Reply #215: well, you're a better man than Carl Sagan then, [View All]

[GreenArrow]

since he did not presume to know and you clearly know it all.

I refer you again to the quote posted by Greenman above:

“That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant, but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.”

The issue is not whether Sagan believed in Astrology (he clearly didn't as is implied in his statement that there is no known mechanism for it) but that he was willing to make room for it, i.e. he was able to balance his personal beliefs -- astrology doesn't work -- with a reasonable proposition that some mechanism for it could yet be found. He says nothing about probability, and the whole purpose for his statement was apparently that he found the anti-astrology paper too "authoritarian" (read: Dogmatic).

And on a side note, is that little laughing smilie supposed to impart something other than juvenility?