> Heh. I've never understood the gravity argument -- why not try and convince me that the electromagnetic radiation from stars has an effect on me?

Why not? There is the theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in Asia can cause a hurricane in America. Of course, it's not *solely* the butterfly's fault, but it's conceivable, if not altogether likely, that the motion of air caused by the butterfly could tip some sort of balance and initiate a cause-and-effect chain that snowballs into something bigger.

Likewise, it is an established scientific fact that both gravity and light impact us. I'm not sure that gravity does much besides keeping us on the ground and stabilizing our inner ears, but the effect of light on our bodies and minds is more dramatic. Sun rays trigger the manufacture of Vitamin D. And the degree of exposure we have to sunlight noticeably affects the moods and contentedness of many if not most.

The sun affects us. The moon affects us, but less. I don't know why the stars wouldn't affect us as well, maybe as much as the flight of a butterfly on another continent.

But obviously I'm not really talking about what you're talking about: I'm making observations based on science and reason and certainly not making any suggestion that we can use the influence of stars as a predictive tool for living our lives. If starlight affect us at all, it would be something on the order of making us 0.0001% more content with our lives if we expose ourselves to it. It wouldn't mean that I should beware of undertaking new projects this coming Tuesday.
How people leap from one conclusion to the other is completely beyond me. Then again, I don't suppose that's the path astrologists take to become astrologists in the first place.

The attitude "Well, I have to believe in SOMETHING" is astonishingly nonsensical, but in spite of that it's exceedingly common, even in conjunction with reasoned skepticism toward *other* belief systems. It is an ingrained part of human nature to believe in something greater than what we see directly. (Some call this fact of human nature a byproduct of God's existence: that because He *does* exist, most of us "know" deep down that He's out there, and/or that God put in us this need so that we *would* seek Him out.)

How we respond to this instinct, of course, is as different as one individual is from another. I think it's safe to say that this aspect of human nature is responsible for not just every last religion anybody holds, not just every last superstition as well, but also what drives many if not all scientists in their pursuit of learning about the world around them.

Because the human nature part is just about the ingrained idea that there *is* something more to life than what we see. How we respond to that is up to us as individuals. Many scientists respond by embracing logic almost exclusively and using it to accumulate verifiable knowledge about the world around them. Many religious people seek to know the very Creator of the world around them. I don't mean to classify these as divergent groups of people, however: a great many seek both ends.

Superstitious people, as I see it, are those that respond to this inner calling by not responding at all. Rather than seek out the truth of the world around them, pre-fabricated ideas are substituted for "knowledge." Refusing a call to learn is much easier if one deludes oneself into believing that the call has already been fulfilled. This is why, I believe, many people cling to things even if they are verifiably false. The alternative is not to know the answers to some questions that we need to need to answer in some way to be at peace with ourselves. And not knowing important things is an admission that comes hard for some anyway.