Talk:Astrology/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is Astrology a Science?

Astrology is the science of knowing where the stars and planets are at any given time AND how the positions in relation to other stars might effect persons or events.

Astrology is not a branch of science, it is simply a technique. Whether it works or not simply helps to determine if it is *scientific* or not.

I have no problem with the words "technique" or "practice" in the definition of astrology, but I do balk at the traditional notion that they "affect" things on earth. Affecting implies causality in circumstances that are likely quite different. I do completely reject the idea that astrology is practised primarily for entertainment. A 1999 survey of psychic practitioners, which includes astrologers, showed that the most significant reasons for clients to come to psychics was a need for counselling about a person's own life. Eclecticology

Astrological theory is not monolithic. Even the word "coincidence" means together in the stars. Which does not imply causality. Also look at the attitudes to freewill and pre-destination. user:T-zero

Coincidence does not mean "together in the stars". It's from co- (together) + incidere (to fall in, the latter from the Latin verb caedere, to fall. Nothing whatsoever to do with stars, which would have a Latin root related to sidereus. -- Someone else 23:22, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also...

I will not delete the following paragraph but I will say before it, that the validity of astrology as a science is debatable - with good arguments for both sides. I think the following paragraph only shows one side of the debate.

Then have an attempt at putting the other side. If you think something is not right, explain why. -- sodium

I'm not nearly qualified to make the arguments for the other side - which is why I inserted that paragraph in hopes that someone else would.

I just did some quick searching and from this website

http://www.elysian.co.uk/astro-fa.htm

I found an interesting FAQ - (and maybe this is the best angle to take here...)

Q. Is astrology an art or a science? A. Well, I suppose the answer to that depends on personal opinion. Until astrology is once again accepted back into mainstream education, the classification of it doesn't really matter and is unlikely to be agreed upon. In some ways it is a science, in as much as it follows a clearly definable set of rules and principles, based upon mathematical and astronomical calculations. In other ways it is an arts subject, in as much as the interpretation of an astrological chart is based upon a rich and symbolic language, and the art of synthesising hundreds of variables into a coherent interpretation is a skill based more upon language and psychology than on science. I personally feel that the best compromise is to call astrology a social science, if it has to have a label at all.

But again - I'm not qualified in this realm - JvaGoddess

"I suppose the answer to that depends on personal opinion" no, no and no. What is science is a very large question it is a branch of philosophy called espistemology. Generation of philosopher and scientist have tried to answer to the question and ton of book have been written on the subject. There's is any epistemologic argument to qualify Astrology as a science.

Ericd 00:29 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

Does Astrology Predict the Future?

It is not an attempt to predict the future.

I'm guessing this strongly depends on who you ask. Ancient peoples certainly looked to astrology as a definite prediction at least some of the time, and I would be surprised if all people who believe in the field have abandoned this. So this should probably be qualified or attributed to a particular "school". The same is true with the astrological imports attributed to certain stars and constellations, which will also vary with tradition.

Newspaper Horoscopes

Another interesting aspect of newspaper horoscopes is that they are usually 1 month off; the "Age of Aquarius" is here.

Unless the underlying context has meaning, this sentence has no meaning. Precessional issues are dealt with later in the article where they are relatively more meaningful. In the context of newspaper astrology where the random is as accurate as the specific, what difference does it make if they are a month off. In "scientific" analogy what good are calculations to four significant figures, when your input is only good to two significant digits? Eclecticology

I agree. There is a general problem with documenting pseudoscience and superstition, which is that they lack internal consistency, and there is therefore no way to present them as a definite body of knowledge. In this instance, I don't like the article's implication that astrology is good if it's done correctly, since all versions of astrology have failed empirical tests.-- User:Bcrowell

It might be nice to have a section on the Chinese Zodiak and perhaps other systems of astrology. Also, whether different cultures developed astrology independently. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to answer this myself.

There is an article on the chinese astrology to which I have created a link. This area could well need refactoring. -- Alan Peakall 18:06 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and refactored it. There is now a short main article on astrology, with links to the more specific articles on the Chinese and Western systems. The ``chinese zodiac article was much longer and more detailed than the short section in the original astrology article, so I kept the former and eliminated the latter. The western astrology section of the original article contained a list of well known astrologers. This list seemed useless and out of place, and most of the names were broken links, except for the one on Walter Mercado. The Mercado article read like a fan page, and lacked any semblance of balance; I toned it down, and it is no longer linked to from the western astrology article. -- User:Bcrowell

I knew about Kepler and Galileo practising astrology, but I didn't know about Newton. Some source? --AN

I don't think that's correct about Newton. It's well documented that he spent a great deal of time on Biblical exegesis and alchemy, but I've read a couple of biographies, and I don't recall any mention of astrology. I've removed the reference to Newton. -- User:Bcrowell

I Googled a little, and found [this] discussion. The evidence seems to be that he did not practice astrology, and did not believe in it.

Somebody edited the sentence

Astronomers dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience.

to say

..., but are really dealing with different issues.

I don't understand what the edited version of the sentence means, and I've put it back the way it was.

