Sir, – Joe Humphreys's article ("Unthinkable: Are scientists wrong to dismiss astrology?", December 1st) on philosopher and writer Martin Cohen is full of entertaining nonsense summoned ingloriously in the defence of astrology.
The absurdly vain basis for astrology, which sees a connection between the fate of humans and the stars, is glossed over. Instead we are told that people of 2,000 years ago would be shocked at our abandoning astrology. Perhaps they would, but leaving astrology behind is the least of our accomplishments and there are better things to draw the attention of a time traveller from the past.
We are told that Newton was interested in astrology, and indeed Newton did have an interest in the occult. But in science, especially over the long term, work survives on its merits, not because of its author’s name. Newton’s work in physics and mathematics proved important. His work in astrology and alchemy did not.
A believer in astrology it seems will pluck the most tenuous coincidence from the air and attach meaning to it. Thus we are to believe that something is explained when it’s revealed that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are both Aries men. Or that an astrological influence is at play because the Aries motto means “I am”, and Descartes was Aries. Ironically, this argument only has force if we don’t think.
Astrology is dismissed by science because the theoretical basis for it is unapologetically mystical and nonsensical, the arguments supporting it don’t follow the rules of logic, and the standard of evidence used by its advocates is ludicrous. But of course I would say that – I’m Sagittarius and we tend to be sceptical. – Yours, etc,
COLIN WALSH,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.