Astrology by Carl Sagan

reposted via http://evolutionspace

Richard Dawkins 'Enemies of Reason' - Monday 13th August - Summary

Astrology

A full quarter of the British population claim to believe in astrology while astrological horoscopes get far more newspaper column inches than science.

Richard Dawkins begins his journey by questioning this irrational institution embedded in our culture. He tackles the Observer's astrologer, Neil Spencer [pictured], on how the movement of planets could possibly signify petty developments in our love life or career, and compares the thin pickings of astrology with the real science of astronomy that is revealing the true grandeur of the Cosmos.

The paranormal

Half the British population now claim to believe in paranormal phenomena. Psychics are cluttering our TV schedules, flogging readings on the net and, increasingly, blossoming on our high streets. After garnering tips on psychics' entirely earthly trade secrets from the illusionist Derren Brown, Richard attends a s?ance and confronts the medium, Craig Hamilton-Parker, on the psychological damage his unproven claims may have on bereaved people who desperately want to believe what feels good.
Time and again, the interviewees that Richard Dawkins encounters appeal to personal revelation or second-hand anecdote to justify their belief. Richard Dawkins now explains why this cannot be the basis for rational knowledge. He compares how science unravelled the mystery of echo location in bats in the 1940s through rigorous experiment and mutually supporting results to a paranormal phenomenon such as water divining. Psychic detection of water through dowsing isn't inherently implausible – but, as Richard discovers when he attends a double blind trial supervised by the paranormal investigator Professor Chris French, it never works when a rigorous experiment is conducted.

The evidence for the spirit world or psychic phenomena is simply not robust and repeatable. Rather, it's Will-o'-the-wisp. The more science looks at it, the weaker it becomes.

Looking to the past

So why do people still irrationally cling on to unproven beliefs? Richard turns to the origins of superstition in our past. He looks at our pre-disposition to seek pattern in the randomness of nature, a survival mechanism from our distant evolutionary past.
He also explores how our ancestors imbued 'spiritual quality' to inanimate objects – and many people still do, including the New Age guru, Satish Kumar, who argues that a rock or a tree have intrinsic 'spirit'. Richard puts the case for reality that can be observed and tested – the objective wonders that science has revealed.
Once society exalted scientists as heroes. Their insights fuelled tangible progress, from clean water to networked computing, self-evident benefits that we now take for granted.

Yet as science has moved on, it's become more complex and difficult to grasp. It's easier to portray scientists as the people who bring us 'Frankenstein food', pollute the environment or conduct sinister experiments on defenceless little animals.

Prejudice in schools

Dawkins argues that prejudice against science is evident in schools. Physics A' levels have halved in the last 25 years, chemistry fallen by more than a third. University departments are closing all round the country.
He lays the blame with 'relativist' thinkers who have made it fashionable in education to teach students to value private feeling more highly than evidence-based reason.
He challenges the sociologist Steve Fuller who claims the internet is opening up science and evidence and this is no bad thing...

Wikipedia

For Richard Dawkins, 'Wikipedia world' presents both great opportunity and huge danger. The impersonal algorithms of internet search engines do not weed out robust evidence from unsourced, uncorroborated assertion. Paranoid conspiracy theories circulate on the web unchallenged, from harmless fun about fake moon landings to downright insidious lies about 9/11 or the highly damaging but ultimately discredited scare over the MMR vaccine. This, argues Dawkins, is where the irrational mindset, the world of private hunches and no respect for evidence, can lead us.

Medicine under attack

Today science is treated with suspicion, perhaps born of fear and even medical advance is challenged by the march of irrational belief.
While we indulge unproven healing 'magic', tried and tested scientific medicine is under attack. Media 'causes celebres' – from side effects to superbugs – have bred widespread cynicism about medical progress.
The danger of devaluing evidence has never been more apparent than when one survey of twelve children wrongly linked MMR vaccine with autism and yet prompted hundreds of thousands of parents to opt their children out of entirely sensible inoculations to ward off dangerous diseases.
Where once there was reason, now there is confusion...

