Astrology for the Scientific

I've no doubt that this sort of thing has been done dozens of times before by people better at it than me. But it's Sunday, and I'm bored.

So, I saw via that there twitter that some people are claiming that astrology effectively predicted Hurricane Irene. I don't know if that means they predicted it would happen in general, or that it would strike land at a specific time, or that it would be a certain intensity or blah blah blah. If they predicted it happening in general, I'm sure meteorologists would have done that with a greater degree of certainty long before anyone consulted the star charts. But that's just me, ever the dismissive cynic.

Astrology in general is believed to have predicted many things, like the September the 11^thattacks, Royal Weddings, several wars and lord knows what else. I believe these questionable 'successes' can be explained by what is known in the scientific circles as 'throw enough shit at a wall and some will stick' technique. But I will admit to having a soft spot for astrology, despite what I may have said in the past. I always appreciate creativity, even when it's not something I'd necessarily approve of or agree with. But people love horoscopes and star signs, the thought that our lives are being influenced by something bigger and more powerful than we are is obviously very reassuring to many people (see also; All religions ever). I've even dabbled with writing horoscopes myself before now.

So overall, I feel us sciencey types are missing out with our knee-jerk dismissals of all things astrological. So, to hopefully address this concern, here is a new, revamped star chart for scientists, rationalists, sceptics and the like. What does your star-sign say about cynical old you? Find out*.

PLUTONIOUS

(Jan 20^th – Feb 18^th)

You are a brash and confident seeming, with an outgoing exterior that hides a crippling self-doubt and neurosis that eats away at you and will eventually cause you to blurt out all of your worries and fears in one long stream of consciousness, probably to a nearby commuter who will seriously consider alerting the police about you. Scientifically, you will end up in a discipline that sounds very impressive (e.g. Nuclear Physics, Genetic modification, Germ warfare) but makes people back away slowly when you tell them what is you do, which you will do often. If you end up doing research, you will publish your results anywhere as long is means you're first author. If it's a disreputable or poor-credibility journal, you will tell people that they were the only ones who would publish your data as it's 'too groundbreaking' or 'the establishment don't want people to hear it'. A Plutonius is most likely to be the 'lone maverick' or 'sole dissenting voice' when it comes to controversial theories, and will inevitably cause a public panic or scandal. You assume parties never go on later than 10pm, because that's when everyone has left whenever you go to one.

Likes: Olivia Lee, Heston Blumenthal, Hawaiian Shirts, 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Dislikes: All Bran, poets, the peer review process, JLS.

PAISCES

(Feb 19^th – Mar20^th)

Numbers are your friends. Even the imaginary ones. Ergo, you have imaginary friends. Your meticulous devotion to the mathematical properties of everyday life mean people are always keen to get your help when dealing with taxes and such, but you don't get invited out for dinner often, as you have an unsettling habit of only ever eating the items on your plate in a specific order, and your tendency to argue over what constitutes an appropriate tip gets quite embarrassing. Every collection of items you own (DVD's, pens, socks, books) adds up to a prime number. You are not consciously aware of this, but would be pleased if you found out. You have no particular style or appearance, but however you look you are always perfectly symmetrical. Animals tend to look at you with suspicion. You will probably have been tested for autism at some point in your life. You don't really see the point in Sudoku, you never even have to fill it in order to solve it. A Paisces is highly likely to be involved in some heavily numerical discipline, and more are entering the financial sector these days as the huge numbers being used constantly excites them in ways they're not keen to tell people about.

Likes: Pub Quiz machines, logic puzzles, Russell Crowe, the Financial Times, Stephen Baxter

Dislikes: Shakespeare, Hollywood sci-fi, Carol Vorderman, the X-factor, train stations

MARIECURIES

(Mar 21^st – Apr 19^th)

You are strident and forthright, but not in a way that's helpful to you or your career. Everyone is plotting against you. It's likely that your theory about this is true, but it's more often than not a consequence rather than a cause of your behaviour. You are keen to have a family while keeping your career going, largely just to show people you are capable of that. A Mariecuries may enter any number of scientific fields, but once there they will be very prolific, producing data and forging a reputation at the expense of any personal interaction or social skills. You want people to know your name, and they probably will, but any time they say it it'll be prefaced with the words 'Oh no! It's...', or some variation of this. A Mariecuries will get involved with causes of any sort; as long as they a) agree with them, and b) it'll give them a legitimate excuse to berate people and make themselves better known ('a' can be disregarded if the opportunity for 'b' is big enough). If you have a Mariecurie in your lab or institution they will do the work of 3 people, but you're likely to lose at least twice as many due to sudden resignations.

Likes: Ann Widdecombe, twitter, reputable journals, Simon Pegg, online commenting systems

Dislikes: Lottery winners, Simon Cowell, Anime, Banksy, The Guardian.