-- User:Bcrowell

What the addition meant was that astronomers and astrologers have not studied the same subject matter ever since the fork between astronomy and astrology. Being an astronomer is not in itself a sufficient criterion for passing judgment on astrology since their areas of study are so different. Eclecticology 22:43 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I don't really see any point in getting into a debate on the merits of astrology on this page, but one of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that it immunizes itself against all criticism.

That's not part of the definition of pseudoscience; the characteristic that you describe is as evident in those mainstream scientists who consider any departure from orthodox scientific dogma to be pseudoscience.

No, a defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable, i.e., there is an empirical method that might logically allow it to be refuted. You appear to have an incorrect view of how science works. Science is inherently skeptical, and deals only with provisional truth, not absolute truth. -- user:Bcrowell

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Are you saying that the theories of astrology are not falsifiable? You can't maintain that science is inherently sceptical without being sceptical about science. I accept that anything which I may consider to be true about astrology is only provisionally true. Stating that astrology is pseudoscience is stating an absolute truth, and that is unscientific. Eclecticology

If only believers in astrology are qualified to judge the merits of astrology, then there is no way to subject it to any kind of test or criticism.

I've never claimed that. Astronomers and astrologers do start from a common body of data in celestial mechanics and geometry, but they diverge from there. An astronomer who studies the composition of stars through spectroscopy is in no better position to judge alleged claims of astrological effects on human individuals than the man on the street. These are completely different areas of study. Nor is that astronomer any more competent to comment on modern genetics.

I disagree with your statement that "An astronomer who studies the composition of stars through spectroscopy is in no better position to judge alleged claims of astrological effects on human individuals than the man on the street." For instance, an astronomer realizes that the constellations are not physical groupings of stars in three dimensions, so it doesn't make sense for them to have any supernatural effect on life on our planet. The average person has never even thought about it that way. -- user:Bcrowell

Your argument is a non-sequitur. Knowledge of these "effects", if any, is more a function of knowing this planet than knowing others. How can the astronomer with his eye stuck on his telescope be competent about personal effects? He has not thought about it in this way any more than the average person.

Frankly, I'd like the sentence to read "Astrology is a pseudoscience," but in an attempt to keep a neutral point of view, I stated it merely as an opinion of astronomers.

I appreciate your restraint.

To me, this is like if I wrote an article on Hitler saying "Jews consider Hitler to be an evil person," and somone wanted to tack on, "but they have this opinion because of their own historical perspective."

That would be true but perhaps tautological. Substitute Aztecs for Jews in that sentence, and it becomes a closer analogy to what you are saying about astronomers.

Rather than going back and forth in an endless loop of inserting and removing the same phrase, could we hash out something here on the talk page?

OK

(a) I don't think your current version is understandable

To deal with that we need to deal with specifics.

and (b) I don't think the statement needs to be doubly weakened, when I've already made clear that it's only one point of view.

What is "doubly weakened"? I understand that your POV appears to be that "All astrology is pseudoscience." If that is the case, particularly in regards to the word "all", then the logical negation of that is that "some astrology is not pseudoscience." Supporters of astrology are not at all unanimous in their views about which parts are true. Some have applied scientific method to their astrological studies, and many of their studies have been unconvincing. But unconvincing or inconclusive results are not sufficient bases for calling something pseudoscience. Scientific method involves a perpetual series of hypotheses, tests and new hypotheses that accomodate the results of the tests. If a particular researcher in astrology follows that, he is a scentists. The average preparer of charts for the public is no more a scientist than the chemical technician who mixes chemicals according to predetermined formulas. Eclecticology 05:53 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

Re "some astrology is not pseudoscience:" A common tactic among believers in pseudoscience. Any attempt to test their claims is met with obfuscation, because the pseudoscientists refuse to be pinned down as to their beliefs. Similarly, there are many versions of creationism (young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, intelligent-design creationism), which are all mutually inconsistent. Because there is no unified theory of creationism, it's immunized against skepticism: any attempt at testing is said to be a test of the wrong version of the ``theory. One of my concerns about the astrology articles was that they did not do a good idea of explaining how many different versions of astrology there are. If you take a look at the creationism article, for instance, you'll see that they've done a careful job of explaining the differences among the various types of creationism.- user:Bcrowell

Since I'm not a believer in creationism, I'm obviously not as competent as you to discuss that subject. If what you mean by "a common tactic" is resorting to basic logic then I guess your right. What claim were you trying to test? If "pseudoscientists refuse to be pinned down as to their beliefs" that's very scientific of them. Didn't you just say that all science is provisional? In all this discussion, I haven't objected to your splitting off the Chinese astrology portion. If you want to go ahead and describe other versions of astrology and how they differ from western astrology then just do it. Eclecticology

Well, the above discussion has turned into a debate on the merits of astrology, which I don't think is productive. But how are we doing on converging on the text of the article? The sentence in question currently reads "Scientists dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience." Your version reading "Orthodox scientists dismiss..." was inaccurate and misleading, because it implied that there was a division between orthodox scientists and nonorthodox scientists. There is no such division. This is a common tactic among believers in pseudoscience. For example, creationists like to make it sound as though evolution and the Big Bang theory were controversial, when actually they aren't controversial at all, due to the overwhelming empirical evidence in their favor. - user:Bcrowell

Since the focus of the debate is now on one short sentence, I suppose that's progress. My latest was just to add the word "some". The first part of your last paragraph was credible until "This is a common tactic..." when you began with a series of unfounded generalizations. You previously assumed controversy between different astrologers, and that was unfounded. Eclecticology

I'm removing "some," and changing the sentence so it refers, as it originally did, to astronomers, rather than scientists in general. The point of the sentence is to help readers understand the distinction between astronomy and astrology, so it should refer to astronomers. Also, the word "some" is inaccurate and misleading. It suggests there is a controversy among scientists about the merits of astrology, when in fact there is none.

From the article:

(Galileo, for instance, used telescopic observations to show that astronomical bodies such as the sun and moon had markings on them, rather than being perfect, featureless spheres as maintained by Aristotle.)

Surely people could see the markings on the Moon with the naked eye, well before Galileo? -- Anon.

Aristotle said that they were phenomena in the earth's atmosphere, not actual imperfections of the moon. --User:Bcrowell

The problem with the statement about markings is not because it's wrong. It's only irrelevant to the distinction between astrology and astronomy. Eclecticology 03:03 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

I accepted the challenge to find "one" astronomer who "believed" in astrology, and after a quick serch found the following at http://astrology.about.com/library/weekly/aa102599.htm

"In recent years... many otherwise reasonable, rational people from all walks of life have (so to speak) "come out of their metaphysical closets" in defense of astrology.

By way of a few examples from the scientific community... the visionary English astronomer Percy Seymour "threw his hat into the ring" by publishing Astrology: The Evidence of Science, appearing in April 1989. In his groundbreaking book ? Dr Seymour, a chartered member of the Institute of Physics and Fellow member of the Royal Astronomical Society, explained his revolutionary theories of celestial harmonics in regard to why astrology may work in the first place.

In 1995, environmental scientist (originally trained in mathematical physics), Dr William Keepin, published the article "Astrology and the New Physics: Integrating Sacred and Secular Sciences", in the astrology magazine The Mountain Astrologer, (August/September, 1995),

Then there's Victor Mansfield, astrophysicist and author of Synchronicity, Science, and Soul-Making in 1995. In 1997, when Dr Mansfield was a featured speaker at a major astrology conference (the Cycles and Symbols Conference San Francisco 1997), he caused quite a stir.

While one needn't be a rocket scientist to believe astrology works, it apparently doesn't hurt, either."

Eclecticology

Isn't it more productive to find statistians who studied the subject? several studies have been done in england germany and france. C.G. jung included a study on married couples from the existing data of his practice in his work Synchronicity. Two16

Descriptions of some of the key studies with links and references would certainly be welcome; I look forward to your additions. IIRC Jung's studies were not statistically significant. He did perceive certain interesting tendencies in his data, and likely would have been satisfied if that data had served as a stepping stone to more rigorous studies. Eclecticology 06:52 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

--- No real need. There seems to be a clear arguement that classes astrology with medicine as an art. Both are always dealing with unique instances and both have their respective placebo effect. Adding the phrase "Tremendous opposition to astrology exists within the scientific community." and removing the not so subtle propaganda to protect the innumerate would serve the interest of npov. All the anti on this topic not help those who magiclly wish. Mentioning protoscience with the same link to the psuedoscience article as pseudoscience would improve npov because that article is well balanced. 64.229.240.15 02:58 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

______________________________

Just in case anyone thought science wasn't human: Csicop

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

or CSICOP is an organization formed ostensibly to encourage open minded, : critical investigation of paranormal and :pseudoscience claims from a responsible, scientific point of view.

As the publishers of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, the committee : disseminates information about results of such inquiries to the scientific

community and the public.

CSICOP's history has not been without scandal. In one of its earliest ventures, : the failure of CSICOP leadership to critique the 'Mars Effect' claim of Michel : and Francoise Gauquelin in an honest and scientific manner resulted ultimately : in the resignation of at least one of CSICOP's founding members in disgust. (see : link below).

==External Links==

*CSICOP homepage

*"CSICOP and the : Skeptics: An Overview"

*The True Disbelievers by

Richard Kamann and Marcello Truzzi is a detailed account of internal events at

CSICOP over the course of the Gauquelin 'Mars Effect' fiasco.

Most astrologers consider astronomy a lobotomized approach to the heavens, desribing their physicality, but totally stopping at meaning and relevance for man, the most important aspect of the study.

This bit of provocative nonsense is as idiotic as some of the things that I hear from the pro-science crowd abot astrology. The fact is that the two groups study different things, and that's perfectly fine. Who says that "relevance for man" needs to be studied by astronomers? Eclecticology 02:32 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Some refactoring needs to be done to make this npov in light of Csicop:

The True Disbelievers by

Richard Kamann and Marcello Truzzi is a detailed account of internal events at 
CSICOP over the course of the Gauquelin 'Mars Effect' fiasco.

I am going to put this link at the bottom of the page.

I think a bit about the scientific POV of why astrology exists would be good, but I'm not sure how to put it neutrally. Back before humanity had collected much scientific knowledge, the seasons, the migration of birds and hibernation of animals, births and deaths of most organisms, tides, weather patterns, etc. worked in sync with the changing of the stars throughout the year. We now know that there is no causal effect there, but ancient man did not. If the stars could effect all those things, it's not a big stretch to think it could effect a person's personality, future, etc. If someone can think of where and how to add this, it would be most appreciated.

What you raise is an historical issue more than a scientific one. What happened historically, did so independently of any underlying validity or error on the part of astrological concepts. Nobody disputes that at one time in history the two practices of astrology and astronomy were virtually the same thing.

When you suggest that astrology theorizes a causal relationship between planetary positions and human personality, you have put it in a box that is not of its own making. Many astrologers, in fact, see that kind of relationship as acausal. It seems to me much of the foundations of modern science have depended on accepting the doctrine of causality that it inherited from the mediaeval church. ☮ Eclecticology 01:58 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Very few scientists are actually qualified to dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience, having never truly studied it themselves. In fact, scientists have resorted to the most base forms of pseudoscience themselves when faced with credible evidence of some of the basic tenets of astrology, as evidenced by the manner Michel Gauquelin's work was received. The "Mars Effect" is only the most well known of his experiments. Nearly all of his studies proved negative. However, his studies on astrology's relation to geneology had a positive result. Parents and children were found to have astrologically related charts at a much higher degree than chance would allow.

His methods were very scientific, so many arguments against him resort to ad-hominem attacks, accusing him of bias and ignoring the fact that most of his life's work resulted in scientific evidence against astrology, not for it. His "Mars Effect" experiment has been replicated, with varied results. His geneological experiment was never repeated, as far as I know. The main reason for this is the difficulty in repeating the data gathering technique. For a repetition of the experiment to be valid, it must contain the birth data of people for whom the exact time of birth is recorded (often it is recorded as a round number rather than the exact time), and who had natural births (i.e., not induced). This is a difficult task indeed and one which Gauquelin devoted much of his life to.

The smug tone of the article and the feedback here I find personally insulting, as this is a subject which I am very knowledgeable about, and whose opponents display a willful ignorance of, to the point of saying that they don't even need to study it in order to prove it false. However, I firmly believe the evidence will eventually win out once the old guard orthodoxy dies out, as happens in so many areas of scientific controversy.

For example, it is a proven fact that oysters open an close their shells in synchronicity with the high and low tide. It was thought that the water level, current strength, etcetera caused this phenomenon. This has been scientifically shown not to be the case. When isolated and kept at constant temperature and light levels, oysters open and close their shells en masse, based on the lunar cycle. http://www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/EL3/Biological.html Further experiments proved that the shades of crab shells are affected by the position of the moon at their birth.

Is this proof of "astrology"? Emphatically no! However, it is proof of the central tenet of astrology, that nearby celestial bodies influence physical characteristics and actions of living beings. The problem is that "astrology", in its current form, is a VERY general term and has not been formed from scientific rigor, but from a gradual "folk empiricization", to coin a phrase. When scientists argue against it, they can easily point to any number of outrageous beliefs held by crackpots the world over, and say "See, they're wrong, so astrology is wrong". Rarely do you have any sort of real effort to study the **phenomenon** rather than the **practice**. In many cases the practice can be easily disproven by an eleven year old. A good example is the newspaper horoscope, which apparently seeks to divide the entire world into twelve categories and predict what will happen to them today.

It is obvious to a moron-level intelligence that there are more than twelve categories of people and no "serious" astrologer (if such exist) would make such claims as the newspaper horoscopes do every day. However, very few "orthodox" scientists have had the inclination, bravery, funding, or prescience to study the phenomenon rather than the practice.

Eventually, there will be formed a "scientific astrology", if you will, but it will not be called astrology. It will probably be called something like Astronomical Biorhythmic Synchronicity.

I am altering the article slightly. I'm sure someone will undo what I have done, but I believe most will find my change to be equitable to both sides of the debate. Cardsharque

I found the article to say that the practice of astrology IS a pseudoscience. I editted it to say it is considered so by a majority of scientists. In the light of Gauquelin's work that is more correct. Yngwin 17:40 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

While I agree that Gauquelin's work validates the underlying principles of astrology, it in no way validates the practice, which is why I left that sentence alone. Even though I am a believer, astrology IS a pseudoscience by the strict definition of the term. The tenets of astrology as it is practiced today have not been validated by the scientific method, even when Gauquelin's work is taken into account. Cardsharque

The word Pseudoscience does not have a strict definition; it is a POV word (pejorative). Thus, in Wikipedia it should be used only in statements of opinion, never in statements of fact. Mkweise 21:50 21 May 2003 (UTC)

We have a very good definition of pseudoscience here. Mintguy 21:54 21 May 2003 (UTC)~

That's right, and the 3rd paragraph does a great job of explaining why the word is to be avoided in encyclopedic writing:

The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and real science are often unclear. Many people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Oftentimes the term is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures.

Mkweise 02:21 22 May 2003 (UTC)

It appears that Isaac Newton's alleged support for Astrology is mere urban legend. - http://phoenix.us.mensa.org/maam/m2002/mike0902.htm

Although the word "support" may be inappropriate to describe Newton's relation with astrology, there is nothing in that article that is convincing about Newton's views on the subject. Qualifying these as urban legend is as much a leap to faith as to say that Newton wholeheartedly accepted all the favorable statements that had been made about astrology before him. The evidence about Newton's views strikes me as inconclusive. His work on celestial mechanics contributed to the eventual separation of astronomy and astrology. At the same time, he wrote extensively about alchemy, sometimes with astrological themes. I suspect that it may be closer to the truth to say that Newton the alchemist's relationship with astrology may have been as reliable as today's chemist is about astronomy.

