Bringing social justice to the stars

[JayUtah]

I've yet to be exposed to a theory of intersectionality rooted in rigorous observation, but I'd be happy to read about it.

I meant to write "social justice" instead of "intersectionality." Dann asked about social justice. I've been thinking in terms of social justice.

ETA :--

I don't really dispute your characterization of intersectionality. Not all of what we perceive to be a problem in social justice circles could be considered observable in a rigorous scientific sense, hence why I couched my observability statement in as many expressions of tentativity as I could muster. At the more rigorous end of the spectrum, we know women get paid systematically less for the same work and we know that people of color are systematically often denied good housing that they would otherwise qualify for. That is, there is good scientific evidence that people's attributes, when known by others, result in variance in social outcomes for those people. This is the rational basis behind social justice advocacy. But that also gives prima facie plausibility to the notion that factors can combine (intersect), and that the effect may prove be synergistic (or attenuative) if subjected to multivariate analysis. The question of whether this has been confirmed empirically by such analysis is, to my way of thinking, independent of prima facie plausibility. Astrology is implausible on its face, in addition to being empirically disproven. This demotes it irretrievably.

 

[arthwollipot]

The link between so-called "social justice" aka just not being a dick to people and astrology is that there are neopagan traditions such as Wicca that teach both that people should not be dicks to each other, and that there are mystical nonscientific forces that allow for magical effects such as that force that allows the position of stellar bodies to affect people on earth.

 

[JayUtah]

The link between so-called "social justice" aka just not being a dick to people and astrology is that there are neopagan traditions such as Wicca that teach both that people should not be dicks to each other, and that there are mystical nonscientific forces that allow for magical effects such as that force that allows the position of stellar bodies to affect people on earth.

Good point. But I would consider this essentially a contrived aggregation of interest. A group may advocate kindness and it may also believe in magic. That doesn't mean they consider magic and kindness connected in any other way. To follow my example previously, I could form the Church of the Drunken Programmer, and it would function in exactly the same way to tie together two mostly dissimilar concepts.

 

[arthwollipot]

Good point. But I would consider this essentially a contrived aggregation of interest. A group may advocate kindness and it may also believe in magic. That doesn't mean they consider magic and kindness connected in any other way. To follow my example previously, I could form the Church of the Drunken Programmer, and it would function in exactly the same way to tie together two mostly dissimilar concepts.

I admit to only having skim-read the article, but I don't recall it drawing any greater connection than "here's an astrologer who's also socially progressive".

Wicca in particular - and I mention this mainly because I have a personal history with it - does teach that we should be kind to one another because of the innate magical connection that exists between us all, and abusing that connection can cause harm to ourselves and others. But that's not the kind of thing that the article talks about.

 

[JayUtah]

I admit to only having skim-read the article, but I don't recall it drawing any greater connection than "here's an astrologer who's also socially progressive".

"Socially progressive" is a large topic. Much of it can be said to have a rational basis and empirical support. A larger fraction, I think, would have a rational basis of prima facie plausibility, but lacks empirical support. And the rest would have to be rejected as well-meaning but not very plausible, such as gender-shaming my frying pan. Or, alternatively, arguing that it's a symbol of the patriarchy because its handle sticks out.

Dann's point, as I understand it, is that superstition is qualitatively different than social justice. We may reject instances of both, but it would be on separate grounds. The best parts of social justice are adequately predicated on good data and sound reasoning. The best parts of astrology still follow from an implausible and empirically disproven premise.

Now if you formulate your magic so that it has kindness as a logical consequent, I can see where that might create the conclusion that they are naturally connected. However, this requires your magic to be fungible. If you start with an existing magic whose axioms already exist, that's hard to accomplish. I think that's what she's trying to do. She might be saying, "This or that celestial body is doing a thing, therefore we must correct this particular social wrong." You might say that's plausible astrology, but in no way is it rational social justice. When you have good social progressives acting from solid data, sound reasoning, and a good conscience, it's unfair to suggest that social progressivism -- broadly painted -- stems from astrology or goes hand-in-hand with it. At a certain point you have to admit that some believers in one will also be believers in the other. But that's a contrived connection the way I see it.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Socially progressive" is a large topic. Much of it can be said to have a rational basis and empirical support. A larger fraction, I think, would have a rational basis of prima facie plausibility, but lacks empirical support. And the rest would have to be rejected as well-meaning but not very plausible, such as gender-shaming my frying pan. Or, alternatively, arguing that it's a symbol of the patriarchy because its handle sticks out.