Good luck, Dawkins! by Sue Blackmore

reposted from Guardian

Superstitions like astrology, Tarot reading, crystal-gazing and mediumship may be fun, but they are not harmless.

I enjoyed Richard Dawkins' first episode of his new Channel Four documentary, Enemies of Reason, but then I would, wouldn't I?

He's taken on the role I used to call "rent-a-sceptic" - the one who goes on TV, talks to all those nice, cuddly, "spiritual" people, and tries to point out that they are making false claims, deluding themselves and others, and profiting out of other peoples' suffering. It's a tough job because you always seem to be on the side of the misery-guts, debunkers and kill-joys.

You always seem to be telling well-meaning, sincere people that they are not only wrong but bad. It's not fun, and after a while it gets you down. I know because I did it for the best part of 25 years and eventually I couldn't stand it any more.

Why does he do it, then? And why did I? Richard claims that superstitions like astrology, Tarot reading (I used to be a pretty good Tarot reader myself before I became so sceptical), crystal-gazing, and mediumship impoverish our society and harm both individuals and their families. So someone needs to stand up to them. And I think he is right.

I didn't always think so. Indeed as a student I was blown away by what I saw as a more spiritual way of looking at the world, full of exciting new (or terribly ancient) theories that "establishment" scientists rejected, and rich with opportunities for understanding myself and changing the world for the better. I embraced all sorts of whacky theories and decided to devote my life to studying them. A few years of research changed my mind completely and I went from being a believer in just about every New Age phenomenon, through totally rejecting it all, to something far harder to sustain - an open-minded scientist trying to disentangle the grains of truth from the mass of superstition, deception and ignorance.

There are some grains of truth in there. Out-of-body experiences happen, even though nothing leaves the body, sleep paralysis happens and is terrifying if you don't know what it is, mystical experiences can change people's lives for the better, and some alternative therapies can be wonderfully relaxing and enjoyable, even if their underlying theories are completely false. Even so, these grains are hidden in a vast mass of delusion.

During the programme Richard asked: "Am I taking all this too seriously?" I'm sure some viewers will think he is, and that it's all just harmless fun. But it's not.

To give one example I've never forgotten, I was once in the London audience for the Jimmy Young television programme with the famous medium Doris Stokes. Appearing to be a kind, and caring granny type, she "communicated" with the spirits and brought messages to their loved ones here on the lower planes.

I sat next to a bereaved couple from Manchester who travelled to London every week to visit Doris who, they said, gave them comfort and hope. Between takes they told me that one of their three young girls had been playing near an upstairs window and fell out, impaling herself on the railings below, and dying of horrific wounds. It must have been appalling and I could only imagine their sorrow. But above all I was angry at what Doris Stokes was doing. This couple were spending money and time they clearly could ill afford, leaving their other children at home, and being deluded into thinking they were talking to their dead child. This is no way for either them or their other children to come to terms with grief.

Doris Stokes died a few years later and the critics revealed how she had used all the same old shoddy tricks, even using accomplices to make her séances more impressive. Yet many people still remember her warmly as the best medium of her generation.

Among all the hundreds of mediums, psychics and Tarot and I-Ching readers I met, I think the vast majority were sincere, and honestly believed that they were doing more than cold reading or using their intuition.

Nevertheless this does not change the fact that they are making false claims, defrauding people of vast sums of money and convincing people that it's all right to believe something just because you feel deeply that it's true.

I met people addicted to their favourite psychics - people who would not make decisions without consulting their astrologer, and people who were terrified because of false predictions some reader had given them. In a stressful and unpredictable world it's understandable that people turn to those who can offer them false guidance but I've seen too many horrible outcomes to think it's just a bit of harmless fun.

After all those years of research I try not to get involved any more. I find it too upsetting. It's amazing how unpopular you become by trying to tell the truth, and how little effect experiments and evidence have on the exploitative and money-making New Age world. So good luck, Richard! I hope you won't get too depressed by it all.