We realize in social psychology the term data mining refers to the process of sifting through large sums of data and looking for apparent patterns – and we also realize the inherent cognitive difficulties therein since this process all too easily lends itself to finding illusory patterns. In other words, you find what you want to see. I recently met someone who voraciously clung to the idea that astrology was a true and correct method of finding clues to ones future based on our earthly viewpoint of distant celestial objects in the cosmos. I am only too well aware that those who practice this pseudo-religion are prone to suppose the existence of more order than we find, and it does not follow that rational thought exists here. Even when it can be demonstrably proven that human behavioral interactions are not modified by random events in our night sky as a conspiracy of the unknown gods to either punish or reward us, these types still find themselves convinced. Sooner or later you must admit a reason that exists on its own for why you wishfully believe in such stupidity when you understand that even if credentialed thought is valid here it seems to me much more philosophical in nature than practical. And of course, philosophy is the no-man's-land between religion and science which is subject to attack from both sides. You must here at once consider seriously whether your self-generated repulsion with truth and accuracy is rational or not. This brings me to my next point. Since one clever and simple way to overthrow someone's faith in astrology is to point out that no two spiritual interpretations of star maps equally co-exist (different newspapers that still print this nonsense will have completely different “readings” for the same signs)... would not this same line of reasoning exist for other desperate attempts to connect with the unknown? Why is there such an innate need for people to connect with that which they cannot see?