Should I help an astrologer?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I was asked by email for help finding an algorithm to predict rising and setting times for the Moon. Ordinarily, I happily refer such querants to whatever resource will provide the information that they are looking for. However, this person identified himself as an astrologer.

I keep going back and forth on the matter. As a scientist, I feel I have an obligation to the public to be helpful and informative. Yet, I also feel an obligation to fight pseudoscience, or at the very least, not facilitate it. But if my correspondent had simply asked for the information without mentioning his profession, I would have given it without a thought. Do I bear any responsiblity for how the information is used by the recpient? And if the answer is yes, do I need to interrogate anyone who asks me for astronomical information to be certain it will not be put to some unwholesome use? Or are facts simply facts which should be shared in the interests of disseminating knowledge?

2

Wow… that’s a tough one, ultimately down to your conscience; personally, I’d refuse (with an explanation), unless it was a paid job and I was desperate for the money; desperate enough to compromise.

3

It’s purely volunteer work. Nothing 'tall, really. If he knew how to Google, he’d have found it in about five seconds.

In fact, here’s how I’d answer: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/rs_algor.html

Aneesh, if you’re reading this, knock yourself out.

4

No.

It constitues Spreading Ignorance.

Unethical.

And, if the person is an actual swindler, it makes you a moral accessory to the crime.

5

It is great that you do volunteer work. Then again, nearly every Virgo does. :wink:

6

As an astronomer myself, I think you’re going to do more harm by refusing to answer the question. It’ll enforce the stereotype of scientists as elitists living in their own world. It would be different if it were classified or propriatory technology, but we’re talking about basic formulas which have been public knowledge for centuries.

7

Oh sure.

Kowtow to the pseudoscientific charlatans of the world, just to prove you’re a regular guy.

8

Astrology is not illegal and for the most part it’s used purely as entertainment. Refusing them help strikes me as being similar to refusing help to a Muslim because you don’t believe in God.

9

I disagree. Obviously what Podkayne himself is spreading is not ignornace. It’s accurate information. The free exchange of information is one of the cornerstones of (real) science. I think that’s an important thing to hold on to. “No information for you, we don’t like what you might do with it” is not a good direction to go.

I’d agree with scr4. It’s in keeping with a good scientific ethic. And E=mc2, sharing is not kowtowing.

10

There are any number of misguided folks who accept astrology as fact and who are regularly gulled by its practitioners. A scientist who caves into assisting one of these crooks, to avoid an elitist label has, in my opinion, no guts.

Oh. And if that Muslim’s mission in life is to kill infidels, and the assistance he requested would further his aims, do you think I should help him?

Would you?

If that Muslim belonged to a Mosque here in America, which regularly preached vitriolic hatred of our government, and the overthrowof the United States (with all the inevitable bloodshed), should I give him a ride to church?

Would you?

11

Sharing, to abet chicanery in the mistaken belief that you will then be PC, is indeed kowtowing.

12

Oh, I’d send them the link. But I’d also include a caveat that says something like, as a professional astronomer, my providing this information does not give you the right to use my name or organization in any way that implies support or endorsement for astrology.

13

I think Finagle has the right idea here.

14

Science is based on free exchange of information, so we can build on each other’s work. That means “crooks” can also make use of the information, but that’s a small price to pay for what science can accomplish (and has accomplished). If scientists and librarians started to get selective about who is entitled to their knowledge and information, there would be no science as we know it.

But that doesn’t mean you need to go out of your way to help them. Just give them a link or name of a textbook.

15

WHOA! Let’s back down from hypothetical people killing other hypothetical people, m’kay? I’m not interested in crazy hypotheticals. I have a very simple, down-to-earth situation here.

We are also not talking about religion. Astrology is not a religious belief, it is a pseudoscience which makes testable claims which have been proven false, but which some misguided people belive in anyway. Comparing not helping an astrologer to not helping a Muslim is bullshit and distracts from the topic at hand. (And, interestingly enough, I have answered scientific questions from Muslims, e.g. on the appearance of the crescent moon, which is important for the timing of their holidays.)

We’re talking about an algorithm that allows one to compute when the Moon is in the sky. This information is freely available from several different websites, in any newspaper, and plenty of different magazines that could be found in any well-stocked library. Giving this person an algorithm for working out rise/set times just allows him to compute the rise and set times himself. What’s more, different algorithms are published any number of different places

Hell, if the information was dangerous, or if he wanted me to share my personal unpublished research, or if it was going to take any more than three minutes of my time to provide a link, then I wouldn’t have a dilemna. I’d just delete the email and get on with my life. The very triviality of it is what’s making it a difficult decision.

E=mc[sup]2[/sup], I can assure you that I would not be “kowtowing” or being “PC” :rolleyes: if I do send him the link. I would be directing a member of the public, who asked politely, as to where they can find readily available information that happens to fall within my realm of expertise. The information is already out there and I would not sharing any unique or special knowledge.

I’d just be giving a truthful answer to a simple question; I’m having a hard time justifing why, as a scientist, I should not do that. But then again, I hate to think of giving this guy a hand when he’s working on something that will be used to perpetuate delusions at best, or to knowingly decieve, at worst.

It’s not really any of my business what he does with publically-available algorithm, and if he’d just kept his intentions to himself, damnit, it wouldn’t be an issue at all.

The frustrating thing is that he could find this information himself by typing “moon rise algorithm” into Google. Those astrologers. Not the lowest-magnitude stars in the constellation, if you know what I mean. Not near the alphas in the Greek alphabet, if you get my gist. Lower right corner of the H-R Diagram, is what I’m trying to say. . .

. . . Okay, I’ll stop now.

16

PC? :rolleyes: It about holding to your particular ethic.

I couldn’t say it better so I won’t.

17

Why would a Muslim want a ride to church?

18

So you admit that you should share info with bad guys. It seems you also admit that astrologists are crooks (aka bad guys), because they peddle horeshit to a gullible public and make lots of money in the process. Now.

Timothy McVeigh, an old friend of yours, sends you — en explosives expert — an email:

“Hey Bro, I got this great idea to destroy the Murrah Federal Building, but I need a little help. Link me to an ABCs-of-Car-Bombing site, will ya?”

What would you do? Send the Link or call the FBI? I’m confidently betting on the latter. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

19

When one’s argument goes to hell one resorts to :rolleyes:

Enough for me. Adios.

20

Where did I imply that astrologers are “bad guys”? You are the one who called them “crooks.” My use of quotation marks around the word should have made it obvious that I’m merely using your definition, and not agreeing with it.

If someone told me he/she is planning an illegall act, then obviously I have an obligation to report that. But if someone simply wanted information about the chemistry of explosives, I don’t think I have any obligation to perform background checks before I divulge that information.