Astrology

Bernard Williams (1973) depicts as »our standard situation«:
»our standard situation with regard to knowledge (in relation to other persons) is that of trying to find somebody who knows what we don't know; that is, to find somebody who is a source of reliable information about something.«

Discounting sceptics out for fresh bunk to debunk, those who open a book on astrology are, in accordance with Williams's description, those who:
(a) anticipate that the text will give a fair and accurate introduction to astrology
& (b) are interested in the »something« about which astrology promises to be a reliable source of information.

»What's your sign?« never worked for me.

I'm more of a »What's your favorite book?« kind of guy.

Q: How can you tell that there is an astrologer at a party?

A: She'll tell you.

The ancient astrologers themselves discounted astrology thousands of years ago, and replaced it something far more accurate: divining the future by rolling the knuckle bones of sheep, pigs and goats.

But this, too, lacked the accuracy they craved, so they found an even more precise method – viewing the entrails of a disemboweled chicken.
At last, they thought, at last we've found the ideal way.

Astrology was disregarded as a scientific principle over two thousand years ago, except by the Church and the feebleminded.