On the National Lottery Jet Set Quiz on BBC1 tonight:
Host - “The catagory is science…play or pass?”
Contestant - “Play”
Host - “OK, here goes…what sign of the zodiac is represented by a bull?”
Me - “WTF”!!!
lol, yeah, sad state of affairs you got there.
We’re talking the UK, though, still thinking Crop Circles are a neat thing for aliens to do.
What? Astrology may be a load of bull but it is a science.
From a recent episode of The Weakest Link – I forget the question, but the contestant answered, “Spine.”
Ann Richardson said, “No, the correct answer is ‘vertebrae’.”
The guy got voted off that round, too. They should have voted off the host instead. :rolleyes:
I thought a science, by definition, had to be a study which utilized the scientific method to determine facts.
So please give an example of how astrology does this… either that or tell me if my terminology is wrong.
The zodiac is not merely an aspect of astrology, but astronomy, which is definitely a science. The signs of the zodiac are 12 of 88 constellations used to map the entire sky.
“People born under which sign are good leaders with lucky numbers 6, 9, and 14?” is not science.
“Name the constellation” is.
Despite the wording, that question is closer to the latter than the former.
So um…what is that sign? blushes
Taurus
All you gotta know for the Northern Hemisphere constellations is all your Greek and Latin and Arabic. Compare that to the Southern Hemisphere where basically all you need is English.
To keep the question withing the realm of real science, the show should have asked something like, “Name the constellation that represents a bull?” (“Represents” may not be the best word, but you get the idea.)
As for the spine/vertebrae Weakest Link thing, I’d like to know what the actual question was. To my knowledge (and based on a quick perusal of the dictionary), vertebrae refers to two or more segments of the spine. (A single segment would be a vertebra.) The spine, on the other hand, refers to the entire series of vertebrae.
(Vertebra can also refer to a brassiere designed for women with badly misplaced breasts.)
Anyhoo…
I see no mention of astrology in the question. The names constellations of the zodiac are part of actual astronomy.
Webster’s says your terminaology is wrong.
You’re right, that’s not science. But the study of positions and aspects of celestial bodies is, no matter what the purpose.
Without astrology, astronomy would not exist. Where do you think those names came from?
And chemistry was developed from alchemy. Your point, sir?
Astronomers use those names today for those constellations.
Astrology isn’t the study of positions (define “aspects”) of celestial bodies, but on the mistaken belief that those celestial bodies have some effect on us that guides our destinies.
That’s quite a stretch, to say that without Astrology Astronomy wouldn’t exist. We could have gone straight from looking at a star to Astronomy without Astrology having gotten in the way. Just becuase it DID get in the way doesn’t mean it was responsible for astrology.
Aarrghh! The last part of that sentence should have read “…responsible for Astronomy.”
I think you just made my point. Not many people trying to convert lead into gold these days.
Can’t have the latter without the former.
Regarding “aspects”, it’s from the American Heritage definition. I don’t have an answer for why they use that wording.
Maybe so. I’ll amend my statement to say that Astronomy as we know it probably wouldn’t exist.
Only in that the constellations might be named differently. I believe they were named before someone decided it would be cool to scam people into thinking they had some effect on you.
Not necessarily. No telling where Astronomy would be today if not for early astronomers like Galileo using Astrology to pay the bills.
From dictionary.com Science :
From dictionary.com Scientific Method
CaptBushido’s original definition didn’t seem too far off.
The use of the term “sign” strongly implies astrologyl.