I agree. As a physicist, I am very comfortable with the idea that all models of reality are wrong^1, but some models are useful for some things. For example: If

I agree. As a physicist, I am very comfortable with the idea that all models of reality are wrong^1, but some models are useful for some things. For example: If you want to get a rocket into space, Newton’s laws are useful (despite being “wrong” in a very real way). But Newton’s laws are not useful if you’re designing GPS (you need relativity for that) and likewise they’re not useful if you are deciding whether to ask Susie on a date. My observation is that many traditional belief systems do encode useful beliefs and behaviours. Practicing yoga is healthful, despite Qi being “wrong”. I do hope your surgeon isn’t using the Qi model to do open heart surgery of course — though many of the surgeon’s beliefs about the human body are “wrong”, he’ll get better outcomes with them than with Qi. I therefore, like you, see no contradiction between learning astrology and using it to bond and communicate with friends about social situations, and going off to work in the morning as a particle physicist or something. As far as I’m concerned, the /real/ problem is this creeping “scientism” which asserts that the only acceptable knowledge is that which comes dressed in the robes and language of Science. Scientism is corrosive to the pursuit of actual science, and to society’s relationship with science. I am therefore much more concerned with someone saying “Scienty science words and therefore politics” or even ”scienty science words and therefore Everything You Know About Relationships Is Wrong“ — than I am about people practicing traditional astrology. ^1 “Wrong” being a loosely defined word for a slippery concept here. Perhaps replace with “not big-T True”