3 ms·

Being new is not an excuse for producing meaningless garbage. It's okay to not know. It's not okay to claim results when there aren't any to be drawn from the

by p-e-w 3y ago

Being new is not an excuse for producing meaningless garbage. It's okay to not know. It's not okay to claim results when there aren't any to be drawn from the available data. And astrology did not "turn into" astronomy. Astronomy developed (in part) as a result of astrologers trying to predict the motion of celestial objects. But astrology is not at all the forerunner of scientific astronomy, since its main concern (how celestial movements influence human lives) lacks any factual underpinnings. It's not that astrology produced incorrect results; the entire endeavor is fundamentally wrong.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You are only looking at other fields successes and only Psychology's failures. Quick to forget all the false starts and wrong directions in other fields. Might need to do some history readying. Of course the study of celestial movements eventually became astronomy, who do you think was looking at the stars before astronomy existed. All of history isn't some nice linear line of analytic reasoning. I wonder if HN also has a general bias against history, since it is a non-technical field with a lot of interpretations.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > Of course the study of celestial movements eventually became astronomy Astrology is not "the study of celestial movements". It's the utterly baseless claim that those movements have a high-level influence on human lives. That's not proto-science, it's pseudoscience. And it's not at all comparable to incorrect theories in other fields (like phlogiston or the luminiferous aether). There is no reason to expect that astrology works, and its claims are made without any supporting evidence. That has nothing to do with science.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    You are making my argument for me. Do you not see it? Make the leap. I am NOT saying Astrology is true. I'm saying that a lot of people over history, long before astronomy exited, observed the stars, and traced their movement, and yes, some of them attributed their movements to 'gods', or did what today we called 'Astrology'. Then eventually, someone was like, man, these celestial bodies seem to follow some patterns, and drifted away from thinking it was 'the gods', and started putting math to it, and boom, we look back on it and call it 'Astronomy'. But Astronomy did not pop into existence fully formed as a science.
    - wholinator2 3y ago
      I wonder if we have any historical studies or evidence to prove either of these views. Seems if it did or didn't "turn in to" there should have been someone writing about it at the time
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Guess that is why I'm surprised this is even an argument. Can do quick search and find many papers and books related to historical developments of the sciences and how in early times they were related. But that would take reading and then trusting historians, which I'm not sure is allowed either these days. In post-truth world, can't trust any studies, can't trust history, can't trust what we see.

by p-e-w 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

You are only looking at other fields successes and only Psychology's failures. Quick to forget all the false starts and wrong directions in other fields. Might need to do some history readying. Of course the study of celestial movements eventually became astronomy, who do you think was looking at the stars before astronomy existed. All of history isn't some nice linear line of analytic reasoning. I wonder if HN also has a general bias against history, since it is a non-technical field with a lot of interpretations.

p-e-w 3y ago
> Of course the study of celestial movements eventually became astronomy Astrology is not "the study of celestial movements". It's the utterly baseless claim that those movements have a high-level influence on human lives. That's not proto-science, it's pseudoscience. And it's not at all comparable to incorrect theories in other fields (like phlogiston or the luminiferous aether). There is no reason to expect that astrology works, and its claims are made without any supporting evidence. That has nothing to do with science.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  You are making my argument for me. Do you not see it? Make the leap. I am NOT saying Astrology is true. I'm saying that a lot of people over history, long before astronomy exited, observed the stars, and traced their movement, and yes, some of them attributed their movements to 'gods', or did what today we called 'Astrology'. Then eventually, someone was like, man, these celestial bodies seem to follow some patterns, and drifted away from thinking it was 'the gods', and started putting math to it, and boom, we look back on it and call it 'Astronomy'. But Astronomy did not pop into existence fully formed as a science.
  - wholinator2 3y ago
    I wonder if we have any historical studies or evidence to prove either of these views. Seems if it did or didn't "turn in to" there should have been someone writing about it at the time
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Guess that is why I'm surprised this is even an argument. Can do quick search and find many papers and books related to historical developments of the sciences and how in early times they were related. But that would take reading and then trusting historians, which I'm not sure is allowed either these days. In post-truth world, can't trust any studies, can't trust history, can't trust what we see.