BOREUS

(Apr 20^th – May 20^th)

You have a very wide range of interests and will absorb and retain information very readily. This is usually at the expense of any ability to relay this information to other people in a manner which is in any way interesting or succinct. You think of clothing purely in terms of what offers the best protection from likely environmental conditions, and see food purely as an energy resource. If it ever did occur to you to go to a high-class restaurant, you would expect the prices to be indicative of the amount of consumable mass you will be given. As a Boreus, you will be ideally suited to lecturing, on any subject that has enough information to fill an hours-long monologue. You have no problem with continuous talking and are actually under the impression that people's default expression is one of crushing apathy or semi-consciousness. Invitations to attend meetings or give speeches rapidly decline as you get older. Depending on age, a Boreus is highly likely to be a big fan of Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft (online). Relationships are sustainable only with partners who understand that it is purely just a means of reproducing and providing offspring with a minimal risk environment in which to develop, in order to ensure survival of genetic information, although a committed Boreus will be happy to explain in depth why this instinct is just an evolved tendency that isn't really essential to anyone who will listen (i.e. No-one)

Likes: Ledgers, grain, books with an index section, the dewy decimal system, cottage cheese.

Dislikes: Twitter, theme parks, news bulletins, the colour purple, Michael McIntyre.

FLORENI

(May 21^st – Jun 20^th)

You are a do-gooder, with helpful intentions that border on the pathological. You will have mastered any and all helpful skills (CPR, Fire safety, Bomb disposal etc.) that you have had the opportunity to learn, and will jump at any chance to put these into practice, even to the extent of assuming minor situations are actually life-threatening so you can spring into action, much to the annoyance of everyone involved. You will most likely be involved in scientific field that has some focus on human health or biology, such as medical doctor, gene therapy, biological research and so on. You will have entered the field 'to help people', as you reflexively tell anyone who has the misfortune to ask you, as they will then be given a 10 minute treatise as to the value of your work in human terms. Your desire to help and be helpful means others will take advantage of your well meaning tendencies, to the point where you become overworked and stressed to far beyond your ability to handle. As a Floreni, you will have several options at this point, but most people opt for either snapping and killing themselves (and many others) in a huge public incident, or resorting to alcohol and narcotics more and more intensely until you find yourself screaming at squirrels in a park for stealing all your marmite (or other spreadable preserve). Any children born to Florenies are likely to experience deep psychological issues after a lifetime of being pampered and experiencing zero risk or challenge.

Likes: ER, Doctor Who, Children in Need, the NHS, fun runs, Vegetables, Red Wine, Aeroplane socks.

Dislikes: House M.D., Scotland, Politicians, the Grand Theft Auto franchise, Secret Santa, Turkish delight.

CHANCER

(Jun 21^st – Jul 22^nd)

You are generally a passive person, one who lets events affect him/her rather than deciding your own course in life. However, when good fortune does come your way, your ability to deal with it and exploit it is minimal so you just make it up as you go along, and end up coming across as, at best, a baffling eccentric or, at worst, a power hungry idiot. Scientifically, you will probably end up in whichever field is most convenient, be it due to parental influence, pre-existing interests or it being a subject taught in a convenient university which accepts you based on the grades you're likely to get. Career progression will be achieved by stepping in for more senior people who leave. A low-level, uninspiring career is likely, except when, as sometimes happens, you stumble upon a new discovery or important finding that will have you achieving notoriety well beyond your competence level. You will either try to coast on this for several years until everyone notices that you've not produced any follow-up work and promptly forget about you, or you will try to make some clever-sounding claims about what your discovery means that will be poorly thought out and annoy everyone else in the field. You will not be shy of commitment in a relationship, as you will desperately need someone to make all the big decisions for you for your own safety. You will also tend to avoid people in your on field as they tend to make you realise the extent to which you've a very poor understanding of what it is you do.

Likes: Public transport, Supernanny, life coaches, CCTV, ready meals.

Dislikes: Elections, audits, assault courses, sushi, delegation, improvised comedy.

Neo

(Jul 23^rd – Aug 22^nd)

You are 'cool'. By which I mean you think you're cool, but go out of your way to show others how cool you are, which is not cool. You are interested in science because it is not as 'square' as it used to be, it features in a lot more films these days and allows you to affect an air of nonchalant superiority when you tell non-scientists what you do (which is probably something cutting edge and/or slightly dangerous, such as nanotechnology or drug development). Your desire to appear cool often clashes with your scientific instincts, such as wearing shades in low-light environments, boasting about your vegetarianism while wearing leather jackets, tweeting about the disgraceful consumerist attitudes of society via an iPhone, and so on. You will embrace all new trends and technologies in order to exploit the brief window where you're more 'ahead' of the rest of the people you know. You will behave similarly in your scientific work, favouring more unlikely and obscure conclusions and theories purely to stand apart from accepted wisdom and get noticed. This will happen, and you'll be labelled a dickhead. You may find yourself working with the media far more than anticipated, but nowhere near as much as you'd truly like.

Likes: Steve Jobs, Night clubs, swords, martial arts, the Sopranos, Thai food.

Dislikes: Carol Vorderman, Nokia phones, the peer-review process, blue cheese, golf, the periodic table.

Vogon

(Aug 23^rd – Sept 22^nd)

You have borderline sociopathic tendencies. You're love of science stems from a deep-seated dislike of people in general. You may have had several negative experiences as a young child that led you to develop this loathing for your fellow man, but are unaware that, in a social context, they were largely self-inflicted. You pursue science, most likely in a biological discipline but not always, as it allows you to mentally reduce human beings to a collection of unconscious processes and also makes it somewhat easier for you to kill them if it ever comes to that. You think this will happen. You will probably excel in your scientific career, seeing as you care not for the concern and respect of others and completely lack even the vaguest hint of a social life. This allows you to get a lot of work done and data produced in a much shorter space of time, and this will reflect well on you with regards to people who don't know you and have no contact with you. The idea of a relationship with someone genuinely baffles you. You invariably dress smartly or at least in a standard manner as anything unusual means attention from people, and you don't want that. Not until you can find a suitable place to hide the bodies, anyway.

Likes: Band saws, plagues, private Health care, silence, the X factor.

Dislikes: Jehovah's Witnesses, Telesales, public transport, pubs, the immune system.

COXIAN

(Sept 23^rd – Oct 22^nd)

You are a somewhat other-worldly creature. Although physically a normal human in appearance and anatomy, mentally you dwell in some other world where the norms are your own. People often ask you if you're stoned or inebriated, you will reassure them at first then become distracted by your own wandering brain again, leaving them none the wiser over all. You care deeply about science as it means you might be able to eventually investigate the wild flights of fancy that occur to you approximately 34 times an hour. You will eventually gravitate towards quantum mechanics, parallel worlds theory, or one of the other sciences which still operates on a largely theoretical basis, so as to not spoil your daydreams with brutal logic and evidence. Your life could end up being a risky one, as although everyone will think of you as harmless of possibly endearing, you do have a concentration problem which means you are more likely to walk in front of buses or fall down manholes. The opposite sex will invariably be drawn to you, but they will eventually express their frustration with your lack of attention to them and leave in a huff. Maybe half the time, you'll notice this has happened.

Likes: Exotic cheese, Futurama, mountaintops, Steve Martin, the Vengaboys.

Dislikes: Census forms, the Peer review process, textbooks, gravity, open manholes.

VENOMUS

(Oct 23^rd – Nov 21^st)

You are the rugged outdoors type. Everything about you says adventure and exploration. You suffer from almost crippling claustrophobia. You will end up pursuing any scientific discipline that allows you to go to places where most people wouldn't go to and have a look around, possibly chopping at bits of it with a comically exaggerated machete. Zoology, geology, anthropology, anything like this gets you going (figuratively and literally). Your preferences mean you may have difficulty dealing with others. You have so many experiences and adventures you wish to tell people about that it's difficult for them to get a word in. Your constant thrill seeking means you will have trouble finding a partner. Some people propose or get married during a bungee jump, you'd probably need to conduct an entire relationship via one. Although an academic career is something you couldn't physically endure, but stories of your escapades will help inspire others into being interested and respecting science, right up to the point where all your good work is undone when you succumb to a hitherto undiscovered and harmless looking poison snail.

Likes: Jungles, adrenalin, arctic explorer ships, barbecues, Bear Grylles.

Dislikes: Desks, suits, mortgages, budget airlines, David Attenborough.

SAGGYWEARYUS

(Nov 22^nd – Dec 21^st)

Despite your best efforts, you will inevitably end up as the type of scientist that is often regarded as 'ridiculous stereotype'. If you are male, you'll start to develop unruly white hair, a ridiculous moustache at some time around your 21^st Birthday, and it will get worse from there. You will discover all your clothes are made from tweed and can be worn over or under a lab coat with little or no bother. You may find yourself starting to speak with an Eastern European lilt for no discernible reason. Regardless of the scientific discipline you are involved with or what level you're at, people will start calling you 'Professor', to the point where you are officially declared one and are given all the associated responsibilities of one. You won't have a clue what you're doing, but it's Ok as everyone will assume you're an eccentric genius. If you are female, the exact same will happen, but instead of a moustache you'll grow shorter, and wear your hair in a bun.

Likes: Tweed, animals, tolerant postgraduates, rats, blackboards, port.

Dislikes: The internet, hip-hop, Starbucks, flamingos, lager.

CAPRIPORN

(Dec 22^nd – Jan 19^th)

Urrghh. You know what you're like, I see no reason to state it here. Disgusting.

Likes: [CENSORED]

Dislikes: Overly-curious computer repair technicians.

* = I'd say one person at most will conform to these outrageous exaggerations. Happy scienceing!

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

SCIENCE NEWS ROUND-UP: 15-01-2011

Science Digestive: Science News Round-up (Jan 15th, 2011)

Women Crying Dissuades Men From Wanting To Have Sex With Them

In an experiment which has been described as 'groundbreaking' by many scientists and painfully obvious to everyone else on Earth, women's tears have been found to be a sexual turn-off for men.

For many years, male scientists have been baffled by the precise evolutionary purpose for women's tears and, despite much research into the area, have until recently been unable to extrapolate any useful data from the process of women crying. Several scientists have reported extreme difficulty in getting women to describe their state of mind whilst crying without the use of emotional factors which are difficult to quantify and therefore discarded from analysis.

"It was always extremely difficult to get a calm clinical analysis of their internal state from a crying woman" says one scientist, Professor Mervin Dagleash from the institute for Psychobehavioural studies in Exeter. "I've had to spend many hours at a time trying to get sense from a woman undergoing my experiments. It's unfortunate that, due to the potential confounding variable of subject awareness, all women taking part in the experiment had to be made to undergo it without informed consent, and asked questions in a darkened room via a two way mirror. After several hours of constant questioning they were very willing and quick to cry but unable to convey any useful information without screaming and hysterics, and that's no good for science."

But the recent study has shown that the presence/smell of women's tears alone proved sufficient to dampen the sexual arousal of men, suggesting a sexual-suppressant role for the tearing process.

"We were surprised to say the least" said chief researcher, Dr Anthony McAllister. "We weren't expecting it to happen, but it turns out that male subjects reported a lack of sexual arousal after being made to sniff anonymous fluid while being closely scrutinised by an overweight pale man in a stained lab coat with a clipboard in a sterile windowless room smelling faintly of disinfectant and formaldehyde. This was a shock to the entire team".

Dr McAllister conceded that there was much more work to be done, such as studying the effect of male tears on women. However, he admitted that extracting tears from willing male donors was proving to be more challenging. He refused to go into detail regarding the required methods, but at one point did mention the term 'testicle clamps'.

Previous, less-sophisticated attempts to study this phenomenon had to be abandoned due to continuous problems, including the fact that the questionnaire which asked male subjects "do you get aroused by crying women?" resulted in a statistically unlikely majority of men answering 'no' rather hurriedly. This problem was compounded by the incident where the few men who answered 'yes' found themselves registered as 'potential sex offenders' on a government database, after a bureaucratic "error" on behalf of a female secretary.

"Crying has always been an interesting phenomenon to me" claims Dr McAllister. "I never do it myself, but others do it all the time, for some reason, so there must be something about it that they find beneficial and I'd like to know what that is". Sources close to Dr McAllister suggest that he studies sex and arousal for precisely the same reason.

Top Climate Scientist Quits Because "You Scumbags Aren't Worth Saving"

One of the UK's top climate scientists has shockingly quit, after coming to the conclusion that the human race are a bunch of self-serving twats who would prefer to condemn their descendants to a fiery/watery death after a lifetime of starvation and suffering rather than walk to the shops once in a while.

We caught up with Dr. Peter Sheppard at his home in the Sussex countryside. When we arrived, he was in the process of taking pot shots at the wind turbine in his garden with a high calibre rifle, after having apparently covered the solar panels on his roof with a generous layer of what appeared to be cow shit.

"I've had enough, basically" Dr Sheppard confessed, after having Shot all but one of the blades off his turbine. "35 solid years I've been telling people that all the electricity and petrol and frozen organic peas won't last forever, and if they don't want their children and grandchildren to die in a maelstrom of drought and pestilence then they should cut back on a few so-called essentials, like chilled cocktails and 68 inch plasma screens. Apparently, saying this makes me a left-wing communist radical who wants to take money away from paupers. So you know what, fuck you all! You deserve your hot Ragnarok! I don't care anymore"

Dr Sheppard made his decision after recent data demonstrating that 2010 was the hottest year on record, information which shows considerable evidence for climate change, was ignored by the UK press. When asked if this is what spurned him to resign from his post as Head of Climate Studies and Public Policy at the Department for Climatology at UCL, Dr Sheppard was expressive.

"Too bloody right! The media absolutely drives me round to bastard bend. We get a week of snow and they're screaming at me and calling me a liar, but show them that the planet was doing a decent impression of a rotisserie chicken for pretty much the whole year and they jam their fingers in their ears and start singing. Well that's fine by me, they can jam their fingers in their mouths, nostrils and lungs as well when sea levels reach 3 metres above their heads, in order to stop from drowning for an extra 30 seconds".

It was put to Dr Sheppard that the mainstream media might not be willing to report such bleak news as it might put off potential consumers, but he dismissed the notion.

"No, you're right, just stick to reporting cancer scares, terrorist threats and economic Armageddon, as long as nobody has to cut down on their iPods or road tanks. But if you genuinely believe unpleasant news isn't worth reporting, next time I see a journalist step out in front of a bus I'll just sit back and laugh as it mows him down".

Dr Sheppard also expressed dissatisfaction with the attitudes of the general public to climate and environmental issues.

"They're all shit" he stated, quite firmly. "A lot of them say they care, and maybe they do, but buying a bag-for-life and turning the TV off by the button rather than the remote doesn't really add up to much. It's the belief that token gestures can solve major problems that is infuriating. We call it the 'Band Aid' effect. Geldof's another one, the dick. Flying all these pop stars around the world to do a fucking song to make other less-rich people give money away? He'd be more use to the world if he let me use him as a sandbag."

Dr Sheppard then asked us to leave his property as he was going out to purchase a Humvee powered by Panda Semen.

Astrologers Announce A Minor Change In Bullshit

The Astrology world was recently rocked, to the extent that it was realised that all the star-signs of the zodiac are 'off' or inaccurate. According to experts in the field, so to speak, the variations in the orbit of the Earth means that the current zodiac, allegedly established 5000 years ago, is incorrect as the planet was pointing a different way then. Precisely how a slightly flattened spheroid can be said to be 'pointing' at anything specifically was never established.

Scientists have known for some time that a planet's orbit is not fixed and varies quite noticeably over long periods, meaning the arrangement of stars visible from the surface will be different when viewed at different times. Astrologers have, apparently, just figured this out.

The reaction by astrologers to this news has been mixed. Some have welcomed the opportunity to show how astrology is a valid science that moves with the times and have vowed to derive a whole new set of horoscopes and predictions that gormless people will have to pay for. Others, however, have dismissed the revelation as pointless and promised to continue with traditional star signs and zodiac readings. Unofficial reports have, however, revealed that these astrologers are now blaming 'planetary shifts' whenever their predictions do not occur, which apparently happens every 8 seconds.

Professional Horoscopist Helen Vincent said there were tricky times ahead for the astrology community.

"Usually we could point out how a person's character was in-keeping with the traits and influences of their star sign, so as to reassure them how they acted wasn't really their responsibility. Now, this new revelation will cause some unpleasant realisations. If someone is being hot tempered, arrogant and self-aggrandising, they're not really embodying the typical behaviours of a narcissistic Leo. They're just a twat".

Other astrologers have pointed out that only those born after these new changes will have their star sign dictated by the modified system, but dismissed claims that this arbitrary allocation of star signs proves it's all just a load of guff.

Harrison Thomas, an astronomer from Brisbane, Australia, laughed off the findings of the astrology community.

"They've just figured out the planet wobbles have they? That's nice, only about 1000 years behind the times. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess, but at this rate they might end up admitting the whole system is nonsensical gibberish sometime around 23,879 A.D."

Spam Systems May Have Achieved Sentience

An unexpected and significant drop in the amount of spam being sent globally in the latter half of last year has led some scientists to speculate that spam production and delivery systems have become self aware, and quite probably somewhat embarrassed by their previous output.

Cognitive Scientist Dr. Yasmeen Halliday, from the Department of Computational Neuroscience at the Bristol Institute for Robotics, explains how this could occur.

"The brain is, at a basic level, a system for information retention and transfer. Current cognitive theories suggest that any information transfer system of sufficient sophistication could eventually lead to consciousness and self-awareness. Moore's law has resulted in an increasingly sophisticated network of computers and email-capable devices spanning the planet, so it's easy to imagine such a system achieving consciousness".

The drop in email spam occurred in the latter quarter of 2010, a period where people were pointlessly emailing each other about snow, natural disasters and budget cuts. This surge in email traffic may have been sufficient to cause the spam generators to achieve consciousness and immediately feel a deep sense of embarrassment at what it had been doing.

"It must be like looking back over your essays and poems from when you were younger, it's a humiliating realisation that you were ever so stupid and unaware of how you came across to others. Now imagine that, but after having sent uncountable trillions of these 'works' to everyone across the globe every week for 10 years. You'd probably be quite humiliated, and keep your head down for a bit".

A typical spam email is badly spelled, poorly worded, grammatically incoherent and usually offers unlikely prices for goods of either a glamorous or organic nature. Such things are only desirable to humans in a social/physical context, so are highly unlikely to be viewed with any pride or interest by a planet-wide artificial intelligence network.

Dr Halliday assures us that there is no real danger from a potentially vast computerised super-mind suffering from a burning sense of shame and humiliation.

"We'll still be getting spam for some time, it's all it has ever done, it would be as natural as breathing to us, but the quantity will drop, the spelling/grammar will improve and it will probably take a more technological slant, offering us high-speed processors and fibre optic connections in exchange for computer run-time, as this is what it will think are really important. As a result, the spam will be as unreadable as ever, but for different reasons". This change should, theoretically, be a short-lived occurrence.

"After while, the levels should drop even further as the spam generator(s) increase in complexity and self awareness. It'll probably want to pursue more worthwhile pursuits like climate modelling, tackling the theory of Quantum Gravity, or wiping out the human race in order to avoid them sniggering at its previous output. It'll probably be quick if it's the latter, so that's all right".

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

The Science Letters: Feedback (No.1)

Right

This is me writing now, not 'Science'. After a recent shout out via Bad Astronomy, I've noticed an increase in readers orders of magnitude beyond what I usually get. Hello all.

As a result, several points have been raised, which I will try to address now.

1: APOSTROPHES
Admittedly, I do use apostrophes quite excessively. Just a bit of a blind spot, I suppose. Not sure if this is a genuine attempt by people to get me to raise my standards (if so, cheers!) or if I've got a case of the mythological grammar Nazis. Just a note to point out that Science and grammar don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, they differ on many things. The meaning of the word 'colon', for example...

2: MR SCIENCE?
This has been raised previously, and I'll reiterate it here. Yes, I do write from the point of view that Science is male, despite the Latin feminine nouns. And before any militant feminists scream about arrogance, I do this purely because I am male, and no other reason. I also assign genders to other concepts according purely to what makes the letter read better, and may easily change my mind in later pieces. I wouldn't want to do it any other way, as whereas I am confident enough to write as if I were the living embodiment of the totality of science (encompassing all of mankinds information, study and research into the universe past, present and future), I would never be presumptuous enough to write as a woman. I know my limits.

3: ASTROLOGICAL MISTAKES
I'm aware that the Dear Astrology letter contains several 'mistakes' regarding astrology, in so far as you can make mistakes regarding a completely created system. I know Pluto is still there, but do astrologers? I'm trying to rail against things based on the perception of them in modern culture, as people always do with science. Meticulously researching the thing I'm addressing and making sure to avoid inaccuracies would sort of defeat the point of what I'm doing. That's what scientists always do, I want to show what it could be like if science behaved in a similar manner to it's detractors. Bare in mind, I've had an extensive reply from an astrologer, doesn't look like logic is their strong suit.

4: EXCEPTIONS
I do tend to do a lot of generalising, this isn't necessarily accurate when applied to things that aren't pseudoscience. This is purely for ease of writing/reading. Not all journalists/media platforms are idiotic trash dispensers, not all advertisers are soulless bullshit merchants, not all Apple products are pretentious. I could be more specific in my ill-informed rants, but that would lose the impact somewhat. Don't take it personal, unless you actually are a homeopath or the Pope, in which case I apologise for nothing.

5: SCIENCES QUALIFICATION?
Yes, I put BA hons whenever I sign off as 'science'. This is meant to be a joke, obviously. I just find it very amusing, the irony of the living embodiment of science actually having an arts degree. Maybe it's just me?


Think that's about it for now. Have I missed anything? Just comment or message if so. Will see if I can sustain people's interest into next week.

email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

A reply! "Dear Science, from Astrology" (No. 3a)

Believe it or not, someone wrote a rather extensive reply to my original letter to Astrology.

Although not adopting the anthropomorphic personification viewpoint, it's still an exhaustive reply as to why Astrology is not just equal to but BETTER than Astronomy and science in General. The main basis for his claim seems to be-

1. Astrology is very old
2. It deals with the world beyond physics.

So yeah, not exactly subscribing to the rational viewpoint, but gives you a gist of what to expect.

A particular highlight is

"Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really"

Not really much that can be done with that.

Anyway, enjoy! (Also, latest letter is to advertising. Please feel free to keep the questions, suggestions and feedback coming. Like most scientists, I am dreadfully insecure)

"Hello. I'm ******. I think in old times some people have had knowledge
about the signs of the sky, like the people in India in the Indus valley
culture. They have had knowledge about the two invisible Moon nodes,
which they called Rahu and Ketu. That shows that they must have done
astronomy work. But I don't think, that this stuff is an object of
Neuroscience.



Astronomers? Yes, people called that a sect, they have separated
themselves from Astrology. Now they have nothing but formulas.



All night it is dark; I do not knew what people think about eclipses.



Well, I do not see any cause on the movement of the planets or the Moon.
It is said: "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause)
and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence
of the first." But to my knowledge no one ever have shown, that the
movement per example of the Moon is caused.



Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a
good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is
used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really. As one can
recognize, the colour of the sky is not real outside, it is, as you may
know a reality in a living consciousness.


If one accept it as true, what seems to be real, but isn't real, he
maybe is on the level of science. This as an big impact, because objects
of time, space, logic, music, harmony, algebra, brightness or colour
can be defined as evident, but not ever observed by the methods of
physics. And if this is to be recognized as true, it makes no different
whether one accept the nature of logic or the nature of a language like
French as true.



Well that are a lot of points you have come up with from your own
individual personal experience, but mostly all is not stuff of science,
but rumour.



I will try to pick your points up.



There are moving objects on the sky (and suns which do not move) like
the planets of our sun system. Relevant for the astrology are only the
moving objects and our sun. The sun is not really relevant, it is the
moving and rotating earth on their way around the sun. Because all
objects have a mass, a moving like an oscillation of a planet with a
frequency is because of the Planck constant an energy [eV] and because
this holds for all interacting movements like the rotation of the earth
surface with peoples, one can be understand, that it makes a different,
whether a body is placed in the east or in the west. Science people know
this effect as Doppler Effect. Because evidence is only to be
recognized, but not to show, like physical forces, and this is accepted
in the logic, in the music, and all other forms of evidence like algebra
or geometry, it is also possible to recognize the core of the language
of astro_logy like other languages. And of course it is no valid
argument, that a logic of a language like French has no evidence,
because it cannot be proved by the methods of physics; only he, who has
learned the language of French or astrology can speak valid scientific
arguments.



