This week’s print TIME and the magazine’s website has a story titled “Astrologer Susan Miller On Why You Should Pay Attention to the Lunar Eclipse.” The TIME writer, Laura Stampler, promotes the astrologer as if she was Nate Silver, a reliable, respectable expert in a legitimate field who has something to teach us. Susan Miller is not a reliable, respectable expert. She is an astrologer, meaning that she is as legitimate as a palm reader, a douser, or the Amazing Kreskin. She is a fraud, in a fraudulent field, however ancient or popular. There is no scholarly controversy about this. There is more evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, Nessie, ghosts and flying saucers than there is that astrology is more than pseudo-scientific claptrap.
For TIME, which was once a respected icon of American journalism, to place its still prestigious name behind such a well-established scam is worse than incompetent, It is harmful. As Slate science writer Phil Plait wrote regarding TIME’s disgrace,
“The real problem is that, like all manners of nonsense, it erodes away our ability to separate what’s real and what isn’t. Today, more than ever before in human history, that ability is crucial for our survival. We have concerted, well-organized, and heavily funded efforts underway to demolish that ability, from global warming deniers to anti-vaxxers to politicians who want to control your body and your wallet. They don’t need the help, especially not from major media outlets like Time magazine.”
(Phil Plait’s disgrace is that he lumps those who properly question the blatant over-hyping of climate change research when the models keep failing and predictions keep proving false with the rest, but that issue is for another day.)
The ethical issue, in addition to irresponsible journalism, honesty and competence, is integrity. A puff-piece appealing to the sad mass of Americans who take such garbage seriously is blatant pandering to the ignorant in the print TIME, and flagrant link-bait online. The latter is especially rampant around the web, as sites that supposedly have serious purposes and readership slip in utter garbage just to inflate traffic. I am about to place The Daily Caller in the permanently banned file with Breitbart after yet another feature yesterday about former Disney star Selena Gomez’s “low neckline” baring her awesome “assets.” Today the DC’s link bait feels a little less like kiddie porn, as it tells us that “Kate Upton busts out in a see-through shirt.” Even this lowest common denominator sludge is better than pretending that you can predict the future by whose house Mercury is in today—at least it’s true.
As I wrote yesterday, when Mark Cuban, who is not any more admirable or trustworthy than the average billionaire, was presented with a phony product on a reality show, he immediately designated it as such. Since he was on TV, that was his obligation. Informing the public regarding what is true and what is not, however, isn’t normally his job, or even that of reality shows (ironically and oxymoronically enough). It is the job of journalists, the media, and TIME magazine.
And how competently and fairly do they do that job? Well, the Today Show has uncritically promoted psychics. Dr. Oz, on his show, has bestowed legitimacy on TV medium (“I talk to dead people”) John Edward, and now TIME props up an ancient scam that is in the same class with alchemy, and has all the predictive value of a fortune cookie. ABC’s “The View,” the creation of renowned journalist Barbara Walters, promotes truther mythology, but I suppose that blather pit forfeited any claim to actual journalism when regular Sherri Shepherd opined that the Earth was flat.
I guess we have to rely on Mark Cuban to say, “This is crap.”
_______________________
Pointer: Slate
Source: TIME
Ethics Alarms 
They need a Baloney Detection Kit from Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World”
A clear, fair assessment of American culture. Rightard President’s have long used astrologers to guide decisions. http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20099022,00.html
It only makes sense for publications to follow suit.
“Throughout this association, the Vassar-educated astrologer with country club manners was—as befits a lady—terribly discreet. By the end of the first term, her fellow astrologers had begun to notice the impeccable celestial timing of many Reagan moves, like the bombing of Libya and his announcement for a second term. “I had astrologer friends calling me saying, ‘Reagan must have had his chart done,’ “Quigley recently confided during an interview in a suite at San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel. “I just said, ‘Yes. He must have been consulting someone.’ ” ”
So much fraudulent law and policy was established under these pretenses. It’s no wonder our judges have judicial immunity – and a primary reason we need to pursue Libertarian ideals such as complete control of the Economy to stop pollution.
But Jack, she can accurately predict the next Lunar Eclipse! I’d listen to her if I were you, lest she curse the next harvest…
It’s like when I go to the tire shop and I see the “Fill your tires with Nitrogen” machine.
Jack,
“Phil Plait’s disgrace is ..”
I don’t like the hype behind climate change either, but is it really a “disgrace” that he hold a different opinion than you? A number of respectable scientists hold a number differing views on the subject — why is the fact the he subscribes to one sign make him anything more than misguided?
-Neil
I know you can see the material difference in what you are asserting Jack said and what Jack actually said. Are you just trying to be contentious?
Here’s the gist of Jack’s piece:
It is irresponsible for credible sources to lend credence to clearly incredible ideas, such as Time passively backing astrology.
He then showed that Plait understood that it is a problem for credible sources to do so. Then showed that Plait made the same error. As a scientist, he should know that Global Warming is hardly settled and has massive flaws in it’s theory…as a scientist he should know that. But instead, he, like a good Faith Driven Demagogue has accepted it as utter fact and therefore throws his credibility behind the incredible notion that the so-called “deniers” are as ridiculous as the astrologers and the other items he listed. In all reality, the incredible notion that should be lumped in with astrology is that Global Warming is “settled”, when it is not.
You now claim that Jack is attacking Plait for adhering to the theory itself. Jack did no such thing, Jack attacked him for quite unscientifically tossing out skepticism of a NON-SETTLED issue…
I know you can see that.
And because I also know he sees that. my response was not the kind, civil, measured one that yours was, and perhaps mine should have been. But I get sick of that crap after a while, and not just from Neil. Where IS Art, anyway?
He used the term “global warming deniers” and compared them to anti-vax nut-cases! Yes, I resent the effort to shut down reasonable skepticism from responsible non-stampeded, free thinking people who recognize the dishonesty and ignorance behind the “consensus” that self-serving fakes like Al Gore are not just right, but so right that we should spend trillions on the long-term bet that they are exactly right, when they have already been proven wrong over and over again. That’s a disgrace, as is using the dirty pool of suggesting that something that already happened (the Holocaust) didn’t is the equivalent of questioning whether something scientists variously say is happening, has never happened but is, once happened but for different reasons, should be happening but seems to be pausing, or isn’t quite happening like they said it definitely would ten years ago but never mind, WILL keep happening despite unpredictable cosmic matters and cause certain deadly effects in 10 years, weeeell 100, well certainly 150…OK, maybe 500 years, but believe us, its going to be just horrible, like all those extra hurricanes we have…OK, that didn’t pan out, but brush fires! How about those brush fires???
You DON’T think denigrating legitimate questions and dissent—-just because your Left Wing Masters are playing the tune when they almost certainly can’t tell a hockey stick graph from a piece of cheese—as the equivalent of anti-Semitism (Holocaust denial) and deadly anti vaccination hysteria is a disgrace? Really?
Well. I guess that’s just because you are looking for fake offenses to write here to complain about, Neil, because it IS a disgrace, right up there with calling Republicans “Reptards” and tea party types “tea-baggers”—it is unjustified, slanderous ridicule without fair substance, and an effort to stifle and shut off necessary, in the case of global warming, essential, balance, debate and dissent. That’s what I find is a disgrace. Not those who think that global warming is a more urgent threat than I think has been proven. Those who say I an like bigots who hate Jews because I’m not falling into line without a peep.
Do I make myself clear?
“right up there with calling Republicans “Reptards””
My favorite is the nearly indecipherable: RETHUGLIKKKANS. They got to mishmash all sorts of insults there…
Ohhh, I like that one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/pro-agw-economists-try-to-discredit-skeptics-succeed-in-discrediting-fellow-warmists/#comment-1668896
“The big issue is that climate is influenced by the equivalent of a black box- various factors beyond our control whose effect on climate can not be predicted. By extremely sharp, contrast, the effect of changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on global temperatures is easily predicted by a simple equation.
If we could somehow isolate the black box, and make carbon dioxide concentration the sole determinant of temperature, then an increase of concentration from 300 to 400 would yield an increase of 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit- no more, no less. But in the real world, we can not isolate the black box and thus can not predict climate change.”
None of these climate change alarmists even acknowledge the existence of the “black box”
Agreed on all points. People seem to have no ‘bull-sh*t’ detectors any more. I wish Penn and Teller’s show was more suitable for general audience (regarding nudity and language) because they do a funny and thorough mocking of these issues. Steve Allen wrote a book or two. If debunkers have to be more entertaining to get the crowd’s attention, that may stem a little of the entertainment tide.
I think that most people don’t believe astrology is legitimate, I think that most people know deep down it isn’t a science. Ignoring the true believers, I think the remainder break down into three camps:
1) Those for which it is just fun entertainment and diversion.
2) Those for whom real science has become such a plethora of nearly non-understandable Data, Theory, and sub-disciplines that they cannot devote the time necessary to really really know it. So overwhelmed, the easier-to-grasp, pseudo-sciences become a viable alternative. Even they know it isn’t real, but it’s something.
3) Related to #2 (but closer to the true believers), this group represents the facet of all of us that continue to reach for mystical or spiritual things. We all have this transcendent urge… some people give into it.
Frankly, I have about had it with the “consensus of scientists” idea. Proctologists are scientists, as are gynecologists, astrophysicists, geologists, paleontologists and (shudder) anthropologists.
Would I trust any of them to reach a “consensus” on climate, a field wildly divergent from their own? Of course not, yet that is exactly what the UN and Al Gore are doing. In truth, there is not even a consensus among climatologists and meteorologists, so the opinion of my urologist on global warming is just that, an opinion and likely a poorly informed one at that. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is that researchers should maintain a healthy skepticism. We seem to have forgotten that in pursuit of politically correct grant money.
There is only a general consensus that the Earth is warming. How long, why, how, when it will stop, what the effects will be, whether it can be slowed or stopped, what the best approach is, if any—there is no consensus at all on these topics. Anyone whose argument is that the debate about global warming is “settled” has exposed themselves as an ignorant, gullible, facile, intellectually lazy hack.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-statistical-meltdown-1412901060
“Frankly, I have about had it with the “consensus of scientists” idea.”
So have I, from the very beginning. Science is about presenting evidence, not getting people to agree with you. It doesn’t matter one iota how many scientists agree on something when evidence is presented to shoot down that theory.
This notion that–if you get enough scientists to agree–that this makes something true is absolutely antithetical to science. The whole world of scientific thought could be in absolute agreement (or “consensus”) on something, and still be dead wrong. It has happened many times in history and it will happen again.
To this day, I have seen EXACTLY ONE presentation of Global Warming Science that just presented the evidence and did not ever use the the notion of Consensus to make the case: The Fox reboot of Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson. THIS should be the model for all such discussions.
…and it took, of all people, Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane to make it happen.
–Dwayne