My birth chart indicates that astrology is hookum

by zeevveez

Astrologers jump on Cox
[Via Bad Astronomy]

I have not yet seen “Wonders of the Solar System”, because it hasn’t aired in America yet. It’s a BBC astronomy documentary hosted by my friend Brian Cox, and from what I have heard is an extraordinary event. I can’t wait to see it.

Some folks, though, have a different opinion. Brian, like me, is an outspoken skeptic, and will brook no nonsense. In one episode of the show, he said, “…astrology is a load of rubbish.”

This is, of course, completely accurate. Astrology has no mechanism, no predictability, and no physical way of working. When tested even using its own standards it fails miserably.

Astrology doesn’t work, and anyone telling you otherwise is selling something.

Just as obviously, those people who are selling something have taken umbrage at Brian’s impolitic uttering of truth. They have started a Facebook page where they can get together and reinforce their silliness, make fun of Brian, and grossly misrepresent science. My favorite bit is this, in the page description:

His careless assertion was unresearched, unsubstantiated and unscientific. Has he done any empirical studies? Has he explored his birth chart? Can he cite any scientific studies disproving astrology that are not fundamentally flawed? Of course not. I have certainly never seen him at an astrology conference or read anything written by him about astrology. Cox is simply not qualified to speak on astrology and his comments amount to no more than prejudice.

Yes. Brian, a PhD physicist with decades of training in the scientific method, research, analysis, logic, and critical thinking, who has written a book on relativity and works at CERN on the Large Hadron Collider, is not qualified to speak on astrology. Heh.

By the way, astrologers: in the link above I do cite scientific studies that are not flawed and show astrology to be nonsense, just as they trash flawed studies that support astrology. I have explored birth charts and found them to be nothing more than tarot cards/Ouija boards/tea leaves/cold reading tools. I have seen empirical studies, and they all show astrology = nonsense.

[More]

Thankfully, astrology gave us some great songs from the musical Hair but there is little factually it has been able to produce. But it is nice that they can form a Facebook page to discuss their daily dose of woo.

Read the page. They seem to be saying that since Jupiter has a large gravitational field, one that extends as far as the earth, this proves astrology is correct. See, they have said that Jupiter affects Earth and here is proof.

And they say that the BBC is supposed to present astrology in a balanced way. I think calling it rubbish is pretty balanced. Particularly in light of this comment on the Facebook page:

Gravitational pull is not one of the reasons astrology “works” . . . more like the highest forms of unified systems theory and fractal/unified nuclear centric systems.

Yep, the Large Hadron Collider is going to prove that astrology works. Well, maybe. It would certainly be the first real proof if it did.

Something to wait for.

What research universities need to do

by kevindooley

Supporting innovation, not just research
[Via Andrew Hargadon]

Tom Katsouleas, dean of Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering, has a nice article, How Uncle Sam Can Support Innovation, on the Chronicle of Higher Education website about the need for an investment in translational-research education that is equivalent to the national investment in scientific research (roughly $43B per year).

Don’t mistake equivalence, in this regard, for equal financial investments but rather for investments in creating the capability to bring the fruits of $43B-worth of research all the way to the market. In our experience, the training and support needed to get ideas moving out of research labs is a fraction of the costs of the original research.

Katsouleas’s point: “For research universities to realize their full potential in tackling global grand challenges and engaging society, revolutionary changes are needed in federal policy, educational programs, and the treatment of intellectual property.”

[More]

Translating health research from the lab to the clinic will take more than money from the government. I will take a basic changes in how scientists are trained and supported. Greater focus will have to be put understanding research’s place in society and how scientists fit.

Because in the current world, successful research on health concerns, leading to successful outcomes, requires a much greater understanding of the needs of society than simply what gets done in the lab.

Or rather, the researchers who do understand this will have much more successful research careers. Because a bigger piece of the government pie will be going to those who can help provide viable solutions to important health problems, not just those working in the ivory tower.

I expect to see more scientists clambering for this sort of training. Maybe not all will find them useful but those that do will probably have an impact far beyond their numbers.