The sudden enthusiasm for what was just a passing idea has led to me churning out more of this bilge, in a series I'm calling The Science Letters, for obvious reasons. First two are here and here, the latest are here.
And on we go...
Hello. It's me, Science. Remember me? We used to work together a lot in the old days, before I went solo? Good times usually, but I'll be honest, it's not something I bring up on my CV these days. I know we haven't really spoken in a while, are you still sore about two of your guys getting executed over the eclipse business? Like I told you at the time, if they'd spent more time listening to me instead of wallowing in the opium dens, they would have seen it coming.
And before you kick off, no, I don't cause eclipses, I just know what they are and when they're coming, me and Maths worked it out long ago. You want to talk to the cause, have a word with my boy Physics. Good luck with that though, he's thoroughly set in his ways. 'You Can'nae change him', as the great man used to say.
(Yes, I'm a Start Trek fan, why does this surprise you?)
How are you anyway? Not been seeing you around much lately. It wasn't too long ago that you and Media were best mates, you were always together. I guess you didn't confuse him like I do, despite your insane claims. But now he's ditched you in favour of psychics and health gurus. He's fickle is media, it's all about image with him. No doubt he'll also throw those hacks to the curb soon, in favour of Chicken-juggling rain makers or people who predict the future by 'reading' the patterns in spilled muesli, or whatever crowd-pleasing gibberish is 'in'. Whore.
Anyway, Astronomy asked me to write to you, largely because people keep getting him and you mixed up. I can see his problem, apart from the similar names and obsession with all things spatial; you guys have nothing in common. Oh, and stereotypically you are both advocated by socially awkward people with weird hair in long coats who speak in bizarre ways. Astronomy insists that that's not how he is any more, any comments on this yourself?
Thing is, I hesitate to have a go at you. We've worked together in the past quite well, and unlike most other pseudosciences you don't seem to have this desire to relentlessly attack me and my lot for having the gall to prefer evidence over wishful thinking. So cheers for that.
So, if you could somehow make it clear that you and astronomy aren't working together, that would be cool. He wants to know how things in Space work; you want people to think that things in space effect how we work. Can't say I agree with that, but then if there are people out there who feel they need the arrangement of celestial bodies to govern how they live their lives then I guess they need all the help they can get, so fair enough.
Of course, this could be a simple oversight. Perhaps you know something I don't, and your predictions are 100% accurate, but your proponents have not taken into account the light-speed factor. The stars we see in the night sky, their light is actually from anywhere between dozens to hundreds of thousands of years in the past. Maybe your predictions are completely true, but for people in the 3rd century? You might want to hook up with History and Archaeology, see if there's something you can work out regarding this.
My main issue is that I've heard people describe Astrology as 'a Science'. And we both know you're not. You don't pay the union dues for a start, but that's by-the-by. Did you ever think about becoming a Science for real? It won't be easy, but should it be a challenge you wish to take up, there are several things you need to do.
Firstly, you need a rational basis for your theories. You contend that the arrangement of bodies in space directly affects what happens in the lives of individual people. Why would this be the case, and by what mechanism could this occur? In actual fact, the equations governing gravity and its effects do suggest that all matter in the universe affects other matter, regardless of distance, so there's something you may want to look into. (Not that this really supports your claims, seeing as a Walnut in a village in Brazil has more noticeable influence over a Mongolian goat herder than stars light years away have over individual people, but it's something to think about).
Secondly, you need to be more specific. 12 star signs limit you to 1 prediction per 500 million people, at least. Yeah, going by those odds, your predictions will be accurate for some people, but you'll be wrong a lot more than you'll be right. Granted, you could select a few of the 'accurate' examples, ignore the rest and say you were right. But why stop there, why not just start selling people water to cure their illness and argue that 2000 years of medicine are wrong?
There's no need to be so limiting these days. You've got the planets to work with, sure, but Astronomy has discovered at least 424 extrasolar planets now, with more coming in all the time. I'm sure he'll let you borrow some. You know what 'happens' when Mars is in Sagittarius, or Venus is occupying Aries, but what about when PSR B1620-26 is passing Capricorn? Or SWEEPS J175853.92-291129.6 is waxing in Pisces? The names aren't as catchy I'll admit, but a couple of nicknames won't hurt. Spread the net wider, play around with it a bit.
Speaking of which, I hope it didn't throw things off too much when I demoted Pluto. I was sorry to see the little guy go too, but there are bigger rocks than him out there and I can't start focusing on the ones I like. Remember what I said about cherry picking the data? Bad boy, naughty now!
This is assuming it did affect you, of course. But if it didn't, that raises interesting questions. Exactly how big does a celestial body need to be in order to 'influence' us? If Pluto can do it, why not the billions of other rocks and comets (in this system alone)? Or do they affect the non-human 'lower' creatures? Another lucrative market, perhaps? Horoscopes for animals.
"Virgo: On Sunday, you will face challenges in the form of next doors cat, which will again attempt to encroach on your territory. An irritable Cancer, a bad sign for romance with Virgos, will reject your advances when you try to hump his leg. Avoid chicken bones as these will lead to bowel upsets. Be wary of worms"
There you go, easy. The point is, the more data you have, the more accurate the predictions you could make (and before you think to argue this, don't bring up Meteorology, he does his best, and you try to make better predictions of a system which is the embodiment of chaos!). The more accurate the predictions, the more credible you could be. I'll admit that accurate Horoscopes would be quite unnerving for people; I tried them out myself a few times. But still, credibility or crowd pleasing? The choice is yours. And if you were more accurate, I'm sure Astronomy wouldn't mind being mistaken for you so much.
Science (BA hons)
P.S. Please spare me the jokes about how 'you knew this was coming'. If I'd got the reply before I sent this, then I'd believe you.
Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk