Astrology Mocked Yet Modern Science Rife With Fraud and Bias
A conventional science advocate, one of those, my-science-is-science-but-your-science-isn’t types, recently said that astrology is “ridiculous nonsense, non-science based stuff that has no supporting evidence.”
That person is certainly entitled to their opinion, despite how flawed it is.
It would be like proclaiming, “The psychological concept of emotional repression is ridiculous nonsense; it is non-science based stuff that has no supporting evidence.”
Or how about this one: “The act of forgiveness (or unconditional love) is ridiculous nonsense—it has never been proven by science and has no supporting evidence.”
I’ve addressed the usual astrology skepticism in this blog post, Addressing Astrology Skepticism, outlining how Sun sign astrology isn’t astrology; astrology symbolizes, it does not “influence” you; astrology is an authentic science; and more.
I once heard an astronomer say something like, “astrology is destructive because it doesn’t allow people to maintain a rational mind.” Sounds like faulty reasoning to me.
This blog post further addresses astrology skepticism, Why Astronomers Dismiss Astrology as Nonsense.
The doubters sometimes refer to studies “debunking” astrology, but the studies are worthless for three reasons:
- They are based on unreliable, trivial astrology, such as using the mere basic birth chart, and modern astrology surface factors such as transits.
- They run the studies under erroneous assumptions, such as expecting all astrologers to concede that those born five minutes apart to be “close enough” in temperament, marital status, IQ, height, weight, artistic ability, occupation, level of aggressiveness, athleticism, and other variables that are “all supposed to be shown in the birth chart” (a wrong assumption, particularly involving a trivial birth chart), while not realizing that 5 minutes is an eternity in comprehensive charting. Even birth times one minute apart can make a huge difference between two individuals, even those born in the same location.
- The studies are outrageously biased.
The denial of astrology as an authentic science is also common among social scientists, as Nobel-Prize winning scientist, Dr. Kary Banks Mullis points out:
“The reason they don’t pay attention to it (astrology) is that it would embarrass them in front of their colleagues. There’s no proven body of facts…that says human behavior does not contain elements that are related to planetary patterns at the time of birth. Instead, there’s a broad and arrogant understanding among social science professionals that folklore, like astrology, is for simpletons. Without doing any simple experiments to test some of the tenets of astrology, it has been completely ignored by psychologists in the last two centuries…Most of them are under the false impression that it is non-scientific and not a fit subject for their serious study. They are dead wrong. Whether or not the present-day practitioners of astrology are using scientific methods has no direct bearing on whether the body of knowledge they employ is true and valid.”
Astrology has been mocked for ages, yet evidence firmly suggests that much of today’s science is rampant with deception and partiality.
Peer Review and the Foolishness of Modern Science
Unfortunately, peer review is without value in most cases. It’s just an agreement between two associates to reach similar conclusions. It’s been more accurately called “pal review.”
Michael Crichton, in “Next,” exposes the folly of modern science:
“…Next lesson: Peer review. All of Hwang’s (Korean scientist whose work was found to be fraudulent) papers in Science were peer-reviewed. If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode proves it. Hwang made extraordinary claims. He did not provide extraordinary evidence. Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn’t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, ‘This paper was peer-reviewed,’ or ‘this paper was not peer-reviewed,’ as if that meant something. It doesn’t.”
“Next, the journals themselves…115 people work on that magazine (Science), yet gross fraud, including photographs altered with Adobe Photoshop, were not detected…the magazine had no way to detect it…fraudulent research has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, where authors withheld critical information about Vioxx heart attacks; in the Lancet, where a report about drugs and oral cancer was entirely fabricated…Medical fraud is more than a scandal, it’s a public health threat. Yet it continues.”
“…Fraud in science is not rare, and it’s not limited to fringe players. The most respected researchers and institutions have been caught with faked data. Even Francis Collins, the head of NIH’s Human Genome Project, was listed as co-author on five faked papers that had to be withdrawn.”
“…science isn’t special—at least not anymore…there are now three million researchers in America. It’s no longer a calling, it’s a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practitioners aren’t saints, they’re human beings, and they do what human beings do—lie, cheat, steal…sue, hide date, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That’s human nature. It isn’t going to change.”
“…The public is increasingly aware of defects in the systems we use to report medical data…Bias in published studies has become a bad joke. Psychiatrist John Davis looked at the trials funded by pharmaceutical companies in competition for the most effective of five different antipsychotic drugs. He found that 90 percent of the time, the drug manufactured by the company sponsoring (paying for) the study was judged superior to the others. Whoever paid for the study had the best drug…Review studies conducted by those who have financial or other interest in the outcome are not reliable because they are inherently biased”
Science enthusiasts would be wise to objectively investigate the topics of their ire before jumping to conclusions, and they would also be wise to exhibit some humility, conceding to the trickery and prejudice that permeates conventional science today.
Copyright © 2012 Scott Petullo