from prison. When I stopped believing in astrology, I didn’t really feel released. I felt good, but it was more like the feeling you get when you finally throw away that busted vase your ex gave you. I suppose it’s because I didn’t have my identity invested in astrology. I don’t miss that Christian guy I used to be.
Uh, speaking of evidence, I think you got that backwards. You`re little beliefs were good for filling in the gaps way back when but unfortunately for all of you the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. Oh yeah, and how many thousands of christian on christian deaths were there from about 300 BCE on “deciding” whether the son was the father or not and other such important issues?
Cute? Why, thank-you!Feelings hurt?! With you, the jokes never end.You know, I find that ATHEISTS and EVANGELICALS are a lot alike. Unbelievably.You push and prod…but in the end neither can really explain or pin down, why they believe as they do. Faith without reason. It’s kinda’ just feelings. Plus a lot of anger against the Catholic Church. You keep saying my religion is ridiculous nonsense. All I’m waiting for is some PROOF!Don’t worry, I not really waiting for that…I know how lazy the skeptics are. They just like to put stuff out there and hope the jury of their atheistic peers will just keep affirming their shoddy belief system. Anyway, I think you understand. Stick to science and astrology—something you actually know something about. One more thing…evolution may pose a problem for an Evangelical, but not for a Catholic. St Augustine was the first to suggest the six days of creation are not to be taken literally, but figuratively. 1600 years ago.”I feel so sorry for those children who were forcibly brought into this world.” Well, talk to a few of them. They don’t feel sorry for themselves. Even the unwanted ones. Kids are incredibly resilient, they bounce back eventually…even as adults having kids of their own. Spouses and children that love them as they are. The miracle of love can always reverse a less than perfect start.
There’s still a tiny part in the back of my brain that is convinced Hogwarts exists and I just never got my letter. Hell, even the books debunk that and I believed it!
I’m curious what is your relationship to Quantum Physics? For me the film explores possibilities of what’s actually going on in the universe. I agree some of it seems bogus (and corny). I’m more interested in the ideas put forth. Our consciousness is ever changing and I like that the film is broadening our approach to understanding the universe.I’m surprised to hear that David Albert didn’t approve of the way he was represented. I’d be interested to learn more about that. Also, I would need to go back and re watch the film to remind me who he was.Thanks for your input.
Ha!I shouldn’t bite… I suspect I’m falling victim to cuddly-trolling. But I can’t help myself.
Two steps.1) Contextualization. Place any religion X in a line-up with all other religions. It becomes very clear that there’s no more evidence to support X than any other faith. They can’t all be right… Which means most of them must be wrong.Given that they’re each as unsupported by evidence as any of the others… No matter what way you cut it, it looks bad. Which brings us to step 2.2) Rationalization. Put the ratio back into rationalization. Ratio the strength of the conviction to the evidence that supports it.Religion can’t stand up to this. The only alternatives are to either:a) present some evidence for religion X alreadyb) enforce personal ignorance of other religions (avoid contextualizing your religion as one amongst many mutually exclusive religions); orc) bury your head in the sand and pretend that no-one else has any evidence either – therefore, Jesus.You’re welcome to any of these, of course. Freedom of thought is a must. But we don’t have to take you seriously if you do.If there’s an alternative I’ve missed, feel free to point it out. I hope it’s good.Of alternative worldviews to religion, I’ve settled on naturalism. All this means is that I accept the evidence of the natural world. There simply isn’t any other kind of evidence – yet.It is rational to provisionally reject the supernatural as a potential explanation for unexplained phenomena until positive evidence comes along to support it. It’s the inevitable response of anyone who proportions the strength of their convictions about the state of reality to the evidence for those convictions.
This was a really interesting post. You’re way of explaining how you felt was very eloquent. Thanks. :)
I guess what I was trying (and failing) to say was:Liberal Quakers have no trouble accepting the compatibility of our views of the Inner Light, however different our explanations of what it is. I’ve experienced it directly (which I’d call extraordinary evidence, it just doesn’t mean anything to anyone else), and I have a (comparatively *very*) rational explanation of it with no recourse to Christian (or any other well-defined religion’s) theology. I can still share a Meeting, even an important business Meeting, with those who explain it in Christian terms, and they have no trouble with me not being Christian. Addressing mostly the more ‘strict’ atheists here, does this whole arrangement make sense to you? Anyone devout would also be good to hear from, although I think we can assume that it makes sense to other liberal Quakers.
Characterising a religion, or religion in general, as fiction (of whatever type) is at *least* as plausible as characterising it as objectively true, without supporting evidence. And I’m religious.
The “number of the beast” is variously translated 666, 616, 646 or 665. So this is a good example of the power of a symbol, and of belief in a symbol.
I have been told, at length, how I was planned with near-military precision. It’s actually a kinda nice feeling.
After reading Harry Potter, I still get that way with Wrock music (Wizard rock) and there are definitely still Crock songs (My word for christian rock ) Some of them make me cry. Music is just a very strong emotional thing. It’s probably the closest thing we have to magic in this world.
I think, as kids, we can pretty much be excused for believing in the supernatural, unexplained (as of yet), and even the mystical. It holds a certain appeal to children. That’s just how the imagination works.Hell, as a kid, I used to read a publication that had prayer ads on the back, where whatever you wanted would come true, if only you prayed a certain prayer X times a day for Y days. I wanted to believe that it could work, but alas, the scientific method won in the end.I didn’t get that hoverboard I truly wanted. Guess it wasn’t part of God’s plan. :-P
Can I excuse my six years of devoted pentecostalsim from age 21 to 27 as a child’s naivete? That would be fantastic!I never saw the hoverBOARD but, man, I wanted the hoverCRAFT I saw in those magazines in my grandparents’ house. The magazines might have been 20 years old when I was looking at them, but I was convinced those hovercraft must have still been around.
Whee! Scorpio FTW!! ^_^Not only because it’s awesome, but when your assigned stereotypes fit you so well, it’s hard not to have faith in it.
aah, i like you despite your past transgressions:)
Hi Jen, enjoyed reading your perspective. As an astrologer with the Vedic Astrology portal http://www.atoot.com though, I wish your perspective would change. And not just about astrology but also God. I would advise you to look into Vedic Astrology and Hinduism :)
Hey, just a couple thoughts…I totally respect your right to not believe in God and am not looking to ‘convert’ you. But I do have to say that if you totally simplify any theory the way you did christianity in the 3rd paragraph, most will sound a bit ridiculous. I won’t be as eloquent as you, but…So there’s some force that pulls you to earth? Have you seen it? No, not actually, huh – just its impact. But it doesn’t drag you into the earth – just holds you there. But not so much that you can’t overcome it. And your only proof that this is the only thing holding us here is that we don’t fly off into space? So it could be something else. No? Why not?OK, bad example as yes, I DO believe in gravity! But the point is if you go all “wavy” arms and isn’t this stupid in a really high level summary – well, of course it sounds stupid. But, while I agree that not everyone will follow Christianity (or religion or God or whatever), I don’t think it’s fair to say that those who do are stupid / silly / nonsensical. Millions of people throughout history who believe this aren’t just silly or stupid (well, I mean, SOME of them are – but not all! ;)). You just don’t happen to agree with them. Which is fine.