You clearly didn't read the article properly. i.e. "Newton scholar and English historian of science Derek Thomas Whiteside has stated that he never found any reference to astrology among the 50 million words which have been preserved from Newton's hand." and "Newton confided to Conduitt that his interest in science had first been roused in the summer of 1663, when, as a young student at Cambridge, he purchased a book on astrology at the midsummer fair at Stourbridge ... 'soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology' ". Mintguy 07:14 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Umm, is Judicial astrology a method of determining the guilt or innocence of accused criminals by looking at the stars, or did judicial have another meaning in the 17th century? Mkweise 17:57 22 May 2003 (UTC)

A quick google tell me than 'judicial' astrology deals with individual predictions as opposed to a 'natural', or philosophical astrology which deals with the heaven's influence on the world. Mintguy 18:09 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I have made modifications to this page because, as an astologer, I found it to be inaccurate in presenting what astrologers generally believe and practice. The discussion on the subject of astrology must, I feel, be representative of the opinions of both those who consider it useful and accurate and those who disagree. I have removed the description of astrology as a system of divination, because most leading astrologers would strongly disagree with that characterization. Also, western astrology uses the tropical zodiac, not tropical time (I've never heard that term before, and I see there is no definition of it either). If someone wishes to discuss the modifications, or disagree with them, I'm quite open to discussion of them. I've attempted to maintain a neutral tone in the article.

Etoma

Reverted 3 recent changes.

re Newton: the statement states that he was interested, not that he believed.
Astrology as divination represents a narrow interpretation of the term; defining the term pseudo-astrology in relation to tabloid astrology is unhelpful; tabloid astrology is adequately criticized elsewhere.
The reference to logical fallacies is totally irrelevent in the absence of evidence about which astrologers are making such claims. "Correlation is causality" is completely meaningless in circumstances where astrologers view these correlations as acausal. ☮ Eclecticology 00:35, 2003 Aug 12 (UTC)

I never stated that astrologers use these logical fallacies to justify their claims, simply that these fallacies are used by "contemporary believers" (i.e. those sorts of people that read horoscopes in the tabloids, and then say stuff like "there must be some truth in it because people have been doing it for hundreds of years" -- which is the appeal to tradition). Maybe there is some better term than "contemporary believers", but it is relevant to mention logical fallacies here since they are very frequently used to justify the unsubstantiated claims of astrology. LordK 10:15, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Appearance in the tabloid press is enough to taint the credibility of anything without regard whatsoever to its validity in other fora. Those astrology columns are right up there with claims about Arnold Schwarzenegger being pregnant. Attacking astrology based on the tabloid press is a straw man argument. Saying that there must be some truth in something is far removed from specifying what that truth is and using that as a basis for a science. Jumping to conclusions is more of a problem. If you are going to make references to logical fallacies (and they do abound in this subject area) the application needs to be more focused. Who precisely is using these fallacies. It serves no purpose to attribute these fallacies to a part of the astrological community that astrologers themselves don't respect. ☮ Eclecticology 22:58, 2003 Aug 12 (UTC)

Re: Newton. The statement "There is some evidence in the works of Isaac Newton that he was interested in astrology" - does not equate with - "Newton scholar and English historian of science Derek Thomas Whiteside has stated that he never found any reference to astrology among the 50 million words which have been preserved from Newton's hand."[1] The latter indicates that there is no evidence whatsoever. Mintguy 08:11, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By acknowledging in the article that Newton had a passing interest evidenced by his book purchases, and that that interest was subservient to other interests (notably alchemy) adequately deals with Newton's role. A passing interest is substantially less than a belief. It shows that the matter has been considered. Not mentioning Newton at all guarantees that the issue will come up again and again, sometimes with far more outrageous positions. ☮ Eclecticology 22:58, 2003 Aug 12 (UTC)

From the same reference as given above: Out of a total of some 1752 books found in his collection upon his death, Only 4 had any mention of astrology. i.e. 0.22% of his collection. These four books were..

Tractatus utilis ante LX annos conscriptus, cui titulum fecit, Speculum astrologorum ... by Johann Essler from Mainz (Basel, 1596; first published in 1508); bound in one volume with Theoricæ novæ planetarum by George Peurbach. Newton's personal copy, which is presently kept at the Trinity College Library at Cambridge, displays no dog-ears, marginal notes, or other evident signs of regular use.

Palmistry, the secrets thereof disclosed; or, a familiar, easy and new method, whereby to judge of the most general accidents of mans life from the lines of the hand, withal its dimentions and significations. As also that most useful piece of astrology (long since promised) concerning elections for every particular occasion, now plainly manifested from rational principles of art, not published till now, by Richard Saunders (1613-1675), (G. Sawbridge, London, 1663).