Dann's point, as I understand it, is that superstition is qualitatively different than social justice. We may reject instances of both, but it would be on separate grounds. The best parts of social justice are adequately predicated on good data and sound reasoning. The best parts of astrology still follow from an implausible and empirically disproven premise.

Now if you formulate your magic so that it has kindness as a logical consequent, I can see where that might create the conclusion that they are naturally connected. However, this requires your magic to be fungible. If you start with an existing magic whose axioms already exist, that's hard to accomplish. I think that's what she's trying to do. She might be saying, "This or that celestial body is doing a thing, therefore we must correct this particular social wrong." You might say that's plausible astrology, but in no way is it rational social justice. When you have good social progressives acting from solid data, sound reasoning, and a good conscience, it's unfair to suggest that social progressivism -- broadly painted -- stems from astrology or goes hand-in-hand with it. At a certain point you have to admit that some believers in one will also be believers in the other. But that's a contrived connection the way I see it.

But again, I didn't see anything in the article that suggested that she believes that social progressivism stems from astrology.

Again, skim reading, but I came away with the impression that she interprets her charts in a way that supports social progressivism. "A tall, dark, gay man will cross your path this week and you should be nice to him because homophobia is bad".

 

[JayUtah]

But again, I didn't see anything in the article that suggested that she believes that social progressivism stems from astrology.

That's because the concern dann raised isn't limited to what is said in the article about one astrologer. He actually jumped off from a different article that was quoted later. I'll let him speak for himself:

Are there any indications that the treasurer was some kind of social justice activist? (I haven't been able to find any.) To some people, the point of this thread seems to be to prove that there's some kind of connection between social justice activism and superstition.

The claim is not so much that some person mentioned in an article is conflating two concepts, but that people here in this debate are conflating two concepts. I'm just trying to put some analytical effort behind dann's claim. But by the same token, we haven't left the original article behind:

Of course there is some kind of connection, since at least one person is trying to bring social justice to astrology.

I think we're talking slightly past each other, and I think there's actually a substantial amount of agreement notwithstanding.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's because the concern dann raised isn't limited to what is said in the article about one astrologer. He actually jumped off from a different article that was quoted later. I'll let him speak for himself:

The claim is not so much that some person mentioned in an article is conflating two concepts, but that people here in this debate are conflating two concepts. I'm just trying to put some analytical effort behind dann's claim. But by the same token, we haven't left the original article behind:

I think we're talking slightly past each other, and I think there's actually a substantial amount of agreement notwithstanding.

dann was actually suggesting that some people in this thread were attempting to draw such a connection. I chimed in as a counterpoint to that, by saying that it's an a + b connection rather than an if a then b connection.

 

[JayUtah]

dann was actually suggesting that some people in this thread were attempting to draw such a connection. I chimed in as a counterpoint to that, by saying that it's an a + b connection rather than an if a then b connection.

Yes, I agree. And I brought up another example. I am interested in computer programming. I'm also interested in mixing drinks. You can say they're related because I'm interested in both, but that's not a very strong relationship. If some ardent teetotaler tried to denigrate computer programming because he could cite me as a fan of both, that wouldn't be very logically tenable. Or if someone said I'm trying to bring drinking to computer programming, that might not be accurate either.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, I agree. And I brought up another example. I am interested in computer programming. I'm also interested in mixing drinks. You can say they're related because I'm interested in both, but that's not a very strong relationship. If some ardent teetotaler tried to denigrate computer programming because he could cite me as a fan of both, that wouldn't be very logically tenable. Or if someone said I'm trying to bring drinking to computer programming, that might not be accurate either.

Precisely.