Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:f75fc395m54rfjccuh88go7l1g4gdtrdq1@4ax.com to alt.atheism:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-08/081707hoagland.html#i2

PECKING AT THE ANKLES OF A GIANT

The Amazing Randi writes:
(In his weekly column, which every rational person should read!)

"A man named Neil Spencer – the official astrologer for the Observer
in the UK, so not an intellect with whom to trifle! – has written an
hilariously poor article, critical of the new Richard Dawkins two-part
TV series, which debuted this last Monday and concludes on the 20th.
Any in-depth review of the Spencer article would take more time than I
can afford, but I'll touch a few of the highlights. In summary, it's
the usual display of ignorance on the part of a confirmed woo-woo
artist. It’s to be seen at
observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html.

Spencer takes great delight in pointing out that both Galileo and
Robert Boyle showed interest in astrology, thus simultaneously
claiming to belong to their fraternity and scolding Dawkins for
implying that these giants of science saw a Truth to which he remains
impervious; similarly, Spencer takes refuge in citing Isaac Newton’s
pursuit of alchemy – ignoring the fact that one of the greatest minds
of our species existed in a period before chemical transmutation of
elements was known to be beyond reach.

The author exults over his own ability to experience wonder "when
contemplating nature or the night sky." The implication, of course, is
that no one with a scientific point of view can have such delight. No,
Mr. Spencer, our enjoyment of such phenomena is far better, the more
we understand their true quality; we need not summon up the frills and
the mythology, the pixies and the “vibrations,” to enjoy a universe
with still so many exciting questions to be answered, and we know that
those answers are to be found by a systematic examination of the
evidence that presents itself – when sought after.

Says Spencer, "Scientism, of course, hates meaning." This statement of
his – by itself – establishes his ignorance. He uses "scientism" here
as a demeaning term for "science," then continues to rant on with the
usual erroneous summing-up of science’s present understanding of the
world and how it works. He cannot be ignorant of the real position of
science; he merely chooses to be so, to support his stance.

He writes, "…there are frauds, scamsters and incompetents in the
mind/body/spirit arena, but the same is true of applied science." Yes,
Mr. Spencer, but you fail to note that science – unlike your chosen
flummery – is not only willing to correct its failings, but eager to
do so. No matter how much astrology fails, and it fails unfailingly,
we never hear of astrologers opting to reverse their convictions.

Turning to the tried-and-true ploy of misquotation, Neil Spencer
quotes Richard Dawkins as saying, referring to the poet Yeats, "… he
wrote a lot of pretty words, whether they mean anything is another
matter." This, in Spencer's translation, turns into an accusation that
Dawkins is referring to the poet's work as, "pretty but meaningless
words."

Spencer refers to Dawkins’ view of the world as, "one-eyed.” Sir, I
assure you that Richard Dawkins has both eyes wide open, he seldom
blinks, and he looks upon individuals like yourself as risible targets
– especially because you specify in your article that you take pride
in being classed with such "esteemed company" as “Dr. Peter Fisher,
clinical director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital and the Queen’s
physician." Even a cursory examination of the state of the House of
Windsor would indicate that perhaps such an appointment might not have
been wise.

But Spencer is not merely commenting on Dawkins. He’s trying to
neutralize the fact that he has studiously avoided accepting Dawkins’
challenge to perform a definitive test of the power of horoscopes, a
test which he has rejected. Dawkins is therefore a serious and present
threat to Spencer and his “art.”

I rest my case.

But before we leave this subject of disbelief in nonsense, please go
to tinyurl.com/2r98ox to see an article by UK critic Charlie Booker in
the Guardian which sums up very neatly and exactly my opinions and
stance on the matter. Dawkins is right to be impatient and angry with
those who ignore the substantial peril that confronts reason today. I
and the JREF stand alongside these warriors who fight nonsense, and
they have our unqualified support. Bear that in mind when considering
your support for this Foundation. "

Here's the bit that deals with astrology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8D3Kqnd6z4

On 19 Aug, 01:59, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-08/081707hoagland.html#i2

PECKING AT THE ANKLES OF A GIANT

The Amazing Randi writes:

(In his weekly column, which every rational person should read!)

"A man named Neil Spencer - the official astrologer for the Observer
in the UK, so not an intellect with whom to trifle! - has written an
hilariously poor article, critical of the new Richard Dawkins two-part
TV series, which debuted this last Monday and concludes on the 20th.
Any in-depth review of the Spencer article would take more time than I
can afford, but I'll touch a few of the highlights. In summary, it's
the usual display of ignorance on the part of a confirmed woo-woo
artist. It's to be seen at
observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html.

Spencer takes great delight in pointing out that both Galileo and
Robert Boyle showed interest in astrology, thus simultaneously
claiming to belong to their fraternity and scolding Dawkins for
implying that these giants of science saw a Truth to which he remains
impervious; similarly, Spencer takes refuge in citing Isaac Newton's
pursuit of alchemy - ignoring the fact that one of the greatest minds
of our species existed in a period before chemical transmutation of
elements was known to be beyond reach.

The author exults over his own ability to experience wonder "when
contemplating nature or the night sky." The implication, of course, is
that no one with a scientific point of view can have such delight. No,
Mr. Spencer, our enjoyment of such phenomena is far better, the more
we understand their true quality; we need not summon up the frills and
the mythology, the pixies and the "vibrations," to enjoy a universe
with still so many exciting questions to be answered, and we know that
those answers are to be found by a systematic examination of the
evidence that presents itself - when sought after.

Says Spencer, "Scientism, of course, hates meaning." This statement of
his - by itself - establishes his ignorance. He uses "scientism" here
as a demeaning term for "science," then continues to rant on with the
usual erroneous summing-up of science's present understanding of the
world and how it works. He cannot be ignorant of the real position of
science; he merely chooses to be so, to support his stance.

He writes, "...there are frauds, scamsters and incompetents in the
mind/body/spirit arena, but the same is true of applied science." Yes,
Mr. Spencer, but you fail to note that science - unlike your chosen
flummery - is not only willing to correct its failings, but eager to
do so. No matter how much astrology fails, and it fails unfailingly,
we never hear of astrologers opting to reverse their convictions.

Turning to the tried-and-true ploy of misquotation, Neil Spencer
quotes Richard Dawkins as saying, referring to the poet Yeats, "... he
wrote a lot of pretty words, whether they mean anything is another
matter." This, in Spencer's translation, turns into an accusation that
Dawkins is referring to the poet's work as, "pretty but meaningless
words."

Spencer refers to Dawkins' view of the world as, "one-eyed." Sir, I
assure you that Richard Dawkins has both eyes wide open, he seldom
blinks, and he looks upon individuals like yourself as risible targets
- especially because you specify in your article that you take pride
in being classed with such "esteemed company" as "Dr. Peter Fisher,
clinical director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital and the Queen's
physician." Even a cursory examination of the state of the House of
Windsor would indicate that perhaps such an appointment might not have
been wise.

But Spencer is not merely commenting on Dawkins. He's trying to
neutralize the fact that he has studiously avoided accepting Dawkins'
challenge to perform a definitive test of the power of horoscopes, a
test which he has rejected. Dawkins is therefore a serious and present
threat to Spencer and his "art."

I rest my case.

But before we leave this subject of disbelief in nonsense, please go
to tinyurl.com/2r98ox to see an article by UK critic Charlie Booker in
the Guardian which sums up very neatly and exactly my opinions and
stance on the matter. Dawkins is right to be impatient and angry with
those who ignore the substantial peril that confronts reason today. I
and the JREF stand alongside these warriors who fight nonsense, and
they have our unqualified support. Bear that in mind when considering
your support for this Foundation. "

Just read the original article, very funny although unintentionally
so. In the first paragraph he gets the order of the shows wrong which
does not bode well.

My favourite line is this one (turn irony meters off now):

"Homeopathy and acupuncture are particularly repellent since they work
through mechanisms unknown to the laws of physics".

Good article, thanks.

Andy