Rider's British Merlin and almanmanc by Chardanus Rider (London, c. 1690). , [S]Chardanus Rider, is an anagram of Richard Saunders

Tetractys Anti-Astrologica; or, the four chapters in the explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness, which contain a brief but solid confutation of Judiciary Astrology (London, 1681). This is an excerpt from a work published by Henry More (1614-1687) in 1660 debunking astrology. Again, Newton?s personal copy, which was presented to him by the author and is now kept in the Beinecke Library of Rare Books at the Yale University (New Haven), shows no signs of regular use.

This does not even suggest a passing interest in the subject. I suspect you would find more books on astrology in the collections of Einstein or Richard Dawkins. It is simply a fallacy to include any reference to Newton whatsoever, which might suggest that he took any kind of interest in the subject. A reference to Newton in the text is a possible stub, which allows someone to falsely elaborate on his interest. To simply expunge the reference altogether and maintain it as expunged is the correct way to deal with those who wish to make a claim for Newton as an astrologer. Mintguy 11:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your list is at least evidence of a passing interest, and the lack of usage of the fourth item could even be taken to mean that he had no real interest in debunking astrology either. That Einstein may have had such books on his shelf attests to his open-mindedness, and I would expect such an infamous debunker as Dawkins to have at least something on his shelf before he could possibly say anything sensible about astrology. I would at least hope that you had some astrological works on your shelf before making your comments.

I am puzzled by the way you use the word "fallacy" which, as I understand it refers to misunderstanding or a lack of reason. There is nothing fallacious about the reasoning that because he had these books on his shelf, he must have been at least interested enough to acquire them.

It is with your final point that I take greatest objection. It's what censorship is all about. It deletes a fact out of the fear of what hypothetical others might do. If you are going to do that why not insert a sentence like, "References to Isaac Newton have been expunged from this article because we don't trust Wikipedians to be fair-minded on this subject."? If the claim that Newton was an astrologer is to have any validity the onus is upon those people making that claim to prove it. Outrageous extrapolations are more easily resisted from the position of a simple truth, than from one of no truth at all. ☮ Eclecticology 18:41, 2003 Aug 13 (UTC)

From dictionary.com

fallacy

A false notion.
A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
The quality of being deceptive

Of the four books

Rider's British Merlin was an almanac containing information about phases of the moon etc. It also contains astrological information. See [2] for a brief description of a copy for sale. It also appears George Washington also owned a copy of this book. Should the article say that Washington took a passing interest is astrology as well?
Tetractys Anti-Astrologica was presented to Newton by the author. Newton himself didn't purchase it.
Palmistry, the secrets thereof disclosed .. by Saunders, is predominantly about palmistry and not astrology. See..[3] for a description of this book.
The final book by Johann Essler is bound together with Theoricæ novæ planetarum by George Peurbach, the latter book is about astronomy[4]. Who is to say whether Newton purchased it because he took a passing interest in the former or the latter.

Quite simply, there is not a shred of evidence that Newton took even a passing interest in Astrology. The only book in his possession that deals exclusively with astrology was presented to him by the author as a gift and it?s contents were anti-astrological. It is analogous to say that because I possess a daily newspaper that contains horoscopes, a cookbook by Nancy Reagan and a book by James Randi that was a present from my brother, I have a passing interest astrology.

To say Newton took a passing interest in Astronomy based on the above "evidence" is fallacious. Mintguy 21:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I posted the above a week ago. So as there hasn't been any response, I'm removing the Newton reference again. Mintguy 15:20, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It seems that I am entering in the middle of an edit war, anyway

"To simply expunge the reference altogether and maintain it as expunged is the correct way to deal with those who wish to make a claim for Isaac Newton as an astrologer."

I don't really understand how a sentence like that can find its place in the article. It seems an error, like an edit intended for the Talk page :-) Maybe some middle ground can be found, like:

"Isaac Newton is often cited as having an interest on astrology, but no evidence can be found about this."

At18 12:40, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why perpetuate such a myth. Shall we put the following Satanism. "It has been suggested that Isaac Newton was a satanist who ate babies, drank the blood of virgins, and danced round maypoles naked, but no evidence has been found of this" ? Mintguy 12:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In fact, I removed the sentence. But if 10,000 people continue to refer to Netwon as an astrologer, a disclaimer is in order. Let's see if the Netwon reference comes back. At18 13:02, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've made the change based on your middle ground proposal. Please note that my position has consistently been that Newton had an interest in astrology, and not that he was an astrologer. I know nothing about Mintguy's suggestion that Newton was a Satanist, etc. If he wants to make that claim it's up to him to provide the evidence. ☮ Eclecticology 18:59, 2003 Aug 21 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention Newton or George Washington or Richard Dawkins in this article, but if you insist that his name appear in this article then we must at least clearly state (as has been demonstrated above) that there is not a shred of evidence to support any supposition that he took even the smallest interest in the subject. Hence -

Isaac Newton is sometimes cited as having an interest on astrology, but the proposed evidence does not stand up to close examination. There is not a single word recorded in Newton's hand that mentions astrology and he did not posses a single book devoted to it's study.

