NPR misses a golden opportunity

NPR has spent a distressing amount of time this week discussing "what Pluto's demotion to 'dwarf planet' means - to astrologers".

Of course, the answer should be "not much" no matter what - I mean, the sun and the moon aren't planets, and yet they count. Or, as astrologer Robert Hand said on Wednesday's All Things Considered program,

"Yes. Our definition of planet is actually the original one, that is, a body that can be seen to move with respect to the fixed stars."

Oh? That's fascinating. In other words, every little thing in the system is a "planet" - everything but Earth - since, obviously, by "can be seen" he doesn't mean by the naked eye, else they wouldn't use Neptune or Uranus let alone Pluto. And the stars aren't all that "fixed" except from Earth (not even then, but at least they (appear to) move across the sky as a unit, fixed in relation to each other as seen from where you are standing...) So, all the comets, all the asteroids, all the moons ... You name it. The signs themselves don't match the actual constellations, so it's clear that at best astrology is a formal system with little agreement to the real world, one whose symbols mean something else.

Hand himself went on to admit, er, state, that

"You should know that there are astrologers who experiment with all manner of orbiting bodies. Some people use comets, a minor body called Chiron that orbits between Uranus and Saturn is in widespread use. It's really a matter of whether astrologers feel they can get meaningful symbolism out of a thing rather than strictly speaking any kind of physical reality."

No wonder there's so much wiggle room in astrology! How can they possibly account for it all?

Hand has his own theory about Pluto's status, or lack thereof, though:

"Historically, Pluto is not an independent body. Throughout all of recorded history, its orbit with respect to the orbit of Neptune has been, relatively speaking, fixed. Every time the two planets have come together in the last several thousand years, they've come together near the same fixed star in Taurus. So, my theory - and this is my theory - and I'm not saying that by way of bragging, I'm saying that by way of taking responsibility for it," he chuckled, "is, that Pluto and Neptune are two aspects of a single entity, and Neptune is what gives it the status."

Today on Morning Edition, we got an astrologer who, we were told, didn't care that astronomers didn't think it was a planet any more (and why should she?), although to be accurate, her statement didn't include any reference to Pluto's status, only its effects. She was asked about that infamous horoscope that told an NPR caller he "shouldn't get married" because of Pluto, a horoscope that Hand repudiated on Wednesday, first by saying

"No planet is capable of indicating absolutely that a person can't get married; all a planet can do is indicate what a person has to do in order to get married. Sometimes that requires so much work on the part of a person that they aren't likely to do it. But it isn't the planet that's preventing it, it's the person's own inclinations. I consider a forecast like that to be malpractice," adding, after a pause, "and I have a lot of company."

Today's astologer - I'm sorry I didn't catch her name, and the clip isn't on the NPR website - didn't agree with that. She had two definite statements to make about Pluto:

"Pluto is often the culprit when a relationship goes bad for no apparent reason."

And

"There is a Pluto-type of person: Charles Mansing [sic], John Dalton, Madame Curie."

Madam Curie? John Dalton? and Charles Manson? So Pluto makes you a chemist ... or a wacko mass-murderer. (Unless there is some chemist out there named Charles Mansing who doesn't show up on Google - who helpfully suggests I might have meant "Charles Mansion", in which case Pluto makes you a chemist or a stately house-turned-hotel).

So NPR should have summed the whole thing up in one succinct statement:

The change in Pluto's status means nothing because astrology is bunk.

But to do that would require a certain willingness to take a stand, to come down with a judgment on the factuality of the competing viewpoints - to be willing to say that one of them just doesn't cut it in any provable, measurable, or sensible fashion, instead of presenting both as though their simple existence is enough to make them equally worthy of time and consideration. What do I think I'm listening to: The Daily Show?