Quote:
Originally Posted by parallaxicality
There's an interesting interview with Sobel on National Public Radio where she discusses the book and addresses some of your issues:
[url snipped so the post doesn't need to be approved]
She seemed surprised that her "Creationist" analogies in chapter one were taken so literally. She was a bit bemused that she won an award from a religious group for that chapter.
|
As I said, I didn't find that too bad. Certainly it wasn't going against science in any way, so I'm willing to accept that one.
I'll listen to the interview later; thanks for the link.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parallaxicality
I didn't get the impression that her discussion on astrology was deadly serious; I think she was just being a bit playful but also drawing on the ancient mythic connotations of astrology to put the story of planetary exploration into its mythical and historical contexts. I mean seriously, would someone who truly believed in the efficacy of astrology draw up a horoscope for a spacecraft?
|
It sure seemed serious to me. Nowhere was there any indication that I saw that she was parodying or otherwise not taking astrology seriously. Even in the appendix there's nothing to indicate that astronomers view astrology as complete bunk. Any casual reader (or astrology believer) would definitely come away with the impression that she is a supporter of astrology. Even if she isn't, the chapter, to my mind, doesn't even
imply otherwise, let alone explicitly state so; that's the problem I have with the book.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parallaxicality
Oh, and re: Galileo horoscope; she says in the interview that Galileo cast it himself, but she took it to an astrologer to have it interpreted.
|
I'll have to re-check the appendix; in my quick glance it seemed to say that this was a new horoscope. I'll check at home tonight (where the book is). It's a minor point anyway.
- Grant McDorman