Mintguy 20:30, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We're close. Given that 4 books have been mentioned it seems to me that something like "...and the few books in his possession were held incidentally to other interest." would be more accurate. ☮ Eclecticology 22:01, 2003 Aug 21 (UTC)

Go for it. I used it's instead of its anyway, so it needs an edit, though perhaps I might suggest:

"There is not a single word recorded in Newton's hand that mentions the subject and the handful of books in his possession that contained references to astrology were primarily concerned with other subjects".

Your verbiage is very confrontational, and sounds like the result of a flame war. When I read it, it sounds like "Astrologers make this outrageous claim but there is NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR IT". I am changing the text to be less confrontational, yet express the same fact. -Anon IP

It was an agreed form of words that has stood in this article for quite some time, albeit with a grammatical error. Well done for spotting the incorrect preposition which has been there for nearly a year. But what has alchemy to do with it? Newton was a polymath. Do we say "Famed theologian, mathematician, physicist, alchemist, philosopher, astronomer, politician, chaplain to Charles II, Master of the Royal mint etc.. Mintguy (T) 16:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alchemy at the time tended to link the qualities of various substances to the effects and characteristics of the planets. Eclecticology 08:59, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

but non of the four books mentioned is about alchemy so the sentence "..incidental to other subjects, notably alchemy." is just plain wrong. Mintguy (T) 10:34, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can see this being embellished by someone with other ideas though. Mintguy 22:17, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've copied the above sentence to the article with my only change being a comma after "subject" to avoid the reading "mentions ... the handful of books". Anything further from me would be quibbling. This is an article that I watch regularly for NPOV, and though it seems that I more often deal with hostility to the subject from the "pro-science" POV, I just as willingly oppose stupidities from some supporters of astrology. ☮ Eclecticology 01:23, 2003 Aug 22 (UTC)

Slartibartfast The article's looking good... I just wanted to point out, though, regarding this:

"User:Lumos3> (Deleted claim that Astology can be considered a Social science. Have never seen this supported by any social scientists.)"

It wasn't a claim, it was a hypothetical statement - that if astrology were a legitimate science at all, it would (or may, perhaps I should have said) qualify as a social science. I didn't put it back, but, I reworded the sentence after that whose original meaning was distorted by the removal of that sentence.

OK, a long debate. My POV - if astrology is a science, then astrologers should be attempting to provide a scientific explanation for astrology. Are any of them doing this?

Exile

I'm adding an NPOV marker to this article. The article has a long history of edit wars. Many of these have centered around the question of astrology's relationship to science. I edited it a little today, but the article as it stands is still full of misleading attempts to make it sound is if there was scientific evidence for astrology. This is equivalent to writing an article on Christianity and trying to give arguments to support Christianity based on science. The article should treat astrology as what it actually is: a prescientific belief system.

There is very little in the article that bluntly calls astrology a science. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are some biological phenomena that co-ordinate with celestial movements (e.g. circadian rhythms, see Chronobiology).
This misleading topic sentence led into a paragraph that attempted to imply mysterious correlations between heavens and earth that could not be explained by science. I've edited the paragraph a little to try to restore NPOV, but the whole thing is bogus.

The simple quoted statement of co-ordination does not by itself imply anything about astrology or science. How can the inability of science to explain something be used as an argument against astrology. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrological concepts are pervasive in many societies, and endure despite strong efforts by scientists to discredit them.
The tone of this sentence is biased. It makes it sound as if the brave tradition of astrology has been struggling valiantly against the attempts of narrowminded scientists to censor it, but because its heart is pure, it has survived. Again, there is an attempt to create confusion in the mind of the reader as to the true relationship between astrology and science. If astrology allows itself to be judged by the scientific method, it is discredited by the evidence. Judged on those terms, scientists have not just made "efforts" to discredit astrology, they have thoroughly disproved it. The article should present astrology as a belief system standing outside of science, in which case the second half of this sentence is irrelevant.

How can it be biased; many scientists do work hard at trying to discredit astrology. Your sarcasm about brave and valiant struggles is certainly not intended to clarify the issue. Most of what you say is utter bullshit, and only proves that you don't know what your talking about. You've used your presumption that astrologers call themselves scienctists for a straw man argument to justify a diatribe against astrology. Some parts of astrology will allow themselves to be judged by the scientific method, but to that extent those who seek a scientific explanation would prefer to do so in an atmosphere where the opponents are able to restrain their natural tendency for irrelevant generalizations. That scientists have made strong efforts to discredit astrology is a fact whether or not your wild claim of victory is justified. I have no problem in accepting astrology as a belief system that is mostly outside of science, but scientists do persist in their attempts to discredit, but rather than evoking visions of valiant defenders they just make themselves look silly.Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrology as a descriptive language for the mind
This paragraph is another misleading attempt to make it sound as if astrology had some scientific value.

There's not a single reference to science in that short paragraph. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The personality descriptions made in astrological forecasts can be viewed as a method of describing matters of the mind and personality in western culture.
The earth can be viewed as flat, or human sacrifice can be viewed as a noble expression of religious feeling. Astrology is not a psychological theory for classifying personalities; to claim that it is, is to ignore the relationship astrology claims between the heavens and human affairs.

More sarcasm! Am I safe to argue with someone who believes in a flat earth and human sacrifice? There is nothing in the paragraph about "classifying personalities", even if that sort of practice is certainly a part of astrology's history despite your claim to the contrary. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scientists claim that the effect of tidal forces is far too weak over a small area (such as the human body) to have any influence on a biological organism.
Scientists don't just claim it, they know it.

