Constellations (Or why I'm called a joyless soul)

A friend asked me if I would help her identify a few constellations. (sidetrack begins... She has the luxury of living on the top floor of a building and hence having instant and unrestricted access to the terrace. Now, anyone who knows me, realizes how much I love sleeping under an open sky. sidetrack ends.) Now, I'm capable of recognizing Orion's belt (thanks to Scribble Pad's m.) and a few of the major constellations visible in the northern sky. so it was not surprising that i offered to help her.

People who know me through my blog (and most others) will know that any offer of asistance from me comes with strings attached. In this case, I proffered said service (the one of identifying certain celestial conglomerates) with the caveat that the service not be mis-used. She warily asked me what would count as misuse. I promptly proceeded to inform her that I would help her identify the constellations, only if she promised to not use that information for non-scientific or pseudo-scientific purposes like astrology. I was persudaed to throw in poetry as a possible use that did not violate this tenet. The lady finally did laugh it off with a shrug and ended the conversation with "You are such a killjoy, Harsh!" I've never managed to get this woman to call me by my given name; a fact that irks me no end (but THAT is another post altogether).

Which finally leads us to the topic of the post! Why am I such ajoyless soul? Why do I insist on being a right-royal pain in the posterior?

My primary hatred is towards pseudo-science and its proponents. I do not have a problem with phenomena that cannot be sufficiently explained by science as we know it till date. To give just one example of such phenomena, I can control the weather around me to a certain extent, but I cannot explain, in scientific terms, the process by which I do this. I'm perfectly willing to let this go as just one of those things that our knowledge of science (in this case: the modus operandi and the capabilities of a human brain) is not sufficient to propose a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
It is not unscientific to acknowledge that there are things that cannot be explained by science. That is a limitation that Science (and I) can live with. However any concept that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific (by the mis-use or abuse of scientific terms), but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence, or which does not have scientific rigour, is non-scientific.

Belief in pseudo-science (astrology, zodiac, tarot, etc.) is naïveté (at best) and denial (at worst). Proponents of pseudo-science are either naïve people (with good intentions) or charlatans. Now, it doesn't really matter which is worse (though I personally don't mind the charlatans as much as I mind the misguided morons).
What matters is that AFAIC (as far as I'm concerned), you have no business talking pseudo-science, especially to a scientist. If you want me to to stop arguing, just say the F-word (that would be FAITH... not the foul four-letter variant).
IF you bring in the concept of belief, I'll agree that you have every right to have your own axioms. But if you try to make somethign sound scientific by using words like "energy" and "force" indiscriminately, KNOW that I have Occam's Razor and I will use it ruthlessly to slice and dice you and your arguments.
Science... is not a matter of opinion!
Amen! (tongue firmly in cheek!)