There are a few points to consider, here. First, your help will not in any way facilitate the astrologer’s spreading of excrement. With or without the algorithm, this astrologer is still going to be spreading it, and it’s not going to get any less accurate for being based on actual astronomical results.
Second, the data he’s asking for is not, itself, bull. If you give him a resource for the algorithms, what you are giving him will be pure, unadulterated fact. It’s not your fault if his A*T[sup]4[/sup] isn’t so high.
Third, by giving him the data, you’ll be opening up a channel of communication between the scientific community and the pseudoscientific community, which is the first small step in education. Given that the astrologer has initiated the dialog, you could probably get away with a little bit of education right in your reply, before his brain shuts it out. For instance, you might make sure that the formula includes precessional effects (or disclaim that it doesn’t), and springboard that into a comment about precession causing the signs to be shifted by a month relative to when they were established.
Given this, I think that the greater good could be served by giving him the data.
Oh, and betenoir, Podkayne himself isn’t doing anything. It’s Podkayneherself that’s considering her course of action here.
Finagle took the words right out of my mouth - how unsanitary.
I had a roughly similar experience (details elided) and a friend advised: “You do no wrong to sell a car with a broken carbeurator - as long as you’re up front about the fact.” Maybe, in addition to Finagle’s “don’t use my name…” disclaimer you can casually mention, “you know that astrology there…”
At the very least, once he sees real power of prediction hidden in the esoterics of that algorithm, he’ll have a baseline to compare to his hokey craft against.
I’m another one supporting Podkayne giving out the information. This data is so far into the public domain that there would be no practical benefit to withholding it. She’s not being asked to give a formula for turning lead into gold, nor to turn common household objects into bombs (Though why one would consider asking an astronomer that when a chemist or ChemE would be so much better…) just a source for a way to predict moonrise and sets. She’s already said she’d not object to giving this information if the profession wasn’t known.
As long as the profession is legal, and she has no reason to believe that this person is involved in criminal activities - I don’t see the harm, really.
On a tangent - would there be as much hate if a self-avowed Wiccan had asked for the same information?
And generally it’s when one doesn’t have and argument that one resorts to the “You’re just being PC” meme. Usually, and certainly in this case where it’s irrelevent, :rolleyes: is all the argument it deserves.
Count me as a librarianish vote for “if the information is readily accessible” there is no dilemma because the person is likely to obtain the information whether you provide it or not. It’s on Google, it’s available from other astronomers, other astrologers, other people. Also, if you send back a snobbish e-mail saying “I don’t help astrologers” you may well recieve an e-mail from a friend of the first astrologer requesting the information and not telling you that it is for an astrologer. The amount of effort required to actively try not to help astrologers exceeds the amount of effect you are likely to have on their behaviors. Inserting a disclaimer, or trying to set up a dialog are fine. . . but at some level because the information is so accessible, any attempt at censorship is not worth your effort.
Years ago, I would occasionally be with some friends in a cocktail lounge and run out of smokes. Finding myself short on change for the cigarette machine, I’d ask if anyone could change a dollar for me. One gal would ask what it was for, and said if it was for cigarettes she wouldn’t give me change because she didn’t want to abet my smoking.
I had to walk a few extra steps to get change from the register at the bar – still got my smokes without her help. Still smoked. Formed an impression of her as a pretentious self-righteous ass who was ineffectual in changing my behavior but probably very good at convincing herself that she had done good by making a statement.
Give him the readily available, easily obtained info. He’ll get it anyway. Some time in the future he just might be receptive to what a helpful scientist has to say about astrology. I doubt he’ll ever be receptive to what a pretentious self-righteous scientist has to say.
If it’s information you would have provided without a second thought if he hadn’t told you what he was going to use it for, then I think you should provide it in this particular case.
Also, personally astrologer is something I know little about. Aren’t there people who might call themselves astrologers just because they have a curious interest in the whole astrology thing, and kinda think it’s cool, without actually believing in the stuff?
I knew a guy years ago when I was in High School that was really into astrology but to him it was just something he liked to toy around with, he didn’t actually believe it at all. . .