Such a categorical claim is very unscientific. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrologers counter that according to the scientific method, the burden is not on the experimenter to provide a mechanism for correlated statistical anomalies
I added a clause at the end that scientists do not believe in the existence of any such correlations, or "anomalies," but this is just another example of the article's misleading attempts to impute scientific value to astrology.

I honestly don't know what that contributor was trying to say with "mechanism for correlated statistical anomalies". I've deleted it. You seem to understand it better than I do, so feel free to add it back. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many modern thinkers, notably Carl Jung, have acknowledged its descriptive powers of the mind without necessarily subscribing to its predictive claims.
Another misleading attempt to connect astrology to science. Jung and Freud did not use the scientific method, and are both completely outside the mainstream of modern scientific thought about psychology. The relationship of their theories to the science of psychology is similar to the relationship of astrology to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry. User:Bcrowell

Trying to get a lot of mileage out of that short paragraph? I still don't see a reference to science in the paragraph. Nor is there any mention of Freud. Your broad generalized statements about Jung are certainly off topic. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eclecticology, please don't delete the NPOV marker from the story. I've put it back in. bcrowell

Requested mediation --Bcrowell 15:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ive made some comments on Requests for mediation. Please get to them when you can. Im offering to mediate; please say yes or no to my offer on the RFM page. -SV

Attribution is not innuendo

Followers of astrology believe it is a system of understanding. Others claim it understands nothing. It is only appropriate to attribute the claim that it is a system of understanding to those who make it. Wikipedia should not claim that it is a system of understanding, it should tell us who claims this. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --Bcrowell 23:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rewriting

Eclecticology, do you want to go ahead and write the "pro" section first, and then I'll write the "con"?

I was beginning to think that I probably should. I'll work on it in the next few days. It would be hard for you to be "con"trary to something that isn't yet there. Any comment on the intro paragraph that I put there? I know that you agree with what User:Nunh-huh is trying to say. Is there any way to get him to cool his heels while we're sorting this out? These are the kind of issues that we are trying to deal with comprehensively so that readers won't need to deal with incessant awkward wording. Eclecticology 20:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You might try asking him. - Nunh-huh 21:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh and Eclecticology -- I actually hadn't been looking carefully at all the work Nunh-huh has been doing. The intro paragraph looks fine to me. I don't see any harm in having participation from more people; I actually think it could work nicely because it would make it clear that this is a contest of ideas, and not a contest of individuals, and all we're trying to do is inform the reader and let the reader come to conclusions. The nice thing, IMO, about having separate pro and con paragraphs is that then if someone feels strongly one way or the other, that person can try to strengthen the paragraph s/he agrees with, rather than getting in an edit war trying to weaken the stuff s/he disagrees with. Eclecticology, please go ahead and write the con paragraph, and Nunh-huh, please don't feel rebuffed -- I think you just might not have realized where Eclecticology was coming from, because we just finished (sort of) a round of mediation on this article. I'm taking the kids to visit Grandma tomorrow, and probably won't be doing any edits until the middle of next week, but don't wait for me to get going. --Bcrowell 03:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've written a paragraph for the case against astrology. Can the table of contents be moved somewhere else? I don't know what the standard formatting is supposed to be, but the ToC is currently breaking up the flow of this part of the article. Once the 'pro-' paragraph is written, I think we can go ahead and start editing the pro/con stuff out of the rest of the article, so that the rest of it is more factually oriented. --Bcrowell 14:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discourse

Hi Casanova -- Until recently, I hadn't noticed the end note you wrote, which was later moved and made a subsection after the cases for and against. It was actually an argument in favor of astrology, and it was based on the premise that astrology actually works, but that scientists simply can't explain its success. Since scientists don't agree that astrology works, it's misleading to place this argument in its own subsection, as if it was an evenhanded attempt to put the arguments for and against in perspective. If you want this argument in the article, could you please incorporate it into the "case for" subsection? The case-for/case-against setup was arrived at via painstaking negotiation and mediation; the reason for doing it that way was to keep all the opinionated stuff in one place, so that most of the article could be purely factual. --Bcrowell 02:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I do like the new editing done to this page as of Sep 13th 2004. I am still at odds with the cases for and against though. Casanova

I would much rather read this article without the cases for and against astrology, however I left them alone. I believe they are both non contributing articles. No offense to whoever wrote them. I changed the first paragraph quite a bit.Casanova 03:47, 12 Sep 2004

The cases for and against rose out of the disputed NPOV of the article. We went to mediation about it, and this was the solution we came up with. It actually seems to have worked very well, because the partisans on both sides are no longer getting in revert wars about editing each other's sentences.--Bcrowell 01:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm adding an NPOV marker to this article. The article has a long history of edit wars. Many of these have centered around the question of astrology's relationship to science. I edited it a little today, but the article as it stands is still full of misleading attempts to make it sound as if there was scientific evidence for astrology. This is equivalent to writing an article on Christianity and trying to give arguments to support Christianity based on science. The article should treat astrology as what it actually is: a prescientific belief system.