How can " Scientists" believe in Astrology?

"What is science?

 An excellent definition is given by EO Wilson: ‘Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organising it and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories’.1 In order for a claim or observation to be considered rigorously scientific, it must be testable experimentally and must accurately predict how the relevant aspect of the world works. Robert Park, an eminent physicist and director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, succinctly observes that if either condition is not met then: …it isn’t science. The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to obey two rules: 1. Expose new ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists. 2. Abandon or modify accepted facts and theories in the light of more complete or reliable evidence.2 The late great Richard Feynman, in his famous Commencement address at Stanford in 1974, spoke about the underlying philosophy of science: It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising.

 We all easily recognise commercial advertising but it is particularly important to identify advertising masquerading as science.

The fact that the cock crows shortly before the sun comes up each day does not mean that the cock crowing causes the sun to rise. Relatively few in the developed world today would think it does, but much of the abundant junk science which is rampant in our society is just as ridiculous. Most people are also strangers to the concept of reverse causality, in this case that the sun rising is what causes the cock to crow.

 Lack of exposure to science and grossly inadequate scientific education in schools has created a population which is as effectively cut-off from understanding science and how it operates as a totally tone deaf individual is cut-off from appreciation and enjoyment of music. This is a terrible deprivation. The many individuals in our society who are tone deaf to science enable junk science, avidly taken up and promoted by much of the media, to effortlessly take root and flourish, often very damagingly"


"It is a sad but inevitable example of zemblanity that, in the present hyper-regulated environment, the costs of drug development for relatively rare diseases, such as systemic amyloidosis, generally disqualify them as candidates, at least for big pharmaceutical companies"

Ref: Science and serendipity Mark B Pepys