> And yet, this is not a wholly satisfactory conclusion. Astrology is a shell
> game where vague predictions become easily fulfilled in the minds of true
> believers, but science, somehow, really works. It is one of the most wildly
> successful practices in history. Why? Why should a social class somehow be
> so key to the production of real value? How does one inconsistent set of
> cultural values become the source of so many effective practices?
>
> The sociological definition of science is the only one that seems to make
> sense. Science is a cultural structure whose members decide what is and
> isn't science by communal, cultural, changing standards. But that
> definition doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us why we can trust
> our lives every day in the claims of scientists and would never place such a
> faith in astrologers.
>
pkf i think reproduces an interesting quote from evans pritchard about how it was as satisfactory to get one's advice from the oracles of the masai (iirc) as modern science, but i am sure that is all debatable.
what i wish to say is that your point above assumes that what constitutes science is already well known, but thats the start of the problem isnt it. by your definition, science is those things among the various activities of human beings that produce reliable results on a fairly consistent basis! so should some aspect of astrology start bearing fruit in this sense it will quickly be labelled science and subsumed into some school. which is all fine with me, except it remove the reason to privilege science before the fact.
--ravi