• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Astrology in the Sunday Times.

Soapy Sam

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,769
I must protest at the waste of a fine opportunity.
Randi managed to use the following terms;- "rocks, fat, bananas, footballs, buffalos, and bottled bleach" in a sentence addressed to TV Astrologer Russell Grant, without actually applying any of them to Mr.Grant himself.

This is making a fetish of self-restraint in my opinion.

The Sunday Times is in fact a typical oversized, "supplement" loaded lump of pulp, a mere waste of a good tree. As a purveyor of valuable opinion and worthwhile journalism, it has lost much ground in recent years.
 
I used to be an ardent supporter and 100% believer in astrology til I realized how ridiculous it was (with a little help from Hal Lindsey, yes, him!)
 
What I don't understand is why Prof. Dawkins is not taking action against 'The Sunday Times'? I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that the article was a clear misrepresentation of Prof. Dawkins position on astrology which could damage his professional reputation.

P.S. This is the first time I've built up the courage to post here. Please be gentle with me!
 
You bloody idiot, Doc, that's just what they want him to do - divert all his talent and energies into a court case that will end unresolved in about five years time.


:D


regards,
BillyJoe


......and welcome. :)
 
So instead they carry on abusing respectible scientists' reputations to sell papers and the woo-woo brigade (see: I've been lurking!) get more 'ammunition'.

Besides, it's currently the fashion in Britain for the 'top man' to fall on his sword when one of his reporters gets caught lying. It might be fun to see another one go...

P.S. "Bloody idiot"? It's lucky I'm thick-skinned ;)
 
Yes, slightly warped but fully functioning!

Just to make a nod at returning to topic, would it cost Prof. Dawkins much time or effort to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission? According to their website "It is free, quick and effective."

They could at least force a public apology from the Sunday Times
 
At the risk of hogging relies to your posts, yes, that sounds like a good idea. Does he have an email address?
 
I'll just check my address book... :D

richard.dawkins@new.ox.ac.uk is his address (according to the University of Oxford's website)

I wonder if Mr. Randi would suggest this, though as he seems to know Prof. Dawkins better than I do!
 
I can’t understand why he doesn’t complain after all in 2003 there were 3509 complaints and the PCC upheld an overwhelming ten of them. With the commission having such independent members such as:

Roger Alton Editor, The Observer
Edmund Curran Editor, Belfast Telegraph
Paul Dacre Editor-in-Chief, Daily Mail
Jane Ennis Editor, NOW Magazine
Peter Hill Editor, Daily Express
Paul Horrocks Editor, Manchester Evening News
Charles McGhee Editor, Glasgow Evening Times

I am at a loss to understand how anyone could argue with its objectivity.
After all there is a good shout that rule 1(1) has been broken
1. Accuracy
i. Newspapers and periodicals must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material including pictures.
ii. Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
iii. An apology must be published whenever appropriate.
iv. Newspapers, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
v. A newspaper or periodical must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party.
Click to expand...

and at a minimum I would expect the opportunity for Richard Dawkins to write a counter article under rule 2
2.Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies must be given to individuals or organisations when reasonably called for
Click to expand...
To be fair I suspect that all in all Richard Dawkins has better things to do than give publicity to an article that was probably not well read. The PCC offers no financial compensation. If Richard Dawkins wanted to wrote about astrology I dare say a number of publications would pay him handsomely for his thoughts.
 
And isn't that just a glowing reference for self-regulation!

I apologise wholeheartedly for my naivety! ;)
 
I am sure that if Prof Dawkins were to write a letter to the Sunday Times on this subject it would be published.
 
psy kick said:
I used to be an ardent supporter and 100% believer in astrology til I realized how ridiculous it was
Click to expand...
That's because believing isn't in your stars... :D
 
Scientists who are interested in what really determines peoples' characters and personalities use twin studies to discover whether nature (genetic inheritence) or nurture (the environment in which a child is raised) is the more important factor in determining particular personality traits.

For instance in this article

http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar04/awry.html

we find this typical result:

"In 2002, Krueger co-authored a study in the Journal of Personality (Vol. 70, No. 5) that looked at the personality traits of 128 twin pairs who had been raised apart. The study found that the identical twins were more similar in personality traits than the fraternal twins."

Twin studies alone conclusively disprove astrology. If it was really date/time/place of birth that determined peoples' personalities then fraternal twins would be as much alike as identical twins, would they not?

Would anyone like to point this out to the Sunday Times "Science" correspondent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom