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.

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

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.

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

A: She'll tell you.