Date: 6/4/10 05:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chilledchimp.livejournal.com
I'm a New Age type, so here's my twopennyworth. As soon as Prof Cox said astrology was rubbish I knew there'd be some grief on the net. Being even-handed I'd say he doesn't have a clue about how astrology works but I'd also say the planetary influences are symbolic and don't fit with actual physical processes and therefore why should he? And I'd remind him that it's not that long ago that astrology and astronomy parted company.
BTW, I'm an absolutely textbook Pisces and Steve's the ultimate unbeliever and a totally typical Gemini.

Date: 6/4/10 06:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] karohemd.livejournal.com
*nods*
Whilst I don't believe in astrology, I'm not a fierce opponent. To my mind, it doesn't do any harm, as long as you're not too fanatical about it (like with anything).
I don't think I'm a particularly typical Aries but I'm a scarily typical Iron Dog. Maybe I should have been born in China, considering the closest religion to my world view is Taoism?

Date: 6/4/10 07:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] omentide.livejournal.com
I found the BBC series a bit trivial and only watched the first one.

I'm not about to get involved in flame wars over Astrology either.

What always puzzles me about 'scientific' debunkings of astrology is that scientists ought to know that correlation does not imply causation.

The positions of the various bodies in a natal chart may well correlate with certain aspects of personality and the unfolding of personal traits as an individual interacts with their universe. I very much doubt the positions of various bodies in a natal chart 'cause' anything to occur.

Both sides of the science vs. astrology issue tend to argue from emotion, not from.... numbers. I'm rather keen on numbers, personally. I consider the correlation between the 'clock' that is our zodiac and human experience to be unproven, but interesting nonetheless.

Date: 6/4/10 08:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] karohemd.livejournal.com
I don't think Wonders was meant as hard science, that's what Horizon is for (although the last one about dark matter etc. was rubbish as it basically said "We know there is something but we don't know what and we can't explain it so we show you a flaccid balloon"). Wonders didn't tell me anything I hadn't know before but it showed those things in incredible detail and beautiful pictures and if that provoked interest in science in a few hundred people, it has achieved its goal.

Yep. The point of this post was also to show how ridiculous both sides are being. They are two clashing views that will never reconcile so why bother?

Date: 6/4/10 10:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] omentide.livejournal.com
I'm just very, very bad with TV. I fell asleep during the first episode of Wonders.... Twice, I think. We were waching on iplayer thing.

I used to like Horizon but sometime in the '80's it got kind of too dumbed down and slow. I remember pianos going out of windows... After that I lost interest.

I think I'm spoiled by Internet because I can control the speed of Internet (like a book). I get very impatient when someone else is controlling the pacing. I have the same issues in class and, come to think of it, in meetings (where, increasingly, I fall asleep unless/until my input is needed).

June 2025

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 8 Feb 2026 04:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios