Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2008 04:22:18 am Rahul Sundaram wrote:
தியாகராஜன் wrote:
In all counts , Astrology is a science.
Nope.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/astrology.html
what does this prove? The only consistent thing about science is that every
now and then established proven theories are stood on their head - or proved
false. Quotations from scriptures should not be used to prove/disprove
things.
Exactly. Science is a superior method _because_ it allows for a certain
theory to be upturned. That means, at the end of the day, science always
respects truth, even if it means it has to be turned on its' head - that
is, what scientists previously considered to be established fact. They
just discovered new conditions under which the particular phenomenon
might not work.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb (in his book "Fooled by Randomness" I suggest
everybody pick up a copy) refers to the same example - Astrology and
Astronomy are different in the aspect that the latter provides a
condition that whatever is being considered fact might be proven wrong
by the emergence of a new fact (remember Pluto?). Astrology is a
self-contained theory, which provides no room for its' own disproof. And
that, NNT says is the difference between actual science and
charlatanism. I think he is right.
Also, I find it rather strange that none of the supporters of the
'Scientific Method' on this list referred to one of the basic tenets of
it - that for something considered to be scientifically proven, it needs
to be repeatable under the same conditions. Now, take your favorite pet
theory, put it under this scale - is it repeatable? Does it provide
conditions where it can be disproved?
V.
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe <password> <address>"
in the subject or body of the message.
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