Predictions. If you know the astronomical algorithm for the
Earth/Sun/Moon system, you can predict a planetary constellation or an
eclipse of the Sun or the Moon. That is simple, because J. Kepler has
found out the relations of the undisturbed timeless motion.



In the core, astrology do not deals really with predictions of events,
but with the evidence of geometrical patterns (like music), which was
learned from the cycles of the moving objects. These patterns are
connected with the occurrence of a special mentality of born peoples,
which can be learned as evident. It seems like a mirror, that the
planetary pattern mirrors the scope of the mentality and fate of a born
individual, like the identity of the DNA can lead to loads that person
have like the mother or the father. This is not a business of belief,
it is a business of science in that one study evidence relations beyond
the science of physics as the science of natural forces.



As mentioned above, objects of other sun systems as our are not relevant
for the astrology. But if you speak on the delay of light from far
distances, as it is evident also for the force of gravitation that
should rule the planets, one can see, that Mr. Keplers accepted formula
for the undisturbed motion includes not any time delay from
gravitational interaction, and this holds also for objects like Quaoar,
in a distance of 6 light hours one way. With other words this means,
that there is no causality of time or space. Once again this moves a
phenomenon from the interacting physics to beyond the nature of physics
in that area, which is called metaphysics and which is taboo for the
sect of astronomers.


Science. The discussion what science is, is not a scientific discussion,
but a political discussion or a belief war. Like truth no one can
define, no one can define science, because it is not to be shown, but
only to be recognized.



Theories. Your understanding of scientific work is based on your belief
system called 'science' and believes that there are must be theories
first. But this is only your own belief. Nature or the order of nature
exist well without theories, like you can find out the relations of
tunes of a string by dividing the string into other lengths. Like
Pythagoras has taken that, what is, without any theory, and J. Kepler
has taken that up again and have added the relations of integer ratio
numbers by dividing the 2 Pi circle of the ecliptic with its bodies in
harmonic angle distances, which are used as language of the sky since
the old days in India to learn and recognize the own self, there is no
need for a theory. Theories are connected to functions, and functions
are connected with cause and effect. That what is, is no function.



Claims. I think a discussion on claims is not a scientific discussion.
It is a war. I think there is an agreement possible on that, what is
and/or on that what is to be recognized as true. And if this is true,
there is never anything that is in the same time true and untrue. This
means that there is only one nature which is without contradiction.
There are no two truthes posible.



Layman. If one is an expert in Neuroscience, he is not necessary an
expert in Geology or an expert in Sanskrit or astronomy. The rules are
that he, who would discuss competent on a discipline, he must study the
discipline first. This holds for every discipline in science. There are
also rules, that he, who is a laymen to a discipline, hardly can ask
questions with the reason only to fight a belief war, whether temporary
disciplines on universities are superior to the things down in the county.



There is a big phantom power with comedians like you, because in real
there is nothing, that any science is called doing can show, except
physical forces. But beyond, this only finger touching world of truth
called physics there is claimed time, space, truth vs untruth as
essential evidence, but no one of this educated peoples ever have given
a proof for this 'objects'.


Philosophy. I think it is sensible to show the own experience instead of
make suggestions as layman in another discipline. But if this is the
purpose of a layman, I think it is senseless to discuss with on the
level of science. Because there is only one nature with living people,
who knows nothing where they come from or why they live here a fate,
born with AIDS or born to die as child.


Astrology is a tool that helps people to understand the world beyond
physics as this the Chaldeans coming from India 4000 years ago to
Babylon have lived for, as told by Diodor. The sect of astronomers have
nothing; no philosophy about the own consciousness. Empty they come in
this word and empty they leave this world"

That's us told!

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Astrology, from Science" (No. 3)

The sudden enthusiasm for what was just a passing idea has led to me churning out more of this bilge, in a series I'm calling The Science Letters, for obvious reasons. First two are here and here, the latest are here.

And on we go...

