Today in my Introduction to Biology class, the professor, an engaging speaker who has boasted about winning two prestigious teaching awards, talked about science and pseudoscience; and his primary example of pseudoscience was astrology.

At the beginning of class he handed out a little questionnaire which was, to say the least, biased. It asked our sun sign and asked us to circle which of perhaps twenty statements we identified with. These were of the sort that you’d find on a newspaper horoscope, such as, “Others are getting ahead of me,” and, “I am generally negative about things, I need more up-and-at-’em.” The goal basically was to show how little correlation there was between our personally identified characteristics and the characteristics that our sun sign says we have, and hence astrology is bullshit.

I have never been particularly interested in astrology, and have only passing familiarity with it — though perhaps a bit more than your average joe on the street. But even I know that an astrological reading comes from a wide-ranging number of factors: birthplace, birthdate, birth time, sun sign, sun rising sign (and more variations that I don’t know), the moon, the planets. In short, using newspaper-column sun sign predictions to evaluate astrology is like using a first-grade science textbook to evaluate graduate-level physics. Or like saying that psychology is no good because Dear Abby doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.

Of course, if he were teaching a class in which he were showing people how to explore something for scientific validity, I would expect a good professor to explore these facets. Good science is genuine openness and exploration, right? But our friend the professor, well, let’s just say he’s just as pseudoscientific about things he prejudges as anyone else out there.

(I mean, never mind that the ancient cultures all had astrology, what the hell did they know. We’re the best, right? … Goddamn human arrogance.)

And I took it personally. Not because I identify with astrology in particular, but because it represents a magical, holistic worldview. And I’m afraid, because the general atmosphere of science seems to be hostile to my views. To me.

So now, on the first day of the first full week of class, I find myself facing an uphill struggle. I have to take biology and chemistry in order to fulfill prerequisites for acupuncture school, but in order to do so I have to set aside some of the philosophical prejudices I have against science. I hold tight to these prejudices because I’m afraid of what would happen if I were influenced enough by science to start to think like them. I’m afraid that I’ll become narrow-minded and dogmatic.

The funny thing, now that I think about it, is that closed-mindedness replicates itself. It reproduces by creating the same reaction in others. When I think about my attitude towards fundamentalist Christianity, my emotional reaction is one of intolerance, judgment, and superiority. Why? Because in the past I have felt threatened by their intolerance, judgment, and superiority, so I develop my own to counteract the small, pathetic feeling I feel in the presence of judgmental Christians.

I suppose the only way to freedom is to let it all go, to face the fear and release the anger and judgment. Releasing self-importance.

I mean, what do I have to worry about? No one is going to come and burn me for a witch, right?

Hmm.