But perhaps the function of astrology is something else? Perhaps it is superior to astronomy in comforting or entertaining human beings? Or even describing the nature of the universe in a comprehensible way to some? If you want to send a man to the moon, predict tides, or some such, modern astronomy or ancient pre-scientific versions of it, are as of now a better bet (but even here, how can we be sure unless we throw the sort of money at astrology that we throw at astronomy? Of course we cannot throw money at all things and we make decisions -- but as before we are here met with our old friend: uncertainty which behooves a tentative approach and some measure of humility).
......................
And so, at the end of the day, what it comes down to is a request that as we face what might be called the universe’s big strangeness (which is almost surely bigger and stranger than our capacity to fully understand) we show a bit of humility when choosing investigative tools and methods. What we call science (the method and the machinery) is good – very good indeed – but there are questions it can’t answer and powers it shouldn’t claim.
Indeed, when people are excessively dazzled by the burning chrome glow of “science†and forget its limitations as well as the value of other, ‘non-scientific’ techniques they tend to mis-use “science†and wield it as a rhetorical weapon – a ferocious thing unleashed like Fenrisulfr, set loose to devour Odin at Ragnarok. This is “scientismâ€, the abuse of science’s achievements for the purpose of supporting various elitist ideas.
This, at least, is my understanding of Ravi’s position.
And if that is truly it I’ll declare sympathy (and even a fair amount of empathy) with the overall idea.
Still, the problem, for me, is that I think too much attention is being paid to the sins of “scientism†as if the sorts of people produced by our technosphere are more likely to be guilty of ideological chauvinism than say, a priest of Horus making his mystery shrouded living in ancient Egypt during the pyramid building boom.
In other words, people believe what they believe and tend to nurture unflattering impressions of competing systems. It’s what we talking monkeys do. In the case of religion, this snobbery is almost always unwarranted. Is a Lutheran a better Christian, simply by virtue of being a Lutheran, than a Roman Catholic? No doubt, there are Lutherans and Catholics who would passionately argue the point till 99942 Apophis darkens our skies. But aside from these partisans should anyone else care?
The answer’s no (“no†that is, so long as no one’s shooting or shopping for semtex to prove their holy point).
Because there is no objective basis – or anything resembling an objective basis – to evaluate the truth/untruth claims of debating religionists (most of whom are no doubt perfectly lovely folk, ready with a helping hand or a bit of a joke when times are rough - but we’re talking about philosophical and theological claims to a monopoly of truth).
But in the contest – if you will – between the sciences and, well, other things we employ to wrap our heads around the world’s wierdings, I think, yes I believe, that science does have boasting rights. As chauvinisms go, “scientism†enjoys more cause for champagne toasts of its well dressed sophistication (I picture “scientismâ€, as an entity, in Hugo Boss Black – even if many of her loudest servants are in rumpled Dockers ‘never iron’ pants) than some other tribalisms.
Needless to say, this doesn’t mean that “scientism†is justified only that the snobbery is understandable given the power of the thing being worshipped (DNA sequencing, the once bullet proof penicillin and images from the hydrocarbon rich surface of Titan are ego boosters for a school of technique if ever there were).
.d.
Well sure he's a corpse but a reanimated one. Who says the dead can't be fully contributing members of society huh?
Dr. Venture ...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/