Yup, and those were the ones name-checked in the linked article, in a whole preamble that basically boils down to "none of the following list of ideas of how this could work actually *do* work... So therefore it can't work." Which is just crappy logic.
As a refutation of Astrology *as a whole*, the point lil_shepherd makes - basically, "there is no evidence of an effect that needs an explanation (and therefore there is no need to waste time working out whether Astrology, in any form, provides such an explanation)" is perfectly valid - assuming the data do in fact back it up, which I haven't checked - and would stand *stronger* if it was allowed to stand alone, rather than muddying the waters with rather less relevant waffle about the strength of gravity, etc., which are only relevant to demolishing various specific theories of *how* Astrology might work. (As soon as you knock one such theory down, it just invites people to create another. There's no end to the game of "yeah, but what if there's something we *don't know*...?", which is why (a) science shouldn't waste it's time on it, and equally (b) science shouldn't ever claim to finally settled matters in areas where in fact it has simply taken the prudent (Occamic) path of leaving them alone until such time as they start to look worthy of further investigation.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-01-17 10:11 pm (UTC)As a refutation of Astrology *as a whole*, the point