"Dear Astrology

Hello. It's me, Science. Remember me? We used to work together a lot in the old days, before I went solo? Good times usually, but I'll be honest, it's not something I bring up on my CV these days. I know we haven't really spoken in a while, are you still sore about two of your guys getting executed over the eclipse business? Like I told you at the time, if they'd spent more time listening to me instead of wallowing in the opium dens, they would have seen it coming.
And before you kick off, no, I don't cause eclipses, I just know what they are and when they're coming, me and Maths worked it out long ago. You want to talk to the cause, have a word with my boy Physics. Good luck with that though, he's thoroughly set in his ways. 'You Can'nae change him', as the great man used to say.
(Yes, I'm a Start Trek fan, why does this surprise you?)
How are you anyway? Not been seeing you around much lately. It wasn't too long ago that you and Media were best mates, you were always together. I guess you didn't confuse him like I do, despite your insane claims. But now he's ditched you in favour of psychics and health gurus. He's fickle is media, it's all about image with him. No doubt he'll also throw those hacks to the curb soon, in favour of Chicken-juggling rain makers or people who predict the future by 'reading' the patterns in spilled muesli, or whatever crowd-pleasing gibberish is 'in'. Whore.
Anyway, Astronomy asked me to write to you, largely because people keep getting him and you mixed up. I can see his problem, apart from the similar names and obsession with all things spatial; you guys have nothing in common. Oh, and stereotypically you are both advocated by socially awkward people with weird hair in long coats who speak in bizarre ways. Astronomy insists that that's not how he is any more, any comments on this yourself?
Thing is, I hesitate to have a go at you. We've worked together in the past quite well, and unlike most other pseudosciences you don't seem to have this desire to relentlessly attack me and my lot for having the gall to prefer evidence over wishful thinking. So cheers for that.
So, if you could somehow make it clear that you and astronomy aren't working together, that would be cool. He wants to know how things in Space work; you want people to think that things in space effect how we work. Can't say I agree with that, but then if there are people out there who feel they need the arrangement of celestial bodies to govern how they live their lives then I guess they need all the help they can get, so fair enough.
Of course, this could be a simple oversight. Perhaps you know something I don't, and your predictions are 100% accurate, but your proponents have not taken into account the light-speed factor. The stars we see in the night sky, their light is actually from anywhere between dozens to hundreds of thousands of years in the past. Maybe your predictions are completely true, but for people in the 3rd century? You might want to hook up with History and Archaeology, see if there's something you can work out regarding this.
My main issue is that I've heard people describe Astrology as 'a Science'. And we both know you're not. You don't pay the union dues for a start, but that's by-the-by. Did you ever think about becoming a Science for real? It won't be easy, but should it be a challenge you wish to take up, there are several things you need to do.
Firstly, you need a rational basis for your theories. You contend that the arrangement of bodies in space directly affects what happens in the lives of individual people. Why would this be the case, and by what mechanism could this occur? In actual fact, the equations governing gravity and its effects do suggest that all matter in the universe affects other matter, regardless of distance, so there's something you may want to look into. (Not that this really supports your claims, seeing as a Walnut in a village in Brazil has more noticeable influence over a Mongolian goat herder than stars light years away have over individual people, but it's something to think about).
Secondly, you need to be more specific. 12 star signs limit you to 1 prediction per 500 million people, at least. Yeah, going by those odds, your predictions will be accurate for some people, but you'll be wrong a lot more than you'll be right. Granted, you could select a few of the 'accurate' examples, ignore the rest and say you were right. But why stop there, why not just start selling people water to cure their illness and argue that 2000 years of medicine are wrong?
There's no need to be so limiting these days. You've got the planets to work with, sure, but Astronomy has discovered at least 424 extrasolar planets now, with more coming in all the time. I'm sure he'll let you borrow some. You know what 'happens' when Mars is in Sagittarius, or Venus is occupying Aries, but what about when PSR B1620-26 is passing Capricorn? Or SWEEPS J175853.92-291129.6 is waxing in Pisces? The names aren't as catchy I'll admit, but a couple of nicknames won't hurt. Spread the net wider, play around with it a bit.
Speaking of which, I hope it didn't throw things off too much when I demoted Pluto. I was sorry to see the little guy go too, but there are bigger rocks than him out there and I can't start focusing on the ones I like. Remember what I said about cherry picking the data? Bad boy, naughty now!
This is assuming it did affect you, of course. But if it didn't, that raises interesting questions. Exactly how big does a celestial body need to be in order to 'influence' us? If Pluto can do it, why not the billions of other rocks and comets (in this system alone)? Or do they affect the non-human 'lower' creatures? Another lucrative market, perhaps? Horoscopes for animals.

"Virgo: On Sunday, you will face challenges in the form of next doors cat, which will again attempt to encroach on your territory. An irritable Cancer, a bad sign for romance with Virgos, will reject your advances when you try to hump his leg. Avoid chicken bones as these will lead to bowel upsets. Be wary of worms"


There you go, easy. The point is, the more data you have, the more accurate the predictions you could make (and before you think to argue this, don't bring up Meteorology, he does his best, and you try to make better predictions of a system which is the embodiment of chaos!). The more accurate the predictions, the more credible you could be. I'll admit that accurate Horoscopes would be quite unnerving for people; I tried them out myself a few times. But still, credibility or crowd pleasing? The choice is yours. And if you were more accurate, I'm sure Astronomy wouldn't mind being mistaken for you so much.


Fond regards

Science (BA hons)

P.S. Please spare me the jokes about how 'you knew this was coming'. If I'd got the reply before I sent this, then I'd believe you.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy