Astrology and Metaphysical World
Critically analyze the argument that astrology performs better than random
guessing because "astrology is based on the "metaphysical" world"
1. In your own words, explain what random guessing is (with at least one
example), and explain what astrologers would have to achieve in order for
astrology to actually perform better than random guessing.
2. In your own words, explain what the "metaphysical world" is, how it
affects us, and whether or not we have any reason to think that it exists. (If
you don't know what "metaphysical" means, pretend it means something
like "spiritual" or "not available to the normal modes of perception"
or maybe "not describable by the laws of physics" or "not detectable
by physical means" or something equally ooogy-boogy.)
3. Does astrology purport to tell us about future events or personalities in
the "metaphysical world," or does it purport to tell us about future events, and
present personalities in the ordinary world?
4. Do we have any reason to think that having some connection to some
"metaphysical world" would mean that the astrological predictions actually did
perform better than random guessing in the real world?
One way to approach these questions is to assume that they are being asked by
someone who thinks that the argument given above is not a good argument.
Therefore, you can assume that an unsatisfactory answer to any one of these
questions could potentially refute the argument given above. Your task is to
judge whether or not the argument given above stands up under these questions.
If you think that satisfactory answers can be given to all the questions, say so
and explain those answers. If you think that these questions cannot be
adequately answered, say so and explain how this failure undermines the
argument.
Another way to approach this problem is to keep the questions in mind as you
logically analyze the argument given above.
Remember that your task is to decide whether or not this argument by
itself is strong enough to support its conclusion. Finding that this
argument is bad does not mean that other arguments for this conclusion are also
bad. If you find it bad, say it's bad and explain why it's bad. The one thing
you must not do is bring up other, unrelated arguments to support this
conclusion. You can do that later. Right now your task is to evaluate just this
argument.
Of course, once you've finished evaluating the argument, you can go on
and add any comments that occur to you. Did you change your mind about
anything? Can you come up with better arguments on each side of the issue?
Can you figure out what questions have to be settled before we can decide
this issue? Based on the arguments you've seen so far, what is your
overall take on the issue at this moment? What reasons do you have for
coming to this conclusion? Anything else?
Copyright © 2004 by Martin C. Young
This Site is Proudly Hosted By:
